Quite a lot of literature is propagandist material. We read Animal Farm when I was in year 6 for example. But it's a big leap to describe this guy's work as propaganda simply because it carries a message of tolerance. All literature carries a message.
You're also assuming that using this guy's book means children won't be introduced to objective thinking etc but u can't see any evidence for that in the articles.
There is evidence to the contrary in the lesson plan I linked though - it is all about getting the children to ask questions and think about/discuss what they have read.
Edit - I have just read the full lesson plan - the teacher didn't write the books, he wrote the lesson plans for them. The books are all children's texts about difference and respecting it... including works by authors like Eric Carle (famous for the very hungry caterpillar); Nick Butterworth (The Whisperer, which won the Nestle Prize in 2005) and Michael Rosen - who was the British Children's Laureate.
In addition, the twenty lesson plans cover from Reception to years 1-6... three lessons per year.
So, we have a teacher creating a programme of lesson plans using books written by well known and influential authors. Shocking.
This Moffat guy got what he wanted from this-publicity- if he really cared about his class he would have chosen another book or some other means of conducting his class. Acceptance covers a wide range of life; now everyone knows who he is and that he's written books on the subject.
This Moffat guy got what he wanted from this-publicity- if he really cared about his class he would have chosen another book or some other means of conducting his class. Acceptance covers a wide range of life; now everyone knows who he is and that he's written books on the subject.
So now you are just speculating things that have not been confirmed? You have no idea how he felt about his class
Making it legal doesn't make it more acceptable to people.
Young children don't bother at all about people who are gay and married. Some 'devoted' religious people are against it because it goes against they think they should think in order to get to heaven. I think it's pretty easy to see which ones are the most good in heart. Some religious people can be really spiteful and nasty because of their belief that thinking this way will get them to heaven.
This Moffat guy got what he wanted from this-publicity- if he really cared about his class he would have chosen another book or some other means of conducting his class. Acceptance covers a wide range of life; now everyone knows who he is and that he's written books on the subject.
Except he didn't write the book, he wrote the lesson plan. The book was this one
I have just read the full lesson plan - the teacher didn't write any of the books, he wrote the lesson plans for them. The books are all children's texts about difference and respecting it... including works by authors like Eric Carle (famous for the very hungry caterpillar); Nick Butterworth (The Whisperer, which won the Nestle Prize in 2005) and Michael Rosen - who was the British Children's Laureate.
In addition, the twenty lesson plans cover from Reception to years 1-6... three lessons per year.
So, we have a teacher creating a programme of lesson plans using books written by well known and influential authors. Shocking.
Sorry but you can teach children to be accepting and tolerant without having to use homosexuals as an example.
The teacher was abusing his position.
What other example would you approve of? Why is it wrong to use gay people as an example? Seems pretty reasonable to use if you ask me? Or would you rather us homosexuals stayed invisible?
I will admit to not having read all the posts in this thread.
I just want to present what I hope is a balanced viewpoint as there seems to be a large number of people having pretty strong views at both extremes.
None of us knows exactly what he was doing. He has written a number of books on the subject of "homophobia" I understand.
I don't know whether they were but if these books were an obsession and were the sole reading material for these children day in, day out then that is clearly very wrong. I would say this whatever the subject in question.
If he presents his books, and his views just occasionally in a balanced and proportionate way then that is a different matter IMHO.
I will admit to not having read all the posts in this thread.
I just want to present what I hope is a balanced viewpoint as there seems to be a large number of people having pretty strong views at both extremes.
None of us knows exactly what he was doing. He has written a number of books on the subject of "homophobia" I understand.
I don't know whether they were but if these books were an obsession and were the sole reading material for these children day in, day out then that is clearly very wrong. I would say this whatever the subject in question.
If he presents his books, and his views just occasionally in a balanced and proportionate way then that is a different matter IMHO.
Please see my post above - he didn't write the books at all.
