Originally posted by kirksey957I agree.
I don't think it is the best educational opportunity to "teach" a child that an issue like this is right or wrong. I'm much more interested in whether the child could write a coherent paper discussing the history and social implications of issues like that. Wouldn't you agree with this approach?
I like your thinking.
There are some things that parents need to take responsibility for.
Originally posted by scottishinnzA year or so ago a family was in a car where the driver the father
God as a whole tree full of apples. Eve takes one and eats it. How many people must God commit to Hell because Eve ate the apple?
Roger and his "friend" Jeremy live in the city of Soddom. Roger takes Jemery to the local baths, then to "The Corn Hole", a local bar in town. How hard must God smite the unclean to rid the earth of sin?
If masturba ...[text shortened]... to see by the age of 15?
Come on, biblical maths everyone! There's enough for everyone!
fell asleep while driving. The car wreaked throwing children who
were not put in seat beats thrown from the car. Several of them
died. The sad thing about someone in control of where you are
going is that they can take out everyone with them, just as they
could have gotten them to where ever they were going safely too.
No one had to be 'committed to Hell', but what happens, happens
and everyone involved must deal with the results. If the result is
getting home safely or dying in a car wreak we will reap what we
sow.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's wreck and wrecked KJ
A year or so ago a family was in a car where the driver the father
fell asleep while driving. The car wreaked throwing children who
were not put in seat beats thrown from the car. Several of them
died. The sad thing about someone in control of where you are
going is that they can take out everyone with them, just as they
could have gotten them to where ...[text shortened]... f the result is
getting home safely or dying in a car wreak we will reap what we
sow.
Kelly
Originally posted by kirksey957Is teaching morals not an important aspect to a child's education? If so, who's morals do you go by? I am not only talking about abortion and euthenasia here. I know of a situation where an inner city school had a child that was sexually attacked by one of her peers in study hall. Do you know what one of the responses of the teacher who was suppose to be watching the children was? She said it was not the responsibility of the school to teach morality to the students??!!?!!?!!? Trouble is, is that she is 100% correct. The school has no obligation to teach children that sexually attacking onther student is "wrong". Is there something not terribly wrong with this picture?
I don't think it is the best educational opportunity to "teach" a child that an issue like this is right or wrong. I'm much more interested in whether the child could write a coherent paper discussing the history and social implications of issues like that. Wouldn't you agree with this approach?
Originally posted by whodeyIt's not a school's job to teach morality.
Is teaching morals not an important aspect to a child's education? If so, who's morals do you go by? I am not only talking about abortion and euthenasia here. I know of a situation where an inner city school had a child that was sexually attacked by one of her peers in study hall. Do you know what one of the responses of the teacher who was suppose to be ...[text shortened]... tacking onther student is "wrong". Is there something not terribly wrong with this picture?
Morality is determined by the society and the culture of the area in which the school resides.
It's initial teaching should be the role of parents.
Now of course, there are many children living in situations where parents aren't going to be able to teach any sort of useful moral framework. What do we do in these situations?
I think we need to work on teaching parents how to be parents ...
Originally posted by amannionWell I for one am completely for separation of church and state. In fact I am all for separation of church from PLANET.
It's not a school's job to teach morality.
Morality is determined by the society and the culture of the area in which the school resides.
It's initial teaching should be the role of parents.
Now of course, there are many children living in situations where parents aren't going to be able to teach any sort of useful moral framework. What do we do in these situations?
I think we need to work on teaching parents how to be parents ...
Originally posted by whodeyTeaching morals can be an important part of a child's education. The situation you mention is not an example of 1) good teacher supervision 2) good reasoning by the teacher. You are wrong that she is 100% correct. I don't know of a single school from 1st grade through college that does not have a handbook that outlines inappropiate behavior.
Is teaching morals not an important aspect to a child's education? If so, who's morals do you go by? I am not only talking about abortion and euthenasia here. I know of a situation where an inner city school had a child that was sexually attacked by one of her peers in study hall. Do you know what one of the responses of the teacher who was suppose to be ...[text shortened]... tacking onther student is "wrong". Is there something not terribly wrong with this picture?
This teacher should have been fired.
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957A handbook that outlines inappropriate behavoir? Is this teaching morals? Do any of the children read such handbooks? Are they tested on the information? What if we created a handbook on reading and passed them out to the students? is this teaching them to read? The teacher in question was not obligated to teach them about morality. The students may have been given handbooks at one time and the teacher may have been obligated to monitor the classroom and prevent such attacks on students, but the teacher in question had no responsibility to teach morality to the students. Many of these inner city children are raised in single parent homes. They are subjected to such things as parental drug use and neglect. The only positive moral code these children may ever have exposure to may come in the form of public education. For this they are given a handbook to read.
