|
|
Post by swl on Mar 7, 2009 15:54:23 GMT
There's a story today about a Primary School holding lessons about gay, lesbian and transgendered relationships.
Some parents took their children out of school. The kids appear to be about 9 or 10.
Is it the job of primary schools to teach about alternative lifestyles?
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 7, 2009 16:03:55 GMT
Read bits of this "elsewhere". They art going a bit ('scuse the phrase) full frontal about it! A whole week!
Then again - 9 and 10 year olds art in the thick of the likes of Home and Away and Eastenders etc, so probably knowest about it all anyway. I noted that there was a <cough!>"religious" angle in those children pulled from school had varying levels of devout parents from different faiths. When I read that I thought "Sure - carry on sheltering thine child and bring them up as narrow minded and bigoted as thou are". On the other hand, as I said, a "Themed" Week is a bit strong.
|
|
|
|
Post by gIant on Mar 8, 2009 19:48:19 GMT
9 is a bit young to be getting into this, bu kids are more knowledgable at younger ages than we were. If they are not taught tolerance, then as God the Father has said they will form their own opinions which are likely not to be balanced or tolerant.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 8, 2009 20:00:18 GMT
Is it the job of primary schools to teach about alternative lifestyles? For one thing, I thinkest schools art asked to taketh too much on. There is a thread on a nother board talking about schools teaching first aid and I wanted to say 'but why?'. Wouldn't we all be better off if schools had smaller remits. I don't thinkest sexuality needs to be on any school curriculum. I can looketh upon the usefulness of having a basic sex education class and sexual health being a topic covered during that but after that it all gets a bit subjective. Schools don't hath time or funds to teach classical studies or extra languages or extra reading, writing and maths classes and they wouldst be so much more beneficial to the children and society. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 8, 2009 20:05:41 GMT
9 is a bit young to be getting into this, bu kids art more knowledgable at younger ages than we were. If they art not taught tolerance, then as God the Father has said they will form their own opinions which art likely not to be balanced or tolerant. I knew about gay people when I was 9 but I don't recall it being taught in school. I recall people changing the word 'homework' to 'homowork' on the blackboard and laughing if that counts. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 8, 2009 21:12:58 GMT
I don't understand the question SWL.
I've never had a need to 'tell my children' about gay people. They grew up with my having gay and lesbian friends, and we used to eat frequently in the gay Blue Moon Cafe in Broughton Street Edinburgh - I'm talking about when they were 2 and 3. We lived near Broughton Street, which, as you know, is a gay area, so they 'knew' about it without me having to make a song and dance.
Not even I am what I am . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 9, 2009 9:19:00 GMT
Could the lessons be useful if children have bigotted parents?
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on Mar 9, 2009 12:14:05 GMT
I'm with Trubs. I read about this yesterday and straight away thought: isn't it about time that religion and sex education are kept out of schools? Personally, I think that sex matters should be discussed in the home and, obviously, kids will learn about sex through Biology lessons, but wouldn't it make more sense to give a bit more time to practical things that will be useful to a person later on in life? All the teaching in the world isn't going to prevent bigoted opinions about gay people. It seems that kids leave school knowing how to give a blow job, but can't thread a needle or bake a cake.  *waits for one of the guys to comment..... |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 9, 2009 13:21:47 GMT
Religion wise, being a church school - and arm in arm with the church next door, I enjoyed all the religious gubbins that went on, to a youngster that sort of thing are just a load of play acting and a lot of pretty stories to fill the imagination - It was fun. As I got older, my cynicism kicked in (thought at 7 or 8 I was sticking a TV ariel on the tents of biblical figures in my RE books ("Scripture" it was called then) and parking cars outside) and I made up my own mind what it was all about. As for people being "Gay" - well can't say I remember anything about that! Though I do recall if some boy attacked another a little too effeminately they'd be called "You Benny" as in "Bender" though I doubt whether anyone knew what it meant. Trubble @ #3 is about right too I'd say. Look at the stuff we've lost over the years? Home Economics etc........ We did actuall have a period at Secondary, I can't remember what we called it - either Humanities or Social Studies where this might have come in. The teacher was my form master who was a really nice chap, and I think we just ended up using the time for study or reading or catching up on stuff, because as he said "The Guidelines" for the topic were so up in the air - that although the school was told it had to have this in the curriculum - No-one knew what was supposed to be in it! Even then - Sex Education was apparently one of the things it was set aside for - but it was still "apparently" not legally set out what could be taught! So, if Conservative ever tells you they have clear ideas about what should be taught in schools - just laugh in their face and say - "What like you did in the early eighties!"  |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 9, 2009 13:37:46 GMT
It seems that kids leave school knowing how to give a blow job, but can't thread a needle or bake a cake. Everso, that makes me really sad. Practical subjects seem to have been abandoned - one retired teacher said sadly that at his old school the lathes had been sold off and computers bought, to facilitate design technology, which is supposed to keep the non-academic children occupied and happy. No wonder so many children fail at school. In the good old days they could go home with a wooden bowl they had made, or a cake they had baked, and get a huge sense of achievement. Where in Britain can they do this now? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 9, 2009 14:04:02 GMT
Everso, I can't bake a cake and I can't say it has ever bothered me.
