Out of interest is there anyone else who thinks that schools do things that should be left to parents?

[hurricane]

Do you object to the following being carried out by appropriate professionals in schools (assuming you are kept informed of these things taking place and results of any tests etc)?

1.) vaccinations (like BCG)
2.) eye tests/ dental checks
3.) PSHE
4.) sex education
5.) cooking classes/ healthy eating
6.) PE

If yes, why?

[hurricane]

You're missing my points I'm NOT talking about indoctrination. This is NOT what schools do or shouldn't. As I've said they are very much about exploring, challenging, researching and discussing. Global warming/ climate change is a fact. We SHOULD be concerned about it. Children SHOULD be presented with the evidence. By all means give them different interpretations too and allow them to discuss and make up their own minds. This IS what happens in schools.

I'm sure people disputed that the world was round or that gravity existed and some people continue to dispute evolution. It's our job to present children with the evidence and allow them to discuss and make up their own minds.

The fact that most people in this country are meat eaters does not mean that children and everyone should not be told of the damage (health and environment) of eating meat does for fear of their sensitivities. Quite the opposite. That is NOT the same as telling them that they should not eat meat. It should be DISCUSSED the same way you might well discuss evolution or recycling or sugar or anything else.

In fact, it is interesting and revealing (and more of that same slight paranoia that imagines our schools are 'interfering' and 'taking over') that some of you assume that by my saying that kids and all of us should know where meat comes from I am saying that they should be told not to eat meat or anything else. Schools and teachers are not allowed to do these things rightly so and it's not helpful either. As I've said give them the facts and differnt viewpoints and then let them discuss and decide.

BTW I didn't meant to sound insensitive about the vegetarian thing. I wouldn't be happy if my kids had been shown disturbing images etc at school and I don't think schools should be doing this.

There's more likelihood of kids coming acorss horrible images about animal experimentation etc in their local town centre. When I was 7 I had nightmares about nuclear war and this was because of what FRIENDS had told me. Their version was much more emotive and disturbing than if I had learned about this at school. But nuclear war IS scary. I still worry about it.

7 year olds/ kids are sensitive and easily disturbed. We bring them up to have a highly developed sense of right and wrong and they mostly feel that the world is a good place where adults intervene to stop bad things happening. Of course, they'll be upset when they find out about animal cruelty, terrorism, global warming. And they're right to be. As adults most of us get to hardened to this sort of bad news.

My dc had nightmares when she saw Happy Feet and now runs around turning off water and lights for fear of the penguins dying out. The thing is children can get upset by things they pick up anywhere. Much, much better in my view to get these things talked about properly under adult supervision and get facts. And my dc is right to tell us to turn off lights and water. Good on her!

[nooka]

Don't think you can really call climate change an ideology though. It's now accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. Aren't Penn and Teller comedians? I can't see why their opinions should really be relevant.

[nooka]

I think it'as very problematic for children when parents and schools differ on ideology. For example dh has a major problem with authority because the school he was sent to (on scholarship) was quite strict, and his mother wasn't and didn't follow through on their requests (for example to cut his hair). However mostly it's just individuals that throw up the extremes, and that's just poor teaching IMO. We had a rabidly vegetarian teacher once who showed us terrible videos about killing animals - luckily as my mother had already done biology with us after accidentally running over rabbits (then we ate them) it didn't phase me, but I think it did upset some of my classmates. However the teacher was spoken to severely about it and left the school shortly after. If I had been a parent of those children I would have been furious, but she wasn't exactly following the NC was she?

[emmaagain]

But Hurricane, those things aren't universally accepted. you may feel strongly that global warming is a big problem (I think we are supposed to call it climate change now, btw) but Penn and Teller don't agree with you, to take just an obvious exception. So Penn and Teller are going to be unhappy about their children being taught according to your ideology.

The vegetarian thing is much more clear cut. What's the proportion of vegetarians in this country? 20% maybe? Total guess. But if it's in that ball park, then 80% of parents are not particularly going to want their children indoctrinated/enlightened about vegetarianism

If a parent's ideology isn't a good fit with that of the school of their chilren, then that might be a problem

[juuule]

I'm sorry Hurricane, but your seeming lack of empathy for young children has just made my blood run cold.
"but 7 year olds will have nightmares about anything."
Well, that's okay then.
I am so glad I removed her from school.

