posted
In art class so far this year, our girls have seen photos of works such as a mother grieving over the body of her dead son, pictures of Jesus, and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, in all its glory (apparently).
My kneejerk reaction is to think that second graders are a little too young for the religious imagery, for powerful death images, and for male frontal nudity. I don't think it would be inappropriate to show these images in a public school art class, but not, I think specifically to second graders. But before I start being an aggressive parent, I wanted to get a sense from parents, teachers, art lovers, and whoever else. Am I out of line here? Do you think these are appropriate works to show public school second graders?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My second grade art class was more about making malformed clay pots to give to my parents for birthdays or holidays...
This renaissance-era art seems a bit odd to me; I don't really think I saw any of that in school until I took art history in college. (Obviously I'd been exposed to it in museums, etc; I didn't have to take much art in high school.)
Tonight on the news I heard about a guy who goes around to world orphanages, takes pictures of the orphans, and then distributes the photos to art classes. The students paint portraits of the orphans, and then the manager of the project takes each orphan his or her portrait. I guess a lot of them end up being pen pals because the art students spend so much time looking at the faces. I thought it was a neat idea.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as part of the Sistine Chapel lesson, the teacher had them tape papers to the underside of tables, and color them from beneath, which is a really cool idea . . . I just have mixed feelings about the subject of the original.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure what I think. I know by that age my parents were pretty upfront about birds and bees, and I wouldn't have thought anything of seeing naked people because it wouldn't have had any sexual connotations. Maybe it's better for kids to see it in a neutral setting like art class; then again, I am not a parent, and I can see this bringing up political squickiness.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My kneejerk reaction is to think that second graders are a little too young for the religious imagery, for powerful death images, and for male frontal nudity."
The death scenes may be troubling, but religion and nudity are nothing to worry about. An apreciation for art, that mirror, so perfect in its distortion, is the greatest gift we can give our children. And second grade is by no means to early to start, although a full apreciation will rarely begin to blossom until middle school.
Incidently, why does it being a Public School matter (there is nothing illegal about these topics being adressed in a public school.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My son is in 2nd grade right now. I think I'd be impressed, rather than concerned, if he were exposed to that art right now.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: An apreciation for art, that mirror, so perfect in its distortion, is the greatest gift we can give our children. And second grade is by no means to early to start, although a full apreciation will rarely begin to blossom until middle school.
God, you are such a windbag, Pel.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We looked at one famous painting a week in Elementary art. Usually just something like VanGogh or Monet, once it was the guy who did pointilism. At Halloween every year the art teacher read James Whitcomb Riley's "Little Orphant Annie" then we had to draw something to represent it. That was the extent of art other than just learning techniques we did.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it's probably a positive thing. One of the great things that art does is provide a launching point for thinking about stuff, and death, religion, and the human form are all things that I was thinking about in 2nd grade. What are your daughters saying about the whole thing?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember being traumatized by naked people in art during a field trip. It is not that I had never seen naked-art before, but not in real life. I understood that it was art, and the human body is beautiful blah blah, but it still made me uncomfortable for reasons that even then I couldn't explain.
Edit: this field trip was when I was 11. Maybe it was the proximity to adolescence?
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our culture is Gręco-Roman, and nudity is not strange to us, indeed statues of nude men and women adorn many of our public places, such as Piazza della Signoria. Our the children of Florence, a city whose western culture our children share, disturbed by the statues there? I think it unlikely.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that I would be disturbed because IMO children that young generally don't understand the difference between "naked" and "nude" and the depictions of the body become a crude spectacle to giggle about. As an educator and a parent, I think that there is plenty of other artwork that the overt death scenes and nudity are not needed.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a parent so this doesn't mean much but I have two art degrees (yeah, laugh all you want, I have a job using both of them) and I honestly think that "The Sistine Chapel" or other renaissance art can be enjoyed by any age. I got worse in Sunday school and religion class at that age, at least they are looking at culturally diverse art and not just coloring in their coloring books?
I might have actually done better in Art History if I had been exposed to more art at a younger age. Plus isn't art like that found in churches across the world? I mean "Mary" lying at the base of the cross and what not?
