Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Tuesday July 08 2014, @06:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the educate-or-keep-them-ignorant? dept.

The Daily Mail reports that children in the UK may receive school lessons about sexting.

Children as young as nine could be taught in school about the dangers of sexting.

New sex education packs produced by a charity warn girls not to send 'sexy and pouting' pictures using their mobile phones.

They suggest telling children of seven not to email photos of themselves in swimming costumes in case they fall into the hands of paedophiles.

The article goes on to say:

The lessons are part of a pack, launched last week, that schools can download for £299 a year.

Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said it was 'symptomatic of a mindset that thinks young children should take responsibility for their own safety, when in reality it is the job of parents to protect them'.

He added: 'To address such issues in the classroom runs the risk of introducing ideas and thoughts that many children are not ready for. In some cases [it] is likely to breed an unhealthy distrust and suspicion of adults.'

Meanwhile, UK polticians are calling for lessons to "tackle the rise of sexist abuse fuelled by internet porn" and the UK, Australia and the Philippines are currently engulfed in pedophile scandals.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Tuesday July 08 2014, @07:38PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 08 2014, @07:38PM (#66143) Journal

    Take care with this story. The Daily Mail is not known for being an authoritative source for this sort of announcement.

    Firstly, there are no 'is' or 'are' - but 'may be', 'could' and 'might' - there is probably more speculation in this newspaper report than actual facts.

    Secondly, the 'lesson plans' (which can be purchased for £299-00!) are being produce by the Family Planning Association - an organisation that would love to push this idea because it will make them money, as well as let them appear to be leaders of our moral well-being. This is not funded into the curriculum nor is there any indication that schools have shown any significant interest. 'Sex Education' in general is part of the curriculum, appropriate to the age of the pupil.

    Finally, I think it is something that children need to be aware of - my wife is a former teacher and assures me that it would have been something she would have tackled however, it would not have been covered by all teachers - but the lesson could be easily taught by a reasonably competent teacher without spending any money. Parents also have an important lead role in this aspect of their children’s' education. If the FPA think it is so important, why don't they fund it themselves? After all, that would be within their remit.

    --
    I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08 2014, @08:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08 2014, @08:27PM (#66169)

    > Take care with this story. The Daily Mail is not known for being an authoritative source for this sort of announcement.

    The only time it is acceptable to cite the Daily Heil is when they are reporting on a story from another source and their coverage is more accessible (not sensationalized, just accessible, like with better pictures). Anything else from them isn't worth wiping your ass with.

    • (Score: 2) by EvilJim on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:27AM

      by EvilJim (2501) on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:27AM (#66274) Journal

      I would've thought it was also ok to cite them when you're comparing contradictory stories both from them... such as their list of cancer causing things.

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 09 2014, @08:44AM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 09 2014, @08:44AM (#66417) Journal

        It's perfectly fine to cite them - and the story does.But this story is more likely as a result of the FPA providing a story that sells what they propose and the DM taking it at face value. Teachers are trained to produce lesson plans, they get paid for producing lesson plans, but here a charity is now trying to sell lesson plans for a subject with is already covered within the description of 'Sexual Education'. The education system is providing no additional funding for the £299.00 for the first year and a lesser amount for subsequent years. But hang on - why do you have to pay every year? Surely once you have the lesson plan you could use it for ever, perhaps tweaking it as changes in circumstances necessitate. This is an advertisement which just happens to coincide (convenient that... isn't it?) with the Governments current panic regarding paedophilia. As I mentioned in an early post, my wife is a retired teacher. Wherever she has worked, she and the other staff have produced lesson plans, placed them in a library of plans, and all teachers can use them for as long as they wish with no additional expense whatsoever.

        I also question what this has to do with family planning - it is not for educating pupils on the various forms of contraception (for which the FPA has a remit) but as a warning that 'photos of 9 year olds in their swimming costume might be seen by paedophiles'. It is, in my opinion, the FPA picking up on the current public mood and trying to make a quick profit.

        --
        I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
  • (Score: 3) by cafebabe on Tuesday July 08 2014, @08:43PM

    by cafebabe (894) on Tuesday July 08 2014, @08:43PM (#66185) Journal

    Why take chances with your own lesson plan when it is only £299. Think of the children!

    --
    1702845791×2
    • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday July 09 2014, @01:10AM

      by tftp (806) on Wednesday July 09 2014, @01:10AM (#66294) Homepage

      £299 is the cost of a yearly subscription for the entire school. It's not per student. This money is a drop in the ocean. One teacher is paid something like this for a mere couple days of work.

      If the school does not see value in this course... they don't have to buy the subscription. If some do buy, it only proves that either the course is useful, or that the school is managed by fools (and then nothing else matters.)