[hurricane]

Yeah, I take your points but 7 year olds will have nightmares about anything. And frankly global warming is something we should all be having nightmares about. Same with eating meat. There is good evidence to suggest it's not for our health to eat it or for the environment to rear it. Why shouldn't 10 yr olds know where it comes from? And why shouldn't she be disgusted? Mine do at 3 and 5. though granted I wouldn't want them to see pictures. They're vegeterians by the way.

[juuule]

And that's another thing. Teaching primary children about global warming. Having 7yo who wakes with nightmares because she is convinced the world is about to end and we are all evil people for having cars.

A 10yo neice who stopped eating meat completely after an in-depth lesson about where that meat came from. Who was disgusted with her parents because they had a Sunday roast. Took a while for that one to settle.

[juuule]

Well, BCG was very important at one time, but isn't given in school (in our area, anyway)now and we are told that the pct knows best, despite rising numbers of TB.

When my eldest ds went to nursery it was very informal and very relaxed. Over the years it changed into a more formal environment because evidence showed children learned better that way. Recent evidence seems to be pointing back at the more informal approach.

And back at the cookery classes. I can't say that the food technology course is better at teaching to cook than the cookery classes that I had at school. And now that seems to be returning back to the old way.

[emmaagain]

The hockey stick climate change graph (old example, not current)

[hurricane]

For example?

[juuule]

Evidence also seems to be picked out to support whatever the latest fad is.

[juuule]

Well perhaps I've become a little cynical about some things, then, after having children in schools over 17years and seeing how 'initiatives' chop and change with seemingly very little logic.

[hurricane]

Agree with all in your last post Juule.

About this in your previous post though:

'I think the biggest problem I have with a lot of things introduced through schools is the way it appears to be dictated that this is the right way and it will be done, it isn't introduced as a helpful thing more as a diktat. That all children need to be protected from their parents in some way and that those parents should be taken out of the equation at the soonest opportunity.'

I really don't agree with this. Education is so much more about exploring, independent thinking and challenging than it ever, ever was. And I'm saying this out of my experience as a teacher. Even if you look at a GCSE or A Level exam paper you get so many more questions worded, 'What in your opinion...', 'Based on your wider reading what do you consider...' One of the Assessment objectives for A Level lit is to do with students considering different interpretations and making their own independent judgement.

There are so many things that you're just not allowed to say in the classroom any more that would have been commonplace in the 60s and rightly so. i.e. value judgements, a sense that there is a best way to teach and learn etc etc. There's far less chalk and talk and much more research, discussion etc.

And this applies to sex ed as much as teaching Hamlet.

Having said that, we do live in an era which has access to more scientific knowledge etc than ever before and you can't ignore the facts. If there is clear evidence that a low sugar, low fat diet is healthy then I have no problem with my kids being told this or with a teacher sharing this evidence with them. Likewise with vaccinations or anything else which can be clearly supported with evicence. This is education isn't it?

[juuule]

I'm nitpicking?

"I know they learn bad stuff as well"
Yes they do.

"but their peers are often as important influences as us."
Their peers may be important but not as important as the adults who are more experienced in life than their peers.
Do you have teenage children? Believe me some of their peers and the things they learn off them could make you wake in the night in a cold sweat. Maybe when it's not your own child you are not that emotionally involved but when it is your own it's a completely different matter.

And as forwhat they see, hear, are taught I think it's impossible to control every aspect of this and rightly so. But I still consider it part of my job as a parent to protect my children from some things that I think they are not mature enough to deal with.

[hurricane]

juule, one thing I've been getting at but I'll now spell out is how mcuh kids learn from each other. Yes, I know they learn bad stuff as well but their peers are often as important influences as us.

It's not that the input of trained professionals is necessariyl 'better' than the parents (though in mayn cases it is) but that it's differnt. It offers differnt perspectives. School should be about reinforcing and exploring and sometimes challenging ideas kids recieve from all over.

And what's wrong with saying that there are people out there who are beter at cooking? Or know more about the effects of alcholoL? than I am.

As I've said I'm confident enough in my own parenting and my kids not to feel the need to control everything they see, hear and are tuaght and to know that they need others' insight and expertise.

[hurricane]

Juule, you're nit-picking I really don't care whether nutrition is taught in biology or cooking preferably both. As long as it's taught.

