Also teaching pure facts sounds good in theory but how does one do that without providing context which is certainly biased even if it is 'just' the teacher's personal background?
(Learning without a personal pupil - teacher relationship of some sort will work for a small minority only)
I agree it is impossible to fully separate these things and that world can't be ideal with this regard. But there is a difference between trying to separate them and presenting cherry-picked facts to support some opinion.
By "opinion-agnostic" I mean trying to minimize the impact of my own convictions on the knowledge I try to present *even* if the knowledge is inconvenient to what I believe in (be it a moral standing or religion).
I don't understand the question.. If you mean: should they be taught? Definitively yes. Maybe word "facts" is too narrow – by that I mean presenting significant narratives relevant to humanity without giving your pupils the "right interpretation" of them.
I have been pondering your question and suggested options. Here's why they seem weird to me:
To describe how something should be done, one needs 4 bases:
- Educating people needs a base: what's your image of humanity?
- What's your goal in educating? -> Politics
- What are you teaching? -> curriculum
- How are you teaching? -> Methodology
One could say that from anthropology one can derive methodology or the goals, but that's not mandatory and there are a lot of design choices to be made.
Your options above are conflating these and stressing any of the four points more than the others.
Opinion-agnostic can work during presentation but it will not work for your goals and the choice of curriculum. Also your methodology will be biased by opinions.
Same for point 2 and 3 which seem to be extremes at first glance but they mix methodology and anthropology
The option 4 seems to stress the goal point and neglects the others.
So unless one describes all 4 bases, there's not a complete approach to education (or anything really) to choose.
Pool is not about complete approach to education but rather about principles on which such approach should be constructed.
I believe that each option is mutually exclusive in sense of what you call "politics" and the "base"; curriculum and methodology are things which are chosen after the first two were chosen. Let me give you an example:
If you decide, that the goal of humanity is goodness, then you chose curriculum and methodology to /convince/ the audience to agree with you.
What I call the 'base' is your concept of a human:
Are childs incomplete humans that need to be filled with the missing parts?
Are uneducated people worth less?
Have humans a natural will and energy to learn you need to foster or does it need coercive force to get them on the right path?
The politics part is:
Do we want to get high ranking output as much as possible?
Do we want to give the majority a broad education?
Do we want to support people with learning disabilities or do we want to sort the out as soon as possible so not to hinder the 'sheldons' in their progress?
Both are interrelated and not really mutually exclusive.
And your options aren't exclusive in that regard either.
I disagree with you. Fact that you put ethical questions in your post show that you are more inclined towards procuring good (last option).
The other options would not address any of these questions directly (but only as a consequence of executing strategies based on that principles).
As an addendum I'll add, that I think that each option has inherent positive and negative value to them if taken (or neglected) to the extremum and I agree, that it is not possible to fully pick only one.
Hence my conclusion that the poll you propose distorts the question in a way that does not make sense to me.
And no, I would not put myself into the last category. The last category is manipulative in all its interpretations.
"Education is all about ethical questions" is a very strong statement which reinforces my conviction about where would /I/ categorize your opinion. That said I understand you do not accept the question; thank you for a discussion.