 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sexuality, Tolerance, and Public School Curricula
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Every time a public school system tries to introduce a curriculum that mentions homosexuality in any way (especially for younger students), the religious right protests loudly. I don't have any time for arguments that teaching young people that gay people exist is "bringing sex into the classroom," "bringing politics into the classroom" "liberal, anti-Christian indoctrination" or anything like that. I also feel that teaching students not to bully people for being or appearing gay is a very good thing and not any of the accusations above.
But teaching about the existence of gay people and teaching people not to bully gays are very general things and any curriculum will involve all kinds of specifics (and answers to questions students may have) that will eventually get into the issue of sexual morality and the morality of same sex marriage and same-sex parenting issues like adoption by same-sex couples. It's not the job of public schools to teach kids that "a boy having a boyfriend" (as people might explain it in elementary school) is right or wrong, or that "a kid having two mommies" is right or wrong. How do you stay neutral? If a child says, "my mom says that it's wrong for two women to adopt a kid and it hurts the kid they adopt" - and a kid in the class with lesbian mothers is hurt, what does a teacher do? The teacher can't tell the first kid that her mother is wrong since that it is an issue of personal and perhaps religious morality - and in many US states where adoption by same-sex couples is legally ambiguous (but not uncommon in practice), it is even more complicated for the teacher in deciding what to say.
What stance should these curricula take on anti-discrimination laws in the workplace for LGBT people? Should they teach that they are a good thing? Should anti-discrimination figures like Harvey Milk be presented as heroes?
I'm gay and I hope to be a schoolteacher (albeit in high school) one day. I don't want to teach kids what to believe about sexual morality or that their religion's teachings on sexual morality are wrong. But I also want to teach kids that LGBT people exist and deserve to be treated with respect. I can't really see a way of doing this that doesn't seem to be "taking a side" on some issue of sexual morality or its legal applications (marriage and adoption).
Transgender issues are even more explosive in the classroom, especially for younger students. But since transgender people often face the harshest and most violent discrimination of LGBT people (and are the most likely to commit suicide), it is that more important to address their issues in class.
What do you think schools should do?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Schools should have a firm anti-bullying policy which covers the whole range of potential triggers, not just homophobia.
That way, the focus becomes separate from personal beliefs, in the sense that "bullying is wrong, period" not "people with anti-gay beliefs are to be singled out"
One can be allowed to believe a lot of stuff that is not mainstream without having the right to cause harm to someone else.
There should also be some teaching about "if you are allowed to discriminate against someone be cause of x, then other people can be allowed to discriminate against you". The Second Great Commandment/Golden Rule works in reverse, too: if you are nasty to people, they can be nasty to you if they feel so inclined.
And, no, someone disagreeing with your individual belief about having to be nasty to someone does not mean you are being persecuted: it just means that people disagree with you. That lesson has to be in the teaching as well.
The key is in not allowing nastiness to other people for any reason. Don't make it just to be about GLBTs.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
My children went to a state school (public school in US terms) and homosexuality was 'covered' by the sex-ed they received. Not only a state school but a Church of England sponsored school. I don't recall
any furore about this and there were some EA parents among the year group.
(Sex-ed is compulsory in the UK unless the parents write to opt-out. Of course, some religious schools don't do more than the biological facts of reproduction ...)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Schools should have a firm anti-bullying policy which covers the whole range of potential triggers, not just homophobia.
They do. It's just that in some school districts (most notably in the district where Michelle Bachmann lives), they're not allowed to mention homosexuality among the things it's wrong to bully someone about.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But teaching about the existence of gay people and teaching people not to bully gays are very general things and any curriculum will involve all kinds of specifics (and answers to questions students may have) that will eventually get into the issue of sexual morality and the morality of same sex marriage and same-sex parenting issues like adoption by same-sex couples.
I doubt it. Schools tend to teach facts. Discussing morality seems a very strange territory for a classroom discussion to stray into... I can't recall us ever having a discussion of morality in any class in any school I ever went to.
quote:
It's not the job of public schools to teach kids that "a boy having a boyfriend" (as people might explain it in elementary school) is right or wrong, or that "a kid having two mommies" is right or wrong. How do you stay neutral? If a child says, "my mom says that it's wrong for two women to adopt a kid and it hurts the kid they adopt" - and a kid in the class with lesbian mothers is hurt, what does a teacher do? The teacher can't tell the first kid that her mother is wrong since that it is an issue of personal and perhaps religious morality - and in many US states where adoption by same-sex couples is legally ambiguous (but not uncommon in practice), it is even more complicated for the teacher in deciding what to say.
It is well established as a matter of scientific fact that a kid having two mums does not hurt the kid they adopt.
eg See the American Psychological Association's submission to the US Supreme Court in 2013: "Hundreds of studies over the past 30 years have elucidated the factors that are associated with healthy adjustment among children and adolescents.... the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.... sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting outcomes.... [We] emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree."
If one of the world's top scientific organizations is prepared to testify to one of the world's top courts that something is a well-established scientific fact and not a matter for credible disagreement, then that seems good enough for a school-teacher to state it's a fact if directly questioned or challenged on the topic. If the child came to school saying "my mommy told me that 2 + 2 = 5", then they should be corrected in just the same way, and it's not a "matter for personal morality". I am confused as to how/why you view this as a "moral" issue rather than a purely factual one.
quote:
What stance should these curricula take on anti-discrimination laws in the workplace for LGBT people? Should they teach that they are a good thing?
I don't know what kind of indoctrination you think the average school conducts (perhaps in the US they do??), but what little of the curriculum in my country touched on laws was about simply learning the names and dates of about 5 major ones. Analysing in detail each and every law ever passed and discussing the morality thereof sounds like something schools just don't do.
quote:
I'm gay and I hope to be a schoolteacher (albeit in high school) one day. I don't want to teach kids what to believe about sexual morality or that their religion's teachings on sexual morality are wrong. But I also want to teach kids that LGBT people exist and deserve to be treated with respect. I can't really see a way of doing this that doesn't seem to be "taking a side" on some issue of sexual morality or its legal applications (marriage and adoption).
