Musings about the law, politics, culture, people, education, teaching and life. An independent voice and an independent perspective - Carpe Diem!
Showing posts with label Responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Responsibility. Show all posts
17 November 2010
Australian Kids Banned From Hugging At School...
The beauty of blogging, and perhaps its danger as well, is that I do not have to be fair and balanced. I can, if I so desire, spout off on any old thing I want and argue my point of view. Well, almost. As a teacher, I am told in no uncertain terms that I am a teacher 24/7 and this means that anything I do or say outside of school will also be counted against me, either positively or negatively.
Such is the teacher's lot.
Now, on with the show!
Students at William Duncan State School in Nerang (on the Gold Coast) have returned to Term 4 to find that the school has adopted a "no hugging" policy. Nope, this is not some anti-green movement to stop kids from hugging trees in these times of climate change. It is a policy to stop the students from hugging each other.
The policy does not start with hugging. The policy, in essence, outlaws all touching; male-male, female-female, and male-female. Any student caught in breach of the policy will find themselves on detention.
This begs the obvious question, "Why?"
Well, it seems that the school in conjunction with the Parents & Citizens Council has decided that there is a need for this. I am all into protecting out children from bullying, including cyber-bullying. I am also in favour of adopting a policy that prevents students from touching each other in violent ways; they need to keep their hands and feet to themselves. Yet, the William Duncan policy is for a primary school. It appears that the need to ban hugging is to protect the innocence of the students and to not allow them to be sexualised at too young an age.
I have to admit, if that is the reason and rationale to this policy, then I am a little confused. Since when has hugging been solely a sexual act? And, doesn't the policy run the risk of alerting kids to the idea and concept of sexualisation by teaching them that there is something inherently wrong about hugging in that it is in some way dirty or wrong and needs to be avoided?
The policy seems at odds with how we conduct ourselves in the real world. People hug all the time. Let's face it, I was watching the tennis the other night on the idiot box and at the conclusion of the game the players hugged at the net. Nothing wrong with that is there? Or even more recently, I was watching the English Premier League (EPL), also on the idiot box, and when a goal was scored, the goal scorer was mobbed and hugged by his team mates. Nothing wrong with that is there?
Perhaps, there needs to be a little bit of a rethink. Perhaps the school needs to think about when and where hugging is appropriate and teach their students the difference. If two students are involved in a lingering embrace that includes some passionate kissing (not that this is likely to happen in primary school) then that becomes a teaching moment for inappropriate hugging (and additional activity).
If the overall idea is to teach our children responsible behaviours and how to behave responsibly, then we as teachers, parents, and adults need to be responsible in how we go about teaching those behaviours. Banning hugging in a universal and uniform manner like it has seemingly been done here, is not about teaching responsible behaviours and behaving responsibly, it is about avoiding teaching what is appropriate touching and when it is appropriate to touch another.
To successfully teach our children, and students, the difference between right and wrong we have to teach them what is right and wrong, and not just ban anything and everything we can think of.
Hopefully, no one is offended by the hugging kittens.
29 September 2009
Blog Housekeeping...
Dear All...
I have enabled comment moderation.
It seems that I have attracted some unwarranted attention and one particular thread has become a platform for defaming and slandering a number of individuals who do not voice an opinion that is in agreement with their views.
These commenters have opted to post anonymously or under pen names, but have so far failed to show the courage of their convictions and post under their real names. So, if you want your comment to be published use your name, or provide me with a reason why I should let you post under a pen name. That said, any tame comments posted by anonymous posters might make the grade provided they do not defame. If you post anonymously, then you take your chances with my discretion.
I feel that I have little choice but to enable comment moderation and prevent defamatory and slanderous comments from making their way into the public domain.
If you want to know what I am talking about then feel free to ask me and I will direct you to the relevant post and comments.
I have enabled comment moderation.
It seems that I have attracted some unwarranted attention and one particular thread has become a platform for defaming and slandering a number of individuals who do not voice an opinion that is in agreement with their views.
These commenters have opted to post anonymously or under pen names, but have so far failed to show the courage of their convictions and post under their real names. So, if you want your comment to be published use your name, or provide me with a reason why I should let you post under a pen name. That said, any tame comments posted by anonymous posters might make the grade provided they do not defame. If you post anonymously, then you take your chances with my discretion.
I feel that I have little choice but to enable comment moderation and prevent defamatory and slanderous comments from making their way into the public domain.
If you want to know what I am talking about then feel free to ask me and I will direct you to the relevant post and comments.
07 January 2009
Video Games and Child Behaviour
Anyone looking for an in-depth analysis of the relationship between video games and child behaviour will be sorely disappointed in this post. Nevertheless, there is a connection.
In a news story out of Wicomico Church, Virginia in the good ol' US of A, a six-year-old who was so keen to get to school that when he missed the school bus he figured he would grab the keys to the family car and drive himself to school. This decision did not pan out as he was hoping as he did not make it to school crashing after some six miles and still at least a mile and a half short of school.
When pressed by the local police about where he learned to drive the child admitted that all of his driving experience can from playing "Grand Theft Auto" and "Monster Truck Jam" video games. The fact that he managed to drive six miles, negotiate a few turns, and pass a couple of cars before crashing seems to suggest that these video games are pretty real in terms of the reality portrayed.
Unfortunately, for the kid he is now in protective custody as both his parents have been charged with child endangerment. Child endangerment would suggest that there is more to this story than just a mother falling asleep and leaving the car keys on the table. If not, then the moral of this story is that as a parent you must supervise your children 24 hours a day because if they do anything that endangers themselves then you are responsible as a parent.
The logic of this, taken to its conclusion, is that the parents of children are responsible for the children's actions. Simply, if your child steals then you as the parent must be punished. Similarly, if your kid decides to "borrow" your car keys and take the car for a spin then you are guilty of child endangerment.
In a news story out of Wicomico Church, Virginia in the good ol' US of A, a six-year-old who was so keen to get to school that when he missed the school bus he figured he would grab the keys to the family car and drive himself to school. This decision did not pan out as he was hoping as he did not make it to school crashing after some six miles and still at least a mile and a half short of school.
When pressed by the local police about where he learned to drive the child admitted that all of his driving experience can from playing "Grand Theft Auto" and "Monster Truck Jam" video games. The fact that he managed to drive six miles, negotiate a few turns, and pass a couple of cars before crashing seems to suggest that these video games are pretty real in terms of the reality portrayed.
Unfortunately, for the kid he is now in protective custody as both his parents have been charged with child endangerment. Child endangerment would suggest that there is more to this story than just a mother falling asleep and leaving the car keys on the table. If not, then the moral of this story is that as a parent you must supervise your children 24 hours a day because if they do anything that endangers themselves then you are responsible as a parent.
The logic of this, taken to its conclusion, is that the parents of children are responsible for the children's actions. Simply, if your child steals then you as the parent must be punished. Similarly, if your kid decides to "borrow" your car keys and take the car for a spin then you are guilty of child endangerment.
02 July 2008
Wisdom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

