pelican,
>> My daughter, when in Year 1, came home one day from school saying the teacher said she could do anything she wanted to do - literally.<<
Another eight year old when asked what they were learning in maths replied “empty sets” and when further asked what then was an empty set, she rejoined “a green cow”. She obviously missed the teacher’s explanation that “the set of green cows is empty”.

I think to teach maths you not not only have to be knowledgeable about what you are teaching, but also about what language and topics are appropriate for what age. The same with other abstract topics like philosophy, ethics, comparative religion, Christian exegesis (Scripture), RE (whatever its aims), etc.

Throughout past centuries there were many examples where Christian RE served the common good by holding the society together. And there are many examples in recent history where the teaching of RE obviously failed its purpose. Also, former Communist countries provide an abundance of examples where “religion-free” education missed its purpose of completely eradicating religion from people’s “life philosophies”.

It remains to be seen to what extent will the suggested new (and, I think, inevitable) replacements of RE be successful in serving the common good in the sense, and to the extent, that its - good-intentioned, though sometimes naive - advocates expect it.

On the question of who teaches the ethics classes, I would suggest this could be covered in the comparative religion classes; perhaps the visiting cleric could act in concert with an ethics teacher; a 'moderator' who could encourage pertinent questions about the ethics and morality of the religion in question.
I and (thirty years later) my children were struck by the contradictions between the message and the messenger in scripture classes. I thought my teacher was an unforgiving, dictatorial martinet who refused any discussion on his subject; my children reported their scripture teacher 'was just nasty'.
I think religions have dealt with ethical and moral questions for centuries -although some of their advocates were and are selective in which parts to emphasise.
Should we throw out the baby with the bathwater, in the name of secularism?

pelican:"I would personally hope it only be directed to Yr11/12.
"

I think you're being a little cautious, but I take your point. Children are poorly developmentally equipped to understand broad ethical concepts, being predisposed to "doing what they're told" by authority figures. At the end of grade 8 my school held a special end-ofyear assembly and I can very clearly remembed one of the speeches, in which we were told: "you're moving into a new stage of life. You will incresingly be expected to make decions not because someone says "you must" do this or that but because you say to yourself "I ought to"".

I beieve my teachers and principal were very wise; many 13 year olds are still children needing strong supervision and guidance, whereas by 14 most should have started to apply what they know to determine what they "ought to" do. In other words, they're developing a sense of obligation and of ethics. Perhaps it's that point where we most ned to offer them the guidance they need to ensure what they think they ought to do is based on something more than just "I want to".

pelican:"My daughter, when in Year 1, came home one day from school saying the teacher said she could do anything she wanted to do - literally."

There are stickers all over my chuildren's primary school saying "girls can do anything". What message do you think those grade 1-7 girls are taking away from that? Do you think it may have any bearing on the massive increase in violence being perpetrated by slightly older kids who've been exposed to the same stickers and posters and so on for their entire school career?

Our ethics is based on the information we receive when young. if the way the message is presented is flawed, the message becomes distorted, leading to further problems. Perhaps a middle high ethics/philosophy/critical thinking course would help to untangle those issues.

Examinator,

I am not trolling. We have state school systems that are so dysfunctional they cannot teach basic literacy and numeracy effectively. Now we want them to teach ethics and philosophy!

All I can see is the "history wars" being replaced with the "ethics and philosophy wars".

Cricket is looking like a better option all the time.

George
Agreed, that is the risk with the teaching of broad and sometimes complex subjects like ethics - consideration of the needs of your audience in terms of age and maturity.

Anti
I think my caution comes purely from that premise. I agree with your post entirely and have always been uncomfortable with the "you can do/be anything" phrase. Particularly in your example for girls. Nothing is more divisive nowadays in terms of overt gender specific 'marketing' and would provide nothing positive for boys while having no genuine impact on girls.

I had that phrase drilled into me at school in the late 70s and after a while it became trite and meaningless and most of us knew damn well we could not do ANYTHING (as in everything). There are too many factors including demographics, level of education, aptitude and motivation. Humans are not homogenous we all bring different abilities and aptitudes to the table.

It is a cliche' I know, but these sorts of phrases that may have had their roots in good intentions, merely highlight the "all rights and no responsibiities" tag of the modern age. Probably largely assisted by the mindset of baby boomer conditioning about perceived desirable parenting trends.

We also set our kids up for greater disappointment if they really start to believe they can do ANYTHING. Encourage and provide positive support by all means, but sometimes these trends do more harm than good.

Suze's idea of law and ethics might be more appropriate in terms of giving context or a framework for the subject matter. University is probably the better domain for more esoteric discussions about Philosophy. That is not to argue that we cannot open the door to new ideas to get kids thinking about their responsibilities as human beings. I believe human beings are naturally altruistic but with nuturing, loving support and guidance - particularly using positive role models.

stevenlmeyer:"We have state school systems that are so dysfunctional they cannot teach basic literacy and numeracy effectively. Now we want them to teach ethics and philosophy!

All I can see is the "history wars" being replaced with the "ethics and philosophy wars"."

You're being unfair to the school system, I think. There is an obsession with metrics that may or may not have any relevance to the post-educational outcomes for people. As an example, I was an indifferent maths student, achieving slightly better than passes most years, but an excellent English student, regularly topping my class.

Most of my post-school life I have used maths of varying complexity, whereas my use of the language has been largely technical, using little of the skill that I developed as a student. Today, I'm pretty competent at maths, including the calculus, complex geometry and vector algebra (which I didn't learn at school), while my English has no doubt stultified.

The point, of course, is that schools can only provide the basics and a broad sense of what can be done with the techniques or data they teach. It is after school that we use the basic toolkit we have acquired and develop our own interests.

If a basic ethical / philosophical /critical thinking toolkit can be developed and passed on, at least people will not have to work out the basics for themselves within a context that is often very contradictory.

Yes, parents should be doing it, but with the changes in society that have occurred over the past 50 years or so many seem to have missed out on their own basic grounding. We have to start somewhere and perhaps in another 50 years the inhabitants of OLO can discuss why we should get rid of the program because it is so little needed any more, what with parents taking it on...