A lot of schools (at least in my country) have outside specialist sex-ed teachers come in for sex-ed, because it is outside of the comfort area of a lot of teachers, so it's quite possible that as a schoolteacher you may not ever give a sex-ed lesson (your milage may vary). If you do, then stick to the facts. I dunno why you think that "morality" is so relevant to this subject... if a child makes a moral assertion then if I were the teacher, I would acknowledge to the class that it is factually true that people have different moral and religious beliefs and then go back to teaching facts.
Most adults these days are kidding themselves anyway if they think most kids actually need telling about sex. The rise of the internet and ease of porn availability, as well as increasing rates of teenage sex, have meant sex-ed classes now have to deal with a more... educated... audience than they used to cater to. One of my friends is a specialist sex-ed teacher and she tells me the most frequently asked question by the guys in high-school sex-ed classes is now "why can't I last as long as the guys in porn clips do?" As a consequence of a more-informed audience the questions asked do tend to be a little more knowledgeable than they used to be in earlier generations! I was amused/alarmed to read this article recently in my local paper and realize that my parent's generation is awfully ignorant/naive in their understanding of where young people today are at when it comes to sex-ed and what sort of information it is realistic to try and hide from the "innocent" ears of their children.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I was amused/alarmed to read this article recently in my local paper and realize that my parent's generation is awfully ignorant/naive in their understanding of where young people today are at when it comes to sex-ed and what sort of information it is realistic to try and hide from the "innocent" ears of their children.
What that teacher did has been standard practice in English schools for well over 20 years.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But teaching about the existence of gay people and teaching people not to bully gays are very general things and any curriculum will involve all kinds of specifics (and answers to questions students may have) that will eventually get into the issue of sexual morality and the morality of same sex marriage and same-sex parenting issues like adoption by same-sex couples.
I doubt it. Schools tend to teach facts. Discussing morality seems a very strange territory for a classroom discussion to stray into... I can't recall us ever having a discussion of morality in any class in any school I ever went to.
quote:
It's not the job of public schools to teach kids that "a boy having a boyfriend" (as people might explain it in elementary school) is right or wrong, or that "a kid having two mommies" is right or wrong. How do you stay neutral? If a child says, "my mom says that it's wrong for two women to adopt a kid and it hurts the kid they adopt" - and a kid in the class with lesbian mothers is hurt, what does a teacher do? The teacher can't tell the first kid that her mother is wrong since that it is an issue of personal and perhaps religious morality - and in many US states where adoption by same-sex couples is legally ambiguous (but not uncommon in practice), it is even more complicated for the teacher in deciding what to say.
It is well established as a matter of scientific fact that a kid having two mums does not hurt the kid they adopt.
eg See the American Psychological Association's submission to the US Supreme Court in 2013: "Hundreds of studies over the past 30 years have elucidated the factors that are associated with healthy adjustment among children and adolescents.... the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.... sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting outcomes.... [We] emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree."
If one of the world's top scientific organizations is prepared to testify to one of the world's top courts that something is a well-established scientific fact and not a matter for credible disagreement, then that seems good enough for a school-teacher to state it's a fact if directly questioned or challenged on the topic. If the child came to school saying "my mommy told me that 2 + 2 = 5", then they should be corrected in just the same way, and it's not a "matter for personal morality". I am confused as to how/why you view this as a "moral" issue rather than a purely factual one.
quote:
What stance should these curricula take on anti-discrimination laws in the workplace for LGBT people? Should they teach that they are a good thing?
I don't know what kind of indoctrination you think the average school conducts (perhaps in the US they do??), but what little of the curriculum in my country touched on laws was about simply learning the names and dates of about 5 major ones. Analysing in detail each and every law ever passed and discussing the morality thereof sounds like something schools just don't do.
quote:
I'm gay and I hope to be a schoolteacher (albeit in high school) one day. I don't want to teach kids what to believe about sexual morality or that their religion's teachings on sexual morality are wrong. But I also want to teach kids that LGBT people exist and deserve to be treated with respect. I can't really see a way of doing this that doesn't seem to be "taking a side" on some issue of sexual morality or its legal applications (marriage and adoption).
A lot of schools (at least in my country) have outside specialist sex-ed teachers come in for sex-ed, because it is outside of the comfort area of a lot of teachers, so it's quite possible that as a schoolteacher you may not ever give a sex-ed lesson (your milage may vary). If you do, then stick to the facts. I dunno why you think that "morality" is so relevant to this subject... if a child makes a moral assertion then if I were the teacher, I would acknowledge to the class that it is factually true that people have different moral and religious beliefs and then go back to teaching facts.
Most adults these days are kidding themselves anyway if they think most kids actually need telling about sex. The rise of the internet and ease of porn availability, as well as increasing rates of teenage sex, have meant sex-ed classes now have to deal with a more... educated... audience than they used to cater to. One of my friends is a specialist sex-ed teacher and she tells me the most frequently asked question by the guys in high-school sex-ed classes is now "why can't I last as long as the guys in porn clips do?" As a consequence of a more-informed audience the questions asked do tend to be a little more knowledgeable than they used to be in earlier generations! I was amused/alarmed to read this article recently in my local paper and realize that my parent's generation is awfully ignorant/naive in their understanding of where young people today are at when it comes to sex-ed and what sort of information it is realistic to try and hide from the "innocent" ears of their children.
