Glasgow, Scotland's largest local authority area, intends to give sex education to children as young as 4, in a move which the council says has been welcomed by parents and teachers.
Primary one pupils will learn about human body parts and animal reproduction as part of the new Sexual Health and Relationships curriculum which runs through to the sixth year.
Glasgow City Council claimed that the lessons had the "overwhelming support of pupils, parents and teachers alike."
How can a 4 year old declare overwhelming support for this and where are they finding the parents who support this?
Why can't children be allowed to have a childhood anymore instead of being force fed information far more suited to older children? It's very possible some of these wee ones can't even tie their own shoelaces, far less have a burning desire to know about body parts and animal reproduction.
Introducing more sex education into schools has not decreased the rates of teenage pregnancies or STDs.
Isn't it time our young children were taught the three Rs instead of filling their curriculum with classes in sex education? Isn't it time schools stopped being parents to our children and instead encouraged parents to do the parenting?
Children are at school only 30 hours a week and there's only so much can be taught during that time. Get on with their formal education and teach them how to read, write and count Glasgow - Scottish education standards are slipping and this nonsense is not going to improve that one bit. Or is this the easy way out?
Posts
24 comments:
Reminds me of "Brave New World" - another of Labour's blueprints.
Another brain wave by the bureaucrats that run the education department in Glasgow City Council no doubt! Money ought to be invested in reducing class sizes and getting back to basics.
It's all part of the plan to fill Browns workhouses with single mothers
New World Order more like Fausty. They don't want our children to be educated in the subjects which feed their intelligence.
Do you really think class sizes make such a difference except for the infants Johanna?
Dougie, you could well be right there. These children have no chance to learn basic subjects with this type of thing taking priority.
In my opinion class sizes make a huge difference to the standard of education. Smaller class sizes surely mean more attention devoted to each child resulting in a fairer assessment and more consideration of their educational needs. Class sizes of 30 result in too many children falling under the radar. In some schools where teaching is replaced by policing smaller class sizes are essential in order to create an environment where children can actually learn.
Shame they cant teach them about love after that sex would be easy...and probably more fun to.
It's frightening.
At four they need to learn to play, to team up, to share, to disagree, to read, to write, to listen, to count... and to be honest that's enough for any kid to be learning at that age.
Doubtless teaching them about sex and body parts is a good idea. (Lord knows there's plenty about at the moment, who don't know how they got pregnant... and that's the truth.)
It's a bad idea to wait to 14 or 15, which is what they did with us. Far too late. But not at 4 or 5.
Kids need time to be kids. They need not to have to worry about being fashionable, having their hair dyed and styled with gel and made to look like little adults.
That is stupid and dangerous. 9 or 10 is early enough for all of this nonsense.
I would say P 6 or 7 is about right too tris.
Such a shame these lessons are thrust upon young children.
I'd love to ask the parents why they're in some much agreement about them, so I would!
SR,
Remind me again - wots de free Rs?
The sooner we get rid of these patronising, pitiful, pc ridden, producers of p**s from our society, the better!
I trust the lady will forgive my language!
Thanks Johanna. At my age I can't get my head round the importance of class sizes apart from P1-3.
In the 50s there were 35 of us in a class and all but one passed the 'quali'. The one had missed a whole year because she's been involved in a serious accident.
Is the standard of today's education better than the 50s? I've often thought I'm being narrow minded when I no it's not but now I truly believe it isn't.
Surely teachers aren't any worse than those we had in the 50s. I believe the problem is the teachers aren't permitted to use sensible discipline and are forced to spend teaching time dealing with disruptive pupils.
In order words teachers aren't spending enough time teaching.
Mind you, the teachers have brought it all upon themselves with supporting their unions liberal agendas.
I doubt if love coule be taught in a school Niko, isn't it something that is learned, like eating?
WfW I'll forgive you for anything. Just hope this doesn't come to a school near you.
It is to be hoped sensible Glaswegian parents make a stand against this.
Classes of 35 when I was at school. No calculators, no word processors with spell and grammar checks. We had to memorize things. Seems to have worked.
We learned about sex in the playground and by the age of ten or eleven we had it pretty well sussed. We weren't too sure about the exact location of the woman's thingy though - most of us thought it was just underneath her belly button. Porn mags corrected that misapprehension - and many others. But that had to wait until Secondary School.
Scunnert has just pretty much taken the words out of my mouth. We had childhoods then, rather than being force fed sex-education which, as is usual with the Left is for the opposite reason they say it is!
They want to breed yet another generation of obedient Labour voters to benefit-dependent single mothers, NOT teach them about the dangers of unprotected sex, blah, blah etc..
Labour truly disgust me.
I couldn't agree more Subroasa. It's time we got back to basics. I used to be and my wife still is involved in Childrens' education for a private company, purely in English and Maths and believe me the standard in Glasgow where we both worked is appalling.
In many ways I don't think that education is comparable to the 1950s. You highlight one of the reasons for that in your original blog, Subrosa - teachers are expected to be parents and for some children school might be the only stability they know. Society has changed so much in the past 30 years and Thatcher policies (somewhat continued by New Labour) created a society which in many ways no longer cares. Too many children are denied a childhood and in too many cases it is left to teachers to not just teach the 3Rs but to instill manners, discipine etc. and in far too many cases to actually care.
Firstly let me apologise for my typos is some posts. I'm using another borrowed PC and the type is so small plus spell check isn't available.
That was my experience too scunnert, although being female and having a brother, I'd seen his bits often enough to realise they weren't the most attractive thing about him - that was his eyes. :)
DL it's no wonder parents are turning to private education and sacrificing much to do that.
I've never had experience of Glasgow schools but if Dundee decided upon this path, then I would have something to say.
Johanna, what can be done? Can the teachers union stand up and say the parenting side of teachers has to stop because there aren't enough hours in the day?
I still think 50s education is comparable with today - surely results make it so.
I understand there are more children with low reading and writing skills today than there ever were in the 50s. That's not to say there weren't any in the 50s. Many children then had to leave school at 15 because of family circumstances but they still did well in their lives.
They disgust me too Barking Spider, but will the tories improve the situation?
I honestly don't know what the solution is Subrosa! The sad fact is that if teacher's weren't parenting some children then no-one would be. I think that in the 1950s it was easier to become socially mobile than it is now. There is not as much opportunity for school leavers now as there used to be. The lack of a manufacturing industry has ensured that.
It's a difficult one Johanna. Grandparents who could pass on skills to children are dying, parents don't have the knowledge and therefore a whole 2 generations of vocational skills are gone.
Schools don't teach vocational skills to the level they used to do and youngsters have got to wait until they can get to a college or uni before they learn anything much about engineering etc.
I wouldn't say the 50s was more socially mobile. There was no money, no benefit safety as there is nowadays but families were there. Families are in the minority now it's single parents who are given priority.
Another part of the problem is that young folk expect a job rather than be grateful for one. If they can flash a bit of paper from a uni then that makes them somehow entitled to big pay etc.
With so many getting bits of paper for this and that, too many people for too few jobs and, as you say, no industry left.
I really thought the young generation would revive industry - not to the degree of the nationalised ones of course, but to a decent level.
Government legislation has put paid to that though. I've spoken to youngsters who say it's just nigh on impossible to start something these days and I believe them, having had experience of the bureaucrats myself.
Post a Comment