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?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Oooh that is a cool idea.
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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"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.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
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.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
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?
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
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?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I try to expose my two-year-old to all kinds of art. If she finds something disturbing, we stop looking at it and then talk about it.
We love art museums. Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
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.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
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.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
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?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't think that art should be secular. ________________________________________
I was awed/impressed with the stations of the cross, wrought in stained glass, as a first gradw child in Catholic schools.
I think it was about first or second grade that I realized that I was going to die. I think that the whole experience is a next positive.
[ September 05, 2006, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"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.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: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?
Vegas?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh.
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
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..."
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
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*
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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.
"What did you learn in school today?"
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
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.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
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.
AJ
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
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.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
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.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" 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.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Shouldn't it be spelled Pęlęgięus?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Pęlęgięus"
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.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
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.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
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.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I am worried as to the effects of generations repeating themselves.
What, you mean like parents teaching their children to believe the same things that they believe, and value the things that they value?
Oh, the horror.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
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.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Thanks for stating that point about private schools, Dag. It is exactly what I would have said.
I seriously doubt this is an art piece mandated in the curriculum for 2nd graders which means this was left up to the teacher's discretion. If you disagree with her showing that picture, you should investigate further and then tell the teacher it bothered you and why.
Pelegius, I don't think art is the primary culture in the United States, where Icarus and I both live. Media is our culture (in my opinion) and we don't focus on that in our schools for the most part. We focus on history but we don't show blood and gore, even though that is available on the nightly news. We teach sex ed but we don't show how-to videos or even rock videos (since it is hard to tell the difference lately). We teach computers but we don't teach how to hack into them. Just because it is part of culture as a whole doesn't mean it has to be taught in our schools, especially in the younger grades.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: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.
The trivial example:
In second grade, I was taught in class that Jesus was born to a virgin and was crucified and resurrected. Not that some people believe those things, but that those things were true. This was a perfectly acceptable thing for my teacher to teach, because I went to Catholic school.
In third grade, being taught that would have - rightfully - resulted in a successful lawsuit. I was in public school.
It's clear you can understand the concept - certain things are acceptable in private school but not public. There's no particular reason the concept should be limited to religion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There is a particular reason it should apply especially to religion, though -- the extra language regarding religion in the Constitution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You'll also note that I showed an especially strong response - a lawsuit - for my example. Not every failure of a school to meet such objections should result in such a strong response.
That doesn't change the fact that there are certain things parents don't want their children being exposed to at school, and that religion is only one of them.
I'd be surprised if anyone can make a credible case that the only subject parents should have any say and/or notice over in schooling is religion.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"What, you mean like parents teaching their children to believe the same things that they believe, and value the things that they value?"
Yes. Were humans angels, then each generation would be wise to emulate the past, as it is, we are more than angels and less than beasts (thank you Mirandolla). We must then judge what is right and proper, the successes and the mistakes of previous generations are our greatest tools to do this, but claiming that there have been no mistakes and that children must emulate their fathers, that is folly.
"While it is certainly important that people learn to make their own decisions and judgments, you appear to be going beyond that and rejecting the idea of building on current values....That said, I'm not 100% sure what you were trying to get at, so if I misinterpreted you I apologize."
Apology accepted. I do not object to, nor do I think that any person can wisely object to, the study of history as a means to understand the present and the value of the past. But, I do believe as I think all men of any wisdom must believe, that there have been many mistakes that must be remedied, and that we learn as much from the mistakes of our ancestors as from their successes.
"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."
Absolutely. But only one approach can be right, or both can be wrong, or both can be partially true. But the parents and the teachers cannot disagree and both be entirely right.
Dagonee, I said if it were allowed to be taught in both schools. Religion is not allowed to be taught as true in a public school (nor is it allowed to be taught as false.) It is well within the rights of a public school to teach the influence of religion on cultures, and it would be very foolish not to do so.
"I'd be surprised if anyone can make a credible case that the only subject parents should have any say and/or notice over in schooling is religion."
