How on earth do you think these issues are presented to children?
In this case or in general? Because my impression is that this particular teacher was too preachy and perhaps too personally committed to introduce the subject in a balanced way and thus we ended up with him coming out in assembly whilst a child raised a poster to encourage him. He also seems too intransigent to deal with criticism.
In general I think there has been a lot of progress in making schools deal with bullying and exclusion. I think that is a good thing but it shouldn't become so preachy that older kids rebel against it and it should be delivered in a way that encourages open debate and reasoning.
Would you have been happy to see'religious cult is good'?
It wouldn't bother me if they were promoting how having a belief or religion is ok, as long as it wasn't promoting the intolerant aspects that some like to push. Religion (when I was at school) was about love, acceptance and tolerance. Do unto others etc. If it was a poster that promoted some religious aspects which are prejudice or promoted women being the property of men then no I wouldn't agree.
However, yet again you don't answer the questions given to you. Instead you turn it around on me. I went to a CofE school and we learnt all manner of things (except anything about homosexuality thanks to Section 28).
These lessons were about inclusion.
So yet again..... You still haven't answered my questions
In this case or in general? Because my impression is that this particular teacher was too preachy and perhaps too personally committed to introduce the subject in a balanced way and thus we ended up with him coming out in assembly whilst a child raised a poster to encourage him. He also seems too intransigent to deal with criticism.
In general I think there has been a lot of progress in making schools deal with bullying and exclusion. I think that is a good thing but it shouldn't become so preachy that older kids rebel against it and it should be delivered in a way that encourages open debate and reasoning.
Well then your impression is wrong isn't it? You have assigned the word "preachy" to the discussion.
Who is "rebelling"?
Do you work for the Daily Mail or something? You'd be good writing some of their nonsense (all) of their articles
In this case or in general? Because my impression is that this particular teacher was too preachy and perhaps too personally committed to introduce the subject in a balanced way and thus we ended up with him coming out in assembly whilst a child raised a poster to encourage him. He also seems too intransigent to deal with criticism.
In general I think there has been a lot of progress in making schools deal with bullying and exclusion. I think that is a good thing but it shouldn't become so preachy that older kids rebel against it and it should be delivered in a way that encourages open debate and reasoning.
Have the children rebelled against it?
What was wrong with a teacher telling the children he way gay so that they realised they knew a gay person?
How do you know the introduction wasn't balanced.. how do you counter Ofsted's view that these lessons are an example of Best Practice?
How was he intransigent? What things do you know that support this?
Marks will be awarded for providing evidence to support your views and not making stuff up.
In this case or in general? Because my impression is that this particular teacher was too preachy and perhaps too personally committed to introduce the subject in a balanced way and thus we ended up with him coming out in assembly whilst a child raised a poster to encourage him. He also seems too intransigent to deal with criticism.
You really are desperate to paint this guy in a negative light aren't you? Do you think you might have your own personal issues with the subject matter at hand that are colouring your ability to consider them with an element of objectivity?
In general I think there has been a lot of progress in making schools deal with bullying and exclusion. I think that is a good thing but it shouldn't become so preachy that older kids rebel against it and it should be delivered in a way that encourages open debate and reasoning.
The only person suggesting that there's any sort of 'preaching' going on is you. All this stuff you keep coming out with regarding open debate and reasoning indicates that you haven't the first idea about the way primary kids are taught. The different methods and materials used are designed to encourage exactly that sort of interaction.
You'll hopefully have read Jesaya's posts by now, which go into more detail - much better than I can.
It wouldn't bother me if they were promoting how having a belief or religion is ok, as long as it wasn't promoting the intolerant aspects that some like to push. Religion (when I was at school) was about love, acceptance and tolerance. Do unto others etc. If it was a poster that promoted some religious aspects which are prejudice or promoted women being the property of men then no I wouldn't agree.
However, yet again you don't answer the questions given to you. Instead you turn it around on me. I went to a CofE school and we learnt all manner of things (except anything about homosexuality thanks to Section 28).
These lessons were about inclusion.
