Hey, @mathanxiety unfortunately you’ve misquoted me.
Re: compulsion and meaning. ‘If everyone is compelled to write a card to everyone else, most will have no meaning at all.’ was the full sentence. Splitting the sentence changes the meaning, I don’t know if you’d noticed.
Valentine’s cards can indeed have a variety of meanings and intentions, and romance wasn’t mentioned there. A lot of posters said there was a system in their school whereby if their kids wanted to send a card to someone in the class, it had to be to everyone in class. So that means you either send a card to everyone or no-one, right? Which also means if you want to make an overture of friendship to the freckly red-headed boy who likes the same stuff as you, or just big up your best mate, you must ask everyone to be your Valentine, That is compelled, because sending one is conditional on sending many, and as other PPs have said, not in the spirit of a Valentine, which means as far as I am aware ‘I like you.’ What is the meaning of the card from Sarah who told me I couldn’t come to her sleepover cos I am so fat I wouldn’t fit through her front door and which I only got cos the school said she had to send it?
Going the other direction, it could mean a kid who wanted to send a card to their one best friend also had to send one to their bully. I can see how adults might feel it’s encouraging unity, but I can also see how it’s encouraging dissonance. It’s sad some children aren’t nice to others, but not sad to acknowledge that kids know this. Wishing they didn’t have to experience social difficulties or unpleasantness isn’t the same as asking them to ignore the fact they do.
What have I just read?
How about encouraging small children to make sure their classmates don't experience rejection or exclusion or any other form of torment or bullying, and trying to bring out the best in the students so as to create a positive learning atmosphere?
Absolutely how about it. Sounds bang on. I don’t see how the two can’t co-exist. I agree we should constantly encourage our children to think of how others may feel before they act, to be nicer to each other, to include others; it should lead to a better society, and some kids apparently just don’t get that memo. I’d love it if schools could simply get this single message over - leaving people to go about their day in peace even if you don’t like them is never a bad strategy. It’s a knack some kids - and adults - just won’t learn. Just not sure how that’s furthered by blanket gestures one day a year.
What sort of a school has a culture where girls and boys as young as 9 (!) are into the boy-girl shite already?
You’ll hear no argument from me. Seem to be a lot of posters on here saying there is ‘boy-girl shite’ aplenty going on, so I don’t know that it was down to the choice of school. Perhaps we should have told him what we actually thought - that having a ‘girlfriend’ at 9 is social contagion caused by the media, retail and some parents. That’s certainly what some people would have done from the outset; my own parents wouldn’t have entertained the idea. Since she’d already asked him to go out with her, and he accepted, we felt it was better to let things be as they were, and use it as a chance to discuss attitudes towards the opposite sex. From little acorns mighty oak trees grow and all that.
There is nothing wrong with learning in childhood that everything is not for everyone. It helps to build personal resilience. Quite a few other posters have legitimately said they have concerns about the resilience of young adults that the ‘everyone is special’ narrative has led to, and I don’t see you getting up their arse.
I can think of a couple of recent examples of compelled communication and inclusion where some involved could definitely have done with building a bit of resilience. It’s a good lesson to learn early - sometimes it’s just not your day, you can’t have your way, it’s someone else’s turn. That lesson can co-exist with treating everyone as being of value and worthy of respect.