May I ask, What is wrong with the left coast???

[Skybird]

did I get this right? This took place in a Kindergarten...?

I don't know how it is in America, but in Germany Kindergärten are filled with 2-5 year old.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Skybird

did I get this right? This took place in a Kindergarten...?

I don't know how it is in America, but in Germany Kindergärten are filled with 2-5 year old.

5-year-olds it was.

You'd be surprised how many young kids I hear constantly calling each other "gay" around here, though.

[Skybird]

No, I wouldn't, but it is talking about stuff they snapped up, not stuff that they really know and understand. Same is true for that toylike treaty they had to "sign". It is beyond the mental horizon of that age, and treating little kids like small adults is - well, I bite my lips.

[1480]

Hear me out a minute: I am not ignorant, nor am I a (insert any counterculture tag)-phobe. I gave up on the church I was raised into, for reasons too numerous to take up bandwidth here. 4-6 year olds, adding the caveat, that are being raised by their parents, should not have certain words in their vocabulary. I know for a fact that hatred is a learned behavior, along with sharing and responsibility. I don't know about you, but a school's number one priority is to educate. Would it not be irresponsible for an institution whose main goal is to teach, just "ban" words without giving their definition? So, if you tell a 5 year old that saying "fag" is not nice (which I agree with) but, do not instruct a child of the word's meaning, is that not in fact a grave omission of the educator's duty to educate? Telling someone that they will not say the word "jujubee" without giving them the definition of the word is just outright censorship rather then have them develop a moral system that will give them the choice to preclude said word.

It's the definition of the word "fag" that would be taught to a 4-6 year old that enrages me.

[Frederf]

Your post confuses me. You said it's right to explain why certain words are not allowed fully but you are enraged by a young kid would be given the definition?

[1480]

Originally Posted by Frederf

Your post confuses me. You said it's right to explain why certain words are not allowed fully but you are enraged by a young kid would be given the definition?

You are right and I should have broken it down some more.

Why is it even brought up in the first place? Shouldn't this be taught at home? I do not expect my child to learn that hatred is wrong from a school. That is a parents job. If a child uses a word that is inappropriate, address it then through the definition system. My thing is why take a proactive approach to a problem that should be addressed at home?

Remember these are 4-6 year olds.

Then take your kid out of public school. That is your right. Just as it is my right to tell you that the age of hard headed age of hate has ended.

Ahhh Zach....

You are right, I do not have my child in public school. Yet 65% of my property tax bill goes to public school funding. So I'm penalized for wanting my child to have a private education. One who has to show a performance level, but does not get mandated by the nanny state to take out the pledge of allegience or offer condoms in grade school. Still I have to pay twice for this silliness. BTW, where are you going with the "age of hard headed age of hate?"

[Frederf]

Originally Posted by 1480

Why is it even brought up in the first place? Shouldn't this be taught at home? I do not expect my child to learn that hatred is wrong from a school. That is a parents job. If a child uses a word that is inappropriate, address it then through the definition system. My thing is why take a proactive approach to a problem that should be addressed at home?

Remember these are 4-6 year olds.

Ahhh Zach....

You are right, I do not have my child in public school. Yet 65% of my property tax bill goes to public school funding. So I'm penalized for wanting my child to have a private education. One who has to show a performance level, but does not get mandated by the nanny state to take out the pledge of allegiance or offer condoms in grade school. Still I have to pay twice for this silliness. BTW, where are you going with the "age of hard headed age of hate?"

It's brought up in school because there's a demonstrated need for the schools to address it. You should expect a school to teach hatred is wrong especially when hatred at school becomes an obstacle for schools to perform their primary task. The reasons to take a proactive approach are obvious:

1. By preventing the issue before it happens you avoid the emotional damage that such actions bring.
2. Using a punishment-based method has negative side effects.

The idea that "it's a parent's job" is irrelevant if a parent is not doing it. It needs to get done and if the parents don't do it then the schools must. Letting the behavior go unchecked is not practical. It is not the right of a parent to let either their wayward child damage others or to let their child be damaged by undo exposure to hate at school. If at any time you thought it was, you were misinformed.

Also your taxes going toward public education is not a punishment but rather the cost that you pay to live in a society surrounded by people who have had access to education. This is the benefit for the tax money you pay whether you have any direct use of public education or not. Make no mistake, adults with no children still benefit from the public education system.