Re: [seul-edu] Why leave the home schooler community out?

[Adam Cody <acody@lucent.com>]

Ian Bicking wrote:

> 
> I think SEUL/edu should remain secular -- I'm sure you can see the
> reason for that.  Maybe it would be possible to set up links to a
> couple outside resources for religious education, but it would be
> good to see what people think about that.  There's a lot of tension
> around religion and education, pulling in both directions.
> 

I agree. My point is more to the issue that if applications where open
and the educational content was standardized in a manner where the
content was a non-issue then churches and private schools could support
the "core" part of the project and on the side develop their content. 
More specifically, if we han a standard set of application and made
"templates" for the content to plug into the application interface then
who uses it for what doesn't matter and our base group of supporters can
grow without making the group non-secular. The "possible" truth of the
matter is that the non-secular community has a more pressing need for
this project or one like it to be successful than the secular group.
(secular meaning public school system)
Private schools in religious nature still need to teach the basics and
their religious content would be minimal compared to the rest of their
contribution.

> >   If you look at my bookmarks on my page you'll see there is already
> > enough "content" for a k-12 education. Authors would need to be
> > contacted and educated on open source lic. issues and give us permission
> > to use their "content". Look at what Robinson Curriculum has done. (
> > http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/ ) I truly believe something could be
> > worked out with them in regards to getting access to their material. I
> > do use their materials and find the books are excellent.
> 
> Robinson Curriculum kind of... well... to quote from their website:
> 
>   Teach your children to teach themselves and to acquire superior
>   knowledge as did many of America's most outstanding citizens in the
>   days before socialism in education.
> 
> That makes question their philosophy quite a deal -- in part because
> I don't think there's much worth praising in the way education used
> to be.  At the turn of the century people didn't learn geometry
> until college, and it would be disgraceful if this country was as
> illiterate as it was 100 years ago.  I think Robinson is looking at
> the past through rose-colored glasses.
> 

I agree that we do have improvements in our educational system. But I
disagree in regards to there's not "much worth praising". I believe 90%
of it is still worthy and is still being used today. And if the content
is now free due to copyright expiration , then I say use it! Geometry
not being taught until college is wrong, maybe until high school. And
high school is a better age group for geometery and algebra anyways
according to most child and human development research in psychology.(My
background)
The older educational content doesn't need to be changed to be useful
today but it does need supplements to correct or bring a large
understanding of it. Older content would have issues of sexism and
racism that that could easily be address and integrated along the older
content if it was put on a digital medium.
It's a lot like the expression "throwing the baby out with the bath
water".

> The "socialism" claim in that quote also makes me think of a bunch
> of right-wing militia-types.  No offense intended.
> 

I agree. I thought the same thing at first. I read on the website about
him and his family and came out with a better understanding.. not
necessarily an agreement though. His "right" views are his views and
don't take anything away from his project or the content of the books he
assemabled on the CD's. 

> But SEUL/edu probably isn't the best place to discuss educational
> philosophy -- or, at least, philosophy should be associated with
> the individuals, not the group.

Agreed. Except if by not being aware of the different philosophies we
choose to develop x over y in such a way that it would exclude a group
for being involved that could help out as well. SEUL/edu shouldn't have
an educational philosophy itself but by saying its secular gives it one
without making a technical reason. 

This is some educational content. These are some basic ways one can
interact with the content; reading, hearing, multimedia, and so forth.
Here are some standard ways to access the content through the basic
interaction set through an application interface.
Isn't that the project in a nutshell? Where does secular or non-secular
play a part? Or for that matter and other personal belief? 

>  
> [...]
> > Presentations on
> > microscopes and cell biology is on the demo CD. This easily could be
> > done with most subjects within a year and presented in a open source
> > format if possible. Video could be done in RealVideo but is there an
> > open source application for audio/video content like RealVideo? Please
> > let me know if your aware of any.
> 
> xanim is used for nearly all animation on Linux -- for better or worse.
> Anyway, it can play MPEG decently enough.  I think there aren't any
> good tools in Linux for making MPEGs though :-(

I'll look into this more and if I find anything I'll post it to the
mailing list.


Thanks for the comments you made.

Adam Cody
> 
> --
> Ian Bicking         / 4869 N. Talman Ave. Apt. G, Chicago, IL 60625
> bickiia@earlham.edu / http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~bickiia