I can afford to buy them.
I think a lot of what they teach them at school is a waste of time, especially (my old bugbear) when we're talking about non-academic children being forced to study academic subjects, as that's the only curriculum on offer.
I would like to see more 'life skills', and that probably includes sex education and information about LGBT people. Citizenship. All of that. They should all get all of that.
Maybe not cake-baking specifically, but how to cook a healthy meal on a budget.
There are adults who don't understand how our legal system works, or how our political system works, for instance. I think every child should be taught this kind of thing also.
And if that leaves less time for them to study Spanish and Algebra, I won't care.
Schools should be about producing people, not competing to see which can get the best exam results.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 9, 2009 14:23:32 GMT
Schools should be about producing people, not competing to see which can get the best exam results. Yes indeed! Actually your H.E was all about home budgeting properly as well as cakes! I've known someone go through all the training to be a teacher then give up after a couple of years - because of the restraints of the curriculum. Even with the adverts today showing teachers happily interacting with children showing it all to be a fun and whacky place to be don't seem to ring true with what you read and hear from the teachers themselves. The paperwork and restrictiveness of the curriculum just doesn't seem to lend itself to giving children that all round "Peopleness" that they really need. They wanted at one stage to attract people from business and management into schools to impart some of their knowledge - a bit silly if when they get into the system it's already writ large what they can and can't do - and that's what's killing teaching - no room for personal experience to come out. The teachers seem as at the beck and call of statistics as much as the children are. That's what put me off exams - I realised a looong time ago that my exam result was only as good as the Government said it was. It had nothing to do with how I performed. |
|
|
|
Post by swl on Mar 9, 2009 14:39:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 9, 2009 15:44:14 GMT
But it DOES have an element of truth. 1st class honours - do a phd 2:1 - Get a graduate job 2:2 - Become a teacher 3 - Prepare yourself for a lifetime of mockery and shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on Mar 10, 2009 14:25:13 GMT
Everso, I can't bake a cake and I can't say it has ever bothered me. I can afford to buy them.I think a lot of what they teach them at school is a waste of time, especially (my old bugbear) when we're talking about non-academic children being forced to study academic subjects, as that's the only curriculum on offer. I would like to see more 'life skills', and that probably includes sex education and information about LGBT people. Citizenship. All of that. They should all get all of that. Maybe not cake-baking specifically, but how to cook a healthy meal on a budget. There are adults who don't understand how our legal system works, or how our political system works, for instance. I think every child should be taught this kind of thing also. And if that leaves less time for them to study Spanish and Algebra, I won't care. Schools should be about producing people, not competing to see which can get the best exam results. Thing is, though. if you have a big family and not much money it's much cheaper to bake your own. But, of course, what I meant was exactly what you said: healthy eating. If you're hard up but you can't cook and can't even sew a button on or 'make do and mend', it's a pretty sad state of affairs, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Mar 11, 2009 22:27:20 GMT
I don't see the need. I don't believe in segregating people into homosexual and heterosexual; history is full of people who've had love affairs and just plain sex with both sexes and often anything else that stood still for long enough.
Years ago if kids didn't conform to behaviour expected of their sex they were taught to feel they'd never get together with the other and it was socially unacceptable. Now they are told that if they don't conform to behaviour expected of their sex they'll never get together with the other and that is socially acceptable. Spot the difference.
In fact many teenagers have had their first loves and sexual experimentation with their own sex, especially given traditional strictures about early sexual relations, and grown up to be sometimes more considerate lovers just because their character included a lot expected of the other sex. Likewise, some have started with bad experiences with the other sex and been put off them in preference for their own for life.