The parents do not have a say, and this is wise. No teacher in a Public School can teach the truth or falsehood of any religion, even if all the parents wanted one of those position taught.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Pel, the point is that there are plenty of parents, even parents who send their children to private prep schools, who aren't comfortable with the school introducing nudity or sexuality to their children. It's not about there being more than one right answer.
-pH
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: We must then judge what is right and proper, the successes and the mistakes of previous generations are our greatest tools to do this, but claiming that there have been no mistakes and that children must emulate their fathers, that is folly.
Where do you see anyone arguing this Pel? I don't think anyone here would claim that the past is without mistakes, or that any of our educations were flawless... only that parents have something of a right and an obligation to monitor and guide the education of their children. Also, that this guidance is without fail going to rely in some way on the parent's past...
quote: Dagonee, I said if it were allowed to be taught in both schools. Religion is not allowed to be taught as true in a public school (nor is it allowed to be taught as false.) It is well within the rights of a public school to teach the influence of religion on cultures, and it would be very foolish not to do so.
In principle, the objective teaching of the history and influence of religions can/should be taught in a public setting, you must admit that the subjects are often volatile enough that this objectivity really isn't possible. As a result, it's fairly reasonable for parents to have some say in the introduction of controversial topics to young and impressionable minds.
quote: The parents do not have a say, and this is wise. No teacher in a Public School can teach the truth or falsehood of any religion, even if all the parents wanted one of those position taught.
Um... yes they do, and it's absolutely critical that they do. Parents have a say in what is taught to their children, and what goes on at public schools on multiple levels. On a broad level, parents are voters that have a say on the way things are run with respect to education. On a direct level, parents can be involved in the PTA, and are often in direct contact with teachers and other school administrators on various controversial topics such as this.
I won't say that it's always a good thing that parents can have as much sway as they do (case in point: one Jewish parent raised a fuss at the public highschool in town so that while her daughter attended the school, no Christian-related music was allowed to be played or sung by the musical organizations) but at the same time parents need to be aware of what is taught in their schools as well as have some say in the teaching. If a community feels that a topic such as sex education is best left to the parents because of its potentially volatile nature, then so be it.
addendum: on top of many other things that make it hard to relate to you Pel, little things like replacing the J in "Judeo-Christian" with the much more archaic I really distance yourself from the rest of the people who speak and write in a language that now posesses letters such as J and U...
Edit: Forgot to add: there are certainly other areas where people come to expect completely different views between public and private schools. Case-in-point: at my highschool corporal punishment was technically allowable by the teaching staff (though only used in generally extreme circumstances) as a result this effectively taught that at times an appropriate response to a situation could be for a teacher to smack a student, require them to kneel on the tile for some portion of the class, rap themselves on the head with their knuckles for doing something stupid, quickly rap them on the head with a ruler to enforce a point, force them to exercise to the point of collapse/retching as a punishment etc... I have no doubt that most of this would be highly controversial at a public school, but it was accepted at my school because that's what we signed up for when we went there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I said if it were allowed to be taught in both schools. Religion is not allowed to be taught as true in a public school (nor is it allowed to be taught as false.) It is well within the rights of a public school to teach the influence of religion on cultures, and it would be very foolish not to do so.
Yes, well, the "allowed in both schools" is exactly the issue, isn't it? The question here is whether there are certain issues which should be allowed to be taught against the parents' wishes in public school.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I feel like when my children go to a school and I pay for it, either with my tax money or tutition payments, I have a right to complain if I don't like the curriculum.
I have lost what Pel's argument is even about but this statement troubles me.
quote:It is well within the rights of a public school to teach the influence of religion on cultures, and it would be very foolish not to do so.
It is not really within the rights of a public school to discuss religion. I am not sure where you are getting your information but since teachers are authority figures, we walk a fine line discussing religion in the classroom, especially with very young children.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It is not really within the rights of a public school to discuss religion.