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Our culture is Gręco-Roman, and nudity is not strange to us, indeed statues of nude men and women adorn many of our public places . . .
Remind me again, what country do you live in? 'Cause I'm guessing it's not the U.S.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know of a country in the world today with Gręco-Roman culture. Perhaps there's a particular city with a close approximation?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It reminds me of a class I was working in. A little girl was drawing a picture. it was a house, with a couple of people in front, and something up in the sky.
"Tell me about your picture," I said.
"Well, that's our house. That is my mom and that is me."(points to the thing in the sky) "And that's Jesus, hangin' DEAD-on-the-cross."
I almost wet my pants.
As for what is appropriate? I would rather my kids see those things than the news. Still, it does seem a bit much for second graders.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Remind me again, what country do you live in? 'Cause I'm guessing it's not the U.S."
I live in the Southwestern U.S., but I was refering to western culture in general.
"I don't know of a country in the world today with Gręco-Roman culture."
All countries in Western Europe and the Americas are Gręco-Roman in culture. Western Culture is defined as Gręco-Roman and Iudeo-Christian.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I was awed/impressed with the stations of the cross, wrought in stained glass, as a first grad child in Catholic schools."
Perfectly normal for any child. Although not a particulary religious young adult, my childhood Anglicanism was a huge influence on me, although the most artistic parts of Anglicanism are ritual, not visual.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering, is it the religious aspects or the nudity that bothers you? Or both?
To me, it depends on how it's taught, I guess. I went to an art museum on a field trip last year with my second-grade son and his gifted class. It was a small class and the teacher (who is Fantastic) had really taught them beforehand what to expect. They didn't dwell over any paintings or statues of nudes, but the children did notice them and the teacher did mention that "We talked about this in class, remember? Some people paint/sculpt nudes because the human body is a work of art." I liked how she dealt with it, and I also liked that the main focus of the trip was not on those things. I was glad they didn't spend any time observing the "male frontal nudity". The children were very mature but were still a little nervous about them. I imagine that at 11 they'd be even worse.
As for the religious-themed work, I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that artists create art about what's important to them, including their beliefs about man's relationship with God. I don't think 7-year-olds are necessarily too young to understand that. But then, my 7-year-old comes from a religious background. It might be confusing to a child who grew up with no religious background whatsoever. But just because something's new and confusing isn't really a reason to avoid it ... that's what education is about, provided the child has someone to discuss it with. It's a part of the culture we live in, and it's good to understand that culture.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up in a liberal intellectual family (both parents Ph.D.s and M.D.s, my mother taught Sex ed. etc.) But I grew up without understanding nude art until middle school. Shame that.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: In art class so far this year, our girls have seen photos of works such as a mother grieving over the body of her dead son, pictures of Jesus, and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, in all its glory (apparently).
My kneejerk reaction is to think that second graders are a little too young for the religious imagery, for powerful death images, and for male frontal nudity. I don't think it would be inappropriate to show these images in a public school art class, but not, I think specifically to second graders. But before I start being an aggressive parent, I wanted to get a sense from parents, teachers, art lovers, and whoever else. Am I out of line here? Do you think these are appropriate works to show public school second graders?
Its treating this sort of thing as nonchalauntly (if thats how you spell that) as possible that prevents squemishness down the road.
I largely base my appreciation towards nudity in art because my parents took me to see art, and I saw it in school, and when I asked, "Why do people where clothes in public, but not in art?" My parents simply explained that art celebrates the beauty in everything, and the human body is beautiful. Appreciation for it should remain in the art field. That explanation didnt bother me, even when I found out that nudity is not as big a deal in Europe as it is in the US. I just accepted it as an alternate view and eventually formed my own opinion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you that following up the exposure to the Sistine chapel by having them color the underside of their desks is really cool.
It sounds to me like the art teacher really wants to expose them to some classic, great art pieces and I'm pretty okay with that. I'm not all that crazy about the mother grieving a dead son, because that can be disturbing, but if the lines of communication are open and the girls can talk to you guys about it (and I know that's the case, knowing you guys like I do) then it's probably all right. Certainly no worse than what is on the evening news, as was already mentioned.
