I’m notoriously bad at reigning in my thoughts and staying within the boundaries set forth by others. Like most things it can be good and bad.
I don’t believe I was too tangential in these responses that they don’t make sense. One of the main points I was making was purposely tangential though, in saying that the difference in opinion often exists on the usefulness of the classroom itself. I get what you’re attempting to do, but if you go a step back and question the controlled classroom environment’s ability to ready kids for the world that currently exists then why control the environment so meticulously?
You are arguing that you want to engage the students fully and the most effective method to do so is to ensure the topics aren’t too jarring from the start. But I’m arguing that holding their hand as you walk them to the door keeps them from finding the door on their own. The students would be able to handle adversity if someone would test them and allow them to do so earlier in life. The fragility is created, it’s not innate.
Like the other comment said, children around the world are far better prepared than our own at handling adversity. I watched a documentary about a civilization in Africa in which eight year old kids were tasked with overseeing large amounts of livestock in a vast area while protecting them from predators, sometimes lions, if they must. We are built by the environment in which we live and if we constantly keep that environment on a cool 75 the heat will overwhelm them. I obviously do not wish for our children to be thrown into situations in which they lose their youthful exuberance and become adults at age 7, but there is a happy medium somewhere I assume.
I don’t know what that medium is. I’m only speculating that we’ve gone too far on the other side of that spectrum.