Teaching world history with no mention of religion would be to do kids an enormous disservice. As I said before, teaching art or music appreciation without incorporating religious-themed work is to ignore major works, perhaps even whole periods because there were times in our history when the church was funding a huge percentage of the artistic work being done.
I have absolutely no problem with teachers mentioning and discussing religion, so long as it's applicable to the subject and it's not being used to convert anyone. Teaching kids about the Crusades, including discussion of the religious views of people on both sides - okay. Using examples from the Crusades to encourage children to become Christian or not to be Christian (or any other religion) - not okay.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There ARE ways to discuss religion in an unbiased manner. I was required to take a comparitive religions course in my non-religious high school, and to be a gradumacate from the Jesuit university, you have to take three religions, the first of which is comparative. They actually go so far out of their way not to be seen as pushing Catholicism that I didn't know anything about it until I took a course on women in Christianity. I'm not saying that college religious education should be the same as a high school's. But it CAN be done without a slant, although I'm not really sure that the state is capable of ensuring that happens.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: I feel like when my children go to a school and I pay for it, either with my tax money or tutition payments, I have a right to complain if I don't like the curriculum.
I have lost what Pel's argument is even about but this statement troubles me.
quote:It is well within the rights of a public school to teach the influence of religion on cultures, and it would be very foolish not to do so.
It is not really within the rights of a public school to discuss religion. I am not sure where you are getting your information but since teachers are authority figures, we walk a fine line discussing religion in the classroom, especially with very young children.
But there has to be some discussion of religion. How do you teach history or art or literature without at least acknowledging the impact of religion?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
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?
I'm an art lover and a professional artist, so I feel strongly about the importance of art education. I am sure the teacher was trying to convey the emotions that art can express (dead son) and the scale of some art (Sistine chapel)...but I agree with you that second grade may not be the best age to be seeing these things unless you can be sure of the context they are presented in. Personally, I have no qualms with frontal nudity of either gender, as long as it's not presented in a sexualized way for kids that age, but that's your nit to pick, not mine.
However, although I think art appreciation certainly is very important for children, I wouldn't want my second-grader seeing a picture of a mother grieving over her dead son unless I could be there to talk to them about their feelings about the piece and make sure they had the opportunity to talk about it for as long and in as much detail as they needed to.
Maybe a bette choice for second-graders would have been M. C. Escher. I remember thinking that stuff was REALLY COOL when I was that age (I still do!) and it's mostly pretty innocuous stuff.
Posted by Tęnte Shvęster (Member # 9711) on :
Yeah, or Dennis Hopper, or Monet, or Van Gogh, or you know, Brueghel, or any of that painterly crowd.
"Tęcher, why did the artist make that nude sculpture?"
"Because he ran out of marble before he got a chance to make clothing."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That doesn't change the fact that there are certain things parents don't want their children being exposed to at school, and that religion is only one of them.
This is no less true for private schools than it is for public schools, though.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"It is not really within the rights of a public school to discuss religion. I am not sure where you are getting your information but since teachers are authority figures, we walk a fine line discussing religion in the classroom, especially with very young children."
Teachers are clearly allowed to discuss religion in their classes. They are not allowed to promote any faith or lack of faith (that is pretty close to the government wording.) They may also teach the literary and historical influences of religious works.
"Yes, well, the "allowed in both schools" is exactly the issue, isn't it? The question here is whether there are certain issues which should be allowed to be taught against the parents' wishes in public school."
Against which parent's wishes? Parental feelings should be addressed, but parents cannot be allowed to run schools, any more than citizens should be able run the states. The only legitimate rule is rule of law, law passed by democratic procedure according the constitution or founding laws of the state. Anything else would be anarchy. We have a say, but not an absolute say, in how our country is run.
I have less than complete faith in parents, I have seen how often they have tried to destroy an educational system which is not for their benefit, but for their children's. "We want a Politically Correct Curriculum," "My child shouldn't have to learn about religion," "the books in your library promote Satanism/Communism/ Racism/ Christianity etc."
