For me personally, I had sex ed but it was mostly about STDs and abstinence. It talked about the reproductive organs and the cycles and stuff but it didn’t talk about the parts that I think are important, like deciding when and with who, or even when it’s legal (closeness in age laws change as you age where I live). It didn’t talk about what it means in an actual usable scenario. I learnt the anatomy of my parts and that pregnancy was a thing, but not about sex outside of reproduction. I don’t know if I can describe what I mean, but I hope you get my drift. Oh, and no cooking classes, that was an optional elective that most people don’t learn in favour of more open classes like math
Definitely, but I also feel that guidance can be applied. I think that explaining (in a better way than I currently can at 5am) how the trust and preparedness plays into it, but also somehow conveying that sex isn’t some terrifying thing to avoid until absolutely necessary. Instead, use the class to let the students begin to develop where they personally stand and arm them with the ability to make a decision for themselves
I don’t know if I can properly convey my opinion, especially at this time of night, but I’m just hoping that you understand what I’m trying to say, vaguely. To teach more than the genitals and actually mention how to make healthy decisions with it. Sex in humans is more than just reproduction and diseases
My public school taught pretty much everything on hear except self defense. Anyone else sick of hearing about how bad schools are from people that just hate everything?
Your public school was drastically better than my private school. And from my siblings, my private school was well ahead of their public school. You’re lucky.
Not saying there aren't bad public schools, but I've worked in a bunch in different areas, and I don't think they are nearly as bad as people make them out to be. And it really depends on the individual teachers, so complaining about a school as a whole isn't always justifiable either.
The downside to that take is that it also dooms children with shitty parents to shitty lives. Which is more important, trying to ensure parents are responsible or giving kids with shitty parents a chance in life?
Or maybe, it’s the continued exposure or filling in the gaps so that kids are continually developing these skills. Like learning a language. If you only take one class for 50 minutes a day and only practice in class, you’re not going to become terribly fluent. But if you study and practice and have someone to mentor you outside of class, school is just the venue to to polish your developing skills.
Parents SHOULD be the first teachers, but school is supposed to offer what parents can’t (because no one learns everything from one teacher) and be a testing ground.
As a parent, it’s important for schools to teach these things. Yes, parents are responsible for teaching their kids, but at a certain point kids become resistant to the things their parents say simply because their parents said it.
Parents SHOULD be the first teachers, but school is supposed to offer what parents can’t (because no one learns everything from one teacher) and be a testing ground.