Isn't it ironic that two of the most important sociable skills, marriage and parenting skills, are absent from any school's curriculum?

Taike

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 06-18-2010).]

There IS an alternative to developing these 'social skills'............lots of money and a high tolerance for pain.



chas

Here in Troy they do have courses on Adult relationships and child rearing. In the child rearing one, the kids actually are given a multi functioning baby to be responsible for a week. If its not "fed" or "changed" etc., a loud obnoxious crying alarm goes off...

------------------
Bill in Dayton

I think that's what they gave us in the hospital instead of our real son.



chas

Aw, DADDY!

Russ (your "albino" adopted son) Lay

Yeah, what a shame that there is still something out there that the government doesn't run. The world would be such a better place if the government started teaching our kids how kids really should be raised and how marriages should work. That way, whenever their parents do something that the school doesn't teach, they can report their parents to the authorities and the government can more properly take care of them.

Yeah, what a shame. The government should definitely keep hands off. Just look at the marvelous success stories that occur when they do. Let's see, there's Lehman Bros. (Financial), Enron (Telecomunications), AIG (Insurance), and of course Exxon and British Petroleum (Energy). Guess we'd all better stock up on our guns and ammo (and fertilizer and ammonium). Let's see now, what constitutional article or amendment was little Timmy (McVeigh)operating under?

Sorry Rory. I just get really tired of hearing people parroting all this Beck/Limbaugh garbage. Heck, this government was legally elected by a majority of the people in this country and should be supported in their efforts to keep this country safe, secure, and viable. I'm just so tired of hearing this administration vilified at every turn, no matter what they do. You obviously have a right to your opinion but I just fail to see how these persistent attacks on this administration, pretty obviously fueled by the hate-mongers with a personal antipathy towards the president, do any good. I think he is definitely in a no-win situation until more people are willing to grow past this country's dark past.

chas

Sorry? I thought we were talking about institutionalizing marriage and child raising programs in schools. Did someone derail this thread? Someone who surely went out of his way to "SUPPORT" the previous administration? Oh, that's right, the last administration wasn't legally elected. Why are you so determined to take every thread and try to turn it into someone attacking this administration? The same thing happened on the thread about who has a right to be rich. You decided that was somehow an attack too, even though it was you who tried (hoped) to turn it into that by inferring it was another slam to Obama.

[This message has been edited by FAEbGBD (edited 06-25-2010).]

Oh, so teaching some basic parenting skills in school (given the extremely high rate of teen pregnancy) constitutes "the government taking over child-rearing". And I love your (implied) scenario where the parents ground the kid or restricts his TV privileges and the kid promptly reports them to the 'government'. If fact, isn't that the mantra of the far (as in completely whacko) right? That the government is 'taking over everything'. Hey, wasn't it the 'government' that decided that women should get equal pay for equal work, that Americans should be able to serve their country in the military regardless of sexual orientation, that if you're able to pay, you should be able to eat at a freakin' lunch counter, that every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color, should have equal protection under the law and equal opportunity in the job market. Wasn't it the government that decided that our veterans deserved the best medical care possible (VA) and that our seniors should have some measure of protection when they were no longer able to work or care for themselves (Medicare & Social Security). I admire the 'rugged individualism' and independent spirit of SOME of the fine folk from Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, and similar sparsely populated states, but the majority of Americans have little desire to return to those 'golden days of yesteryear' where the buffalo roamed free and there was nary a government to be found anywhere.

Look, we could dance around this all night and play around with words and semantics, but in the end, we all know what this is about. Since the current administration took office, taxes have been reduced 3.7% but that doesn't stop the bashers from complaining about 'higher taxes'. Since Rush said it, it must be so. Look, I'm done with this. I really admire you as an artist and respect the effort it surely must have taken for you to get there, but I too, have had a few obstacles to overcome, and I'm thankful every day that the 'government', along with a lot of morally responsible people, were there to protect me and MY rights; the right to go where I wanted, the right to live where I wanted, the right go to any college I was qualified to attend, the right to serve in my country's military in some capacity other than 'chief cook and bottlewasher'. In other words, rights that the majority of citizens always took for granted. Having been deprived of them early in my life, I can now appreciate and value what the 'government' has made possible for me. So maybe we come at this from a different perspective and process life through a different set of social filters, but when I hear anti-government rhetoric, I hope you can understand why it gets such a visceral response from me. You think that I'm a 'liberal'. I'm not. I'm just an American citizen that wants to live with dignity and enjoy the same rights and legal protections as any other citizen. History has shown us that those rights and protections can only come from one place, the government.

chas

Rory, I am not talking about "institutionalizing" marriage and parenting programs but rather about the need for "educational" programs in schools.

