[fifeboy]

Apollo wrote:

I don't think learning ends at the classroom door, but learning doesn't even begin at the classroom door. If you weren't so busy insulting everyone, you would have noticed.

Read my original post again. The teacher told me that it was MY responsibility to "teach" my daughter to read. Making sure homework is completed and actually teaching are two different things. Perhaps I can get her teacher to do my job in the evenings.

If you weren't so busy blaming teachers for the problems your children have you would have noticed I said you should:

Quote:

Check out the curriculum for your Province.

Now, if that curriculum says "parents should teach children to read" than I would say you are correct. and

Quote:

If you don't like it than you, as a voter, should try to get it changed.

If it says the teachers should be teaching the "little topic" of reading than you yourself are wrong and to blame. Good luck with that. Teachers report on a regular basis to the parents in those things called "report cards", or "progress reports." If you watch your kids, read with them and listen to what they tell you and how they read than you should be well aware of how well your kid is doing. If it isn't as good as you feel it should be than it is up to you to take action. My grade 2 grandaughter comes home after gymnastics and spends her evening telling us what happened in school that day. Sometimes I have to hold my tongue when she relates some oversimplified explanation of some science thingie, but she is only in grade 2.

Learning is a process between student and teacher and parent. Cut out one of these and the process fails. If the student does not want to learn, or the teacher is not able to give grades that actually reflect the students progress (usually due to parents intervening) or parents don't do their part than the whole process breaks down. Good luck!

[commanderkai]

Blue_Nose wrote:

I assume you feel I was trying to advocate measures more drastic than that - I'm not. They'll have some minor blemish on their report card and that's it (aside from the secondary effects they'll face from a worldview based on willful ignorance).

But listen, the world won't see anything about skipping sex ed. That's what you're advocating. The worst is they might suffer a 1 or 2% drop in mark, which statistically means nothing. If the kid did well on everything else, he'll still end up with a B or an A- or something. You're sounding like the high school report card actually states he didn't attend sex ed, which does not happen.

Quote:

I agree it's no big deal if some religious nut (or poor kid with religious nut parents) doesn't learn about science in science class, or about health in health class; they just stay ignorant and the world will move on around them.

Sigh, first off, I don't believe in the evolution crap that's going on, but there are things you must know about general high school. The "Health" class is an alternative to gym, usually for people who hate gym. It teaches nutrition and shit like that, and in both gym and health classes, sex ed takes about 1 week of the semester. Thus, it really has little effect on the mark. You're making it sound like there's some great insight in these classes, there is not. The fact you think anybody will become ignorant if they do not attend said sex ed class probably shows your bias against religious parents/families, or just the lack of memory of what is taught in said class.

[Blue_Nose]

commanderkai wrote:

But listen, the world won't see anything about skipping sex ed. That's what you're advocating.

No, it's not. I specifically said they should lose the marks associated with that portion of the curriculum, and I didn't recommend anything else. In fact, someone else suggested a little note on the report card, and I explicitly disagreed.

I wrote:

Well, I'm not actually advocating that it be highlighted in their transcript, just that they're penalized for being ignorant of curriculum material the same way the delinquents that skip math class are penalized when they fail the tests.

On top of that, I've already assured you in the last post that I'm not talking about some sort of special note on their report card. You should actually read what I wrote if you want to have a discussion.

commanderkai wrote:

Sigh, first off, I don't believe in the evolution crap that's going on, but there are things you must know about general high school. The "Health" class is an alternative to gym, usually for people who hate gym. It teaches nutrition and shit like that, and in both gym and health classes, sex ed takes about 1 week of the semester. Thus, it really has little effect on the mark. You're making it sound like there's some great insight in these classes, there is not. The fact you think anybody will become ignorant if they do not attend said sex ed class probably shows your bias against religious parents/families, or just the lack of memory of what is taught in said class.

Again, it's irrelevant whether you think it's boring or insignificant - learning about the Treaty of Paris in History is an equally minor part of a child's entire education, but if they don't learn the material, they don't get credit for it. Their mark will decrease by some small degree, but that's how the education system works, and that's the only fair solution to this issue.

[commanderkai]

And that's how things are now. Its either that, or the entire sex ed section isn't graded at all, like any average school assembly.

So basically, nothing changes and life goes on. Okay, end of discussion.

[Blue_Nose]

commanderkai wrote:

So basically, nothing changes and life goes on.

Yeah, if only they were doing that, instead of trying to pass a Bill that would change things so there's no academic penalty for skipping out of class. Remember the Bill?