It might depend on where you go to school, but I went to state schools in 4 different states, pretty spread out geographically and including one in the south and one in the middle, and talking about the "fairness" of laws is normal (ie, segregation was bad, but the Supreme Court said it was ok, but then good people challenged it and a Supreme Court with different judges said that segregation was bad). This was pretty normal even in elementary school. Morality is also talked about all the time - kids are taught in school that racism and sexism are morally wrong, that the Holocaust is the epitome of evil, etc. Controversial topics are waded into all the time: elementary students in the North tend to be taught that the US Civil War was a good thing and was fought to end slavery, while elementary students in certain parts of the South are still taught that the Civil War was a catastrophe and that it was a Northern War of Aggression fought to trample on States' Rights. In high school students in both regions MIGHT get taught a more nuanced take on the Civil War, but not necessarily.
In the schools I attended, there wasn't much sex ed in elementary school, but there was definitely something like anti-bullying education and that was taught by traveling people from an organization hired by the school. It doesn't matter though because in this country anything taught, any code of conduct, any display, speech or presentation, etc., in a state school activity - even off the school campus - has to follow the Constitution regarding freedom of speech and religion, among other things. That's why we have court cases from pro-religion and pro-secular sides about it all the time!
In middle school, full-time staff often taught sex ed: either a guidance counselor or a "health" educator. Presentations on anti-bullying, anti-discrimination, celebrating diversity, etc., were still given by those visiting groups.
In high school, these things were taught by health teachers, who in my school also taught physical education. There were lots of presentations by visiting groups given to school assemblies, and these dealt with controversial issues like sex, rape, etc.
However - gay issues were not talked about much in any of these classes or demonstrations. If it wasn't for the actions of the gay straight alliance that was founded while I was at high school (around 2001), there would not have been much public public discussion of gay issues (mainly because the SGA was able to put flyers up and we wore white and didn't speak on the Day of Silence (in honor of people in the closet for fear of violence against them), etc. There are plenty of schools in the country where this kind of thing still cannot happen, though.
Parents have long been able to opt out of having their kids in sex ed classes because of religious beliefs, but I don't know if they can opt out of an anti-bullying presentation.
Oh, and people aren't united in agreement on what bullying is - some people think that talking repeatedly in earshot of gay people about homosexuals who don't repent going to Hell is bullying. I think it depends on how you talk about it. But quite a few religious groups are on the warpath and are determined to have their kids challenge anti-bullying policies with talking about damnation, immorality, abominations, etc., "kindly."
Oh, and the thing about having two mommies harm a kid - there is no way to prove or disprove that having two mommies harms a kid morally or spiritually - or that it "distorts the kid's conscience" or "puts the kid's eternal salvation in jeopardy." Religious people believe that all of these are forms of harm. The moral harm and harm to the conscience are things that religious will try to prove in a secular way - but it's hard to find a secular argument or a method of secular experimentation that the "liberal scientific establishment" will accept as valid. I think it's great that studies show that same-sex parenting doesn't cause psychological harm to kids (although conservatives are funneling money into new studies to try to disprove this that don't have the inherent flaws of the Regnerus study). But conservatives both argue that a. secular morality exists and can be a basis for law and b. the "correct" forms of human sexuality and marriage falls under secular morality and therefore talking about "alternative" forms of sexuality and marriage in any way - and especially in a way that encourages tolerating or respecting them - is to make an endorsement of some position on their value and therefore is unconstitutional and heinous. It's really a minefield and I can see it happening even in the relatively liberal areas I went to school. It's not just limited to classes and presentations that parents want to pull their kids out of - it's all about the code of speech and conduct and what it encouraged and punished. High school especially is much more about kids arguing with adults about how they should behave than it is about learning anything factual. I doubt that can be changed anytime soon. (And yet I want to still be a teacher and focus on facts ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ). I want to teach History though, where facts are more often than not open to debate ![[Smile]](smile.gif) . When parents and lawyers get on their kids' side arguing with the school about what they should be allowed to do and say, it's more misery for everyone. There should be some way that you can be PC-enough for everyone (including the conservatives - you don't want to offend them either), but I honestly don't know how. Banning discussion of homosexuality is not how to do this, though, of course.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It might depend on where you go to school, but I went to state schools in 4 different states, pretty spread out geographically and including one in the south and one in the middle, and talking about the "fairness" of laws is normal (ie, segregation was bad, but the Supreme Court said it was ok, but then good people challenged it and a Supreme Court with different judges said that segregation was bad). This was pretty normal even in elementary school. Morality is also talked about all the time - kids are taught in school that racism and sexism are morally wrong, that the Holocaust is the epitome of evil, etc. Controversial topics are waded into all the time: elementary students in the North tend to be taught that the US Civil War was a good thing and was fought to end slavery, while elementary students in certain parts of the South are still taught that the Civil War was a catastrophe and that it was a Northern War of Aggression fought to trample on States' Rights. In high school students in both regions MIGHT get taught a more nuanced take on the Civil War, but not necessarily.
Okay, interesting. My own schooling was quite different - not being from the US there was not a single word ever mentioned about the US civil war at all, and further there were never any discussions of morality on any subject ever. (Beyond some fairly vague sentiments of implied guilt about how the colonists treated the native peoples of our country) Very rare also was any mention at all of any of the laws of the country... laws just weren't in the curriculum.
Coincidentally, The Daily Show last night had an interesting exchange of views about the US Civil War (starts at 7:45).
quote:
the thing about having two mommies harm a kid - there is no way to prove or disprove that having two mommies harms a kid morally or spiritually - or that it "distorts the kid's conscience" or "puts the kid's eternal salvation in jeopardy."
Well, yeah, I agree you can't prove or disprove those ideas. I'll just snigger at them instead.
