Are They Too Young To Understand?

[Fez]

while sorting through the school mail this morning in the office, amid the usual catalogues, flyers and general wastes of good paper and ink, i came across a leaflet for a new initiative sponsored by the local council promoting a booklet on gay rights and its inclusion as part of sex education. now keeping in mind this is a primary school, for children aged four to eleven, i must admit to being surprised the council had become involved in such a topic, particularly as this is a church of england school.

i want to be clear before i go on so that no one is uncertain as to my view on this issue; i am completely in favour of gay rights and do believe it is the responsibility of the education system to introduce children to this subject in an assertive and clear way. however, surely this topic should wait until the children are at secondary school ? even the oldest pupils we have here have no idea about what sex is. even the notion of kissing makes them blush or laugh, producing comments of ?urgh, you?ll get lurgy!?

this is naturally a delicate issue ? when i was at high school, our ideas about homosexuality were based solely on thoughtless discrimination as there was no discussion on gay issues as part of our PSE lessons (Person, Social Education). but this isn?t a high school; we are dealing with children with the attention spans of mayflies and the understanding of a world that does not go far beyond their own neighbourhood street.

i do not think this is an issue they can comprehend in the first instance, let alone understand.

[TAOWBST]

It may seem a little ironic that such things would be sent to a CoE school, (what with the bible being against homosexuality).

I don't think you can be predjudice towards a group based solely on their sexual orientation, irrelevant of what that may be. After all people often look at heterosexual "hatred", (for want of a better word) and not the other way around. But then thats the fault of the media I suppose.

As much as it was then, it is probaby about ten times worse now. I don't know what years you refer to when you say you were at high school, but I've just left high school, and can tell you it can't be that much different. Its probably worse now, what with all the media attention on such issues. But then it could also be attributed to the fact that there were so many 'scallies', (or yobs) at my school. I knew somone who was 'gay' as well. He was kinda protected by our group of friends from....well the rest of the school, (I suppose you have to know about the different groups of people kids in schools these days...its sort of like a hierachy. I'll explain it if requested but its too much to go into here). Just to show how things have changed what you refer to as PSE is now PSHE.

I know its a delicate issue, but so what? The more we beat around the bush, the less people understand. Perhaps if children were sufficiently informed and undertsood, issue like this, there may not be such situations, as those in high schools. Oh and like they say younger children are more able to understand and learn a foreign language, I think the same may apply to this. In some cases I think younger children are much more open-minded and willing to accept what you tell them as truth. Besides if they learnt about this sort of thing in primary school properly, maybe there wouldn't be so many coy teens.

[mr_e]

I certainly can't remember it becoming an issue at all until secondary school. Thankfully the current age groupings mean the hormones start to kick in for secondary school, then you definitely need to be teaching them. Girls were icky back then, and I assume boys would be too. Imagine the concept of kiss-chase or whatever in a secondary school. Heh.

[TAOWBST]

Yeah, but is secondary school not a bit too late?

I mean, by this time, a lot have pre-concieved ideas about such things, as well as being heavily influenced by the media and its slander on this sort of issue.

As far as most people at my school were concerned, (wow I feel old talking like that *lol*), it was a bad thing to be 'gay'. Partly the reason why the person I mentioned earlier, sought err 'protection' from our group of friends.

As I said, we were considered goths or sweds, in a school populated by scallies, so there was always going to be conflict. I must point out that it was they who attacked us,some of us would occasionally retaliate, by chasing them away. It was all based on their predjudice of us, (primarily our taste in music and in the case of one person sexual orientation). It was so extreme that younger relatives of my friends, and some of their friends would come to us, for protection from the masses of scallies, who merely disliked us because we were different from them. I mean really narrow-minded people, (really extreme).

But the point is this predjudice and lack of awareness stems from not being taught about such things when they are at an age they can understand near enough anything they are taught, (within reason obviously....a child so young won't understand newton's third law for example, at least I don't imagine so)

[johnriley1uk]

It might be a lack of understanding, but it could also be that there are some people out there who are just not pleasant....I know this strays from the point a bit, but take the example of a murderer. My feeling is that someone who kills with premeditation lacks a fundamental humanity, and whatever excuses are made for their actions it is just not a normal way to behave.

Your playground bullies likewise have a certain lack of common civilisation that could just be what they are, education or not. It may be that a more primitive area of their brain is more dominant.

After all, we don't have to be unpleasant, there is a choice.

