Sharing/conflict resolution at nursery school?

Person_one

Nicki wrote: »

Funnily enough my husband is a scientist and has a higher degree in science. He tells me that almost all the science taught at school is made up. At each stage of his scientific education ie GCE to A level, A level to degree, degree to Masters he has been told to forget everything he has been taught before as it is a simplified fairy story to make concepts easy for children to understand but fundamentally incorrect.

I only did science to GCE so obviously I only know the made up stuff but using your guidelines max we shouldn't teach any science in school either!

A simplification of a complex idea in order to make understanding possible is in no way the same as teaching something as fact that is actually completely without any evidence at all.

notanewuser

lostinrates wrote: »

And dinosaur names are all different now.

Drives me potty. It's Dip-lod-i-cus, not Diplo-docus!

Nicki

Person_one wrote: »

A simplification of a complex idea in order to make understanding possible is in no way the same as teaching something as fact that is actually completely without any evidence at all.

I am not a scientist but my husband is very clear that some of what is taught in science is just completely wrong not a simplification.

I seem to recall one example was that the movement of certain parts of an atom is deliberately misdescribed in early science because it makes it easier to understand some other scientific principle for example though I can't be more specific not as I have said having more than GCE science myself a long time ago

moomoomama27

notanewuser wrote: »

DD spent the whole day outside yesterday in her pants and no shoes (her choice) playing with water, mud, sand etc. We chatted about what made her bike go and stop, the muscles in her legs that powered the bike, the affect of hills, why the water she painted on her playhouse disappeared in the sun, how clouds are formed, why we wash clothes and bedding. We smelt flowers, picked fruit, ate outside, sang silly songs, laughed (a lot). She enjoyed exploring and I enjoyed watching her, very hands off unless she wanted me to interact.

There is no rigidity in our lives, no stifling, no conflict and only a desire for her to experience life in her own time and her own way. She is a bright, happy child that enjoys life to the full. We must be truly awful parents. Quick, get her into school and brainwash her into society.

Don't send her to school, you don't have to! you can chat about how cakes rise, how to put up shelves and which parts of her body do what to your hearts content, it's called homeschooling where you set the learning objectives each day

notanewuser

Nicki wrote: »

Not necessarily learning the truth of it, but learning that it exists and is the main prayer said in Christianity. My DS was also taught the prayers of other religions in primary school by the way.

Same for the hymns. They are the hymns used in that religion. Why does you daughter believe he's got the whole world in his hands if she doesn't believe Nelly the elephant packed her trunk and said good be to the circus?

Could she study Handel's Messiah in music? How about Milton for English GCSE? If so why is that different?

Secondary school is a different kettle of fish. She'll have an entirely different level of understanding and critical thinking abilities to enable her to apply what she knows/believes and make up her own mind.

notanewuser

moomoomama27 wrote: »

Don't send her to school, you don't have to! you can chat about how cakes rise, how to put up shelves and which parts of her body do what to your hearts content, it's called homeschooling where you set the learning objectives each day

So just the 1 alternative then. Not the "plenty" you asserted earlier.

I'm well aware of homeschooling, and that's plan C or D.

Person_one

Nicki wrote: »

I am not a scientist but my husband is very clear that some of what is taught in science is just completely wrong not a simplification.

I seem to recall one example was that the movement of certain parts of an atom is deliberately misdescribed in early science because it makes it easier to understand some other scientific principle for example though I can't be more specific not as I have said having more than GCE science myself a long time ago

That sounds pretty sensible though, its about the bigger picture, and enabling understanding at an appropriate level. Its not done with the intention of convincing the children to believe in something that has no basis in evidence.

Nicki

Is that how you think it is done in school person one? Not very successfully it would seem given how few children from non Christian families believe in a Christian God themselves.

I only have my own personal experiences to go by with my own children and my own schooldays but it was quite rare for teachers to make a personal pronouncement of faith and those who did were regarded with healthy suspicion. The assembly and grace part of the day was not some huge religious fanatical fandango. It was a fairly neutral ritual in a school day where other faiths were taught alongside.

DS4215

Nicki wrote: »

Funnily enough my husband is a scientist and has a higher degree in science. He tells me that almost all the science taught at school is made up. At each stage of his scientific education ie GCE to A level, A level to degree, degree to Masters he has been told to forget everything he has been taught before as it is a simplified fairy story to make concepts easy for children to understand but fundamentally incorrect.

I only did science to GCE so obviously I only know the made up stuff but using your guidelines max we shouldn't teach any science in school either!

That was pretty much correct - particularly for the more esoteric parts of the science curriculum (electrons was the big one I remember - and that was even different between physics and chemistry). But that is easily got around by teaching the scientific method to pupils studying science. Theories are put forward and experimental data then helps to prove or disprove them - they are always described as scientific theories though.

Christianity (other major religions are available) has rarely changed in 2,000 years except where the original teachings are corrupted to promote the ambitions of the people corrupting it. It should be taught to give pupils an understanding of all the main belief systems (including atheism and agnostism), but school should be completely secular. It is the only way to prevent more instances of religious extremists trying to take over like in Birmingham recently (and has been alleged about Christian fundamentalists who are equally blinkered in their views).

I also believe that all lessons (except for compulsory foreign language lessons) should be in English.

Saying this, DD went to a church school, but after a trip to the Natural History museum she declared loudly "School have been lying to me, God did not create everything in a week!". She was 4 or 5 at the time.

notanewuser

DS4215 wrote: »

I also believe that all lessons (except for compulsory foreign language lessons) should be in English.

Can you please explain what you mean by this?