'Surely the best people to know what they need to know are parents who need to know something.'

I wish that were true and for many it is. My expereicne as a teacher says different. The most dangerous parents are the ones who think they know it all and don't. The best parents are often the ones confident enough to admit they don't know it all and allow their kids to listen to views that may challenge their own.

'It would be nice if they had somewhere to go to ask questions and learn."

Agreed and there are. I've listed them too many times to bother again.

'I also went on to say that many new parents (especially the most vulneralbe) probably don't have the time, the resources or the motivation to learn how to cook and heat healthily."
This comes across as something of a condescending presumption.'

I don't think it's condescending. I did say 'many' parents and I did say 'probably' and I did say 'especiall the most vulnerable'. Of course, there are exceptions but I've never met a new mum (esp a vulnerable one) who decides to go on a cooking and nutrition course immediately after giving birth. I certainyl didn't. It's often the most vulnerable mums and those least able to afford it (as well as the rest) who get exploited by the wretched baby food industry and end up getting baby jars at great cost to themselves and the environemnt.

[juuule]

"does not make it any less worthwhile having this stuff repeated at school by people trained to do it."
Aaargh. See another example of the assumption that children need these things from 'trained people' who are so much better than that second rate model - the parent.

And why by not having these tests at school would that stop a concerned teacher communicating a concern to the parents?

Got to dash. School pick-up.

[hurricane]

'"Middle class, educated and well off parents generally need less support."

jesus christ how up your own arse can you get.'

Custardo, I can't believe you accuse ME of being rude and condescending. It's so obviousl that a mother who is middle-class, educated and well off is LIKELY to need less support than someone who isn't. And generally more able to find and access the sorts of support that are available without intervention.

That's not to say that there aren't many examples of middle-class people who aren't struggling. But generally you're MORE LIKELY to struggle if, for example, you're a single-mother who left school at 15 to have a baby and are living off benefits than if you're a 30 year old woman in a stable relationship who has a degree and a job.

I'm beginning to think you're just picking an argument for the sake of it.

'with the" i havent got time to take my kid for injections that could save her life....but i'm middle class and i know what i'm doing"'

'so you ARE saying that its poor people who ned the clases

riiiiiiiiiight '

I suppose your implication here is that:

a) I'm a bad parent because I have been putting of getting my dc her MMR booster (I do intend to do this by the way so no need to call the NSPCC quite yet).

b) that if I'd had a few parenting classes I would have been more likely to have done this.

This is funny, Custardo, it really is.

Custardo, you may be a perfect parent in every way but most of us aren't. I realize now that you feel totally able to educate your children about cooking, about sex and relationships and spot any health problem they may have such as short-sightedness better than anyone else in the whole world and indeed without the support of your school or the professionals who visit it. Perhaps your perfection means that you assume such high standards of others? I don't know.

Most of us cannot say that we're perfect parents. Most of us have times or areas where we rely on the input of others to help educate and care for our children. And when I say 'educate' I mean in all areas of life. Not just about photosynthesis but about playing nicely. Not just about adding up but about budgeting. I think this is normal and I think this is ok.

You have been given countless examples of real parents who have valued the intervention of schools and the professionals who visit it. Martianbishop and Nooka and eyesight. Me and cooking etc etc.

As I keep saying and you keep ignoring the fact that parents may teach and care for their kids at home (about sex, about drugs, about cooking) does not make it any less worthwhile having this stuff repeated at school by people trained to do it.

Although I do all of this and agree with you that all parents should do this with their kids all the time, I am not big-headed/ naive/ enough to realize that other people (especially professionals trained in the areas of sex education or cooking of swimming or checking eyesight) may be able to give my kids insights that I can't. I am also not naive enough to believe that every parent is able to do this stuff or would be with a few parenting classes.

Can you not see that there is a value alone in schools offering safe and supervised spaces for kids to discuss issues like sex or drugs in the classroom without their mums and dads?

Have you never been in a position where your kids have refused to learn or do something with you but then merrily done or learned the thing with someone else e.g. at school probably PRECISELY because that person was not their mother?

Can you not see that there are professionals like teachers (trained to do PSHE) or eye-test ladies who might actually be able to do things for your kids that you can't?