So yet again..... You still haven't answered my questions
Oh so you know me better than myself then? Religion doesn't bother me unless it's used as a tool of hate and intolerance. I know plenty of people who identify as Christian. They are lovely people and even family members. They however don't have an issue with people being gay or schools teaching equality.
But if we are going to play games, I would probably say you hate the idea of children being taught about homosexuality.
The subject is set but the messages vary. Think back to when you were at school and the projects where you made posters and the like...
This thread has really started me thinking back.
It's not surprising that I'm finding it difficult to get my head around the idea of 10 year old children thinking for themselves. It's an alien concept to me.
When I was Primary School, as it was then, the focus was still on hammering home the three Rs; Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic.
Lessons were a continuous round of reading in class, spelling tests, dictation, essay writing, comprehension tests, times tables and maths tests. The odd bit of painting, art and PE were thrown in for good measure.
When I went to Secondary school virtually every subject was taught as "Read this text. Copy this from the board. Learn these facts" aka learning by rote.
Where on earth was I supposed to learn about people, and the outside world, beyond the facts and figures geography and history. My peers and family I guess.
My goodness, it seems so strange now. All academic and no real social aspect to it.
It's not surprising that I'm finding it difficult to get my head around the idea of 10 year old children thinking for themselves. It's an alien concept to me.
When I was Primary School, as it was then, the focus was still on hammering home the three Rs; Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic.
Lessons were a continuous round of reading in class, spelling tests, dictation, essay writing, comprehension tests, times tables and maths tests. The odd bit of painting, art and PE were thrown in for good measure.
When I went to Secondary school virtually every subject was taught as "Read this text. Copy this from the board. Learn these facts" aka learning by rote.
Where on earth was I supposed to learn about people, and the outside world, beyond the facts and figures geography and history. My peers and family I guess.
My goodness, it seems so strange now. All academic and no real social aspect to it.
Funny little story, i was teaching my son the times tables back when he was maybe 6-7, his teacher called me in to talk to her. She told me "We don't teach kids maths by rote anymore so please stop teaching him the tables this way".
Needless to say i had a bit of a breakdown as they were teaching poetry by rote in English. I replied "Maths is probably the only area you should teach by rote", but I used more colourful language.
I didn't say they did. I said some are likely too. They tend to do that against received wisdom when they enter their teens. It's quite a well known phenomenon.
What was wrong with a teacher telling the children he way gay so that they realised they knew a gay person?
How do you know the introduction wasn't balanced.. how do you counter Ofsted's view that these lessons are an example of Best Practice?
I believe that was the lesson plans not the lessons. Nor was a teacher coming out at assembly then criticising their religions in the press part of the lesson plan - I hope.
How was he intransigent? What things do you know that support this?
. He said he was.
He said " following my coming out some parents from different communities complained to the school, but I maintain that my decision was the right one at the time".
No room for debate there.
Marks will be awarded for providing evidence to support your views and not making stuff up.
Marks will also be rewarded for a lack of gratuitous rudeness. Do you think you can earn any?
It's not surprising that I'm finding it difficult to get my head around the idea of 10 year old children thinking for themselves. It's an alien concept to me.
When I was Primary School, as it was then, the focus was still on hammering home the three Rs; Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic.
Lessons were a continuous round of reading in class, spelling tests, dictation, essay writing, comprehension tests, times tables and maths tests. The odd bit of painting, art and PE were thrown in for good measure.
When I went to Secondary school virtually every subject was taught as "Read this text. Copy this from the board. Learn these facts" aka learning by rote.
Where on earth was I supposed to learn about people, and the outside world, beyond the facts and figures geography and history. My peers and family I guess.
My goodness, it seems so strange now. All academic and no real social aspect to it.
When did you go to school? I went in the 60s & early 70s and it wasn't all by rote then by any means. Some was of course - especially maths; but I can remember other classes being very interactive.
You really are desperate to paint this guy in a negative light aren't you? Do you think you might have your own personal issues with the subject matter at hand that are colouring your ability to consider them with an element of objectivity?
nope. Do you think you might have biases in this area that cloud your views?
I didn't say they did. I said some are likely too. They tend to do that against received wisdom when they enter their teens. It's quite a well known phenomenon.