Divorce rates, teenage pregnancies, spousal abuse/violence, child abuse, child neglect and STDs are clearly signs that educational programs are needed. Handing out condoms in elementary schools isn't the solution.

How much of a school's curriculum prepares a teenager for the real world? Aren't families what make a society?

Regards

Taike

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 06-26-2010).]

How many classes did you attend? How many classes did my parents attend? Yet somehow you and they have positive family environments. I don't know where the idea comes from that school is the only place to learn things.

I don't think anybody said that it's the ONLY place to learn things; just that it's a safety net for those kids who may NOT have such a wholesome, healthy, and nuturing family environment as yours. Or should they just be left to their own devices? Do you find yourself intellectually richer as a result of what you learned in school.....or do you feel that you'd be content with just what you were spoonfed....er, 'taught' at home. Isn't there some value in getting information from a variety of sources and then using your own intellect and life experiences to make some judgements for yourself? You know, it is possible that dear old mom and dad could be operating out of a 'time warp' with values derived from a different place and time, and totally out of step with the world in which we now live. Shouldn't every generation try to improve over the previous one, and learn from their mistakes rather than just blindly repeat them? As any teenager will tell you, parents don't know everything.

chas

I couldn't have said it any better, Chas.

Rory, I'll be the first in line to say that "schools" don't have all the answers but in the same breath I would state that all too many parents think schools are substitute-parents. It seems parents just can't go wrong when it comes to their kids. It's always, "what do they teach them at school" instead of "maybe I should get off my fat ass and actually spend time with my kids" or "maybe I shouldn't make my job my life" and so on.

It would've been beneficial -as a parent- to have had such programs at school. Surely beats listening to old wives tales of which quite a few are plain stupid and some even harmful. You'd be surprised what some people actually believe. You know what, every time I ask teenage girls, young women AND mothers(!!) why a baby's behind gets slapped at birth, they either say it's to make it cry or they have no idea. Pretty sad that mom or dad never took the time to "educate" her precious little girl. Like Chas says, "isn't there some value in getting information from a variety of sources and then using your own intellect and life experiences to make some judgements for yourself?"

Don't think for a moment that I am a government lover. Far from it. But without government nothing changes. Do I like politicians? Not even ONE! Most, if not all, are self-serving SOBs but at times you just have to hand it to them for without them nothing gets done.

Taike

------------------
Bo pen nyang.



[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 06-27-2010).]

Ofsted: schools providing parenting classes

Teachers are being forced to stage parenting classes because too many children start primary school unable to talk properly or use the toilet, according to Oftsed.

Top primaries in tough areas are regularly providing lessons to show mothers and fathers how to raise their own children, the school inspectors' report said. Some even offer counselling and reconciliation services amid concerns over the effect of family breakdown on pupils.

Inspectors said �parental ineptitude� was one of the biggest obstacles faced by a large minority of primary schools in England.

It follows claims from a teachers� leader that schools are struggling to cope with increasing numbers of children raised in "Dickensian" poverty.

Lesley Ward, president of the 160,000-strong Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said some schools had little chance of hitting Government targets as many pupils arrive for lessons unable to dress themselves or use a knife and fork.

But Ofsted insisted the best primary schools overcame the problems by targeting parents themselves.

�The schools generally make themselves very accessible to parents and often find that they are providing informal citizens� advice, parenting advice, counselling and conciliation to parents who have learned to trust them,� inspectors said. �They understand that barriers to learning have to be tackled in order to make learning possible.�

In the latest study, the watchdog vetted 20 primary schools that achieve top results despite being in hugely deprived areas.

Inspectors said �ignorance about parenting� � combined with the effects of alcohol misuse, poor diets, domestic violence, crime and unstable family relationships � were among the biggest problems faced by a �sizeable body� of primary schools in England.

The starting point for some children was �very low�, according to the report.