And you can be a good parent. A great parent without being able to do everything. What parent can be sporty, academic, a great cook, offer a balanced diet and advice on nutrition, able to know and teach the ins and outs of every drug, able to spot every health problem and changes in eyesight all of the time?

You're not a bad parent because you don't teach your kids how to cook (like my mum who relied on ready meals or us to do our own cooking) and you're not a bad parent because you don't spot your kid is short-sighted before a trained professional (like nooka).

As I've said it is a minority of parents who find the fact that schools repeat what they may do at home threatening or interfering. You (revealingly) used the words 'taking over' and 'interfering' I think.

[juuule]

I have re-read what you posted and I still have a few difficulties with it.

"And by the way new research says that what a woman eats during the year before she becomes pregnant (esp folic acid) has an impact on her pregnancy and child so this is absolutely key."
Isn't this also covered in biology? Not that I've anything against cookery lessons which don't consist of assembling a pizza, putting together a chocolate milkshake or 'designing a sandwich' with a smattering of 'this is a good food and that is a bad food'.

"Human beings ARE most able to learn when they are young. Fact."
I think I'd dispute that one.

Also, I'll c/p the whole of that sentence.
"Anything a parent needs to know (and most of what parents need to know is essential or valuable to everyone like healthy eating and communicating and adding up and managing difficult behaviour) should be (and generally is) taught in school when education is compulsory, where human beings are most able to learn and are most receptive and where most kids are not yet parents."
While you are correct in pointing out a lot of facts they don't hang together very well.
"Anything a parent needs to know" is a sweeping statement to say this could be provided in school. Surely the best people to know what they need to know are parents who need to know something. It would be nice if they had somewhere to go to ask questions and learn."

I think you'll find that most parents stuck into compulsory parenting classes when they're already parents (many with limited childcare help and many with jobs) would be pretty bloody unreceptive.
Agree. See my previous post.

"Whereas most kids love doing cooking lessons at school, they like learning about sex and relationships etc and would probably much rather do these things than apostrophes."

They'd probably prefer to do subjects they enjoy rather than those they don't but I can't see them being given that option. Some would prefer to do apostrophes rather than condoms on a banana at 13 in front of the rest of the class.

"If you've read the rest of this you would have went on to say in terms of the impact of maternal nutrition on the developing child. Of course, it's never to late to eat healthily but if you're already pregnant or about to be and have been smoking 40 a day and eating nothing but MacDonalds the damage is already done."

Again can be covered in Biology.
Will repeat, as above, that I've no objection to cookery lessons that teach you how to cook.

"I also went on to say that many new parents (especially the most vulneralbe) probably don't have the time, the resources or the motivation to learn how to cook and heat healthily."
This comes across as something of a condescending presumption.

I think the biggest problem I have with a lot of things introduced through schools is the way it appears to be dictated that this is the right way and it will be done, it isn't introduced as a helpful thing more as a diktat. That all children need to be protected from their parents in some way and that those parents should be taken out of the equation at the soonest opportunity.

[hurricane]

juule, with respect, I don't think you read my post very carefully

'why do you think these classes would be more beneficial to secondary age children with no children of their own?'

What I've said was parenting is so complex and multi-facted that you can't condense the teaching of good parenting into a series of classes. But also that any knowledge and skills which are valuable to a parent are almost certainly valuable to anyone (some people become parents when they're least expecting it and many, many of us have a role working or coming into contact with children and young people). Just think yourself what you would include in parenting classes.

Well, you might include cooking and nutrition (so let's teach this in school - oh, this is already being done). And by the way new research says that what a woman eats during the year before she becomes pregnant (esp folic acid) has an impact on her pregnancy and child so this is absolutely key.

You might include dealing with others with respect and managing difficult behaviour (this is probably partly done in PSHE but could be better and is certainly essential to everyone).

You might include organisation skills (PSHE) and budgeting (maths) and communication (English) and so on...
Get my drift?

'"taught in school when education is compulsory, where human beings are most able to learn and are most receptive and where most kids are not yet parents."

So many things wrong with this statement that I'm not sure where to begin.'

What is wrong with it?

Education IS compulsory pre-sixteen. Fact. Human beings ARE most able to learn when they are young. Fact. Most kids are not yet parents when they're at school. Fact.

'I think human beings are most able to learn when they are interested in something regardless of age or location.
Ditto receptiveness.'

No argument there.

