Children, Education, and the Tech

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
So do scientologists. See the scientology policy on "Knowledge Reports" as well as scientology scriptures on Degraded Being, Potential Trouble Source, Suppressive Person, "downstat" etc. etc. etc.

No five-year-olds I've ever met are even close to being as fanatical about "tattling" -- reporting on their "friends" -- as are scientologists.

You should see what happens to 5 year olds who are told to "write it up for ethics" and their every action made a stat. What happens to their self esteem when they are judged on the smallest thing. I know this is not what the OP is saying, however it is the inevitable end result of scientology teaching kids. Been there done that and IMO there is NOTHING in the "tech" that is valid in it's scientology form for children. Trying to use the odd tek thingy as a stand alone concept is a complicated thing to do and not necessary. For example doing a touch assist on a child with a bump...why not a cuddle and a bandaid, it has the same results? Explore emotions but don't label them good and bad, use a dictionary as it was meant to be used etc etc. Why on earth bring 'scientology technology' into the wonderful world of teaching children?
 

shadow

Patron with Honors
My take is that "the study tech" is not all that unique or even comprehensive. The only experience I have regarding this is watching nephews, nieces and the kids of some associates who were educated in scn schools (7 kids). These schools were touted as the very best and the parents were always saying how advanced the kids were compared to same aged children. However, not one of these kids got an education. My niece transferred to public school in middle school, but dropped out because she was so far behind, she would never catch up. This was terribly discouraging to a person who had at one time though an advanced college degree was in her future. So if this is the result of the study tech applied under ideal conditions by experts; what happens when it is applied under any other conditions? I find it very disturbing that these schools are allowed to continue to cripple children; I realize the point of a scn education is to prepare the child for the sea org (and not provide any other options).

My kids went to a Montessori school until 3rd grade, and the teaching was done with a mix of verbal, visual and kinesthetic. It was a fun learning environment, but we transitioned to public school to take advantage of the GATE and advance placement classes. Also, Montessori only went through 8th grade and there were only a few kids left by that time, so it was important to get the kids where they could start making new friends before they hit middle school (get the transition out of the way).

I know several teachers in public school that have taken classes on teaching kids with different learning styles as part of their continuing education. It is good to see them keep up with teaching methods for the sake of the kids they teach.

Not all teachers are this dedicated, just like in all other vocations.
 
Last edited:

HP Aradia

Patron
imo HRA, you should let your little kids play more and quit teaching them so much. They'll learn more that way.

It sounds like your kindergarten has become a pressure cooker institution.

Let those children loose with dirt and water and they'll make tunnels, dams, bridges, roads. Give them paper, paint, glue etc and see what artists they become. Let them climb trees, even scale the roof, and watch them become sure of themselves, even athletes.

This education racket with kids as young as yours is way over-rated. Read lots of fun books to them. Sooner or later they'll come to the reading and writing stage, they'll be reaching for it and figuring some of it out for themselves, but quit pushing it.

It pains me to picture what is going on in your kindergarten.

The idea of even introducing them to ideas of emotional categories (or wahtever you call it) is so far beyond what imo kids ought to be exposed to. They'll learn about sadness, joy, anger etc more by observing how you and others behave, not by any educational method, however much it is brought down to their supposed level, which seems to be way above their little heads in your institution.

Unfortunately, public school curriculum IS far more pressured than private. It is driven by test scores in the upper grades.

When I taught in Waldorf, what you wrote above applied (and still does). Children are allowed to BE children. Not so in public school, where we are racing the invisible enemy of Japan or whomever.
 

HP Aradia

Patron
That's funny (odd).

In my experience with young children, the children who were quick to point at the "other" as being at fault were usually the ones who had been punished -- by their parents, their teachers, or some other adult (bigger, more powerful person) -- after they had been truthful and had admitted their part in some event.

In my experience, children who aren't "punished for telling the truth" generally don't lie or try to put the "blame" on someone else for whatever has transpired.

But whadda I know...

You are absolutely correct! Positive reinforcement (getting "caught" doing something right and/or good) is far better and easier. Children take responsibility for their actions.
 

HP Aradia

Patron
what I object to about the "Tone Scale" is the "Scale" part.

"Tones" in the sense of their being different emotions that one experiences as part of life, is fine with me, although why not just call them emotions, or attitudes, or whatever...

"Scale" is a judgment that implies the relative position of "higher" and "lower" of those emotions, and who the Fck are you/Hubbard/any teacher or anyone else to give anyone else's naturally occurring emotions a "number" indicating it's "position" on a "higher to lower" scale.

If you want to give kids flashcards with emotions on them, say a name and a picture to represent that emotion, well ok -- I guess -- it could possibly be useful in helping kids to learn how to articulate their feelings...

... AS LONG AS there is no judgmental number or position-on-a-scale included on that card.

Put all the cards in a pile. Let the kids search through the pile and find the one that fits for the moment or the day, and share that with others. Leave off the judgments. People who can't deal with others' emotions and insist on people always being up-up-up happy-happy-happy should just get the fck out of the way or go drown themselves in the happy pool.