It said: �Pupils often come to the school not toilet-trained, with parents saying, �The school will do that�. Many pupils cannot speak on arrival in school at age three and skills are well below age-related expectations. The early years are vitally important if, by the [age of 11], the children are to achieve high standards academically and socially, as they do.�

One school � Cotmanhay infants in Derbyshire � hired a family liaison worker, visited parents in their home, staged workshops on positive parenting and provided mathematics and literacy classes.

Ofsted said the best schools also had a relentless focus on back-to-basics discipline.

The head teacher of one school - Ash Green primary in Calderdale, West Yorkshire � told how he took badly behaved children home and �roasted them in front of mum and dad�.

At another school, pupils were made to sit in traditional rows facing the teacher � instead of around tables � to make sure they concentrated in lessons.

Many schools also set children by ability in the core subjects of English and maths, allowing gifted pupils �to flourish and those that need support to receive it�.

The report comes just days after Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, said he would write to every local council in England demanding that school discipline is made a priority. He will issue fresh advice to heads, including the introduction of a �smart uniform policy�, it was disclosed.

Christine Gilbert, the chief inspector of schools, said: �Many of the stories in this report are inspiring. They show how schools, regardless of their context can help young people make something of their lives. I hope that other schools will find it useful and inspiring too.�


By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Published: 7:01AM BST 02 Oct 2009

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

This article nearly makes me puke. Having kids, sending them off at only age 3 to spend hours in school, and them knowing absolutely nothing when they get there; dressing, toilet, speaking. I think it is part of a larger symtpom of people just not accepting responsibility for anything, including their own kids. If banks go bad, government will take care of them. If auto companies make bad moves and go bust, government will take care of them. If I can't pay for my house, government will take care of me. If I can't find work, government will take care of me for an entire year or more. If I get sick, government will take care of me. If I want to pop out kids but not really take care of them, the government will. I'm afraid. I'm truly afraid.

I am with you FAEbGBD. I work with separated parents and the issues they have raising their kids and have been doing this for the last 8 years. There is nothing wrong in principle with educating parents who have poor parenting skills to give them a clue as to how they might raise them. And I am all for marriage counselling before during and after marriage. However as with most plans that have good intentions, it�s the philosophy and implementation of them that is the part I take issue with.

The parents that don�t give a damn won�t participate and from my experience that�s the majority of those parents that are failing their children because of poor parenting skills. Its not that they don�t know how to raise kids, in my opinion, for the most part, they simply are too selfish to care how their kids turn out. They have no long term view and are only concerned with their wants and needs and whatever makes their lives easier today. No amount of education will help this group, even if it is made compulsory. I know it�s a general sweeping statement but that is my experience and I have worked with a lot of families both intact and separated ones. So the education will, for the most part, miss the targeted audience or have little to no impact on them.

Also there is a conflict in priority as most governments have targets to get full employment to reduce reliance on state handouts and benefits and this competes with the priority of being hands on effective parent especially if both parents have to work full time and try and raise kids. This is especially difficult for single parents which again in the UK are a growing demographic.

That�s not just my opinion. In the UK the government have invested nearly 5 billion pounds into early years provision by state sponsored organisations such as the "Sure start project " but there is no evidence it has changed a thing in terms of the target audience it has been aimed at . Pre school children are still left without basic social skills and values. No is a word they have hardly ever heard!
But politicians have run out of ideas and simply keep pumping money in because the side effect is they get parents back to work who make an economic contribution through their taxes and provide cheep labour to keep the economy going.

However the flip side of having state sponsored parenting courses and general parent substitution such as before school and after school clubs and the culture that brings is that they are run by and large by academics funded by government departments ( with a bias to reduce unemployment ) who actually rarely understand the day to day experience of raising children . However they start to set the definition of what is normal and �in the best interests of your child� with out reference to you as a parent. To them putting a child in a nursery at 3 and having them spend the whole of their early childhood being raised by so called child professionals is preferable to having those children raised by their natural parents. To them, any form of physical chastisement is �child abuse�. Even telling off a child can be viewed as �emotional abuse�.

As I have said I deal with parents who after separation struggle to see their kids and parent them in the way that most parents take for granted because they are constantly fighting a legal system that is informed by professional child care experts who believe they know what is best for your child. In most cases, they have never met your child, have never met your child�s extended family, never attended your child�s school or nursery but based on their well intentioned "research " can conclude that time spent in nursery or after school events are preferable and more beneficial to your child than that same time being spent with the child�s natural father or mother or grand parents. They can conclude that your style of parenting does not match their state sponsored academically driven style of parenting and therefore your style of parenting is suspect.