[Mike]

I honestly don't think that a big deal should be made of it. The whole point is that everyone deserves a good level of respect and no one has the right to be disrespectful unnessarilly.

I think that children will always make fun / bully someone who they percieve as different, the way to stop it happening is to stop the groups feeling different. Difficult and practically impossible I know due to the fact that human beings are really just programmed to be Hunter Gatherer's, this means we naturally band together into like minded groups for protection from preditors. I am generally of the opinion that we have not changed much since the Roman times. We are still failing to meet my requirements for Civilisation because we are forced to do things (by law) instead of by natural concern / common sense. IE speeding near a primary school, polluting, in-humanly dealing other living animals (I am not a vegitarian though! "Will someone please think of the vegitables!").

[johnriley1uk]

That's a point, Mike, what about the vegetables? When do we draw the line between it being OK to kill for food, or even sport, or not OK? There are cannibals even today, so some humans don't draw a line - I presume their criterion is "my tribe or not my tribe" but this then becomes "my species or not my species" and by the time we get to the vegetables they are sufficiently unlike us for most not to care.

What would we do if we arrived on a planet of quiescent but sentient vegetables that were happily basking in sunlight composing poetry to themselves? Shoot them? Eat them?

Unfortunately we have to eat something to survive ourselves, and most animals and plants can't resist us and are fair game. Can we ever be truly civilised until we throw of the shackles of being animals ourselves?

[TAOWBST]

It is impossible for the human race to overcome such a serious fault, as that of being human. Therefore it will always be the way that we are 'cruel' to some species or other by eating it. From this perspective, there is and cannot be such a thing as a civilisation. I ask you does a lion contemplate the consequences of hunting and eating antelope? I think not, therefore it is impossible for us to survive, and question such things. And are plants not alive? So by such logic is it immoral to eat them as well? After all they grow,respire,produce waste,reproduce just like animals.

[mr_e]

I've obviously had a very sheltered upbringing: I can see your point, TAO, about teaching them about it whilst young, before they're exposed to negative influences in secondary school. A preemptive strike, as it were. It's a fine line to walk between necessary education and growing up too soon.

I would like to point out at this stage that my primary school was a small village one, with eighty pupils. In total. Yeah, maybe a bit sheltered.

[Claire]

surely this topic should wait until the children are at secondary school ? even the oldest pupils we have here have no idea about what sex is. even the notion of kissing makes them blush or laugh, producing comments of ?urgh, you?ll get lurgy!?

...we are dealing with children with the attention spans of mayflies and the understanding of a world that does not go far beyond their own neighbourhood street.

i do not think this is an issue they can comprehend in the first instance, let alone understand.

Don't really know whether I am agreeing or disagreeing on the main points raised here. Having been educated, and now teaching, in the Catholic education system I certainly can't imagine the issues being raised at Primary schools - not that I think they shouldn't. However, I think it is naive to assume that even the oldest students at primaries have 'no idea about what sex is'. based on my experience of teaching year sevens fresh from primary the evidence would suggest otherwise. Yes, most kids maintain their innocence until they get to high school or even year 8 but some clearly have a sexual awareness. They might not understand what they know but i started watching eastenders (for example) when i was 8/9 and there are certain issues you can't escape.

[Lizzie]

Good point, Claire !!

I did think they tackled issues like this in some childrens programmes such as Byker Grove and similar programmes some times tackle issues like this - correct me if I'm wrong though.

[TAOWBST]

Althought that may be so,Lizzie.

Should it be left to such things as tv programmes to educate them on these issues? After all such programmes are only interested in making entertainment, and in most cases don't consider the educational values it may have for a young audience. Besides which, it is unlikely these programmes will teach the children an unbiased view, thereby resulting it in being a negative influence.

[Lizzie]

No I agree it shouldn't be left to TV shows- but it means that kids are way more aware of what's going on than perhaps we give them credit for and therefore issues like this should be addressed in school and/or at home.

[TAOWBST]

Issues like this are hardly ever addressed by most parents, whether its their responsibility to or not is another matter. I agree this should be addressed in schools.

[Kirstypie]

Like most things, it varies completely according to each person. One kid might get it straight away - they might well have a gay mum or dad or any other relative - another might find it weird and react badly. I think the important thing is to bring it into their world early, then maybe they'll have more time to think instead of react. I agree with Lizzie - TV programmes do raise awareness about all of this kind of stuff. Alot of kids pay more attention to TV than school, and the two complement each other.