There are a number of important, if not crucial, topics and information that should be taught, particularly in high school.
When I asked a Canadian teachers’ union official whether there was any mandatory child-development science curriculum taught in high-schools, he immediately replied there was not. And when I asked the reason for its absence and whether it may be due to the subject matter being too controversial, he replied with a simple “Yes”.
This strongly suggests there are philosophical thus political obstacles to teaching students even such crucial life skills as healthy parenting through understanding child development. What bewilders me, though, is how teaching such curriculum would be considered more controversial thus a non-starter than teaching sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) curriculum, as is already taught here?
Although society cannot prevent anyone from bearing children, it can educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those intending to remain childless. After all, a mentally as well as physically sound future should be EVERY child’s fundamental right — along with air, water, food and shelter — especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter.
And the wellbeing of ALL children needs to be of great importance to us all, regardless of how well our own children are doing. But I'm not holding my breath, as I've found that most people are pessimistic and/or hostile towards such concepts. For many people, such ideas, if ever implemented, would be too much like communism and therefor somehow the end of the world.
There are a number of important, if not crucial, topics and information that should be taught, particularly in high school.
When I asked a Canadian teachers’ union official whether there was any mandatory child-development science curriculum taught in high-schools, he immediately replied there was not. And when I asked the reason for its absence and whether it may be due to the subject matter being too controversial, he replied with a simple “Yes”.
This strongly suggests there are philosophical thus political obstacles to teaching students even such crucial life skills as healthy parenting through understanding child development. What bewilders me, though, is how teaching such curriculum would be considered more controversial thus a non-starter than teaching sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) curriculum, as is already taught here?
Although society cannot prevent anyone from bearing children, it can educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those intending to remain childless. After all, a mentally as well as physically sound future should be EVERY child’s fundamental right — along with air, water, food and shelter — especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter.
And the wellbeing of ALL children needs to be of great importance to us all, regardless of how well our own children are doing. But I'm not holding my breath, as I've found that most people are pessimistic and/or hostile towards such concepts. For many people, such ideas, if ever implemented, would be too much like communism and therefor somehow the end of the world.
You've made this comment before Frank and it's still a matter of if you want to add a subject into schools, you need to drop one. So which one?