I see this argument used regularly to prevent a non resident parent from having any extra contact with their own child.

I think I made myself pretty clear that I meant educating teens about marriage and parenting. While their parents may do a bad job at both, at least by showing them that they don't have to follow the same path, they may choose not to fall into the same category. Prevention is still the best medicine and education can't hurt. Giving up on them isn't helping anyone. Like I said before, government doesn't have to be involved at all as most schools are free to set their own curriculum. But don't condemn if you've already given up on them. Don't be part of the problem but rather of the solution.

Taike

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

sorry taike. You posted the link to the offstead report so i thought the discussion had widened. I have not given up on the solution. I am just wary of the authors and the motives of those that set the agenda when it comes to the state getting involved in teaching children what are effectively moral decisions as to how people should live.

That's alright, Spalding.

But nowhere is the government mentioned in the Ofsted article. I deduce that the program is purely a matter of school policy only.

But feel free to widen the the discussion.

Taike

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

Unless we're talking only about private schools, how can you say the government isn't involved? Aren't public schools government organizations?

yes they are and the parenting classes will not have been instigated by the schools. They dont have funding for that. That money will have come from government and probably money specifically set up for that purpose

This has been an interesting one. What started off as a well-intentioned observation about the lack of instruction in public schools(I suppose)on marriage and child rearing quickly became a pretty heated discussion about the involvement of government in schools, concern about government control and the inappropriateness of government dictating training and direction for marriages and parenting vs. the belief that government, defined as individuals and organizations elected by the public, has the responsibility of operating under the direction and for the benefit of the electorate.

I think we've gone way too deep into the situation and have overlooked the critical issue as originally defined by Taike. I know him, and his intention was to highlight the importance of marriage and parenting and to observe that, in most school systems, those very critical life issues are not addressed.
We've got to keep in mind that Taike is a skilled, dedicated teacher; it's his passion.

The unsaid message was, he believes, as I do, and, I'm sure most of you do, that these are important skills and issues that need to be addressed, in school...in church...at home....somewhere. Dedicating your life to your family is an honorable thing.

The whole discussion about the role of government, excess government control, etc. is a worthwhile one, but, I'm pretty sure, not necessarily part of Taike's original post or concern.

The primary posters here are all my very good friends, and, I'm sure, if they think about it, they are in agreement on the core issues here.

I think things just got off on a slight tangent. The discussion got a little heated.

And that's kind of sad.


Russ



[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 07-01-2010).]

i guess it is whether you believe that the state (and teachers are intrinsically a part of the state) should broaden even further their authority to teach children about marriage and relationships and child rearing. I am not comfortable with that at all.I think that is a role for parents and extended family . I know that this is not happening as much as it did in the past but parents on the whole over the last 40 years or so have had their responsibilities and authority over how they raise their children systematically stripped to the point where the culture in terms of who is supposed to do what has become so blurred that a significant amount of parents have basically accepted that the state have the lions share in how their kids turn out . But there is a role for parenting and marriage classes for the parents of children on a voluntary basis. These classes unfortunately are only usually available at the end of a relationship break down (at least in the UK) when the situation has become chronic. And they are usually at a cost which will indirectly discrimminate against the poorer member s of society.

Its a tough one to crack and thats for sure. Its even tougher being a responsible parent today than it ever was.

FAEbGBD is only making sense here.

I agree with him.

But I fear the government that does not fear me...

And their track record to date with the schools has been nothing short of abysmal.

The idea that it is education that is lacking -- without paying attention to *other* factors involved -- the spiritual, the example given by being a child in a good home with 2 heterosexual parnets who care in the first place, the examples of responsibility, love in the first person as related in deeds to the second person, the respect and desire to adhere to a moral code, enforcement of personal discipline and a few other things I've likely missed -- this idea that the public school system that is incapable of teaching the majority of students mere Reading, Writing and Arithmetic (which they now call "Math") just doesn't play out.

Because it does *NOT* take a village to raise a child.

Only Chas and Russ seem to comprehend what I'm trying to say.

All I can say is that you guys are confusing "education" with "indoctrination".

If education, -government is always involved to some extent, be it a public or private school- is that awful, why did your parents sent you off anyway? Some form of child abuse?