I would say talk to the teacher about your concerns, I'm sure he/she would listen, and I know that you, being a teacher yourself, would approach it professionally.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please, whatever you do, don't do what a patron of our library did when I worked there in high school. You know the things you use if you're a stamp collecter to adhere the stamps to the book? They're sorta vaugely translucent and sticky. She put them over all of the private parts of the people in an art book. My guess is that it only drew attention to that and probably just made things uncomfortable. However, I am sure that it pissed me off because she didn't take the things off when she returned the book and I had to pry them off. grr
I think if you are concerned that you talk to your daughters about the art. I took baths with my brother until I was 8 or so. Little kids have typically seen other little kids privates before either while swimming or bathing or something. I'm guessing there's an explanation that you've used about such things being special. Perhaps somehow that could be incorporated.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the essential conundrum, as I see it:
1) Some elements of art may require more maturity to handle well. 2) Some elements of art are propagandistic.
Do you expose children to shocking scenes or blatant propaganda if the content is otherwise exceptional? Is a well-crafted toy commercial -- a TV show about, say, the "Masters of the Universe," but with the writing and animation quality of Finding Nemo -- okay for toddlers whose minds might be opened by the content while simultaneously tainted by commercialism? Should a toddler see a film like "Schindler's List," which is horrific but touches on a variety of interesting issues?
There's a fuzzy line along this boundary, and I think each individual parent needs to decide how comfortable they are with it. If you're more nervous about your kids winding up Catholic than eating at McDonald's, I'd try to make sure that they understand that the Sistine Chapel is a "sometimes food." But YMMV.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Greco-Roman architecture, structure, design, all those things you can find in dozens if not hundreds of cities around the world. Washington DC itself was built to in many ways resemble Roman cities.
But CULTURE? Nowhere in America, heh, with the possible exception of Vegas or Reno, comes close to emulating Greco-Roman culture. There's some places in southeast Europe that you could argue come close, but that culture has been gone for 500 years or more.
As for the art...I think the violent death scenes might be too much, but the religious and nude images aren't, so long as the issue is being explained to them as they are seeing the images.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm wondering, is it the religious aspects or the nudity that bothers you? Or both?
Both.
-o-
Thanks for all the replies. It's clear most people don't see this from the same angle as I do, and that's why I posted the thread . . . to see some different points of view.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an assignment I give my middle schoolers called character anatomy. It has an illustration of the Vetruvian man but since my kids would, at the very least, be distracted by the tiny pee-pee image there, I found a picture with boxers added. They are covered in smiley faces and are hilarious and I wont have to worry about them snickering all period.
As a teacher and a parent of a young child, I guess Im the voice of dissention here. I think it is inappropriate for a public school teacher to show naked man art to primary students. Middle to high schoolers or even upper elementary students would be a little better maybe but even now I flip though the magazines I give my kids for collages and tear out the naked ads (I know art is different but not in the eyes of a middle schooler). Parents can take kids to museums and expose them to that (pun intended) as I certainly will but that will be my choice and my responsibility to educate her on my morals and beliefs about nudity and about art. That said, I think the activity was absolutely adorable and the kids probably loved it but would there be anything wrong with editing the portion of the original shown to them? She could have even said, "This is a small portion of the huge ceiling..."
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing about the religious aspect, is that it's going to be hard to expose kids to great classics of art (and music for that matter) of certain periods without studying religious pieces.
As long as there was no sermon attached to it, then I don't really see the harm. I'm reminded of a work of fiction I studied when I was a senior in high school. My brain is fried and I don't remember the work, but there was a symbolic reference to the Noahic story in the work. One student claimed he shouldn't have to study it because he was an atheist and said the teacher couldn't make him learn about it. The teacher told him it wasn't as if she were preaching a sermon and wasn't asking him to believe the story of Noah, simply to know that it exists and roughly what it means. She said it was similar to having a knowledge of basic Greek mythology - she expected him to know that, but wasn't expecting him to worship Zeus.
I see the art here in the same way - as long as she isn't using it as a way to get the kids to believe in God or in the Christian creation story, simply showing them art that refers to it should be fine. To completely avoid showing or studying about any religious-themed art is not to truly study art history, in my opinion.