But yeah, I guess it's a problem for teachers if there are outside groups pressuring teachers to tell the children that having two mommies is bad because of nebulous religious nonsense reasons. The fight you describe between different interest groups about what gets taught in schools in the US sounds awful, and makes me glad we don't have anything remotely close to it here.
quote:
conservatives are funneling money into new studies to try to disprove this that don't have the inherent flaws of the Regnerus study
The great thing about science is that it's repeatable and so you don't get different answers. So insofar as the conservatives do more studies of gay parenting, then if their studies lack flaws, they will see the result that gay parents are equally good parents.
I suspect that what will help you greatly is that the population's views in the US on the subject of homosexuality are rapidly changing, and within a decade there will be overwhelming majority support. So it's not going to be an issue long-term, and I guess teachers would just have to be careful about what they said in the meantime.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
the thing about having two mommies harm a kid - there is no way to prove or disprove that having two mommies harms a kid morally or spiritually - or that it "distorts the kid's conscience" or "puts the kid's eternal salvation in jeopardy."
Well, yeah, I agree you can't prove or disprove those ideas.
Actually I was thinking about this a bit more... and thinking that the question of whether it affects the kid's conscience can be scientifically measured by surveying their beliefs on moral issues and measuring their behaviour. eg it's pretty well established that kids who have two mommies are: a) less likely to think that homosexuality is wrong; b) more likely to experiment with homosexual acts (but long-term no more likely than usual to identify as homosexual) c) no different in the rate of general crimes they commit. However, it would be potentially possible to survey this group to see if their views on any other moral issues (eg abortion, murder, slavery, racism, religion etc) are affected by having two mommies. I haven't seen that studied directly, but my guess is that you'd probably find they have a fair level of antipathy towards religion, for obvious reasons!
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Schools tend to teach facts. Discussing morality seems a very strange territory for a classroom discussion to stray into... I can't recall us ever having a discussion of morality in any class in any school I ever went to.
Really? I'm astonished. It was a big part of my secondary education, (more so as we got older) and at least an occasional one of my primary education. And I first went to school in 1962.
The sex education in my primary school - which was a crap council estate school that would have been shut down by the government if it had carried on like it did into the 1980s or 90s - was mostly rather embarrassed and biological. But it was there, morality was mentioned, and so was homosexuality (though only just and rather evasively)
In the fifth and sixth form of my grammar school (i.e. equivalent of US high school, kids mostly aged 15-18) there was quite explicit discussion of sexual morality. And I mean discussion, sitting round in a circle and giving our own opinions. There was I think an official "line" from the teachers that marriage was the right thing to do, but also a realistic assumption that at least some of us weren't going to be doing that. This would have been the early 1970s.
One thing I still remember was a teacher advising the boys not to wear white underwear when they left home to go to college or get a job.. Because she had never heard of a teenage boy who managed to keep his own clothes properly clean. And visible dirt on underwear was a real turn-off for girls.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Schools tend to teach facts. Discussing morality seems a very strange territory for a classroom discussion to stray into... I can't recall us ever having a discussion of morality in any class in any school I ever went to.
That isn't the case in the UK.
Sex education has to be 'in the context of relationships' So everything is discussed.
Then in Religious Education and Citizenship morality is a key part.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Really? I'm astonished. It was a big part of my secondary education, (more so as we got older) and at least an occasional one of my primary education.
Wow. Okay. I struggle to imagine. Did exams ever test this? Or was it understood that discussions of morality weren't relevant topics to your grades and the rest of your education?
My own schooling was in the 90s in a country where about 50% of the population identifies reports they have "no religion" on the census (twice as much as the UK). So, recent and secular.
In some years during primary school (aged 5-9) I recall a well-meaning old Christian lady would come in about once a fortnight to give lessons in Christianity which usually involved some form of practical art and then a 5-minute spiel on her part (I recall building a tiny version of the empty tomb). That was the sum total of any religious education received during any part of my normal schooling.
Sex education consisted of about 2 hours worth of classes when we were 11, working through a four page book with pictures which mainly focused on stating what changes would take place to our bodies during puberty. During highschool I was under the impression that there were supposed to be two sets of sex education classes, one at age 14 and one at age 16. These simply never occurred, and to this day I have no idea why.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Really? I'm astonished. It was a big part of my secondary education, (more so as we got older) and at least an occasional one of my primary education.
Wow. Okay. I struggle to imagine. Did exams ever test this? Or was it understood that discussions of morality weren't relevant topics to your grades and the rest of your education?
Sex education consisted of about 2 hours worth of classes when we were 11, working through a four page book with pictures which mainly focused on stating what changes would take place to our bodies during puberty. During highschool I was under the impression that there were supposed to be two sets of sex education classes, one at age 14 and one at age 16. These simply never occurred, and to this day I have no idea why.
No, I gather that you were assessed on course work, including a practical test. Those who did very well on the practical were invited to further testing.
More seriously, in my school days, starting in 1951 and ending in 1963, there was really no mention of sex education. That was a matter for parents. Much the same in Dlet's schooling, although by then teachers from the Family Planning Association or some similar group were invited in to give a series of evening talks to parents and boys in Yr 5 (age 10/11). Attendance was voluntary.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Many public schools have Gay-Straight Alliances here. They are a good idea. Roman Catholic Separate Schools, which are also publicly funded, don't. Another reason to not have such schools.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Starlight, I would be interested to know how old you are. What you describe is very like my own experience of school sex ed in 1970s NZ, although I definitely remember the sixth form sessions!
However, the situation is vastly different in most schools these days. My partner worked in a Catholic girls' school a few years ago, and was required to teach sex ed to her ESOL classes. Very tricky stuff, given that some girls had been through the camps in Kenya and raped, while others said they believed virginity was everything to a young woman and anyway their father would kill them if they even looked at a boy. Morality absolutely had to be part of the lessons, so that the girls didnt rip each other apart.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Starlight: quote:
Wow. Okay. I struggle to imagine. Did exams ever test this? Or was it understood that discussions of morality weren't relevant topics to your grades and the rest of your education?
