posted
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.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a particular reason it should apply especially to religion, though -- the extra language regarding religion in the Constitution.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 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?
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.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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."
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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!
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
" 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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
"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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