The Native-Americans were sent to boarding schools where they were beaten, forced to speak English and forbidden to speak their native tongue, forced to...well, just watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3VOZ4n4aM

Now THAT'S government involvement!!! And does no one give a hoot!!!

All I am saying is that we go to school and learn skills, and most often those skills will never be applied as most people work in unrelated fields of what they're majored in. Yet it is supposed to prepare us for what's out there. Now, what are the most important institutions? Marriage and parenthood. Yet we're not being prepared for it. Being prepared as in giving us the tools and know-how, not telling us that "this is the only way" because there is NO only way. What may work for one doesn't necessarily work for others. But as in most aspects of our lives, we're free to draw our own conclusions. You want to ignore the red light, go for it. But be prepared for the aftermath.

We talk about the high divorce rate and teenage pregnancies, drug use and so on. But we are not TAUGHT, we're merely TOLD. Show them the harsh reality, don't just talk about it or give out brochures. Have them talk to those that experienced it, those that know what it is like. That is the kind of education I'm talking about and it has nothing to do with government telling you what to do and how to do it. I have no idea where you even come up with these things other than that you must've been brainwashed by some fundamentalist cult. Education, NOT indoctrination, remember? Teaching is about showing, not merely talking the talk. Teaching is about giving options, not about having the final word.

Do you not teach your child(ren) by example? Or do you merely tell them not to do something without explaining the aftermath of what may happen? Do you tell a child not to play with matches if it doesn't understand why not since the flames are so pretty.

I guess I'm lucky to have enjoyed an education that was rather liberal in approach, even though it was a Catholic school. We attended church like twice a year and even that we usually were smart enough to skip. But never had we been indoctrinated.

This thread has been taken off-topic due to not knowing the difference between education and indoctrination.

Just keep in mind, in a perfect world a child's most important teachers are its parents. Luckily there are always some educators or other individuals that care enough to not fault the child for its parents' shortcomings and to provide the child with guidance, love and respect. As a kindergarten teacher, I strive to give my pupils a proper education and make them feel loved. Has no government ever told me what I should teach in class. I suppose teachers are expected to use common sense.

Funny this coming from two democracies. I've lived in a Communist country -actually will settle down there- and even there they're not being indoctrinated. Most students I've talked to enjoy school. Schools must be hell in the "free" world.

--------------------------------------------

As a hetero, I wish that same-sex marriages will enjoy the same status as those between the two sexes. Shouldn't be up to the government or religious institutions either. But in that case I'm positive that you'd insist on government involvement. Or does freedom of religion only apply to certain people?

------------------
Bo pen nyang.


[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 07-04-2010).]

Taike-

I totally get what you're talking about. It's more about how Society has changed in many parts of the world, with both parents working, a reduced role for grandparents than a generation ago, etc. It has brought us to a place where for some children, not all, an additional dose of mainstream parenting skills is valuable.

In this time of hyper-anti Government sentiment, its easy to paint a pretty scary picture of how the "gov't." is subtly trying to control our youth. IMO, its almost trite to trot out the typical anti-government talking points and bash away.

Sure, in a perfect world, everybody has two intelligent, loving, well-adjusted parents to help guide them through their formative years. This is most certainly NOT a perfect world, so too often, kids get short-changed. Schools try their best to help fill in some of the missing pieces to help the kids know how best to care for an infant, raise a teenager, or maybe think about getting married.

I agree sometimes educators screw things up. We don't have to look any further than what the Texas Board of Education did this Spring. They removed Thomas Jefferson of all people and replaced him with conservative religious John Calvin. They also refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the US Gov't. from promoting one faith over all others. Great...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-app_n_497440.html

Are they educating or indoctrinating in Texas?

The gov't. makes lousy parents, no argument. But I'm glad that my local school district offers parenting and marriage course for our kids. For some children, like ours-its another perspective, some fresh ideas, etc. that my kids will be able to draw on as they see necessary down the road. You can't have too much information.



------------------
Bill in Dayton

Beautifully put, Bill. It's like your words were coming out of my brain, but better articulated . It's hard to see how a fair minded person could fault your logic here. Of course, for those who see a 'government takeover' conspiracy behind every door, logic and common sense is not going to change their minds. I'm glad Taike brought up the issue of (accidently or on purpose) calling or passing off education as indoctrination. Teaching Creationism; THAT'S indoctrination.