I believe that was the lesson plans not the lessons. Nor was a teacher coming out at assembly then criticising their religions in the press part of the lesson plan - I hope.
. He said he was.
He said " following my coming out some parents from different communities complained to the school, but I maintain that my decision was the right one at the time".
No room for debate there.
Marks will also be rewarded for a lack of gratuitous rudeness. Do you think you can earn any?
Where did he criticise their religion? He mentioned two particular ones.
Rudeness? I would say Jeseya has been a bloody saint, answering your comments.
Oh so you know me better than myself then? Religion doesn't bother me unless it's used as a tool of hate and intolerance. I know plenty of people who identify as Christian. They are lovely people and even family members. They however don't have an issue with people being gay or schools teaching equality.
But if we are going to play games, I would probably say you hate the idea of children being taught about homosexuality.
advisors
Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised
Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.
Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised
Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.
Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
Ok.
and the point of this copy/paste job is?
are you declaring that you belong to a religious cult?
I didn't say they did. I said some are likely too. They tend to do that against received wisdom when they enter their teens. It's quite a well known phenomenon.
So there is no point in teaching children at all then, as they could rebel as teens?
I believe that was the lesson plans not the lessons. Nor was a teacher coming out at assembly then criticising their religions in the press part of the lesson plan - I hope.
Unless you were in those lessons then the lesson plans are all the evidence we have.
As for coming out at assembly - my head teacher announced she was getting married at an assembly... other teachers announced they were having babies. Teachers announce things at assembly all the time. Is it just that he told them he was gay you have a problem with... if so, why?
He said he was.
He said " following my coming out some parents from different communities complained to the school, but I maintain that my decision was the right one at the time".
No room for debate there.
He said he maintained his position (to come out) was the right one - ie he did not consider it to be wrong. That's not intransigence... what you are doing on this thread is a classic example of it though... repeating the same fabrications despite facts being pointed out to you..
Marks will also be rewarded for a lack of gratuitous rudeness. Do you think you can earn any?
I am sorry if you feel offended by some gentle sarcasm - perhaps I would be able to resist if you would stop making stuff up.
How many times does this thread need to go in a cycle of myth peddling and myth dispelling before people are willing to accept that they got it wrong. It seems like some posters want there to be some big gay indoctrination conspiracy.
When did you go to school? I went in the 60s & early 70s and it wasn't all by rote then by any means. Some was of course - especially maths; but I can remember other classes being very interactive.
I was at school in the 60s & 70s as well.
Looks like I may have misunderstood "learning by rote" (I told you it was a long time ago), as in learning by repetition, I actually meant just learning facts and figures from text books, and stuff written up either on the blackboard or on well worn pieces of A3 paper pinned on the woodwork.
Subjects like science & technology couldn't really be taught that way but some subjects like history still seemed to be taught in that way, especially when the teacher would set you copying things down then left the room for a kip.
Oh dear, a typo; and I can't blame my poor literacy on my teacher. Our English teacher in primary school (age 5-11years) never discussed sex with us; if he had, we would not have known what he was talking about anyway.
Comments
Would you have been happy to see'religious cult is good'?
In general I think there has been a lot of progress in making schools deal with bullying and exclusion. I think that is a good thing but it shouldn't become so preachy that older kids rebel against it and it should be delivered in a way that encourages open debate and reasoning.
Sure.
I would write to complain about their literacy skills though, getting one letter wrong like that. ;-)
Don't see why not, if it's in a positive and inclusive context.
It wouldn't bother me if they were promoting how having a belief or religion is ok, as long as it wasn't promoting the intolerant aspects that some like to push. Religion (when I was at school) was about love, acceptance and tolerance. Do unto others etc. If it was a poster that promoted some religious aspects which are prejudice or promoted women being the property of men then no I wouldn't agree.
However, yet again you don't answer the questions given to you. Instead you turn it around on me. I went to a CofE school and we learnt all manner of things (except anything about homosexuality thanks to Section 28).
These lessons were about inclusion.
So yet again..... You still haven't answered my questions
Well then your impression is wrong isn't it? You have assigned the word "preachy" to the discussion.
