With one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe, the British government is bringing sex education to all schools in England, including kindergarten-age children. ”It’s vital that this information doesn’t come from playground rumor or the mixed messages from the media about sex,” Schools Minister Jim Knight said Thursday. For the very young, sex ed will mainly be about “self-awareness.”
“We are not talking about 5-year-old kids being taught sex. What we’re talking about for key stage 1 (ages 5-7) is children knowing about themselves, their differences, their friendships and how to manage their feelings.”
Needless to say, not everyone’s enamored of the plan. Says one mum: “I am not the parent who calls her son’s penis a wee-wee. But I should decide if the word penis enters my child’s vocabulary at 5 or not.”
Parents pay an average of $7,000 a year for preschool education, a pricetag that leaves some parents reeling in uncertain economic times. ”This is blocks and Play-Doh, essentially. What are we doing?” Elizabeth Henderson, a mother of three in Tustin, Calif., tells Smart Money. She pays $500 a month to send her youngest to a nearby preschool for three half-days a week.
Forced to choose between paying for preschool and saving for college, the magazine notes, parents are increasingly looking at three options: Parent co-op preschools, where parents take turns working in the classroom with the kids and teacher; at-home day care with an educational bent; and homeschooling.
You can always try this too. Play-doh not included.
Teachers in Huntsville, Alabama will soon be subject to a dress code. Call me old school, but it’s a little sad that this needs to be spelled out for grown-ups. Huntsville already has a student dress code that forbids overly baggy, tight, or revealing clothes, plus no t-shirt slogans referring to drugs, alcohol or violence.
A few years ago, parents at my daughter’s school were in a lather over a high school girl’s t-shirt, which read “Sex, Drugs, and Nuclear Physics.” Half the parents thought it was inappropriate, and set a bad example for the lower schoolers. The other half thought it was great the girl was so into science.
Fordham’s Mike Petrilli, who seems to have turned all his thoughts of late to the machinations of a future Obama administration’s education policy, raises an interesting question about the place of Teach for America and other reform efforts in Obama’s pantheon.
On the one hand, Barack Obama has praised Michelle Rhee, the poster-child for Teach For America’s impact on American education. Several of his advisors are drawn from the group’s alumni and friends….So why on earth is the campaign allowing Linda Darling-Hammond to play surrogate for the Senator and say nasty things about TFA in high-profile events?
Darling-Hammond is TFA’s most notable critic, and has long argued that alternative certification programs ill-serve poor and minority children.
Someone—probably Barack Obama himself—is going to have to make a decision about whether to embrace reform (and in this case, TFA) or embrace the union-and-ed-school establishment (and in this case, LDH). If he wins the election and appoints Darling-Hammond to a senior position, we’ll know which way he’s decided to go.
Back in 2005, Darling-Hammond said of TFA, “While a band-aid on a bleeding sore is helpful in a crisis, healing wounds of inequality and poverty is also a policy problem worth solving.” Thus it’s likely that the scenario described by Petrilli will be portrayed as a false dichotomy. Still it’s safe to say there will be people with very different views of the world vying for a place at the table.
Recent Comments