British schools have been covering issues of morality for some time, as Ken and Leo have already said. I remember taking part in a debate in class about the question of abortion when I was in the sixth form in the early 1980s.
The general idea is to get pupils to think about moral issues and make their own minds up, rather than just blindly following what the media (and the porn industry) tells them. And also to teach them how to take part in debates so that they can stick up for their own beliefs (whatever these may be). This is how I ended up running in the Mother's Race at my daughter's sports day a couple of years ago - entirely against my will - because her class had been learning Debating Skills that term. Nowadays they start doing that kind of thing in primary school.
You're right up to a point; most of it isn't assessed, except what they learn in biology about physical changes to the body and the mechanics of reproduction. But older children have the option of taking exams in religious studies or philosophy.
And any academic discipline that requires you to write essays will expect you to be able to argue coherently, whatever the subject you are arguing about may be. So the skills learned in PSHE (or Citizenship, or whatever it's called nowadays) are transferable.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes, it wasn't tested or examined. How could it be? Its about getting the kids to express and explain their opinions. Not just about sex, but things like politics, trade unions, animal welfare and so on.
In the earlier years of grammar school such things were most likely to turn up in RE, which didn't have exams anyway, or not for us. But there might also be very occasional class discussions of moral or religious or political issues in other subjects. (certainly English - how can you read novels or poetry without thinking about morality? - and possibly biology as well - even back then we talked about scientific and medical ethics sometimes - also, perhaps unlike physics and chemistry, even at school level biology includes some debatable results, where there is no general consensus on the "facts", so you need to be able to argue one opinion against another)
When I was in the sixth form I did an RE O-level, an option most didn't take, which in those days was specifically about the Bible and Christianity, not the Leo-style general RE curriculum we'd been doing before. But our school set aside one afternoon a week for non-exam subjects for sixth formers. Mostly things that were supposed to come in useful if we went to college (it was a grammar school so we were expected to go on to higher education). One term I did some simple computer programming (in 1973!), another time I did a typing course - which really was very useful later - and one term was sitting around in a room having what we might now call facilitated discussions about life the universe and everything. Which was where the teacher made that remark about underwear.
All obviously nothing to do with exams and grades. I suspect that in these days of OFSTED and national-curriculum-control-freakery and micro-management of schools from Whitehall schools no longer have that freedom.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I am delighted to say that same-sex relationships are covered in the British Army six-monthly mandatory training. It is covered as part of Equality and Diversity education. The audience is clearly young: 16-35 (ish) who by and large do not have a problem with it.
I have never noticed in the years that it was introduced anything other than respect. Indeed one Battery Sergeant Major (think Windsor Davies in 'It Aint Half Hot Mum') wished to get a chaplain out to Camp Bastion to bless the union of two female soldiers. The BSM said he was proud and wished to 'give one away'.
The Commanding Officer (a Lt Colonel) also wrote to congratulate the pair, and asked to see their wedding photographs.
Stonewall presented the Army with its equality award last year.
It is interesting that it is not a problem anymore for Colonel Blimp, but it still is for parts of the church.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I am reminded of the article a couple of years ago, describing how a self-described Alberta redneck was pleased and proud to stand at the wedding of his nearest neighbours, a pair of out lesbians. He said they were the best neighbours he could have.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
This is a very real issue to me at the moment. I'm nearly at the end of my first term at a local comprehensive, so that's probably the equivalent of an American High School, and I'm on the receiving end of a fair bit of homophobic comments. Although I'm out here on the Ship I haven't said anything about my sexuality at all, and the only time I've said anything about homosexuality at all was in a revision class (I explained the RCC was against it, and why).
However a group of Yr 10 boys shout, "Backs against the wall lads," whenever I pass them (but I've not been able to spot the speaker). A couple of weeks ago, a Yr 8 lad who hangs round with them said he didn't want to be in a room with "that pouf", ie me. And yesterday I was ticking off some kids for being in the wrong place and a Yr 9 kid I'd never met shouted to them, "Offer him anal". It's all rather unpleasant, and I'm not sure how best to respond. The school was very supportive over they Yr 8 lad (he was suspended for a day) but seem less willing to move on this next case. I feel torn; I don't want to be vindictive, but I feel that on this sort of issue the pupils need to know that the school does not accept these sorts of remarks and treats them seriously.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
That is extremely unpleasant and corrosive for you. It is good that you have one outlet on here. Not only do they lack understanding, but they are actually breaking the law.
I am not sure what Year Nine is tbh, but in my 18-35 age group it really isn't a problem (and you don't get more rigidly butch than the Army really). I have suspected it is a generational thing. And my lot are from the roughest, toughest backgrounds.
A very slight consolation might be that when they have grown up just a little bit more, if they remember it at all, they will look back and feel somewhat ashamed. And then move on quickly.
Hold fast. You are not alone.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The best diatribe I heard on dealing with homophobic bullying was from a female PE teacher who kept her own sexuality quiet, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to know she was lesbian. We were chatting about the difficulties of a particular year 11 boy who I (and she) reckoned was struggling with his sexual identity and bullying others with a lot of homophobia thrown in.
She said she tackled the homophobic bullying with a discussion that said "Of course there would be some gay students in this class. On average 1 in 10 people was gay, so it was likely that there were going to be at least 3 (or 6 or 9) students in this class and 100 in the school who would identify as gay when they were grown up. So are you going to try and pick out everyone in the class or school who were gay, or are you going to learn to get along with them? Because you never know, you could be one of them."
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
#1. Everyone is entitled to a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. It is management's responsibility to ensure it is.
#2. If some students are shirty enough to make those comments to a teacher, imagine what horrible things they are saying to their peers. They are also entitled to a school free of harassment and discrimination.
It's not "vindictive" to demand decent behaviour from the administration and the students (and don't let anyone tell you it is). How can anyone teach or learn in that sort of hostile environment?