Now, are 2nd graders really the right audience for art history? Probably not. They're a bit young for it, at that age introducing them to basic techiniques and fostering a love of creativity and the artistic process is probably sufficient. Last year when Em was in 2nd grade, they did a section on tesselation and created their own pieces using shapes they chose themselves - Em used a kind of stretched out number 3. She was thrilled with the project and seemed to have a lot of fun and learn a lot. that's the type of thing I believe is appropriate for 2nd grade art class.
Are you certain the teacher showed the entire Sistine chapel, in detail? (I only ask because in your first post you include the word "apparently") Maybe she just held up a picture for the class to see without letting them examine it too closely? Maybe she just wanted to introduce the idea of painting upside down, which I'm sure the 2nd graders found cool. I can't imagine a teacher sitting down with a group of 2nd graders and saying something akin to "now, class let's talk about how Michelangelo painted the nude body of Adam." Course, it wouldn't be the wildest thing I've ever heard, either.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. Art appreciation (viewing and critiquing art) was a college elective course, for me. Painting and drawing were hands-on classes wherein we practiced technique -- starting in grade K.
My family had numerous works of art around for me to gaze at, think about, and try to re-create, as well as some nifty art museums to visit and explore as a young child. Some was pretty provocative, some inspiring, some puzzling.
I think a good general rule of thumb might be the same as I follow with respect to TV or video or movies . . . Is this something I would be comfortable with in my living room? Although, I really do try to keep my home as a safe haven of mellow, quiet music and gentle lighting and soft colors. The everyday world is harsh enough without recreating it in the home . . .
Follow your instincts, Ic -- you're the parent and you know best. *smile*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a lot of naked art or near naked art in this world. In many churches in Europe they are nakey people cavorting around in the statuary or paintings. I think a healthy respect and appreciation for the human body is good, and I think that hiding it from people makes it mysterious, frightening, funny, ugly. . . . I dunno, I kind of want my kid to be the one in the class rolling his or her eyes at the smiley face boxers on the Vetruvian man.
It disturbs me that nudity and sexuality have become equivalent in modern society - I want people to be able to see the David with wonder and not feel awkward and giggle as some of my then-fellow 14 year olds did when we went on a trip to Italy and France after freshman year of high school. There's something very depressing about seeing young minds confronted with great art and discovering that the prospect of male anatomy is so foreign that all they can do is blush and giggle. These were girls from more conservative families, and I really think it impacted their trip. All the great art was just "naked people! eeek! heeheehee!"
Anyway - I would be uncomfortable with overtly sexual imagery in grade school classrooms, but I don't equate nudity with sexuality. It's just people without clothes on. I think I feel this way because I WAS exposed to the naked human form from a young age, and I'm glad I was. Keeps me from making moral judgements on other societies based on states of undress too.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a statue of a nude woman in a fountain in Busch Gardens. I wondered how my kids would react when we went by it on our trip there recently; they didn't much, other than to acknowledge the fact that she wasn't wearing clothes.
I would not feel comfortable with my kids studying artistic nudity so early on in elementary school. It seems inappropriate, and I'd definitely voice my concerns to the teacher.
I'm more disturbed by your description of the picture of the woman grieving over her son. That's DEFINITELY material that kids that age shouldn't be confronted with, IMO.
Hmm... and images of Jesus, too, huh? Call me paranoid, but why did she choose these particular images to show to second graders? There are plenty of other pieces of art that I imagine can get the point she wanted to make across, without the nudity or religious overtones.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...Icarus, was this the Pieta or something more graphic in its depiction of death?
I was raised Catholic. We had a Pieta copy on the dresser for as long as I can remember. And crucifixes, with, you know...Jesus hanging on the cross, crown of thorns, nails and sword wounds.
I do think it's all in how it's handled.
But I wouldn't appreciate being blindsided by the curriculum. This is enough outside the expected norm that I'd at least have appreciated some thought to what the parents might end up having to discuss that night at the dinner table.
quote:I kind of want my kid to be the one in the class rolling his or her eyes at the smiley face boxers on the Vetruvian man.