Who is "rebelling"?
Do you work for the Daily Mail or something? You'd be good writing some of their nonsense (all) of their articles
Have the children rebelled against it?
What was wrong with a teacher telling the children he way gay so that they realised they knew a gay person?
How do you know the introduction wasn't balanced.. how do you counter Ofsted's view that these lessons are an example of Best Practice?
How was he intransigent? What things do you know that support this?
Marks will be awarded for providing evidence to support your views and not making stuff up.
You really are desperate to paint this guy in a negative light aren't you? Do you think you might have your own personal issues with the subject matter at hand that are colouring your ability to consider them with an element of objectivity?
The only person suggesting that there's any sort of 'preaching' going on is you. All this stuff you keep coming out with regarding open debate and reasoning indicates that you haven't the first idea about the way primary kids are taught. The different methods and materials used are designed to encourage exactly that sort of interaction.
You'll hopefully have read Jesaya's posts by now, which go into more detail - much better than I can.
Part of his defence was"the children had a poster with'gay is good'written on it'he's the one making a defence of his actions.
He's not defending his actions. He's describing what happened. Huge difference.
The fact you think he needs to defend / was defending himself speaks volumes to the way you think.
I'm sure you would.
Oh so you know me better than myself then? Religion doesn't bother me unless it's used as a tool of hate and intolerance. I know plenty of people who identify as Christian. They are lovely people and even family members. They however don't have an issue with people being gay or schools teaching equality.
But if we are going to play games, I would probably say you hate the idea of children being taught about homosexuality.
This thread has really started me thinking back.
It's not surprising that I'm finding it difficult to get my head around the idea of 10 year old children thinking for themselves. It's an alien concept to me.
When I was Primary School, as it was then, the focus was still on hammering home the three Rs; Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic.
Lessons were a continuous round of reading in class, spelling tests, dictation, essay writing, comprehension tests, times tables and maths tests. The odd bit of painting, art and PE were thrown in for good measure.
When I went to Secondary school virtually every subject was taught as "Read this text. Copy this from the board. Learn these facts" aka learning by rote.
Where on earth was I supposed to learn about people, and the outside world, beyond the facts and figures geography and history. My peers and family I guess.
My goodness, it seems so strange now. All academic and no real social aspect to it.
Funny little story, i was teaching my son the times tables back when he was maybe 6-7, his teacher called me in to talk to her. She told me "We don't teach kids maths by rote anymore so please stop teaching him the tables this way".
Needless to say i had a bit of a breakdown as they were teaching poetry by rote in English. I replied "Maths is probably the only area you should teach by rote", but I used more colourful language.
When did you go to school? I went in the 60s & early 70s and it wasn't all by rote then by any means. Some was of course - especially maths; but I can remember other classes being very interactive.
Do you think you have a bias here or is it just willful ignorance or an agenda against equality being taught?
advisors
Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised
Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.
Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
Ok.
and the point of this copy/paste job is?
are you declaring that you belong to a religious cult?
So there is no point in teaching children at all then, as they could rebel as teens?
Unless you were in those lessons then the lesson plans are all the evidence we have.
As for coming out at assembly - my head teacher announced she was getting married at an assembly... other teachers announced they were having babies. Teachers announce things at assembly all the time. Is it just that he told them he was gay you have a problem with... if so, why?
He said he maintained his position (to come out) was the right one - ie he did not consider it to be wrong. That's not intransigence... what you are doing on this thread is a classic example of it though... repeating the same fabrications despite facts being pointed out to you..
I am sorry if you feel offended by some gentle sarcasm - perhaps I would be able to resist if you would stop making stuff up.
I was at school in the 60s & 70s as well.
Looks like I may have misunderstood "learning by rote" (I told you it was a long time ago), as in learning by repetition, I actually meant just learning facts and figures from text books, and stuff written up either on the blackboard or on well worn pieces of A3 paper pinned on the woodwork.
Subjects like science & technology couldn't really be taught that way but some subjects like history still seemed to be taught in that way, especially when the teacher would set you copying things down then left the room for a kip.