In kindergarten, the children draw their own emotion chart. Simple ones: happy, bored, mad, sad. It is sufficient for this age.
 

HP Aradia

Patron
From how you're using the word "gradient" in your discussion here, I think you possibly do not know the difference between the word "gradient" and "simplified" because what you are talking about is teaching/presenting a "simplified" version of information or concepts, that a young child can grasp.

That is not the same thing as a "gradient".

Now report to cramming...

LOL. Marvelous!
However, as we spiral the information many times, we increase the "volume" of it on a gradient scale-- while simplifying it at the same time.
 

HP Aradia

Patron
So do scientologists. See the scientology policy on "Knowledge Reports" as well as scientology scriptures on Degraded Being, Potential Trouble Source, Suppressive Person, "downstat" etc. etc. etc.

No five-year-olds I've ever met are even close to being as fanatical about "tattling" -- reporting on their "friends" -- as are scientologists.

Yes...it is rather annoying, isn't it? I've often found the whole org EO thing rather childish myself.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
In kindergarten, the children draw their own emotion chart. Simple ones: happy, bored, mad, sad. It is sufficient for this age.

Is your "chart" a "scale" as one might find in Scientology? Suggesting to children (and adults) that one emotion is "better" than another seems crazy. In the real world, being "sad" is no less valid than being "happy" - undesirable, perhaps, but not something that should be encouraged at the expense of an honest expression of genuine emotion arbitrarily deemed to be "less" than another. This is another aspect of why L Ron Hubbard Study Tech is so dangerous.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
Except that Hubbard put his own twist on it, and it was used inside his totalist mind-control cult - and used also as a lead-in to that cult.

Scientologists have Study Tech, so why are they notoriously stupid on the subject of Scientology?

Because Scientologists study only Scientology.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
what I object to about the "Tone Scale" is the "Scale" part.

"Tones" in the sense of their being different emotions that one experiences as part of life, is fine with me, although why not just call them emotions, or attitudes, or whatever...

"Scale" is a judgment that implies the relative position of "higher" and "lower" of those emotions, and who the Fck are you/Hubbard/any teacher or anyone else to give anyone else's naturally occurring emotions a "number" indicating it's "position" on a "higher to lower" scale.

If you want to give kids flashcards with emotions on them, say a name and a picture to represent that emotion, well ok -- I guess -- it could possibly be useful in helping kids to learn how to articulate their feelings...

... AS LONG AS there is no judgmental number or position-on-a-scale included on that card.

Put all the cards in a pile. Let the kids search through the pile and find the one that fits for the moment or the day, and share that with others. Leave off the judgments. People who can't deal with others' emotions and insist on people always being up-up-up happy-happy-happy should just get the fck out of the way or go drown themselves in the happy pool.

But, but, if he didn't have it as a scale then he wouldn't be able to "justify" disposing of low toned individuals, paricularly 1.1 homosexuals, without sorrow.

And he didn;t then the POpe on a Rope wouldn't be able to justify making people stand in trash cans and yelling remarks at them that they are 1.1 homosexuals regardless of whether they are or not.

By the way when I told my wife that the Pope on a Rope accused two high execs of having a homosexual affair she said "So what's it to him"

And when I told her that because the Pope on a Rope did not like Debbie Cook's remarks that they were not doing those things and that he said that must mean Cooko is a lesbian herself, my wife said, "So what if she was"

I don't think my wife likes the Pope on a Rope. I can't blame her.

Rd00
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
Is your "chart" a "scale" as one might find in Scientology? Suggesting to children (and adults) that one emotion is "better" than another seems crazy. In the real world, being "sad" is no less valid than being "happy" - undesirable, perhaps, but not something that should be encouraged at the expense of an honest expression of genuine emotion arbitrarily deemed to be "less" than another. This is another aspect of why L Ron Hubbard Study Tech is so dangerous.

This is a really good point, and one I wasn't considering. I was thinking more of the faces themselves and their expressions being appropriate for children. Flashcard emoticons, if you wil.
 
No. Being congruent doesn't mean doing it on a gradient. ...

And I argue that when the point is to match the ability of the individual child, as alluded to in your post, then it does mean exactly that. :)

...Study Tech indoctrinates the user into seeing learning through Hubbard's narrow paradigm. ...

Only when an extremely narrow-minded approach is assumed which denies the use of any other educative tool or resource. One would have to be extremely foolish to adopt such an approach. Frankly, despite the fact that the church does this routinely, I doubt that is even supported by the words of lrh. My recollection is that he advises the use of study tech as a fundamental tool of a;; studies, but I don't believe he ever said or stated it must be the only tool to be used. I certainly can not recall where such a statement may have been made.

The cult of course does that and he created the cult. But, they are a cult, not the eternal realization and complete embodiment of the principles embodied within the subject of scientology. It is just one group's rather banky manifestation of what they believe to be the case.