BTW, how did Lady Gaga manage to make 62 million dollars last year? SOMEBODY must have been 'indoctrinated' . Apparently, the world loves 'bizarre'.

chas

Look, why is it that when someone holds a different view to the poster it is argued that they don�t understand your point? I am not anti government. I used to work for the government! Where the state work in areas that are best suited to state matters, it does it reasonably well. But there comes a crossover point where the state uses the wrong tools for the job or uses the correct tools inappropriately. If you or I do that, we affect a minuscule number of people but if the state does it, then it can potentially affect millions upon millions of people. I completely understand the point taike is making but I am simply saying caution must be used!

What has happened over the last 30- 40 years in the UK is the very gradual invasion of state policy into family matters and the erosion of parental responsibility. For example I work with children in a church choir and I coach basketball at a state school. I do it because I think it�s a worthwhile activity for my daughter and her cousins and my extended church family etc to be involved in and there is a desperate need for volunteers if these activities are to continue. The state has introduced various rules governing who can work with children for child protection reasons. They have also set down in detail how adults can interact with children. Now this is all because of the concern over the risk that someone might interfere with the children.

Now that�s a good reason I think everyone will agree but what about the execution of the policies?

I have had to have 2 separate sets of record checks at the highest level for the two roles that I play. The very first question I am asked on each form is � why do I want to work with children!!!!� !

I am motivated and despite what I feel is an intrusion into my life I accept that it is necessary and have let the system run its checks on me. Other coaches that I have worked with and volunteers (both male and female) who may even have been parents of some of the children at the choir and the school have objected and now no longer have any involvement with the organised activities and consequently have withdrawn their children. I am reconsidering my position certainly concerning basketball, as it is without doubt a contact sport.

Even some of the parents that simply did� the school run� taking their neighbours kids to the same school because it was cheaper to use one car than two have to have these checks done. Consequently, they now just take their own child for fear of being accused of avoiding the checks.

Various rafts of child protection polices have been inculcated into general UK policy morphing each time into something more detailed and far reaching to the extent that the fear of encountering a paedophile /abuser or worse being labelled as a paedophile or abuser or even being suspected (which a lot of people consider to be fact that you are one) is so much greater than the actual risk of encountering an actual abuser that an horrendous distortion of normal human interactions has resulted which some may argue is worse than the perceived problem the state was trying to fix.

It has brought in a culture of mistrust, suspicion and blame where anything can be termed �Abuse�, where adults can lose their jobs on unfounded suspicion of over protective parents. Children have become aware of their power to reduce grown men to tears and provoke them even to lose their livelihood by the mere hint that they 'looked at them in a funny way' because they know they will be believed in the first instance. Parents are looked at with fear and disgust and even set upon by over enthusiastic school personnel because they dared to take a picture of their own child in the school sports day that may have included the image of another child in the background!!

Children have lost out on the warmth of human interaction. They may run to hug an adult because they need comfort or reassurance or because they are excited that they achieved something they didn�t think they could or they have fallen over and simply want hug to take the pain away. In years gone by it would have been nothing for an adult to return the hug or to carry the child into the school office and clean up the cut. Now it�s �inappropriate �. My own child had a rash on her arm and her mother (we are divorced) gave her medication to rub on the arm but the school would not let her use it neither would they apply it because there was no prescription accompanying the medication. It was an over the counter skin cream.

As I say, I see this all the time and it is unnatural not to hug a child that needs comforting. But the fear of being accused of not following procedure or of something even worse has now taken precedent.

Pretty much any normal interaction with a child that no one would have had a problem with 20 years ago is considered unacceptable now.

And the consequences reach further as the fear of being labelled a paedophile has seen the almost complete eradication of a male presence in the classroom. In the UK, more than a quarter of primary schools have a zero male presence in the school. Zero!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/edu...e-teachers.html

And there is a direct correlation between the lack of males in schools and the fall in after school activities. And generally, why would any teacher voluntarily risk losing their job doing out of hours unpaid work? These are not exaggerations. I see them with colleagues and family who deal with this culture everyday. Many of the children in our schools are now labelled �Obese� because much of the schools sports and after school activities have stopped in part because of the fear that a child might get hurt. So we are looking at kids who are likely to suffer with weight related diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure in the years to come.

Children and their parents are starting to view pretty much all-adult men as a potential threat to them.

Do our children feel more safe and more loved now and do parents feel more relaxed and confident about the people they entrust the care of their kids with compared with 30 years ago?

