I would ask you the same questions.
*Where is the acceptable content line?
*how do you define it?
*where does parental involvement intersect or supersede school curriculum?
*why is it schools duty to teach moral/life perspectives?
Agreed, itās why it could be taught under a special permission type course.
I donāt know if there is a single great answer for this. Morally neutral should not necessarily be a criteria though as students should be taught how to navigate a possible moral crisis.
How do we apply the line to anything being taught to kids?
Are they capable of handling the material and where is their brain development at - this is how all curriculum tends to be judged from Pre K up through high school.
Have some smart psychologists come up with an age based on brain development, maybe.
See above about psychologists. Use experts to develop the reasonable standard - thatās done across the board in other fields outside of education.
Reading a book about a crime and committing are crime a two very different things. I read books about murder all time (and murder was a topic of books I read in high school). Thatās also illegal everywhere. Should we prevent Shakespeare from being taught to kids because it contains murder? Thatās the logic you are trying to apply or you are making the argument that one crime is more acceptable than another.
I would start with the Western Canon.
Most parents donāt know what their kids should be reading. I wouldnāt trust them to make decisions about what my child reads. Some parents would prevent evolution from being taught.
Schools teach these things because we need to know how to think and make decisions. This s very thread, where people are comparing Kamala and Trump, is an example of why these things are taught. Do you want some agency when it comes to what you believe is right and wrong? Or do you want to have that imposed on you and never question it?
1 Like
As I said, more progressive. Reduce federal income tax on lower brackets by 10% and middle brackets by 0-5%, and raise taxes on the highest 2 brackets by enough to cover lost tax revenueā¦as some rough numbers to throw out there.
I would also like to see a small wealth tax implemented, like 0.25- 0.5% yearly for holdings greater than $5mil.
We will have to disagree. I see schools as publicly funded services and expect control, at least to a degree, over content and exposure.
Otherwise we are debating about when itās appropriate to introduce the concept of anal rape to a child and I just canāt get there.
Again, why are schools morality centers? And how much leverage should parents be given in allowing exposure if teaching morality is taken from them?
Right, so where do you draw the line with themes of anal rape and why?
More importantly, why is it necessary to include as a discussion point?
This is dodging context again.
And who gets to decide the morality?
2 Likes
No itās not. Your question comes down to one of morality and appropriateness. Murder and rape are both immoral by almost anyoneās measure. Why is one appropriate and not the other? The only way that is true is if one has some value as worse than the other.
My question is where and how you draw the line, but you keep dodging it.
You did mention smart psychologists, but a quick search of the psychological field shows me smart psychologists disagree with each other too, and psychology is a very soft science anyways. So which psychologist do you pick to raise your kid, and why does that psychologist get to decide for mine too?
Because you presumably would prefer to have a school system address the hard topics of morality, ālifeā et cetera instead of doing it yourself as the parent, my kid has to read about anal rape at school while being instructed on literary shadows?
1 Like
I would draw the line then that it would be appropriate for junior or seniors to study a topic such as this. Below that, I doubt maturity levels would be capable of handling it.
Yes, psychologists disagree as do many other scientists in other fields, but one can come to the best consensus with the given data.
Way to generalize when I said nothing of the sort. In general, parents and schools should work together to teach a child everything they should know before kicking them out of the nest. Morality as a theme needs to be taught in school as well as at home. Students should address and think about the moral issues in The Stranger or To kill a Mockingbird for example. Or contemplate mental health by reading Looking for Alaska. Or tackle the issues of colonial expansion with the Last of the Mohicans.
Math, Science and grammar alone do not make for a well rounded education.
Again why is murder more appropriate to be studied than another crime? We teach about murder, genocide, torture, and slavery in history classes and English classes.
Why is this the one topic the one that gets the most attention and the go to to achieve hyperbole in the arguments like this? Is it maybe because the western upbringing as we know it today has had some weird obsession with sexual purity for the last few centuries?
So crowd source and find the most common theme?
Why canāt this work for book selection itself, from the affected community? Is it fair to say the consensus in your community has already made a determination on which books are acceptable?
Do you believe schools are or should be a higher authority in childrenās lives than their parents?
Thatās fine. Why is it schools job to teach non-academic topics?
Be prepared to share that control with morons, illiterates, child abusers, addicts and the mentally ill. Parents have been the ruin of public schools as much as anyone.
1 Like
Itās not. Other books on your provided list are there due to how they depict violence. I used Kite Runner as an example but letās switch to another title. You pick.
Exactly. I think weāre actually saying the same thing.
Schools have rules. When questioned about a rule, would there not be a moral component? A school without morals is easy to find; theyāre all over the inner cities. I donāt think we would like our children to go there.
I told a parent that her daughterās behavior made it hard for the other kids to learn. Her ghetto ass answer: I donāt care about other kids. Thereās your lack of morals.
And donāt confuse morality with a set of beliefs.
Decisions made by ultra religious morons who champion this cause are not acceptable. There is a very vocal minority and unfortunately Floridaās government kisses their ass.
Interesting. So why does your moral code dictate what is broadly acceptable and not anybody elseās?
It doesnāt. Thatās what a truly free society is for. I donāt agree with every book on the shelf nor would I want to. Most pushing these books out hate LGBT, anything other than missionary position, and anyone generally not white. Itās basically stated in their platforms (Moms for Liberty was founded in Brevard and they are one of the loudest voices locally).
Getting rid of some literature and pushing others has the same effect as pushing creation and young earth instead of evolution.
I think we are deviating a bit from curriculum selection. Iām not advocating anarchy. Sort of the opposite really.