to be unimpressed by dd's teacher's explanation to her reception class about the strike tomorrow?

[littleducks]

DD is very good at quoting exactly, usually employed to embarass me! Although I admit the context is often lost.

Apparently dd's teacher told her that her class won't be coming in tomorrow as 'the government is taking away their (teacher's) money and making the work on and on and on'

DD wanted to know what the goverment is and why they were stealing the teachers money at bedtime.

I had told her she had tomorrow off previously, but hadnt gioven any explanantion really just said it was a 'holiday' like I had for the inset day next Mon.

threefeethigh, it's one thing to decide that you want to bring your own children up to be politically engaged. It's quite another for a reception teacher to decide that it's her job to offer a political slant on "facts". She shouldn't have done it. She should have explained that school was going to be closed for a sort of extra bank holiday (or something) and left parents to decide whether or not they want to go into the detail of strikes. After all, not all parents are in favour of the strike. I would personally be peeved if my children's schools were shutting tomorrow.

Knobby - when some facts are given privilege over other facts which are omitted, then the line between fact and opinion becomes blurred.

See I even prefer Slambang's version (though Major's is still the best imo)

YANBU to want to shield your DD from the shit that is the world, but I'm afraid it's like trying to stem the flow of fruitshoots running to the DC whilst their mum is MNing on a Friday afternoon.

Just not going to happen.

I don't think the teacher gave a "slant". She used simple language to explain what the strike was about. What is inaccurate, or left out?

It's not about the teacher answering honestly though is it? It's a teacher imparting her political opinions about our government onto easily influenced children who are not of age to understand this to it's full capacity.

explaining that the school is shut because of some 'extra bank holiday' is a lie

explaining that the government wants to break the promise (contract) they had made with teachers about whathappens when they stop working, that's true

seems simple to me

iggitwotimes, "'the government is taking away their (teacher's) money and making the work on and on and on". You don't call that a slant?

She could equally have said "the teachers are expecting to be the only ones not affected by government cutbacks, and are angry because they are now losing something too." For some people, this is a fact. Others would interpret it as ... slanted.

This is why teachers of small children should steer completely clear of conveying "facts" like this.

a political slant would be to continue with...
'and children, I will be joining in with this strike because I think that's the best/only thing to do, so I hope you will all agree with me'

Well said Quin.

(I speak as a university teacher who has repeatedly refused to strike. My job is to teach students. If I am the only person in the department, that is fine by me).

Shallishanti - in fact, it would be better in a way if she had said that. At least it would then have been clear that it was her opinion and belief, rather than a fact. (Though I still think small children are far too young for that kind of stuff, and it would be more appropriate for children of 10+, who could at least try to work out their own opinions in response).

Well I more or less said exactly the same to dd about the strike tomorrow. Explained that there were plans to make teachers pay more into pensions and they'd probably have to work until they are granny's age.

She said that "that's not very nice".

I agreed.

The teacher only expressed her motivation for going on strike she didn't convey the other side of the argument e.g. everyone is being hit by cuts due to a significant economic downturn. So she gave the children a biased account.

If she had said something like

• the Government who are in charge of the country decide how money should be shared out between people when they finish working. The Government want to change the way the money is shared out because they don't have as much money as they expected. I don't think they are being fair to teachers and so tomorrow I am going to tell them I don't think it is fair.

It would at least be more balanced.

Parents who take what their children have said word for word (shes in Reception lets be realistic here) usually end up with egg on their face.

Not sur what better definition could have been given. Opinion doesn't enter into hard facts. She hasn't told them to think its wrong. Children know taking something that isn't theirs is wrong.

They are taking away their money. They are asking them to work longer. I don't see what the problem is.
Saying those things doesn't even commit you to saying you think it is a good/bad thing. Just fact, in simple language as befits the audience.

I disagree passionately that a 5 year old cannot understand that different people believe different things i.e. have differing opinions and viewpoints. They may not understand more complicated aspects of what an opinion might involve on a given subject, but they can readily grasp that I might believe something different to someone else.

I also do not think that describing the teachers as striking because the governement are taking away their money and making them work on and on is a slant. That is what is happening. The teachers being angry at also being affected by the cutbacks is an adjunct. Unless I am mistaken and the government is not reducing their money by increasing pension contibutions and raising their retirement age?

She's left out the bits about people living longer now, that there's not enough in the pension pot to pay them and no matter how many fairytales you read, there really aren't pots of gold at the end of rainbows. Of course, this is all rather complex for little minds to grasp, but my point is she gave the OPs DD and her classmates a nasty and negative impression of the government, when in reality the whole pensions situation is so much messier than she's making out. She couldn't have presented the whole and balanced picture, both sides of the coin, as it would be even more confusing, so she'd have been better saying nothing at all about it. I hate it when my colleagues do things like this...

Not sure why lying to the class - ie telling them it's an 'extra bank holiday' or similar - is better than telling them it's a strike? You can quibble with the details of how the teacher explained the nature of the dispute, but I don't see why she should have to lie to her pupils about why the school is closed.

i told my son aged 5 the truth, in a way he would understand...little sod then said i am not cleaning up my toys as i am on strike

Not all the teachers are angry/striking though Ismeyes.

I don't think that Thru, its what Quin said.

I'm a nurse, there are plenty of us who are angry and not striking.

He needs to get himself in a union then, pronto.

On the 'it's a very complex issue, should've given a more balanced explanation' front - this is more the view I would take with older kids. These are 5 year olds - do we seriously expect them to grasp the nature of pension planning and government fiscal responsibility? I think the teacher could have done a lot worse.

Or a slant from the other side perhaps "teachers are unhappy because the government have said the public can't afford to bankroll earlier retirement after shorter contracted working hours for some of the population when the majority are working longer and paying more." Everyone has a slant that is life