Teaching morals can be an important part of a child's education. The situation you mention is not an example of 1) good teacher supervision 2) good reasoning by the teacher. You are wrong that she is 100% correct. I don't know of a single school from 1st grade through college that does not have a handbook that outlines inappropiate behavior.
This teacher should have been fired.
Let's suppose this handbook is read by all the students and all the students who read it were profoundly influenced by it. What should it say? Who's morality should be taught and why? Let's suppose thier parents live a life style that is in direct opposition to the morals written in the little handbook you mention. Should the children be taught a moral code that conflicts with the one their parents teach them?
Originally posted by amannionI realize that it is not the job of our schools to teach morality. What I am saying is that it should be the job of schools. Before the modern era, children were educated at home. Therefore, they automatically were exposed to the morality of their parents as they grew up. However, in todays culture, children are sent to school for the day and never see their parents except for an evening meal perhaps or the occasional weekend. Therefore, it begs the question, who is spending the most time in regards to ecducatiing your children about morality? Is attempting to educate children devoid of a moral code in and of itself a statement to the children about our morality? Are we telling the children that knowlegde is a higher and more noble pursuit than that of a good moral code? Is increased knowledge and intellegence nothing more than a greater liability to society when in the hands of those who are immoral?
It's not a school's job to teach morality.
Morality is determined by the society and the culture of the area in which the school resides.
It's initial teaching should be the role of parents.
Now of course, there are many children living in situations where parents aren't going to be able to teach any sort of useful moral framework. What do we do in these situations?
I think we need to work on teaching parents how to be parents ...
Originally posted by whodeyKids spend maybe 6 hours a day at school for 5 days each week.
I realize that it is not the job of our schools to teach morality. What I am saying is that it should be the job of schools. Before the modern era, children were educated at home. Therefore, they automatically were exposed to the morality of their parents as they grew up. However, in todays culture, children are sent to school for the day and never see th ...[text shortened]... nce nothing more than a greater liability to society when in the hands of those who are immoral?
That's 30 hours a week.
Assuming they sleep for 8 or 9 hours a day (unlikely for teenagers, but let's be generous) that's another 63 hours a week.
All up each week has 168 hours.
30 in school.
63 sleeping.
That still leaves 75 hours.
School time is less than 18% of their week.
I'm tipping there are gtoing to be a few other areas that rate more importantly - family, firends, etc.
Educating devoid of morals?
I'm not sure how any person - at least any living person - could actually do that. Our morality is part of who we are and how we define ourselves.
How could we not include this morality when we teach?
I can't turn off my morality when I enter a class to teach my students.
The content of what I'm teaching might not be morality but the way I teach it, the person I am, these are affected by my morals.
And we don't need to play off morality against knowledge.
They are both equally important ...
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomYes, I know damn well what he means and he was wrong. Many people have a narrowly defined idea of what it means to be able to practice their faith is school. Just because the courts of this country have said that it is unconstitutional for teachers to lead prayer in the public schools doesn't mean the SS are taking people pray out and executing them. But for some reason that is the way they act.
you know damn well what he means dont be so picky about peoples wording.
Originally posted by amannionNow we are getting somewhere. You are correct, there is no way to educate our children devoid of a moral code even if one is attempting to do so. Attempting to do so is a moral statement in and of itself. This is why it seems so silly to me for our pulbic schools in the States take the attitude that shoving morality on the back shelf until the magical bell rings to end their day is even plausible. The question then becomes, who's moral code do we go by and why?
Educating devoid of morals?
I'm not sure how any person - at least any living person - could actually do that. Our morality is part of who we are and how we define ourselves.
How could we not include this morality when we teach?
I can't turn off my morality when I enter a class to teach my students.
The content of what I'm teaching might not be morality ...[text shortened]... d we don't need to play off morality against knowledge.
They are both equally important ...[/b]
Originally posted by kirksey957but you dont need to ask questions about things that you easily couldve assumed.
Yes, I know damn well what he means and he was wrong. Many people have a narrowly defined idea of what it means to be able to practice their faith is school. Just because the courts of this country have said that it is unconstitutional for teachers to lead prayer in the public schools doesn't mean the SS are taking people pray out and executing them. But for some reason that is the way they act.