It is a matter of principle to me that censorship be kept to a minimum, and damn the constant carping of parents, hypocrite lecteurs, it is not the duty of the state to prevent hurt feelings of those who object to one philosophy or another. It is possible that truth can be found in ways other than the Hegelian Dialect, but such a way has not yet, by mortal men, been found.
Over the doorways to many universities, there is inscribed a quotation from now verboten source, which summarizes their mission "Ye Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Make Ye Free."
And we stand know with a chisel in hand, ready to add the foot -note, "void were prohibited by school board."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:That doesn't change the fact that there are certain things parents don't want their children being exposed to at school, and that religion is only one of them.
This is no less true for private schools than it is for public schools, though.
Of course not. But parents have say at a private school they don't have in a public school.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Against which parent's wishes? Parental feelings should be addressed, but parents cannot be allowed to run schools, any more than citizens should be able run the states. The only legitimate rule is rule of law, law passed by democratic procedure according the constitution or founding laws of the state. Anything else would be anarchy. We have a say, but not an absolute say, in how our country is run.
But parents could be allowed to opt their children out of objectionable lessons.
Beyond that, if all you're going to do is fall back on the political process, then you've yet again pointed out an important difference between public and private schools.
And, Icarus is absolutely right to raise the question and to raise it in a public-school-specific context.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"But parents could be allowed to opt their children out of objectionable lessons."
This makes sense.
Sarcasm, aside, I have striven during the course of this thread to point out the utter senseless of this mindset. An idea cannot be true for one child and false for another, although it could be perceived as such. So, one group of children is then cheated either into hearing something that is wrong and false or into not hearing something which is good and true.
Or, this would be the case if anyone had ever been injured by exposure to a foreign idea. As it is, falsehoods are as useful in education as truths, for they serve to define truth. And education, last time I checked, was the goal of schools, even in this age.
If this offends parents, so be it. No one has ever been killed or in anyway hurt by looking at a picture of the Sistine Chapel. Many have been deeply moved and their lives enriched, but perhaps we should lock the chapel up and burn all pictures of it, lest someone on a school board in the United States be offended by an ignudo.
After all, good art should always make everyone who looks at it feel good about themselves and about life. This is, after all, the argument used by a man who wants to ban "The Lord of the Flies" from schools. Same argument, different wording. I shudder to think what they would have done to my History teacher who made poor innocent students read from "Mein Kempf", or even my religion teacher who assigned "On the Heights of Despair." How scarred must I be, to have read such controversial books.
Let us live up to our descent from apes and be the children of Göbles, casting aside our offensive ancestors like Locke and Voltaire. Shall not we then, in gay procession, line the streets clutching books and paintings and throw them onto pyres erected to destroy their lies? What freedom for humanity, how great shall we become, unburdened by the sins of our ancestors' pens!
Debout, les damnés de la terre, what freedom awaits you in the paradise of a world without thought!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote: An idea cannot be true for one child and false for another
So if a parent has more than one child, both/all children should be treated in exactly the same manner? And if this extends to education, what does this bring us? Cookie cutter people? Who decides this ultimate truth?
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Who decides this ultimate truth?"
No one, we just don't deny the right of each invidual, even if the individual is young, to search for it. And we don't allow others to deny this right either, even if the are blood relatives.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You are making no sense whatsoever. How is it useful to claim that the truth is the same for all children, and at the same time to claim that everyone should be able to do whatever he/she wants? If no one knows this truth, then maybe it IS right for a parent to not want the school to expose his/her child to nudity or to feel that certain subjects are best addressed at home.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:After all, good art should always make everyone who looks at it feel good about themselves and about life.
Hey, Pel, why don't you go have a conversation with someone who's said anything that remotely resembles this.
You clearly don't want to have a conversation with the people who are actually posting to you.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Definately not reading all the contentious argumentative posts that have emerged in this thread, but in case anyone is still reading it for the orignal topic, I would second Escher as a great choice for 2nd graders. Monet also. I love Monet.
