My Government has gone mad

[STEED]

No wonder Britain is in a mess, when this bloody stupid Labour Government dose this sort of thing.

Teaching right and wrong is scrapped

By JAMES TOZER, Daily Mail 10:37am 31st July 2006


Schools will no longer have to teach children the difference between right and wrong, it was revealed yesterday.
Under new plans, the National Curriculum will be changed to say teachers merely have to help them develop "secure values and beliefs".
Learning about Britain's cultural heritage will also be dropped in favour of simply making sure pupils "understand different cultures and traditions".
There was anger and disbelief last night at the planned changes to the curriculum for 11 to 14-year-olds, coming at a time of mounting concern about anti-social behaviour and warnings of the consequences of record levels of immigration.
The Church of England said the proposals risked eroding the fundamental principle of schooling to give children moral guidance, while education experts said dispensing with right and wrong was an "alarming" idea.
Critics said that at a time when efforts are being made to strengthen a sense of Britishness, dropping the word "Britain" from the curriculum made no sense at all.
The changes were revealed in an updated version of the National Curriculum published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Earlier this year, Ministers asked the QCA to slim down the document to give secondary schools greater flexibility in how they teach the difficult pre-GCSE age-group.
Ken Boston, chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, set out the proposals for changes in a letter to former education secretary Ruth Kelly.
The plan was set out in March but only revealed yesterday.
Among the existing "aims" set to be scrapped is for the curriculum to "pass on enduring values" including to "develop principles for distinguishing between right and wrong".
Under the QCA's proposals, these phrases would be replaced with an aim which simply says children should "have secure values and beliefs".
Elsewhere, the statement that the curriculum should develop pupils' "ability to relate to others and work for the common good" would see all reference to "the common good" removed.
And among the most controversial changes is the replacement of the requirement to help pupils develop a sense of identity "through knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain's diverse society".
Instead, all reference to Britain is dropped, with the aim to help individuals "understand different cultures and traditions and have a strong sense of their own place in the world". The plan attracted criticism from all sides last night.
A spokesman for the Church of England said: "We would be very concerned to see any erosion of the fundamental principle of education to provide for the spiritual and moral development of pupils and of society."
Professor 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."
Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: "I'm shocked that they are suggesting moving towards a value-free curriculum which I believe would be disastrous for future generations.
"It makes a mockery of Tony Blair's talk of respect - if young people don't have a proper moral education, what's to stop them respecting thieves or even terrorists?
"Youngsters need to know the difference between right and wrong and to understand the culture in which they live if they are to become successful members of society."
Rob Wilson, Conservative MP for Reading West and a member of the Commons education select committee, said: "In many areas it seems as though some parents are abandoning children to their fate.
"With the church less relevant today than ever, it is schools that provide them with the last vestige of a moral education, and that must not be taken away.
"As for the heritage question, we know that New Labour has always been hostile to British history, but removing it from the curriculum would strike a huge blow to Gordon Brown's big idea of promoting citizenship lessons."
And a spokeswoman for the National Union of Teachers said it was important for children to understand their "cultural heritage".
"To remove that requirement can undermine children's feelings of security in the country where they are living," she added.
However the NUT welcomed the proposed removal of the words "right" and "wrong", saying many teachers resented being told these were concepts they must instil.
"That is inherent in the way teachers operate," said the spokeswoman. "Removing it from the National Curriculum will make no difference to teachers."
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority stressed the new wording was only a draft as part of its review of Key Stage 3 which would be "consulted on formally" next year.
"The new wording states clearly that young people should become 'responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society'," said a spokesman. "It also identifies the need for young people who 'challenge injustice, are committed to human rights and strive to live peaceably with others."'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

[jumpy]

Just another nail in the coffin...
Imo morality and the difference between right and wrong shouldn't be tought to 11 to 14 year olds. They should bloody well know the difference by then.
They'll be teaching kids how to wipe their backsides next, I shouldn't wonder

[STEED]

Originally Posted by jumpy

They'll be teaching kids how to wipe their backsides next, I shouldn't wonder

Once there was a time I would had a good laugh at that remark but now.

[Skybird]

Die hard.

[STEED]

Skybird, can you please come to England and talk some sense into this Labour Government.

[Torplexed]

I wonder how much longer it will be before Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens get the boot for being moldy non-relevant English blokes?

[P_Funk]

Know who's job it is to teach right and wrong? They used to call them parents. I guess now they're just called wedded adults with dependants.

I'm all for the government doing what it can to make people's lives better but you shouldn't have to teach right and wrong. If by 14 you don't know right from wrong you might be a bit late to be helped... That said the curriculum shouldn't shy away from saying that oh I don't know maybe that killing people is wrong and stealing is a crime. Helping children understand the complex nature of right and wriong from a legal perspective would be very pertinent in school. However something like Christian morality or religious morality in general is definately not whats supposed to be taught. Also economic kinds of beliefs like say "giving money to poor people is bad" or something, stuff thats ideological in nature, isn't for kids since A their parents rub off on then, and B becuase kids are too suggestable to be "taught" this stuff. I learned about Left wing and Right wing in college. Fasicts and Pinkos and Conservatives and Liberals. Partisan beliefs aren't for kids in schools. But basic morality along the lines of constitutional law and human rights ought to be respected.

Every culture and society has its set of customs and beliefs. The part where it says removing all reference to "the common good" seems wrong to me. In any society regardless of belief the common good is just inherent in society.

That said the curriculum shouldn't shy away from saying that oh I don't know maybe that killing people is wrong and stealing is a crime.

So, this isn't an important lesson for parents to give their children?

But basic morality along the lines of constitutional law and human rights ought to be respected.

How can you give one w/o the other?

Seems to be one in the same. If we cannot depend on parents to teach their children the difference btwn right and wrong then who should we depend on?

Gov't social services? What have we become?

[Yahoshua]

I think you're jumping the gun here waste gate.........read his words slowly and play again (I had to read it twice to make sure I read it right) .

Yes, there is definitely something wrong with the British government. It has become infected with two diseases: Liberalism, and Beauracracy. Both need to have their influence diminished and their ill effects reversed...and soon.

[CB..]

..can some one please check wether Blair isn't actually Bin Laden?? there are more ways to commit acts of terrorism than bombs and other weapons...

a lie is a form of terrorism...

Blair and by inference the Government is lie-ing ...
it is deliberate sabotage

it's all getting far too sureal for me..i assume these rules only apply to "secular" schools..? all those religious "schools" he is encouraging are exempt from these restrictions..(and lets not kid our selves about that glaring hippocrisy)
well woop de do...lets hand the country over to right wing religious fanatics...and be done with it..

[Yahoshua]

I thought the liberals were running your country?

Unless I misunderstood who was in charge and its the hybrid religious liberals that are running Britain.

[CB..]

there are no liberals in this country...only extreme right wingers with excellent spin doctors..
i can't escape the suspicion we are being "set up" for something just round the courner..sooner or later some one is going to start "selling" us the answer..the problem having been deliberately created specificaly for this purpose...no liberals anywhere.. just spin doctors and marketing excecutives..ultra right wing

[Yahoshua]

"Special Interests"

I suppose that term would cover all aspects of the people who think they can run our lives better than we can.

[P_Funk]

Blair is the leader of the "Labour party". Labour meaning workers! Workers meaning left of left! Now the workers are going to war in the Mid East? That is as perverse as politics get.

[Deamon]

Maybe that way we can finaly beat them in the next u-boat campaign