August 03, 2006
From TimesOnline.co.uk:
Schools would no longer be required to teach children the difference between right and wrong under plans to revise the core aims of the National Curriculum.No morality education coupled with total ignorance of one's family, community and nation makes Jack a very malleable boy.Instead, under a new wording that reflects a world of relative rather than absolute values, teachers would be asked to encourage pupils to develop "secure values and beliefs."
The draft also purges references to promoting leadership skills and deletes the requirement to teach children about Britain's cultural heritage.
Ministers have asked for the curriculums aims to be slimmed down to give schools more flexibility in the way they teach pupils aged 11 to 14.
But I wonder if the motive has less to do with flexibility in education and more to do with political appeasement to the Muslims in the UK. It would seem logical and consistent with the effort last year when Muslims successfully pressured the Brits into teaching Islam to primary school children, ostensibly to breed harmony. Muslim leader Iqbal Sacranie stated that every child must have "access to high quality Islamic resources."
It's also interesting that the target of no values education will be children ages 11 through 14. Hey, kids! Now that you have learned Islam in primary school, listen up. You have access to high quality Islamic resources so you can forget right and wrong and forget that you're a British subject. Everything is relative.
And what better time to tell a bunch of kids to do their own thing than when they are juggling raging hormones and funny feelings?
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
12:37 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Oyster at August 03, 2006 01:30 PM (t5wtc)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 03, 2006 01:44 PM (v3I+x)
Posted by: MiB at August 03, 2006 02:03 PM (6jwxg)
Posted by: Leatherneck at August 03, 2006 03:28 PM (D2g/j)
Posted by: Greyrooster at August 03, 2006 05:31 PM (XqAoh)
The ethical teachings of the religion here are put out alongside everything else in the curriculum. It takes up a surprisingly large slice of the school day. The lectures I saw were aimed at 9-year-olds and entailed commonplace social obligations to family and neighbors, as well as some fables featuring important religious figures. Watching this it dawned on me that in my entire public schooling in the US there was no mention of any obligations I had to society, though I was thoroughly acquainted with my rights. Here it's the other way around. There's no talk of rights to children (they have none) but their place in society is made clear from day 1.
Now, if you compare this to what the Brits have, it might be tricky figuring out which is the more backward system. On the one hand you could say that where law enforcement is unreliable you must train children in ethics to avoid chaos; where there are no social welfare agencies you must support the authority of the family or watch discarded people starve in the street. The UK is so advanced that it can afford to keep order by putting a video camera on every corner and abate suffering by whisking away the unfortunate to some public institution. On the other hand you could say they are degenerate because these advances have rendered moral instruction superfluous.
What Mr. Pechar is concerned about is what happens when you mix these cultures. When you take a mass of amoral British kids who are raised to rely on polite, efficient bobbies to answer their ethical problems for them, and you plop in their midst some Muslims with some very clear and fixed ethical ideas that they are accustomed to apply on their own, there might be a problem. For the Brits part I don't think returning to moral instruction in school is workable. It's in the nature of democracy to minimize discontent, and far fewer people are offended by moral relativism in school than would be offended by attempting to enforce any absolute morality you could think of.
It would be much easier to require immigrant families to enroll their children in public school. Integrating them is made harder by their fondness for sending their kids to private schools that keep alive those Old Country values. If instead they are forced to drink from the cup of relativism at public school, little Wafa will be ditching her hijab and getting impregnated at raves just like a normal British girl and cultural integration will be achieved.
Posted by: ShannonKW at August 03, 2006 05:32 PM (82AvZ)
Posted by: Mike at August 03, 2006 06:13 PM (oKyWL)
At least, this is my sincere opinion and I can say this without fear of reprisal as I am an American and I have the right to voice my opinion regardless of who doesn't like it.
Posted by: Rastaman at August 03, 2006 07:09 PM (jyZtT)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 03, 2006 08:30 PM (v3I+x)
She spews about how “normal British girls†are nothing but amoral cum dumpsters and that islam produces people with “very clear and fixed ethical ideasâ€. It’s almost as if she’s saying that at some point in the muzzie life something clicks in their pea sized brains and their future behavior has nothing to do with their brain washed youth.
Please give me a minute while I throw up…
That’s better.
You put these kids into Western classrooms and they actually accomplish something. Shannon is happier blaming the system when she walks out into the public with dingle berries matting her ass than herself and family who never taught her to wipe properly. It starts with the family dear – and ends with the family. When that family teaches you to be a hated filled douchebag and calls for the destruction of another nation you’re going to grow up being as big of a piece of shit as your parents are – regardless of where the fuck you live.
Immigrate to Iran you clueless cunt!
Posted by: Barney Coppersmith at August 03, 2006 09:39 PM (dpUkO)
The cameras are in place to watch who. The criminals. Could the criminals be black or swarthy in appearance? Could they be the relatives of the Pakis you are training?
I'm not knocking your assessment of the public school system. I required that my children attend public school for 1 year in middle school and 1 year in high school. They then understood why I sent them to private schools.
Polite bobbys are an asset. Try conversing with a black cop in New Orleans. Do you get out much?
" It would be much easier to require immigrant families to enroll in public schools". So they can finish off the public school system? It would be much easier if England didn't have any immigrants. England should be English.
Posted by: Greyrooster at August 04, 2006 05:40 AM (TojQF)
Posted by: sandpiper at August 04, 2006 09:03 AM (UwJcR)
And, yes, it would be better not to admit immigrants that would make trouble in the first place, but no Western country seems able to avoid the practice.
Posted by: ShannonKW at August 04, 2006 09:26 AM (nCFoc)
Can't avoid Immigrants. But maybe if we started SHOUTING FOR THE ROOFTOPS. Staying silent gets nothing done.
Posted by: Greyrooster at August 04, 2006 12:26 PM (1p/Ge)
Posted by: Greyrooster at August 04, 2006 12:27 PM (1p/Ge)
Nevermind that the US and other countries absorbed incredible amounts of immigrants in the past. We're all filled up now, can't take any more. Only a dispicable 'conservative' would consider American culture so weak and pathetic (and static) as to be unable to absorb any number of immigrants.
In fact, they're being absorbed very well into American culture; they're obeying the liberal creed of multiculturalism and spitting in your stupid faces, while you blame them instead of the people who you are paying, with your tax dollars, to teach them to hate you.
Another win for conservatives. Barbarians stabbing them in the back and they're concerned with incoming visitors.
Posted by: MiB at August 04, 2006 02:52 PM (6jwxg)
34 queries taking 0.0435 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.