Mark A. Baker
 
And I argue that when the point is to match the ability of the individual child, as alluded to in your post, then it does mean exactly that. :)



Only when an extremely narrow-minded approach is assumed which denies the use of any other educative tool or resource. One would have to be extremely foolish to adopt such an approach. Frankly, despite the fact that the church does this routinely, I doubt that is even supported by the words of lrh. My recollection is that he advises the use of study tech as a fundamental tool of a;; studies, but I don't believe he ever said or stated it must be the only tool to be used. I certainly can not recall where such a statement may have been made.

The cult of course does that and he created the cult. But, they are a cult, not the eternal realization and complete embodiment of the principles embodied within the subject of scientology. It is just one group's rather banky manifestation of what they believe to be the case.


Mark A. Baker

You're telling me the recipe is fine, the problem are the cooks.

How many decades are you going to go on with this line?

There have been plenty of cooks, but not one decent bowl of pudding.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Mark,

You may accuse yourself of being bi-polar... But that was spot on.

Thank you...

Crash

Thanks for the kind words. :)

Just so you know bipolar isn't about being stupid or irrational. Quite the contrary. Those affected often demonstrate keen intelligence & remarkable creativity. They just have biological difficulties regulating mood & energy and that in turn can produce problems with behavior & activity.



Mark A. Baker
 
You're telling me the recipe is fine, the problem are the cooks. ...

More like the ingredients rather than the recipe. The idea of a need to conform to a single recipe is where both the cultists & the critics go off the rails. Different customers have different tastes. The components of study tech are useful tools and not problematic at all in their own right.

As to how long I'll go on promoting my view, let's just say it's a winning recipe. :biggrin:


Mark A. Baker
 
... By the way when I told my wife that the Pope on a Rope accused two high execs of having a homosexual affair she said "So what's it to him" ...

My usual response to gay baiting is 'sounds like jealousy'. Oddly enough it's not a remark that is typically well received by those doing the baiting. :questions:

Evidently it's a violation of 'two rules for happy living'. I suppose I really should watch myself about that. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 
More like the ingredients rather than the recipe. The idea of a need to conform to a single recipe is where both the cultists & the critics go off the rails. Different customers have different tastes. The components of study tech are useful tools and not problematic at all in their own right.

As to how long I'll go on promoting my view, let's just say it's a winning recipe. :biggrin:


Mark A. Baker

You certainly can cook up some nice metaphors. But the components of Study Tech, since it is a technology, don't stand alone.

Study tech is not the dictionaries, or the demo kits, or the clay.

Study Tech is the application of these things for the purpose of study.

And the application is the distinction. The cultis or the critics realize this.

Those in-between don't.

Using a dictionary doesn't mean you are using Study Tech.

Making use of gradients is not using Study Tech.

Giving students mass on what they are studying is not Study Tech.

Going over the materials a number of times is not Study Tech.

All the nuns I had did all these things.

Applying those things in the manner as described by Hubbard is Study Tech.

And that is a trap.

And one indication of being in the trap is not being able to make these distinctions.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

RogerB

Crusader
HP wrote:
Teaching My Kids in School...

Every year, I teach from the Basic Study manual (I've had to rewrite as needed for the various elementary grades). We make our demo kits, do some clay demos, paint, draw in shaving cream filled trays, or use crayons, and learn about the dictionary. Yes! Even my five year olds can do demos (believe me, they LOVE to share!). My students share with me how they have utilized this tech throughout their educational careers with stunning report cards. (Public School and later College)

The Tone Scale is also appropriate: "Show me how you feel today."
"How can we get someone from this feeling to a higher one?"
Acting out and drawing the various emotions is a great help.

Touch assists are helpful for all the skinned knees, boys somersaulting and flipping into each other and the furniture, and of course, the pulling of the girls' hair!

The ARC Triangle was a huge break-thru for when I needed to get conflict resolution going. Kids will be kids, and arguments do occur. This piece of tech lit up quite a lot of cogs in the room.

How have others (teacher and non) used the tech to help those that are young?

HP,

Based on the above, I can see you seem to have only been exposed to LRH on the issue of "study" . . . . maybe you should investigate the subject of education . . .

Go visit A Montessori School . . . Maria Montessori had the stuff over 100 years ago. She was an Italian MD who observed how children develop and developed her educational principles based on that . . .

Rudloph Steiner founded the Waldorf Schools . . . go visit and see what they do.

There was a guy in (A professor) who in 1920, or there abouts, developed a system of learning and education based on the balance of significance/theory and action/mass . . . he was teaching Math and science . . . forget his name: I could look it up.

Look up the dialogue between Alan and Mystic on the "Opening Pandora's Box" thread and see who Hubbard stole his "study tech" from . . . . a guy by the name of Chuck Berners . . . who revealed his discovery to Hubbard who lectured later that day on it as his own . . . Chuck was way ahead of Hubbard.

Hubbard, typically, screwed things up . . . . he sold his flock on the "Study Barriers" . . . . it happens, the things he spoke of are NOT barriers to study :no::no:: they are barriers to comprehension and actual LEARNING . . . . a subtle twist, but a big time error.

As has oft been said: "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."

To the uninformed Hubbard's representation of the "Study Barriers" appears wonderful, but they are in fact a screw-up.

R
 
Top