So in short (although I grant you the preceding paragraphs were anything but short)

I get your point Taike. All I have alluded to is the concern I have that the state already has, in my view, too much say in our personal lives, our belief systems and how we raise our children. I have said from the start that the ideals of providing education in terms of marriage and parenting are worthy ideals but I have expressed caution at the thought of any further state interventions to �fix � the problem. I respect your view and I understand it. I just think it can potentially be the wrong tool for the job or have the propensity to cause more harm than good.

And Chas we can debate creationism and evolution on another thread if you like and compare views on what I might also class as indoctrination. J . Actually scratch that, I don�t have the time, got too much on at the moment.

Spalding, we are not 100% at odds here. I actually agree with the overwhelming majority of what you said in your last post.....well, up until the bit on Creationism . The fear of being accused of pediphilia has certainly done a great deal of harm and prevented what should have been normal, healthy, nurturing relationships between child and mentor. Children need to be protected but it has reached a level of ridiculousness. We have to try to find a balance somewhere or all of you dire predictions will most certainly come true and a lot of good, decent, people will be lost to the teaching profession, coaching, scouting, and just volunteerism in general.

In this vein, I don't consider this anti-government. My problem is with those who see the government as this evil entity that is only concerned with brainwashing our kids, regulating our social lives, taking over business and industry, and, most frighteningly, expanding. In this county, most of this gibberish comes from right-wing radio, all of whom seem to have this unabashed hatred for our president, and consequently find ways to spin every bad thing that happens in this country as somehow his fault. It's easy to sell hate in a bad economy. There have been some notable examples in recent history, but of course we all know what they are.

On the Creationism thing, how do you explain the 'dates'? Do we just throw out the science (carbon dating, etc.) even as we watch 'evolution' play out before our very eyes. Like you say, some other time .

chas

I would suggest we've seen much the same transformation in the States. Did the Government facilitate this change over time to meet their ends or was it more of a response?

I think nature abhors a vacuum, so as the "family" eroded due to various factors, growing gaps in education and child hood development were soon found. Its not optimal, but again in those situations where parents/families are not meeting the basic needs of the kids, then I say thank you to the schools who will try and help these children continue to grow.



------------------
Bill in Dayton

Well, I've never had the privelege of an Orwellian education. Big Brother must've been too busy spying on you guys.

Would you mind sharing with us how and where government has taken over education?

And why send your kids to school if it's that bad? Why not provide them with private tutors or homeschool them yourself?

Taike

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 07-28-2010).]

That's exactly what my sisters have done. Their kids are not in public school, and their standardized test scores show that they're much better for it. My 13 year old niece will be studying 9th grade material this year. And no, she's not sheltered and completely anti-social. She has a facebook page and sends I don't know how many text messages per day. My 5-year-old nethew can read stories about puppies and tell you what he's reading about. Most 5 year olds in public school are finally learning that there is such a thing as an alphabet.

I have to say Rory, your Sister's experience with home schooling success jives with those situations near Troy...on average very successful.

To my understanding, as long as you can prove that the child is being given instruction and they can pass competency exams, all parents are free to handle their children's education. The local schools help provide materials, tutoring services and even laptops to facilitate the educational objectives. Some families I know wanted to home school, but their jobs prevented them from doing it.

I've never heard heard anything about the school (ie- the Gov't.) trying to prevent any families from home schooling. If anything, they encourage it in this part of Ohio.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

in the UK Home schooling is neither encouraged or discouraged. But it is getting harder to do because of the child protection policies.Parents by and large have to source their own teaching materials . My sister also home schools my nieces and nephew. It was because of the bullies at school who made their lives miserable. However the children have very much been better off as a result and are doing exceptionally well. All of the children are doing material well beyond their ages in terms of the core subjects.

But most importantly they now have a much more leisurely and wholesome family life. Because they dont have the daily hassle of rushing too and from school they have a 4 day week instead of 5 and the 5th day is spent pursuing the childrens interests separate and distinct from the core subjects.

If i could do it again i would seriously consider home schooling.

Bullying is an issue around here as well. I don't know if its happening more or whether we just hear about it more, but its pretty awful for some kids. When suicide becomes an appealing option, that's a huge sign that something is out of control. The local schools have all put new zero tolerance policies into effect but our daughters say its still happens.

------------------
Bill in Dayton