I would too actually. If a kid were that mature though, he/she would also be mature enough to know that not everyone would respond appropriately to the picture without boxers and would understand the need to have them present due to fellow students lack of maturity. (That was a horrible sentence, sorry)
I am not saying that we should shield young children from all nudity. I am just saying it is MY place to expose my child, and I would feel very uncomfortable with having that presented to my daughter in a public elementary school.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like Bob said, I think this is not a terrible thing for your children to be exposed to. After all, I went around museums from an early age and I don't think I really thought of old pictures of nude people as pictures of nude people at all. Death was the same way. Old paintings somehow were two distant to be real.
However, also like Bob said, I do think that it's a little weird for a choice for an art class for grade twos. My sister is in grade two and a pretty good artist for her age, but I think I would find it very odd that she had studied adult works of art that depict such deep themes when she's only in grade two. I would imagine that such works would become truly meaningful in middle school. The concept of drawing on the ceiling was definately introduced to me quite early, however, but I think that was the focus of the study or the story that we read, not the actual content of the art.
I would probably be concerned what else the teacher considers to be age appropriate.
I think there are tons more famous art pictures, depicting children, animals, interesting landscapes and buildings, circuses, etc. that are far more age appropriate both in subject and in educational value.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. If they'd done this some place more conservative in the country, there would be outrage.
California, Florida and many of the warmer states often seem to have much more relaxed ideas of nudity than many of their colder neighbors (there are regional exceptions like Madison, WI.)
I think a civil discussion with the teacher is in order. (In other words getting all of the outrage out of your system here before you talk to them, is probably a good idea.) Mention that you appreciate the creativity with the way they were coloring upside down and such cause they sound like a really neat teacher. However if you've got specific concerns with your children you've got a right to express them.
I think looking for mutual clarification with the teacher for the best interests of your children is the way to go.... but you already know that.
posted
Well, I'll throw in my (most likely) rather unique perspective:
I was homeschooled and my teacher (my mother) is a huge artist/art buff. I never really caught the bug myself, but I was exposed to pretty copious amounts of art at a pretty young age. Pretty much no holds barred. And for me (and I realize that this is by no means true for most people), it helped me draw the distinction between art and real life. I remember one of the particular things I thought about was the difference between art and television, or even art on television. Why was it that my parents had no problem letting me see gory pictures and nudity when studying art, and didn't have a problem when those paintings and sculptures were featured on TV, but they would never let me watch TV or movies that were gory or .... indecent? To resolve this cognitave dissonance (there's a college education phrase for ya) I made a distinction between art and reality that still serves me to this day.
Now, of course, it wasn't until later that I put words to all of this, but that's my story. As for my opinion, I'll just say as numerous others have that it's all in how its done. Personally I would not trust a teacher I didn't know and have confidence in to do it artfully, but that's just me and my inherrent distrust of the public school system.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My kid has gone to religious schools all the way from kindergarten. His primary school had a terrific arts program where the kids would study art history and then try their hands at the different styles. By the 4th grade, he had a passing familiarity with many art movements, and had his versions of Impressionist, Cubist, Abstract Impressionist, etc works hanging around the walls of the school.
I am absolutely certain that there was no exposure to nudes or Christian iconography. His was a Jewish school, and any religious imagery was Jewish. It is cool with me for him to see these in a museum, or to look at the art books in the library (and he's done both), but I believe that it is not necessary to expose 2nd graders to it in order for them to learn art theory and appreciation. And, since it is likely to stir controversy that may, in the end, hurt the arts program, it is probably best to avoid those subjects that some families may find to be offensive.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if it concerns you, you should say something. I personally have introduced my kids to such art, but the public schools have to take into account different viewpoints.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
" I think it is inappropriate for a public school teacher to show naked man art to primary students."
Again, why does it matter where this happened. Are private school students so much more mature than their counterparts? This would seem unlikely.
"Greco-Roman architecture, structure, design, all those things you can find in dozens if not hundreds of cities around the world. Washington DC itself was built to in many ways resemble Roman cities.
But CULTURE?"
