Schools -- too focused on the academic?

Recently, Mama Mia published an article saying that parents expect teachers to be substitute parents. The article said that teachers should be responsible for things like grammar and mathematics, while parents should 'mould the manner of the child.' You can find the original article here: http://www.mamamia.com.au/parenting/teachers-to-parents-raise-your-own-damned-kids/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=%24%7Bemail%7D&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FKsWc+%28%24%7BMamamia+-+rss%7D%29.

To a certain extent, I agree. Parents do need to take responsibility for their own children. It is inappropriate and unfair to expect teachers to raise their kids. And any parent who leaves the raising of their child to a school cannot complain if they don't turn out the way they want them to.

However, I do think the focus schools place on the academic is not doing our children any favours. No matter how well you know your reading, writing and arithmetic, if you don't know how to get along with others, behave in certain situations and deal with your emotions, you're not going to go far. In fact, it is these life skills that actually the more important than academic results. They help people to succeed in a career and contribute to society. It also affects how people treat our planet, the people in it - and themselves. Ultimately, a person's test results will not bring themselves or others much joy. How they live in the world will.

So why not just leave that part of life to the parents and let the schools focus on the academic part?

First, children spend six hours in school, more when you add in travelling time and homework. Very few parents would have the time to spend six hours teaching their children values and life skills, once this time for school is taken out. Admittedly, these kinds of life skills are often woven throughout other activities. But even then, children will always receive more academic training than they do values or life skills training.

Also, the compulsory nature of school and the focus on tests like NAPLAN tells kids that academic performance is important. They are unlikely to feel the same about what their parents are trying to teach them. The weight given to academic results actually changes children's values, because they have been taught from a very early age that it's how well you read and write that really matters in life. Children need to be taught that their behaviours, values and attitudes matter too. No matter how much a parent tries to instil this in their children, if they're hearing opposite messages from elsewhere, then children will have difficulty fully accepting this.

Perhaps most importantly, teachers have far more opportunity to see how a child behaves with other people than the parents do. They are better placed to notice a problem and guide them through a situation. One of my sons is very shy and has trouble making friends. While I am constantly working with him on this, I am limited by the fact that, when he's around people of his own age, I'm not usually around. As there are children with learning difficulties, there are also children with social difficulties. It would be good to see them get the same assistance and guidance as those who don't do well on tests.

I don't want to suggest that schools are only focused on the academic. Schools do care about values. They do deal with behaviour problems. At least the schools my kids go to do. I'm sure other schools are the same. But in a world where schools are judged on their NAPLAN results, obviously they're going to pay more attention to academic learning than life learning. And in my opinion, life learning is more important. 

Ultimately, it is the parent's responsibility to raise their children. And I for one don't want to leave all that important training to a school. However, the saying goes that it takes a village to raise a child. Shouldn't then both parents and schools be involved in ensuring that we raise children who have all the necessary skills to help them succeed in life? A school must be judged by more than how well their students do in tests. 

You better be good or Santa won't come: what we are teaching our children about possessions and worth

For the next four weeks, children all over the world will be hearing those words, "If you're not good, Santa won't come." I doubt it makes any difference to behaviour. The problem with threats like these is they're rarely (if ever) carried out. But it might just be making a difference to how people think about possessions and worth.

Imagine a child called Trudy. At the ripe old age of 7, Trudy has learnt that, no matter how badly behaved she is, those presents from Santa still arrive on Christmas Day. Furthermore, she knows that Jenny from next-door (also aged 7) usually gets less presents even though Jenny is a very well-behaved child and Trudy can be quite naughty at times. What is Trudy to make of this?

Or let's look at it from Jenny's perspective. She is told that the same Santa Claus brings presents to everyone. Furthermore, she is told that he only gives presents to the good girls or boys. So why is it that Trudy gets more presents than her? I doubt she would say it to herself in these terms, but on some subconscious level, might she not be wondering whether she is less worthy than Trudy in some unknown way? If she believes the Santa rhetoric, what else is she to think?

Let's fast-forward six years. Trudy and Jenny are now 13. Their belief in Santa has gone, but the messages they heard about Santa are still there. As any psychologist or counsellor knows, the messages we hear in childhood can affect us long after we have grown up - even if we recognise that those messages were false to begin with.

If you haven't already guessed, Trudy comes from a wealthier family than Jenny. So while they may not be coming from Santa, Trudy still has more and better possessions than Jenny does. Jenny knows it's not because Santa has placed Trudy on the "good list". But maybe, deep down, she still connects possessions to worth. Maybe she still feels like Trudy owns more things because she is more deserving.

Jump another 10 years. Trudy and Jenny have moved out of home and are sharing a flat together. Trudy finished uni and got a well-paid job. Jenny also has a job, but it's not nearly as well-paid as Trudy's is. By now, they've not only internalised the Santa message, but the many advertising messages they have heard through their lives that tell them, either implicitly or explicitly, that they should buy something because they deserve it.

Despite the fact that Trudy earns enough to save a little money and use her money to help others and give to charities, she spends it all on herself. Many of the things she buys, she will never even use. But that's okay (in Trudy's mind). It makes her feel good. She's become her own Santa, rewarding herself with possessions. The more things she owns, the more deserving she feels.

Jenny also buys lots of things. But because she doesn't earn as much money as Trudy, she puts it on credit. She is sliding further and further into debt. But she considers it a small price to pay for the sense of self-worth it gives her. She has finally made it onto Santa's "good list".

