What do these disparate topics have in common? Read on!
I recently got into (another) spat on LinkedIn about whether Latin should be a compulsory subject in state schools. Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Education, has just introduced such a policy, which drew howls of derision from the usual suspects: “Irrelevant.” “Useless” (the subject and Williamson). “Teach climate change instead.” “Teach values and ambitions.” Eh, what?
So in I waded, extolling the benefits of Latin that ranged from “helpful” to “necessary” for so many other subjects and a host of careers, e.g. English Language and Literature, other languages, Linguistics, History, Law, Philosophy, Theology, Botany ... I also pointed out that introducing Latin more widely would help level the educational and social playing field.
To which the original post-author replied, “By all means allow latin as a bonus subject for those that request it or for those students who might need it for their chosen career” [like, all 11-year-olds know what they want to be] “but when we are facing such a desperate climate crisis surely it is not a priority as a general choice? The curriculum urgently needs updating to suit the 21st century and I just feel there are so many more important subjects that we need to address right now.”
All fired up, I retorted, “Do you mean 'important' or 'topical', and judged against which criteria? If I follow your train of thought, then other ‘bonus subjects’ would be English Literature, Music, Drama, History (Medieval and earlier), Gymnastics, and even Pure Maths. ‘Man shall not live by bread alone’, seems rather apt here or as it used to be written, ‘Non in pane solo vivet homo debet’ (Matthew 4.4).”
Yeah I admit it – I used Google translate.
While adamant that Latin should be taught in all schools, and happy to have climate change taught – in a balanced way, i.e. giving some oxygen to the climate change skeptics – as part of, say, the geography curriculum (I remember learning about the destruction of the ozone layer in chemistry back in the 80s) I am equally convinced that some new-ish subjects, proposed additions to the national curriculum or alternative curricula are best taught elsewhere, leaving schools more time to teach facts and how to critique them, rather than shoehorn issues that are still in their infancy or too subjective and where no one understands them fully so no one is well placed to instruct kids. (When it comes to long sentences, Samuel Johnson eat your heart out.)
For example, from 2020, Relationships and Sex Education includes sexual orientation, gender identity and “different family types.” Such topics clash with the beliefs of many Christians, Muslims and Jews (and probably others but I don’t know enough to say one way or the other) leading to confusion, upset, division and conflict, as we have seen. Best leave such ‘contentious moralising’ to parents / carers and religious leaders. Although, I do admit that the C of E hierarchy seems to be too busy promoting the policies of Jeremy Corbyn rather than counselling its flock about being compassionate, tolerant and forgiving.
Another LinkedIn debate I took part in a few weeks ago was with a fellow Fitz alumnus, who was supporting the proposed tax on ‘unhealthy’ foods (including meat!) and compensating the ‘poor’ by increasing their state handouts. Now that’s a good lesson in how not to build a responsible and resilient society.
As part of an alternative package of solutions to save the planet and promote healthy eating, I proposed teaching people how to cook, which attracted the following comment: “I would be careful with the idea of 'learn to cook', often most people can cook, but increasingly in this 'gig economy' few people have the time and energy.”
Again – where’s the ambition for a resilient society and trust in people’s ability to fend for themselves?
I shot back, “I agree that life’s too short to stuff a mushroom, but cooking doesn’t have to be time-consuming or energy sapping. Scrambled eggs. Pot roast (no need to sear meat or peel carrots). Blitzed left-overs for soup. Any number of pasta dishes …”
Of course, Cooking and Nutrition is already part of the national curriculum, but what seems to be lacking from the list of skills taught is how cooking needn’t be time-consuming. Yes searing meat for a pot roast will lead to a tastier meal, but it’s not going to be yukky if you don’t. And chopping half a dozen fresh veg for a pasta primavera might be nutritionally ideal, but leaving the knife in the knife block and adding instead frozen peas and tinned sweet corn to spring onions, button mushrooms and a fistful of spinach is preferable to resorting to Deliveroo.
I confess that my freezer is currently full of ready meals in preparation for my left arm being in a sling for six weeks, but at least I can instruct Hubby on how to prepare lots of fresh veg and salad to a) up the nutrition and b) make a recommended helping for two stretch to three. It’s not wielding a knife that I’ll find difficult you understand, but lifting and carrying my darned Le Creuset pots and pans.
Should’ve stuck with Tefal or, as they used to write, “Ego solvente pretium meum vanitas.”
No comments:
Post a Comment