Multiple x-posts
[ 15. March 2014, 18:48: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
This is a very real issue to me at the moment. I'm nearly at the end of my first term at a local comprehensive, so that's probably the equivalent of an American High School, and I'm on the receiving end of a fair bit of homophobic comments. Although I'm out here on the Ship I haven't said anything about my sexuality at all, and the only time I've said anything about homosexuality at all was in a revision class (I explained the RCC was against it, and why).
However a group of Yr 10 boys shout, "Backs against the wall lads," whenever I pass them (but I've not been able to spot the speaker). A couple of weeks ago, a Yr 8 lad who hangs round with them said he didn't want to be in a room with "that pouf", ie me. And yesterday I was ticking off some kids for being in the wrong place and a Yr 9 kid I'd never met shouted to them, "Offer him anal". It's all rather unpleasant, and I'm not sure how best to respond. The school was very supportive over they Yr 8 lad (he was suspended for a day) but seem less willing to move on this next case. I feel torn; I don't want to be vindictive, but I feel that on this sort of issue the pupils need to know that the school does not accept these sorts of remarks and treats them seriously.
This is stressful and awful.
Don't let them grind you down.
And seek help and support from your union/professional association.
Schools are amongst the most homophobic institutions - i know because i have worked in them for 40 years.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I am not sure what Year Nine is tbh, but in my 18-35 age group it really isn't a problem (and you don't get more rigidly butch than the Army really). I have suspected it is a generational thing. And my lot are from the roughest, toughest backgrounds.
Year 9 are typically 13 years old. It's what was called "Third Form" in old money. It's an "interesting" age...
In response to Robert Armin, there are two related issues here. The first is your right to a workplace free of harassment. If you feel the school isn't taking it seriously enough (and it sounds like that is the case), then you should certainly have a chat with your union rep and/or mentor. Dealing with offensive lippy teenagers is part of your job, but you need to know the school is backing you up. One (necessary but not sufficient) metric might be to see whether the school takes these comments as seriously as they do vile, offensive sexual comments made by teenage boys towards young female teachers.
The second issue is the education of the kids - they have to be shown and told, unambiguously, that this kind of thing is not acceptable behaviour. That's an issue for school management.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
You know, I never thought I'd find myself writing this, but this discussion makes me begin to wonder if U.S. conservatives have a point in objecting to sex-ed in school at all. Maybe if we left sex-ed to the family (and my own family did a completely crap job at it), and excluded sexual matters from school curricula, we wouldn't have students feeling entitled to try bullying their teachers.
Of course, we'd still have homophobia (possibly even more than we do now), and we'd be even more awash in assorted forms of sexual ignorance. But even with sex-ed, we have US senators who think women's bodies are somehow capable of rejecting rapists' sperm.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
I don't think the horrible experience our Shipmate is having (for which, goodness, my condolences and solidarity)has anything to do with sex ed. It's a foul, foul part of too many adolescent lives--the feeling that your own acceptance by others is such a tenuous thing that you have to jump in on every bit of cruelty or ignorance directed at anyone who isn't you.
I teach 5-11 year olds, a decent number of whom have had the good fortune of adoption into loving two-mom or two-dad families after their biological parents, er....yeah, after that (suffice to say most were victims of abuse). Our school is looking at adopting some resources from the Welcoming Schools folks. With or without curriculum, things come up, and you can't be value-neutral when it's things like one kid telling another kid that her family "isn't right."
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Under Section 28 many teachers in the UK felt unable to tackle homophobic bullying in schools. This particular teacher was standing out as being very firm in dealing with homophobic bullying - and this was around 2003, when Section 28 was still in force, whereas the head of year at my daughter's school was wringing his hands at his inability to do anything, anything at all.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Under Section 28 many teachers in the UK felt unable to tackle homophobic bullying in schools. This particular teacher was standing out as being very firm in dealing with homophobic bullying - and this was around 2003, when Section 28 was still in force, whereas the head of year at my daughter's school was wringing his hands at his inability to do anything, anything at all.
Sure. Because teachers in the UK are so shit hot at dealing with every other sort of bullying, it's a fucking certainty they'd have been all over the homophobes in seconds flat if it wasn't for that pesky section 28.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Oh yes - that Head of Year was crap, unadulterated crap - and I suspect my complaints about other issues* had him shuffled off elsewhere.
But some teachers are very good at dealing with bullying and struggled with Section 28.
* I had to go in and point out that nasty bruising from knee to ankle after being kicked under the table by obnoxious student seated next to my daughter to try and control said student's behaviour could be seen as assault and could be taken to the police if the school couldn't deal with it and that I wasn't writing letters excusing my daughter from PE on physiotherapist's advice for fun and to wallpaper walls, but did rather expect them to be acted upon.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
You know, I never thought I'd find myself writing this, but this discussion makes me begin to wonder if U.S. conservatives have a point in objecting to sex-ed in school at all. Maybe if we left sex-ed to the family (and my own family did a completely crap job at it), and excluded sexual matters from school curricula, we wouldn't have students feeling entitled to try bullying their teachers.
Of course, we'd still have homophobia (possibly even more than we do now), and we'd be even more awash in assorted forms of sexual ignorance. But even with sex-ed, we have US senators who think women's bodies are somehow capable of rejecting rapists' sperm.
Sex ed is so important though, and I don't see how having (good) sex ed would lead to more bullying - it would surely be more likely to have the opposite effect. Things like consent are vitally important parts of sex ed, but I wouldn't trust it to be taught (and taught well) by parents who don't necessarily have much knowledge about things like that. The problem with relying on parents to teach sex ed is that there are many parents who did not have good enough sex ed themselves, and many parents who just won't bother and will leave their children criminally under-educated in this area. In the UK sex ed is part of the national curriculum but parents can opt out and it's up to individual schools to decide how to teach it - I think stopping both those things and having one national and compulsory sex ed curriculum is the answer. Sex ed is too important to have anything else.