Young children don't bother at all about people who are gay and married. Some 'devoted' religious people are against it because it goes against they think they should think in order to get to heaven. I think it's pretty easy to see which ones are the most good in heart. Some religious people can be really spiteful and nasty because of their belief that thinking this way will get them to heaven.
Young children don't think about much other than sweets and playing. And some children can be spiteful and selfish. What's your point.
He was abusing his position by using his own literature to teach them. What part of that do you posters fail to understand.
Perhaps the fact that he didn't write the books? Or the fact he was fulfilling OFSTED regulations and that had he not have done so he might not have got a pay rise?
Young children don't think about much other than sweets and playing. And some children can be spiteful and selfish. What's your point.
Most young children are innocence and just ask questions that a lot of adults are too afraid to ask. Yes, a small number of children can be spiteful at times, but I bet they aren't bothered at all about how others live their lives. My point is that a lot of adults think too much when it comes to others lives when there's no harm being done. Most young children probably don't bother about whether someone's gay or not.
Most young children are innocence and just ask questions that a lot of adults are too afraid to ask. Yes, a small number of children can be spiteful at times, but I bet they aren't bothered at all about how others live their lives. My point is that a lot of adults think too much when it comes to others lives when there's no harm being done. Most young children probably don't bother about whether someone's gay or not.
Exactly. They are making issues out of something that the kids have no knowledge of.
I have just read the full lesson plan - the teacher didn't write any of the books, he wrote the lesson plans for them. The books are all children's texts about difference and respecting it... including works by authors like Eric Carle (famous for the very hungry caterpillar); Nick Butterworth (The Whisperer, which won the Nestle Prize in 2005) and Michael Rosen - who was the British Children's Laureate.
In addition, the twenty lesson plans cover from Reception to years 1-6... three lessons per year.
So, we have a teacher creating a programme of lesson plans using books written by well known and influential authors. Shocking.
He may not have written the book/books that he was going to use but he has written books on the subject. But if what you say is true, why did he resign?
I read the linked lesson plan, it's propaganda, not literacy.
I'd be pretty annoyed if my children came home from a literacy class without any teaching about objecting and arguing against the ideas promoted, the language used to promote the ideas, how language is used manipulatively, how the subject matter relates to the real world, why there are objections to it's contents ect.
That's literacy, not what is being offered here. And this was about children in year 6, not tinies who need to be taught acceptance ect. before they go on to have their own ideas. By year 6 children are plenty discerning enough to know why they don't invite everybody to their parties.
You really think they are that stupid?
Been gay is not a life choice ,but been bean religious is a lifestyle choice.
Trust me, pursuing a gay life style is a choice. There are many people who do not or choose not to pursue a sexual lifestyle. A human being is not the sum total of feelings, inclinations or desires no matter how profound. It is because of this, that we are considered superior to other mammals!
Trust me, pursuing a gay life style is a choice. There are many people who do not or choose not to pursue a sexual lifestyle. A human being is not the sum total of feelings, inclinations or desires no matter how profound. It is because of this, that we are considered superior to other mammals!
What is a gay lifestyle?
There's a difference between having sex and being gay.
Trust me, pursuing a gay life style is a choice. There are many people who do not or choose not to pursue a sexual lifestyle. A human being is not the sum total of feelings, inclinations or desires no matter how profound. It is because of this, that we are considered superior to other mammals!
The same could apply to heterosexuals. if they choose not to have a sex life, does that make them not heterosexual?
Comments
There is evidence to the contrary in the lesson plan I linked though - it is all about getting the children to ask questions and think about/discuss what they have read.
Edit - I have just read the full lesson plan - the teacher didn't write the books, he wrote the lesson plans for them. The books are all children's texts about difference and respecting it... including works by authors like Eric Carle (famous for the very hungry caterpillar); Nick Butterworth (The Whisperer, which won the Nestle Prize in 2005) and Michael Rosen - who was the British Children's Laureate.
In addition, the twenty lesson plans cover from Reception to years 1-6... three lessons per year.
