The outdoor academy takes place during the regular school year. It's primarily for elementary and middle school students. Selected high school students get to go as instructors and counselors, under the supervision of teachers and parents (the kids handle the isolation better than some of the parents, who freak out when they discover that their cell phones don't have reception). It's a plum assignment for the high schoolers who get picked.
We just found out that this spring our 17-year-old son is one of the chosen few. He's thrilled, and we're thrilled for him. But (there's always a 'but,' isn't there) one of the requirements is that he take a course this semester in Child Development. Here's an excerpt:
In order to provide a realistic idea of the demands of parenting, you will be participating in a parenting simulation project. This involves caring for a lifelike, electronic parenting mannequin baby overnight (4:00 p.m. - 8:15 a.m.).
The baby mannequin cries, coos, burps, and needs its diaper changed periodically throughout the day and night. It will be your responsibility to provide proper care as if this were a real baby. The baby should be with you at all times.
(Side note: the technology involved in this thing is fascinating. Check out the link for more info.)
I'm not sure how caring for an artificial baby prepares one to ride herd on a bunch of first graders, but I doubt if the experience will do any lasting harm. I am curious to see if he wakes up in the middle of the night when the baby frankenstein needs changing - the boy could sleep through an earthquake.
He had to take a similar course back in middle school (don't ask). He was given a 10-pound bag of flour that he had to treat like a baby; name it (Walter - again, don't ask), draw a face on it, dress it up, diaper it and change it regularly, take it everywhere with him for a week, and so forth. He got through that ordeal okay, then used Walter as a pellet-gun target. I'm not sure what that bodes for his flesh-and-blood offspring when they come along, but I don't think it's anything good ("I told you to pick up your toys." ... Poof! ... OUCH!!!)
With any luck the combination of Walter and this new electronic version will make him more cognizant of the risks associated with unprotected sex. Getting woken up at 3:00 in the morning by your 'child' will drive that point home more effectively than any number of parental lectures.
6 comments:
Sure, the sleeplessness and helpless feeling of dealing with a newborn is tough - but, for the full birth control reinforcement lesson, they need to make a 2-year old version, a pre-schooler who loudly points out the fat lady at the grocery store version and a teenage version that alternately demands your car keys and claims to hate you.
Do the grandparents get to babysit the pseudo grandchild? Can he hire a cute nanny?
While the teachers might think they are sensitizing students to the plight of the disabled, et al, they are also imposing potential emotional stress and fomenting political beliefs at an early age. In a university, a college professor would be required to get approval for human experimentation before doing things with even less emotional effects.
These programs need to be stopped. Even with parental consent and beneficial intent, they can cause emotional damage. I suggest you look into the laws on human experimentation. Teachers probably think this is a novel teaching approach, but it goes well beyond that.
Why don't we make little girls get beat up in the locker room so they can understand better what it's like to be a boy.
Baby steps, Harper, baby steps...
He's already on notice that he grandparents are most emphatically NOT going to get involved. I like the idea about the cute nanny, though. Reminds me of the girl that used to live in our garage (it's a long story - maybe at some future date...).
Nick, the program doesn't have anything to do with disabled people. It's just a one-night exercise that helps kids understand a little about the responsibility associated with caring for a baby. It's not a 21st century version of the Milgram experiment.
I do battle regularly with our Human Subjects committee, which seems to think that surveying or interviewing people is somehow likely to cause them intellectual or emotional distress. Yet another example of a well-intentioned government initiative that has gotten way, way out of control.
I understand Tim. I did experimental work in economics where all we did was ask people questions and give them money for their responses. We still had to pass the human subject review.
The review is much more strenuous when it involves potential emotional impacts or physical impacts. I was probably venting more about a program here where students had simulated disabilities. Changing the diaper on the sandbag is light in comparison. You know, in Ye olden days kids learned to care for their younger brothers and sisters. Girls babysat for neighbors.
Frankly, I consider the Milgram experiments funny as Hell. :) I'd pay to watch those results.
My 8th grader's science fair experiment was to measure changes in blood pressure and pulse while playing violent versus non-violent Xbox games. The school wouldn't approve him using any test subjects other than himself. I'm not sure what the concern was, aren't most teen boys playing the Xbox anyway?
Post a Comment