|
British Teachers to stop teaching children right from wrong
Return to Opinions Menu
David Sapsted filed an article with the London Telegraph in July 2006 and made the startling claim that teachers will no longer teach teen-agers the difference between right and wrong under Government Plans.
Reviewed by David Hughes-Jones, Adelaide Sept 2006
It has been proposed by the Government that Schools will no longer have to teach teenagers the difference between right and wrong under government plans. This is clearly another move to bolster "Human Rights" and Multiculturalism in Britain which is coming under constant criticism
This proposal was greeted yesterday with a mixture of disbelief and fury, is outlined in proposed changes to the national curriculum, requested by ministers in an attempt to simplify the system.
Schools will only have to ensure that children between 11 and 14 have "secure values and beliefs" and are "committed to human rights".
Draft reforms to the curriculum have also deleted a requirement to teach children about Britain's cultural heritage and instead the need for them to "work for the common good".
Nick Gibb, the shadow minister for schools, said yesterday that he was aghast at the proposals put forward by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
He said: "The education establishment is constantly engaged in these type of reforms with the result that everyone is horrified. Ministers must engage with the public so that this type of nonsense is not allowed to prevail."
The changes form part of government plans to reform education for children aged 11 to 14. Ministers have asked for changes to the national curriculum to give schools greater flexibility in the way they teach this age group.
Ken Boston, chief executive of the QCA, set out the proposed changes in a letter to the then education secretary, Ruth Kelly, earlier this year.
"The school curriculum should pass on enduring values. It should develop principles for distinguishing between right and wrong," he wrote.
But he added that, instead of a requirement to teach the difference between right and wrong, the aim should be to instil secure values, whatever these might be.
The statutory requirement states: "The school curriculum should pass on enduring values. It should develop principles for distinguishing between right and wrong."
It also says a school's aims should be to develop pupils' "ability to relate to others and work for the common good". Under the proposed changes, reference to "the common good" is deleted.
And it is a requirement that "the school curriculum should contribute to the development of pupils' sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain's diverse society".
The planned changes, are aimed to help individuals "understand different cultures and traditions and have a strong sense of their own place in the world".
Prof Alan Smithers, director of the University of Buckingham's centre for education and employment research, said: "The idea that they think it is appropriate to dispense with right and wrong is a bit alarming."
The National Union of Teachers apparently think the changes proposed are OK. "Teachers always resented being told that one of the aims of the school was to teach the difference between right and wrong. That is inherent in the way teachers operate," said a spokesman.
The QCA spokesman said: "The new wording states clearly that young people should become 'responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society'."
In a further article files with the London Telegraph 31 July 2006, under the Title "The wrong Answer" the question is asked
'Aristotle's question defined the project of politics: to reconcile the competing interests of individuals in a community.
All successful civilisations have responded by developing a set of universal standards by which all must live. Chief among these are the simple but absolute notions of right and wrong.
That government ministers now propose to change National Curriculum to respect "human rights" and to "understand different cultures and traditions".instead of "right and wrong" has caused great concern to parents, teachers and the general public.
The authors of the new wording - and their allies, the teachers' unions - argue that teachers do not need to be told to teach ethics: this "is inherent in what teachers do", says the NUT. Would that it were.
Too often the teaching of ethics becomes merely the celebration of children's subjective beliefs - which, naturally enough, are often antipathetic to the culture of adulthood and the nation.
The new curriculum endorses this puerile morality by emphasising, instead of objective standards of behaviour, "secure values and beliefs", irrespective of what these might be.
What is a "secure Value"?.Homicidal Islamism, dedicated to the destruction the non-Islamic world - is a "secure value"; so is world communism; so is nihilism and the cult of hedonistic despair.
None of these values is compatible with the survival of British society, yet all fit the requirements of the new curriculum.
“Education”, said Plato, should "steep [children] in the spirit of the laws". (If the spirit of our law is to be human rights and cultural diversity, then the new wording is valid.)
If, on the other hand, we still retain a belief in individual responsibility within the covenant of the nation - the spirit of the law derived from Christianity and Judaism, which has been the most successful of all the world's answers to Aristotle's question - we must deliberately inculcate this principle in our children.
. “Right” and “wrong”, however, being absolute, are non-negotiable. Leave them be.
top
|