I find teaching children that some people are homosexual and some heterosexual and both are of equal value much like telling a class of all mixed race that the a minority of Darkies is just as good as the majority of Whiteys - at best making the take sides, at worst counter-productive. Some are lighter or darker than others but that's no reason to invent a division.
|
|
|
|
Post by swl on Mar 11, 2009 22:56:13 GMT
Group Conflict Theory speculates that the very act of identifying groups creates discrimination. It's interesting that before the Enlightenment, European explorers tended to treat natives at first contact as equals and set out to sign treaties and negotiate with them. The Spanish conquest of South America doesn't skew this - the Spaniards treated the Incas as conquered foes. After the Enlightenment, the Europeans started classifying according to race, with themselves at the top of the tree. It was this mindset that bred the slave trade and the genocide of Native Americans.
We're still stuck in that frame of mind - everybody has to be grouped or pigeon-holed. Now we're taking gender stereotypes and racism into the Primary School. "Look at Ahmed, let's try to understand his culture & religion", "Look at Lesbian couples, let's prove that they're just like normal people really". FFS. Kids have enough to be getting on with. Why can't we let children have a childhood without pushing the latest social theories onto them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Mar 11, 2009 23:42:47 GMT
I absolutely agree. All too often I see people projecting their own prejudices onto innocence - light the recent gollywog and paki incidents. "Ooh I'm so ashamed of how racist we were in the 1950s when the first black kid arrived and we asked if it would rub off". So when David Attenborough finds himself surrounded by remote Mongolians or Papuans staring at his funny eyes or trying to see if he has normal skin under the pink, they're naturally racist?
There was religious prejudice in the Conquistadores it is true - but (not so much Inca) the amount of blood in Aztec religion deserved prejudice: it was so high that populations were being affected and if the Aztecs had been less brutal themselves, others would not have welcomed the Conquistadores as liberating gods. It's the next generation of settlers who despised natives and Mestizoes alike, possibly because of a link between dark skin in Spain and Moorish ancestry.
BTW I think the Enlightenment far less Enlightened than it thought itself or we were taught. Protestants had no great liberal superiority over Catholics and the Middle Agges were far more complex and philosophical than they are presented.
I see on this and other subjects, just the same old beliefs about what 'normal' people do, and the same exclusion from 'normality' that was there before, just made acceptable. You are free to choose you ghetto but you are free from having to choose. I grew up with acceptance that heterosexuality was the norm. OK some people had homosexual relations as well but that didn't rule heterosexual ones out.
Far more important I see now is people who wouldn't dream of homosexual acts but think it borderline queer to actually have a hetorsexual relationship. We seem to be locked into a traditional Puritanism that sex isn't really respectable, so you don't actually like people you do it with, you just fancy their looks except for the Special One who's the great exception you (especially women) can love so much that you'll actually do it for them without treating it as something next door to the lavatory.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 12, 2009 0:49:20 GMT
Group Conflict Theory speculates that the very act of identifying groups creates discrimination. It's interesting that before the Enlightenment, European explorers tended to treat natives at first contact as equals and set out to sign treaties and negotiate with them. The Spanish conquest of South America doesn't skew this - the Spaniards treated the Incas as conquered foes. After the Enlightenment, the Europeans started classifying according to race, with themselves at the top of the tree. It was this mindset that bred the slave trade and the genocide of Native Americans. We're still stuck in that frame of mind - everybody has to be grouped or pigeon-holed. Now we're taking gender stereotypes and racism into the Primary School. "Look at Ahmed, let's try to understand his culture & religion", "Look at Lesbian couples, let's prove that they're just like normal people really". FFS. Kids have enough to be getting on with. Why can't we let children have a childhood without pushing the latest social theories onto them? This is so true. It happened exactly like that to me when i was around 7 or 8 or something and the teacher told the class - and me - that I was Irish. It was complete news to me and that break time I heard all the mick and paddy taunts for the first time - and I didn't have a clue why. And the Jews in my class when I was about 5 who weren't allowed to go into assembly because we prayed to Jesus....they had names but the rest of us just called them 'the Jews'... Stupid Stupid Stupid. For my daughter's generation it's sexuality. They all seemed to feel some pressure on them to be something other than everyday heterosexual. So tempting sometimes just to shout "Look, you're not bi-gender bi-sexual lesbian women trapped in men's bodies - you just don't have a girlfriend - because you're weird and a little ugly - but you'll grow out of it - so SHUT UP already." Phew. Good to get that off my chest, really.  |
|
|
|
Post by swl on Mar 12, 2009 6:17:25 GMT
POTW Incidentally, without denigrating gay-ness, I think it's true that some people are gay only because they can't attract a member of the opposite sex.
|
|
A.P.P.S
S C 