Jenny was never any less worthy than Trudy. She only felt that way because of what society told her. As adults we know that the amount of presents Santa brings says nothing about how "good" that child is. So how about we stop telling our children that. And how about we recognise the Santa messages we ourselves have internalised - and do our very best to get rid of them.

Our thinking about possessions and worth is damaging not just to ourselves, but to the earth. In order for this to change (and it does need to be changed) we first need to recognise how the messages we hear have influenced the way we think about possessions and worth. It's only then that we can get rid of them and replace them with something else. We need to come up with a new message, one where Santa doesn't reward the "good" kids, where we don't own things because we "deserve" them, but where a life well-lived is its own reward.

Threats and Theodicy

A knock on the door isn't usually threatening. Sometimes it can be rather nice. But it is threatening when it's at 2.30 in the morning. It's threatening when you don't know the person at the door. It's threatening when it's obvious you won't answer the door but he still won't go away. It's threatening when you talk to him through the door and find no good reason for him being there - and you don't feel any less threatened when he says that he's okay. And it's threatening when he still won't leave even after you tell him you're going to call the police.

I still didn't feel safe, even after the police came and told him to go. And I remember thinking, somewhere between 2.30 and 6.30 in the morning, Lord, why aren't you protecting me?

It was a silly thought for two reasons. One, I pretty much was safe. He never came inside. He left when the police came. As far as I know, he didn't even try to enter the house. I wasn't physically harmed. The only thing I suffered was a feeling of not being safe.

We seem to have such high expectations in the western world today. We expect to be healthy. We expect to live a long life. We expect to look gorgeous. We expect to be happy and we expect to see good reasons for our happiness. We not only expect to be safe, but we expect to feel safe. Why else would we spend so much money on security systems?

But is it really reasonable to say, being safe isn't enough, I want to feel safe as well?

And, if so, what do we then say to all the people who live with very real threats? I was a lot safer last night than many other people in the world. Is me feeling safe more important than their actual safety? If so, does this really reflect a God of love and justice and compassion on all human beings? If not, why should I expect to feel safe when other people aren't safe?

So then that brings me to the second point. Do we actually have any reason to expect God to protect us?

If we take a good long look at Christian history, we find many examples of people who loved God, but who still suffered or were even killed. How many missionaries have been killed? How many Christian martyrs have there been through the years? And some people might say, well, martyrs and missionaries are different. Although I've never quite figured out why God won't protect people when they're dying for Him, but He will when they're just driving home from a holiday.

And even if we ignore suffering for Christ, Christians have still suffered. The Middle Ages were a time when many people had a very strong Christian faith. Yet this was also a time when the plague took the lives of many. And it wasn't an easy death either. I'm quite sure that there were many Christians praying for God's protection during that time who still died. Or the children they were praying for even more fervently died. And I'm sure there were quite a few towns where the good people died and the evil and wicked people seemed to escape the plague altogether.

We may not have the plague, but things are really no different for us today. Christians suffer and Christians die. I remember reading recently about an old lady who had been killed in the church car-park on her way home from bible study. It's not the first time someone's been killed on their way to or back from church or a church-related event. Can we really expect God to protect us when church car-parks aren't even fatality free?

Questions of theodicy have been around for a very long time. And I'm not even going to attempt to answer the question of why a loving God allows evil to happen to good people. What I am interested in is what it means for how we approach God.

Every night I pray that God keep us free from fear, free from harm and free from evil. And last night, I had fear. But I'm still going to pray that prayer every night. Because, despite everything I've said above, I believe prayer does something.

Maybe it doesn't protect you in all circumstances. Maybe it doesn't always prevent someone knocking on your door in the early hours of the morning. Maybe it doesn't always stop some car driving into you as you're coming home from bible study. Maybe it doesn't prevent your home being flooded. Maybe it doesn't even protect you from turning up to work as normal, to have two airplanes fly into your building.

But maybe sometimes it does. And I do believe that when we pray, God can work with us. There are some things God can't prevent (or he could, but he doesn't because everyone has free will). Then there are things God does prevent. And then there are things he tries to get us to prevent.

He may not be able to stop the drunk getting into his car. Because that drunk has free will. But he can try and get us to avoid going to the shops at that particular moment in time. Maybe he protects us best by whispering something in our ear. Get out of that car. Lock the front door. Don't go into work today. Wait for the next bus instead of running for this one. And often we don't hear that voice. But I believe that when we pray for God's protection, we are more tuned into it. That doesn't mean we're going to hear it all the time. But it is more likely that we will hear it.

But then I also think that some suffering is unavoidable. In a world where everybody has free will, some people (a lot of people) are going to get hurt. And nothing God could say or do (save taking away free will) could stop it happening.

But then we live with that uncertainty all the time. We take vitamin C tablets even though there's no guarantee it will stop us getting the flu. We wear seatbelts in our cars, even though there's no guarantee it will prevent us from being killed in an automobile accident. We lock our houses, even though that's no guarantee that someone won't find another way to break in.

So I believe that praying for God's protection is not, and was never meant to be, a guarantee. But it does invite the Holy Spirit into a situation. It gives God more freedom to work in that situation. And when I'm in a dangerous situation (or even one where I just feel unsafe) I want God and the Holy Spirit working in that situation as much as possible.