And now you can back to arguing about life, the universe, and everything.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Sarcasm, aside, I have striven during the course of this thread to point out the utter senseless of this mindset. An idea cannot be true for one child and false for another, although it could be perceived as such. So, one group of children is then cheated either into hearing something that is wrong and false or into not hearing something which is good and true.
Pel, you seem to think we live in a world of absolutes. Hate to break it to you, but we really dont.
1) There are definately issues which I am not entirely comfortable being taught to my theoretical children without at least hearing what is going to be taught. While this ideal of an objective teaching on the world's religions is great, I think it is rarely going to be achieved.
Whether through any concious effort, effects of their upbringing or improper/incomplete education on the matter, I think many/most people in this world (including trained teachers) would not handle this as objectively as I'd like.
I'm an naturally going to have a certain slant because I'm Catholic. Even as a very open-minded person (or at least one who tries to be) there are certain religions that seem silly at best. There are certain aspects of history where the various sides still aren't difinitively and objectively known. etc, etc.
It's not so much that a given topic should be banned, but controversial topics do need some sort of parental input (at least in my mind).
Maybe I'm of a religion that thinks that seeing a nude human form out of wedlock is a mortal sin... I'm not necessarily saying that it's the most logical belief, or the most widely accepted, but certainly it can be valid. Or are you saying that someone believing this is objectively wrong?
2) Age is critical in this discussion. Most here aren't arguing that the Sistine Chapel shouldn't be shown in public school, just that it might not be appropriate for 7 year olds.
If you refuse to aknowledge that the capability of a 7 year old and a 15 year old to accurately interperet things is different, then I can't have a meaningful conversation with you on the matter.
example: I think Band of Brothers is a very worthwhile portrayal of war. I would highly reccomend it to any adults, most any highschoolers, and potentially some middle-schoolers. I would, however, highly reccomend that it not be shown to a 2nd grader.
The 2nd grader is likely not emotionaly/intellectually developed enough to take this experience in in an appropriate light. Does that make the material less truthful or valuable? or does it just mean that a different amount of preparation might be needed for this different audience?
You'll probably take issue with this, though, seeing your previous thoughts on the unimportance of age. But I will say with certainty that if I showed the series to my 5 year old niece she wouldn't learn anything, but would be horrified, and likely scarred to the point of not wanting to watch it later in life when she would be capable of learning from it.
quote:If this offends parents, so be it. No one has ever been killed or in anyway hurt by looking at a picture of the Sistine Chapel. Many have been deeply moved and their lives enriched, but perhaps we should lock the chapel up and burn all pictures of it, lest someone on a school board in the United States be offended by an ignudo.
Maybe no one has ever been hurt by looking at the Sistine Chapel (other than some neck cramps) but what about a child exposed to pornography at a young age? or exposed to rampant drug use (even just in movies)? I'm betting there are some sociologists out there that could come up with studies about these children growing up with noticable tendancies towards drug use, abuse etc... I'm not saying that the Sistine Chapel is porn, or dangerous, but you have to admit there is a line to draw.
quote:After all, good art should always make everyone who looks at it feel good about themselves and about life. This is, after all, the argument used by a man who wants to ban "The Lord of the Flies" from schools. Same argument, different wording. I shudder to think what they would have done to my History teacher who made poor innocent students read from "Mein Kempf", or even my religion teacher who assigned "On the Heights of Despair." How scarred must I be, to have read such controversial books.
how scarred you probably would have been if you had been forced to read those books in 2nd grade (or more likely had them read to you).
on a separate note: anyone want to take bets on whether or not Pel can go more than one post without making references to obscure and/or long dead philosophers or include at least two words that 75% of the board has to look up in a dictionary?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" If no one knows this truth, then maybe it IS right for a parent to not want the school to expose his/her child to nudity or to feel that certain subjects are best addressed at home."
Under what authority are they, or any other, granted to say what is true and what is false with no evidence or logic on their side, and then to dicatate who should learn what?
