Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I get what you're saying, but I don't agree that they can understand what abstract concepts like "love" really mean when they're only 4 years old. They can repeat the phrase, but does the phrase "I love you" have any more meaning to them than "I blargle you", if you have the same reaction to both phrases?
I wonder if there are studies out there to research that question -- "how early does a child understand persistent emotions like love?"
If it's 4 or younger, I'd concede this point. Otherwise, it might not be a bad idea for others here to reconsider their views a little.
I'm no different. If a peer reviewed journal surfaces suggesting that 4 is too young, I'd say hold of for a few years.
However, I do not believe that the concept of 'love' is being taught in a way that is too complex for children to comprehend. Children are capable of love. They love quite a lot of things. And yes, of course it is different from romantic love, but certain principles of deep affection still apply.
And to be clear, I totally agree that there is a limit here. There are ways to teach this that a 4 year old is simply not ready to be exposed to. But, I do not believe there is reason to believe that this is being taught in anyway that is too much for children.
Another aspect I haven't yet even touched on, that I think is relevant to bring up here is the presence of children who's parents are gay. This is becoming more common, and there are sure to be children who have gay parents going to school and they may feel left out when stories about parents is restricted to opposite sex couples. Now, there's also a chance that a 4 year old won't notice this and will just look forward to getting their graham crackers at snack time but every child will be different in this respect. Some kids surely will notice that parents like there's are not in the stories they read at school and while I doubt this would cause long term negative side effects, it's something worth considering.
It is a private school. If you don't like the curriculum you can leave. If you make waves and try to change curriculum for snowflake they can make you leave.
The parents were upset over a story that had a same sex couple. It was probably like the other one that came up recently that had all different family structures and had one page that said Bobby has two mommies.
The parents in this article were upset because they felt it was like sex education.
It would ruffle my feathers too. Just like if they were teaching them about abortion. I'm pro choice and pro gay marriage, but let the parents handle the controversial topics (when the children are ready to have those talks). I don't want to spend time undoing what a teacher taught if I don't agree or the child isn't ready to understand yet.
I want education to be a positive and enriching experience, and teaching beyond a child's capabilities is in direct conflict with my ideals.
The parents in this article were upset because they felt it was like sex education.
It would ruffle my feathers too. Just like if they were teaching them about abortion. I'm pro choice and pro gay marriage, but let the parents handle the controversial topics (when the children are ready to have those talks). I don't want to spend time undoing what a teacher taught if I don't agree or the child isn't ready to understand yet.
I want education to be a positive and enriching experience, and teaching beyond a child's capabilities is in direct conflict with my ideals.
Quote:
books read in her class, including ones that told the stories about same-sex couples and worms unsure about their gender.
Unless the book was discussing the sex life of the same sex couple it wasn't sex ed any more than a book that mentions mommy and daddy is sex ed.
I don't have access to their studies. I did a google search like you asked and that was the first listing int page.
Might've been my fault for not being more specific with what I meant with "studies": like the scientific type, peer reviewed, all that. The one that I did find has pretty convincing evidence that children do NOT understand love at four. And I like to think that my positions are evidence-based, not just anecdotal.
I had my suspicions anyway, thinking back to toddlers just learning to count and saying "1 2 3!", and me wondering if that was them memorizing the sounds, or understanding what the numbers represented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Unless the book was discussing the sex life of the same sex couple it wasn't sex ed any more than a book that mentions mommy and daddy is sex ed.
I don't think it's like sex ed, but I understand where they're coming from (with the ruffled feathers remark). You'd have to have a pretty loose definition of sex ed ("George loves Tony" is different than "George and Tony have sex"). It is starting to creep in that territory of human relations though.
Might've been my fault for not being more specific with what I meant with "studies": like the scientific type, peer reviewed, all that. The one that I did find has pretty convincing evidence that children do NOT understand love at four. And I like to think that my positions are evidence-based, not just anecdotal.
I had my suspicions anyway, thinking back to toddlers just learning to count and saying "1 2 3!", and me wondering if that was them memorizing the sounds, or understanding what the numbers represented.
I don't think it's like sex ed, but I understand where they're coming from (with the ruffled feathers remark). You'd have to have a pretty loose definition of sex ed ("George loves Tony" is different than "George and Tony have sex"). It is starting to creep in that territory of human relations though.
How is it "creeping in that territory" when it is a same sex couple but not when it is a opposite sex couple?
A book that has a man a woman and a child is not considered creeping into human relations, but a book with two men and a child is? Basically every story book has human relations.
Do we remove all story books with humans so that we don't discuss human relations with children? No, we discuss all types of human relations in pre k. Parents, siblings, grandparents, teachers, police, all different types of human relations, but not same sex parents that is too far.
And the mother didn't mention "human relations" she said sex ed. If mentioning same sex parents is sex ed, the so is mentioning opposite sex parents.
"Anti-bias curriculum" That idea in itself is a bias. Also....if a parent has a bias -or a prejudice - or a refusal to consider the possible merits of an opposing point of view....hmmm? The other definition is "an unfair preference for one thing over another" Who said the world is fair or can even be made a perfectly fair place? Is it wrong to have a preference.....? These educators are telling the parents and the children what they should prefer or like or accept...are we not allowed to reject ANYTHING?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
4-Year-Old Kicked Out of Preschool Because Her Parents Objected to Same-Sex/Gender Discussions