Our art is the primary measure of our culture. Our laws, perhaps, come second, if only through utility. Both are Gręco-Roman. Our Educational system is also based on Medięval and early modern schools that were, you guessed it, Gręco-Roman in curriculum.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, why does it matter where this happened. Are private school students so much more mature than their counterparts? This would seem unlikely.
That's not the point at all. Parents choose to send their kids to private schools and can make that selection based on whether nude art is included in the second grade curriculum. Many parents have no choice but to send their kid to public school.
The question is whether there are certain things parents have the right to decide with respect to their kids' educations and the topics covered. If we decide this is so, then we need to identify the following:
1.) Which topics are never suitable for being taught in public school?
2.) Which topics are "optional"?
3.) Of those, which topics are of such a nature that parents should be notified prior to teaching to the children, in order to give the parents' a chance to object?
Finally, what are the criteria for deciding each of these questions?
I'm not sure where I stand on any of these.
The specific answer to Icarus, I think, has already been given: You're concerned enough that a calm discussion with the teacher is in order.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Only if Pelegius had said his name P-aye-lay-gee-aye-us, instead of Pel-aye-gee-us {Edited to add: by the time of his life, it was actualy probably more like Pel-ah-gee-us.}
Dagonee, if something is right to be taught to one class, and allowed to be taught to another (and the teacher here is well within the law as I know it), how can it be wrong to teach it to the class to whom it is allowed to be taught? I am aware that that was a strange sentence, but the logic I combat is strange.
"Of those, which topics are of such a nature that parents should be notified prior to teaching to the children, in order to give the parents' a chance to object?"
I am trying, and failing, to think of an example. Something can be true, false, partialy true or false, or of unknown truth, or even of truth that differs acording to circumstances. But the opinion that truth can be so totaly right for one person and so totaly wrong for another that neither side need look at differing ideas of truth is easily identifiable as false. I have absolutly no objection to the teacher elaborating on various cultural views of nudity, although I would warn against making nudity the primary topic of discussion, and this would be an ideal time for the parental views of, say, a Muslim family to be fairly discussed without judgement.
"1.) Which topics are never suitable for being taught in public school?"
Topics, none. The slant is what matters. The Hollocaust should be taught, the idea that Hitler was a good and great man should be discussed as an idea; but the later must never be taught as true, only as being the opinion of some, indeed, it should be taught as a false opinion. I am sorry if I violate Godwin's law, but the example is, I think, useful.
"2.) Which topics are "optional"?"
Advanced calculus? I am not sure what you mean by optional.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, it's less about giving parents a chance to object than it is about giving parents the heads-up that we're going to be discussing something in class that you might have particular views or beliefs about, and you might want to discuss it further with your child at home to make sure of their understanding.
I always appreciate knowing when they're getting into personal or controversial topics ... not that I want my child totally sheltered, but I want to hear their understanding of what they've learned, so I can explain or correct things as needed. If the school doesn't let me know what's being taught, my 7-year-old sure won't remember to tell me.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am worried as to the effects of generations repeating themselves. I cannot, however, as of now, correct this problem, and am, thus, at a loss on this issue.
In short, I am clueless, but little more so than any other person.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I am worried as to the effects of generations repeating themselves. I cannot, however, as of now, correct this problem, and am, thus, at a loss on this issue.
In short, I am clueless, but little more so than any other person.
While it is certainly important that people learn to make their own decisions and judgements, you appear to be going beyond that and rejecting the idea of building on current values. This runs directly counter to civilization itself, which is built on the idea that we can work from the foundations provided by generations past. It isn't a matter of generations "repeating themselves" so much as it is trying to build on things that are currently in place.
That said, I'm not 100% sure what you were trying to get at, so if I misinterpreted you I apologize.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are plenty of things that parents don't want their children to be taught in school, and those things are generally optional even in private school. When I was in middle school, if our parents didn't want us to learn about the birds and the bees from the teachers, we were allowed to leave. And now that I think of it, that situation is somewhat similar to this one. We were learning about things in scientific terms, including all kinds of birth control (but with an abstinance emphisis), and the possibility still existed that parents didn't feel the school should be the people to introduce their children to these things.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