So, we have a teacher creating a programme of lesson plans using books written by well known and influential authors. Shocking.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/oregon-mom-found-guilty-murdering-4-year-old-son-thought-gay-article-1.1746234
Warning : it's pretty horrific.
So now you are just speculating things that have not been confirmed? You have no idea how he felt about his class
Young children don't bother at all about people who are gay and married. Some 'devoted' religious people are against it because it goes against they think they should think in order to get to heaven. I think it's pretty easy to see which ones are the most good in heart. Some religious people can be really spiteful and nasty because of their belief that thinking this way will get them to heaven.
The teacher was abusing his position.
Except he didn't write the book, he wrote the lesson plan. The book was this one
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Picnic-Park-Joe-Griffiths/dp/1905664087/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396886946&sr=1-1&keywords=Picnic+in+the+Park
I have just read the full lesson plan - the teacher didn't write any of the books, he wrote the lesson plans for them. The books are all children's texts about difference and respecting it... including works by authors like Eric Carle (famous for the very hungry caterpillar); Nick Butterworth (The Whisperer, which won the Nestle Prize in 2005) and Michael Rosen - who was the British Children's Laureate.
In addition, the twenty lesson plans cover from Reception to years 1-6... three lessons per year.
So, we have a teacher creating a programme of lesson plans using books written by well known and influential authors. Shocking.
What other example would you approve of? Why is it wrong to use gay people as an example? Seems pretty reasonable to use if you ask me? Or would you rather us homosexuals stayed invisible?
Evidently it wouldn't work on you, but hopefully the children will learn something.
Not if you're trying to teach them to be accepting and tolerant of homosexuals!!!
Unless you think that society shouldn't be tolerant of homosexuality?
I just want to present what I hope is a balanced viewpoint as there seems to be a large number of people having pretty strong views at both extremes.
None of us knows exactly what he was doing. He has written a number of books on the subject of "homophobia" I understand.
I don't know whether they were but if these books were an obsession and were the sole reading material for these children day in, day out then that is clearly very wrong. I would say this whatever the subject in question.
If he presents his books, and his views just occasionally in a balanced and proportionate way then that is a different matter IMHO.
Please see my post above - he didn't write the books at all.
Young children don't think about much other than sweets and playing. And some children can be spiteful and selfish. What's your point.
Which part of 'he didn't write the books' do you not understand? Please see my post above.
Perhaps the fact that he didn't write the books? Or the fact he was fulfilling OFSTED regulations and that had he not have done so he might not have got a pay rise?
Most young children are innocence and just ask questions that a lot of adults are too afraid to ask. Yes, a small number of children can be spiteful at times, but I bet they aren't bothered at all about how others live their lives. My point is that a lot of adults think too much when it comes to others lives when there's no harm being done. Most young children probably don't bother about whether someone's gay or not.
Exactly. They are making issues out of something that the kids have no knowledge of.
He may not have written the book/books that he was going to use but he has written books on the subject. But if what you say is true, why did he resign?
I'd be pretty annoyed if my children came home from a literacy class without any teaching about objecting and arguing against the ideas promoted, the language used to promote the ideas, how language is used manipulatively, how the subject matter relates to the real world, why there are objections to it's contents ect.
That's literacy, not what is being offered here. And this was about children in year 6, not tinies who need to be taught acceptance ect. before they go on to have their own ideas. By year 6 children are plenty discerning enough to know why they don't invite everybody to their parties.
You really think they are that stupid?
Yes, just like geography, history, science etc etc. That's why they're teaching it so that kids have knowledge of it. That's how education works.
Trust me, pursuing a gay life style is a choice. There are many people who do not or choose not to pursue a sexual lifestyle. A human being is not the sum total of feelings, inclinations or desires no matter how profound. It is because of this, that we are considered superior to other mammals!
What is a gay lifestyle?
There's a difference between having sex and being gay.
The same could apply to heterosexuals. if they choose not to have a sex life, does that make them not heterosexual?