I think you'll find that most parents stuck into compulsory parenting classes when they're already parents (many with limited childcare help and many with jobs) would be pretty bloody unreceptive. I would be. Whereas most kids love doing cooking lessons at school, they like learning about sex and relationships etc and would probably much rather do these things than apostrophes.

'I'm not sure why teaching children not yet parents is preferable to teaching parents. While some might take note, sadly quite a lot wouldn't retain the info as they wouldn't consider it applied to them.'

I think I've explained this earlier. The skills and knowledge essential to parents is by and large essential to eeryone. And the sooner they learn it e.g. the value of nutrioton, how to communicate + about family planning and sex the better fro everyone.

'"If you don't know how to eat healthily and cook by the time you are a parent it's already too late"
This statement is untrue.'

If you've read the rest of this you would have went on to say in terms of the impact of maternal nutrition on the developing child. Of course, it's never to late to eat healthily but if you're already pregnant or about to be and have been smoking 40 a day and eating nothing but MacDonalds the damage is already done. I also went on to say that many new parents (especially the most vulneralbe) probably don't have the time, the resources or the motivation to learn how to cook and heat healthily.

[Tortington]

Emotional Health and Wellbeing;

this should be my job as a parent

Nutrition and Physical Activity;

this should be my job as a parent

Personal Finance;

agreed - cross departental - maths - this is what i studied at school ..apr etc

Safety;
the school should have its safety proceedures, this is rather a wide context - personal safety should be my job as a parent.

Sex and Relationship Education.

should be my job as a parent.

Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco;

should be my job as a parent

[Tortington]

"Middle class, educated and well off parents generally need less support."

jesus christ how up your own arse can you get.

with the" i havent got time to take my kid for injections that could save her life....but i'm middle class and i know what i'm doing"

so you ARE saying that its poor people who ned the clases

riiiiiiiiiight

[juuule]

Nooka, I also think that compulsory parenting classes wouldn't go down well. I also think that parenting classes would be more likely to be taken up depending on the way they were presented.
I'm not even sure what format they would take. Perhaps a course going over different parenting methods. Perhaps a drop-in type thing for parents to discuss. Perhaps private appointments for people with specific situations.
Didn't Faber and Mazlish do parenting sessions (not sure which country) which were successful?
Perhaps something along those lines.

[nooka]

I can't belive so much effort has gone into some of the posts here! If someone said that my carefully though out arguments made me a "rudey rude rude person from rudesville" I'd be flouncing. But I guess as a teacher of teenagers Hurrican must be innured to such stuff

Compulsary parenting classes should be reserved for those obviously failing. I would find them incredibly annoying and I can't believe many people would turn up to them without huge bribes or sanctions. More support being availabel to those in need or those who actively want such things is another matter, and maybe what custardo is after is more support for parents of older children (as opposed to babies). That probably wouldn't be a bad thing, although again to make sense in terms of resources it would probably be focused at deprived areas.

I am happy for all the "non educational" activities listed to happen at aschool, although I'm not sure about vaccinations for tiddlies, but then my children didn't start at school until they were five, and they've had all their jabs. My ds's long sightedness was picked up by the school nurse (even though we had taken him to the optician twice with all clears) as was my shortsightedness. Nothing wrong with another test, and it's an efficient way to do it.

[juuule]

Hurricane -If I could just point out a couple of things you say that puzzle me.
You say
"As I've said already good parenting is so complex and multi-faceted that to imagine you could 'teach' it in a series of classes alone is ridiculous and desperately condescending."

So why do you think these classes would be more beneficial to secondary age children with no children of their own?

"taught in school when education is compulsory, where human beings are most able to learn and are most receptive and where most kids are not yet parents."

So many things wrong with this statement that I'm not sure where to begin.
I think human beings are most able to learn when they are interested in something regardless of age or location.
Ditto receptiveness.
I'm not sure why teaching children not yet parents is preferable to teaching parents. While some might take note, sadly quite a lot wouldn't retain the info as they wouldn't consider it applied to them.

"If you don't know how to eat healthily and cook by the time you are a parent it's already too late"
This statement is untrue. I know people who couldn't cook who soon learned after they had children because they were then concerned about their child in a way that they hadn't even considered themselves previously. It's never too late to learn.

I do think that your posts contain some sweeping generalisations.