Robert Armin's (appalling and unacceptable) situation is not caused by having sex ed lessons.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Under Section 28 many teachers in the UK felt unable to tackle homophobic bullying in schools. This particular teacher was standing out as being very firm in dealing with homophobic bullying - and this was around 2003, when Section 28 was still in force, whereas the head of year at my daughter's school was wringing his hands at his inability to do anything, anything at all.
I was under the impression that Section 28 was repealed in 2000 but apparently that was just Scotland. However, I had horrendous homophobic bullying at school and this was after Section 28 had been repealed in the rest of the UK. Many schools still have homophobic bullying problems. Section 28 obviously didn't help but clearly many schools (even purely secular schools) have issues with homophobia and teachers having no idea how to deal with it.
A big part of the problem is that non-heterosexuality = sexually active to a lot of people and a lot of teachers feel very awkward dealing with what they see as unnecessary sexual precosity (precociousness?) when in reality it's an identity issue like race or gender. A friend is part of an anti-homophobia in schools charity in the North-West and goes into schools to talk to students and teachers (they can only talk to over-16s because they mention trans issues which is ridiculous). They asked the teachers what they would do if a pupil came out and was being bullied for being 'too openly' gay (what would be perceived as being 'too openly gay' but in reality is just the pupil being themselves). Every single teacher said they would tell the bullied pupil to be 'more normal'.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Support could be available from Inclusion for All led by Shaun Dellenty, who is working to deal with homophobia in schools from his own personal experiences. He's also on Twitter, but I stopped following him as I found my feed got swamped.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
The use of Stonewall resources is troubling (they are a deeply transphobic organisation - ironic since it was a transgender woman who led the Stonewall Riots). I fully support his aims, my issue is that not all schools are interested in tackling homophobic bullying and the government really needs to come down harder on those schools. It's just not acceptable. Before anyone accuses me of wanting schools to rely on government and not do their own work to tackle homophobia, charities already do a great job but pupil safety in state schools needs to be a government priority, and not just left to ever-poorer charities.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
In the UK sex ed is part of the national curriculum but parents can opt out and it's up to individual schools to decide how to teach it
Pedantic but, I believe important: Sex Education is not in the national Curriculum. There were moves, a couple of years ago, to make it such but Gove rejected it because it wasn't an 'academic' subject.
Science IS in the NC but that only reals with the biology of reproduction.
Sex ed. proper is lumped together with various other things - careers, health education, citizenship, money matters. It is largely taught by people with no training.
Many of these teachers are drafted in because they have a few spare slots in their timetables. They are often uncomfortable, not just because of 'sex' but because there are no exams, no body of 'facts' and they aren't used to pupils discussing things.
I was lucky and enjoyed teaching it because my training in RE meant that i was used to discussion and because I did a two week course in PSHE as a sort of 'sabbatical'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
You know, I never thought I'd find myself writing this, but this discussion makes me begin to wonder if U.S. conservatives have a point in objecting to sex-ed in school at all. Maybe if we left sex-ed to the family (and my own family did a completely crap job at it), and excluded sexual matters from school curricula, we wouldn't have students feeling entitled to try bullying their teachers.
Of course, we'd still have homophobia (possibly even more than we do now), and we'd be even more awash in assorted forms of sexual ignorance. But even with sex-ed, we have US senators who think women's bodies are somehow capable of rejecting rapists' sperm.
Sex ed is so important though, and I don't see how having (good) sex ed would lead to more bullying - it would surely be more likely to have the opposite effect.
I never said sex ed, especially good sex-ed, wasn't important. It’s extremely important, IMO.
But (I write from a US perspective) in a nationwide effort, it's unreasonable to assume that all school sex-ed will be well-designed and well-presented. It may even be unreasonable to assume that the majority of school sex-ed will be well-designed / presented. Of course, some of it will be. But that isn't really the point I'm trying to make here. The question I'm trying to raise is where should sex-ed be presented?
With the array of publicly-expressed views and values on what should & shouldn’t be covered, and at what ages it ought to be presented and how this side of the pond, I wonder if churches with views on the issue shouldn’t step up and design their own sex-ed programs, and I wonder if parents shouldn’t be handed an array of materials by educators, and given to students as homework: “Here you go – this is a whole-family assignment; choose your curriculum, activities, and assignments, and turn them next Monday.” That way, parents have control over what the kids get taught, but there’s a choice of professionally-designed materials to help and guide them.
Then when kids start initiating sexually-oriented discussion about, or bullying of, other students and/or teachers during school hours and on school grounds, those activities can easily and legitimately get shut down, period. Exclude sexually-oriented materials, activities, and speech from school. That way, a teacher like Robert Armin has readily-accessible grounds for disciplining lippy students without any reference to his own personal situation.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Porridge - I know that the UU church has good sex ed classes. However, trusting that parents and especially churches would deliver decent sex ed lessons is just hopelessly naive. Yes, schools may not do much better but making it part of the national curriculum at least makes them have a legal responsibility to teach it. It needs to have that sort of backing - that it is a legal responsibility to make sure children have sex ed (and abstinence-only does not count as real sex ed). What about the kids with no church and no parents? Do they just not matter?
Banning sexually-oriented materials from school is absurd. Aside from being an ideal way for schools to ban important works of fiction on the grounds that they are sexually-oriented, what on Earth will it achieve re homophobic taunting? Banning books on sex ed isn't banning homophobic language or actions. It's just depriving children of a decent education. They have nothing to do with each other. Clamp down on homophobic bullying, give teachers training in dealing with homophobia and IMPROVE sex ed in such a way that children are educated about homophobia and why it is wrong. That would seem like quite an obvious way to tackle the bullying. Bullying centred around sexual orientation needs better sex ed, not no sex ed altogether.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
... But (I write from a US perspective) in a nationwide effort, it's unreasonable to assume that all school sex-ed will be well-designed and well-presented. It may even be unreasonable to assume that the majority of school sex-ed will be well-designed / presented. Of course, some of it will be. But that isn't really the point I'm trying to make here. The question I'm trying to raise is where should sex-ed be presented? ...