"If you refuse to aknowledge that the capability of a 7 year old and a 15 year old to accurately interperet things is different, then I can't have a meaningful conversation with you on the matter."
A seven year old can say "it is beautiful," all that is given to mortals is we believe Keats, a fifteen year old can, if taught well, explain the influence of Humanist philosophy, Reformation theology and Italian history on the work. A difference in perception, to be sure, but the views are complementary. The song Jesus Loves me and the Gospel of John might well serve to explain this: John's message is more complex and difficult, but is based on the same basic understanding of the divine.
The most troubling aspect of the chapel is "The Last Judgement" fresco, and I doubt that any second grader knows enough to be troubled by the theology of it.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I wouldn't want my second-grader seeing a picture of a mother grieving over her dead son unless I could be there to talk to them about their feelings about the piece and make sure they had the opportunity to talk about it for as long and in as much detail as they needed to.
This is the crux of it for me. I don't think it's necessarily wrong that any individual 2nd graders saw the works Icarus noted, but as a parent I would want to be there and make sure they had a chance to express their feelings and ask questions about it. And I'd probably prefer to be the one to determine whether or not they're ready to see it. Some 7 year olds might be ready, some won't.
The religious themes don't bother me for 2nd graders, the death scene does disturb me, and the nudity ... I'd prefer they avoid that in school at this age, but at least let me know so I can discuss it with her. I'd prefer to introduce some of these things myself.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Under what authority are they, or any other, granted to say what is true and what is false with no evidence or logic on their side, and then to dicatate who should learn what?
Sorry, I had to respond to this: Parents have authority over their children just by virtue of being their parents. They have authority over what their children are taught and exposed to. They have no authority over other people's children, but they can determine what their children will be taught; if the schools are teaching things too far outside what they deem appropriate, they can take them out of school. No one else has any higher authority over what a child learns than the parent.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: " If no one knows this truth, then maybe it IS right for a parent to not want the school to expose his/her child to nudity or to feel that certain subjects are best addressed at home."
Under what authority are they, or any other, granted to say what is true and what is false with no evidence or logic on their side, and then to dicatate who should learn what?
Do you not see that you're advocating the exact same thing?
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"No one else has any higher authority over what a child learns than the parent."
Not even the child? That is a blow for individual liberty.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In second grade? Yes, not even the child.
It's not a blow to individual liberty. It's a recognition that a parent is responsible for a child.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"It's not a blow to individual liberty. It's a recognition that a parent is responsible for a child."
In the end, we are responsible to ourselves, even in childhood. We cannot, in bonne foi, set up a system that denies this to all people under a certain age. Where would we even set it? Thirteen, ten, twenty, fifty, forty-two?
This is not about art education in American primary schools, it is about humanity, as most things are.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
While we're at it, let's give toddlers the right to vote.
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Let's avoid voting rights, I have seen where that leads.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Avoiding voting rights: let's give toddlers the right to eat whatever they choose, and watch as a generation gluts themselves on candy, stunting growth, causing diabetes etc etc...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Let's also give them the right to marry.
-pH
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Apologies for double posting, but I just thought of a personal experience that relates to this situation a bit.
In 6th grade I read The Mists of Avalon. I am/was a bright kid, could comprehend the book, was reading well above "the 6th grade level" etc. However, that didn't stop me from being rather upset by a fairly graphic scene of incest in the book. Perhaps this is a sign of me being somewhat sheltered (though I don't really think so), but I honestly don't think it was appropriate for me to be reading that just then. A couple years later, with a better developed sense of sexuality would have been a better time for me to read that text.
Was the book bad because I read it too young? no. would its "truth" have been better if I had waited? probably.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Grimace, my (Catholic) boyfriend read the Exorcist in third grade. I think that would be a pretty traumatizing thing, too. It's not about being sheltered.
Edit: I was terrified by a drawing of vampire victims I saw when I was 9, and for years could not sleep with any part of my body outside of the covers.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)