I could just as easily say that most, if not all, math education is lousy and doesn't engage kids or give them confidence with math, and therefore kids should be taught math at home by their parents. Somehow, I think the result would be the same: some parents would teach their kids math, and most parents would ignore the subject completely, and hope the kids watch enough Sesame Street to pick it up. Since that's clearly not considered a satisfactory pedagogical model for math, or languages, or history, or science, why suggest it for sex ed? Does anyone really want to make the case that the average parent will a better teacher of sex ed than the average teacher, even though we don't expect average parents to be able to teach any other subject?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Oh yeah, and this:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
... I wonder if parents shouldn’t be handed an array of materials by educators, and given to students as homework: “Here you go – this is a whole-family assignment; choose your curriculum, activities, and assignments, and turn them next Monday.” That way, parents have control over what the kids get taught, but there’s a choice of professionally-designed materials to help and guide them. ...
There are two chances of that: fat and slim. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
You can laugh all you want, but there are various items interfering with sex ed in the US.
In the US, there is no national curriculum -- in sex ed or anything else. There are current attempts to create one, and it's receiving enormous opposition in various quarters. You have to understand that, here, at least, anything done regarding public schools is highly political. Schools are primarily paid for at the local level, though there are also pockets of state and federal money involved. Add or change a program at local school(s), and property taxes go up. Even people in favor of the proposed change or addition may be too financially strapped to support a hike in their taxes.
And that issue is over and above the continuous bitter rows that go on at town meetings or before city councils/boards of ed over everything from creationism to book-banning to sex-ed. There's as much hope of achieving even simple across-the-board consistency (never mind excellence) in sex-ed curricula as there is of electing a flying monkey to the Oval Office.
Federal funding for abstinence-only programs was withdrawn 2-3 years ago. Despite this, there are school districts in my state where this is the sex-ed program of local choice, often taught by "volunteers" in some voluntary after-school format to get around possible conflicts with the state board of ed or the local atheist / ACLU group.
I long ago concluded that reasonable sex ed programs here are a pipe dream; all they really do is provide employment for lawyers.
[ 16. March 2014, 23:35: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The other part of the problem is that you can't teach respect and tolerance.
You can try to encourage students to be tolerant of viewpoints, cultures and life-styles different from their own, but if the received attitude from parent(s) is that only the values of the home are worth a damn you're up against it because the parents won't give a programme they disagree with support.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
You can't teach it, no. But you can create an environment where any expressions of intolerance are discouraged and homophobic bullying is Not Cool.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) for Robert. It probably won't be much comfort, but that type picks on straight teachers as well.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And that issue is over and above the continuous bitter rows that go on at town meetings or before city councils/boards of ed over everything from creationism to book-banning to sex-ed. There's as much hope of achieving even simple across-the-board consistency (never mind excellence) in sex-ed curricula as there is of electing a flying monkey to the Oval Office.
Indeed. I've noticed that those most likely to claim they want to "teach the controversy" when it comes to creationism are those most reluctant to bring the same approach to sex ed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The other part of the problem is that you can't teach respect and tolerance.
You can try to encourage students to be tolerant of viewpoints, cultures and life-styles different from their own, but if the received attitude from parent(s) is that only the values of the home are worth a damn you're up against it because the parents won't give a programme they disagree with support.
You can sure try. This program, Wiseguyz was profile on CBC radio this week.
quote:
We recognize that boys are half of the sexual health equation. We also know that many of them are under pressure to play masculine roles, which can lead to unhealthy sexual choices, bullying and even violence later in life.
Link to the show. It discusses that boys and kids in general get their sex info from pornography and that schools miss it entirely, which is off focus for this topic, but another part of the equation.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've noticed that those most likely to claim they want to "teach the controversy" when it comes to creationism are those most reluctant to bring the same approach to sex ed.
Well spotted.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Suppose I actually succeed in becoming a high school history teacher. One day in the minutes before class starts, a student walks in wearing a shirt that says, "Born this way" and another student tells him/her "You know that gay people who don't repent are going to Hell, right?" or perhaps something less proselytizing like "I don't like having your immorality put on display like that in school." The first student tells me to tell the second student that talking that way is wrong and s/he can't say those things in school. What do I say? What if the first student knows (since these things are hard to hide - trust me we knew all about the teachers in my school) that I'm gay and uses that to demand I say that any speech calling homosexuality sinful or immoral is bigoted and wrong? Students may technically be under the control of their teachers and administrators in US high schools, but they are pretty vocal and the adults working in schools know that telling everyone to shut up and pay attention so class can start when something really controversial is happening is likely to make the situation even worse. I need to address the issue head on in some way - but I can't tell someone that their religious beliefs are wrong. I'm not even sure if I can tell someone that they can't speak their religious beliefs aloud in conversation at school. I'm a bit afraid of this situation coming up, and I hear about teachers who try to deal with it and the legal controversies that have ensued.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Everyone here has been very kind about my experiences, so thought you might be interested in the latest. Today I was telling a group of Yr 11s off who were kicking a ball at my classroom windows. Then a call, "Fuck off gay," came from the other direction. When I turned, there were a group of Yr 9 lads a little way off. Luckily I recognised one, and reported him to the Head of Year, who will look into it. But no one seems interested in the wider picture (I've had abuse now from Yrs 8, 9 and 11, and probably 10 too) so it seems to get dealt with piecemeal. The only person who knows the whole thing is me.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
