Give me a child until he is 7 . . .

Sparklefizz

Jaxjacky

Sago I though the quote was ‘..and I will show you the man’.
My brother went to a Jesuit school.

Yes. I was just about to post that.

It was allegedly Aristotle who said “ give me the boy…..”

Our sons were educated at a well known Jesuit school.

A well respected Jesuit priest told pupils that Loyola altered the phrase to “give me the boy from the age of 7 and he is mine for life “.

We will never know but interestingly both our sons have a strong sense of loyalty and duty to the Jesuits.

Both boys continued the tradition of writing AMDG and LDS on all their work at university!

I recently read a book that began and ended with AMDG & LDS, I googled the author who had attended the same school!

Thank heavens for the different schools with different ideas we have. I’d hate to live in a nation of clones which is what state schools seem to be aiming for. I’m not Catholic, Muslim or Anglican but I am really glad these different schools exist and long may they continue.

It would be more correct to say that the sentiment has been attributed to St. Ignatius of Loyola, and the Society of Jesus than to state that it stems from them.

I have not found verifable proof of the source, and in consideration of the fact that the first Jesuit schools did not admit boys under the ages of 11 and 12, and many still only accept childrel'n over these ages - St Aloyius' in Glasgow being a notable exception, it seems odd.

Certainly, impressions acquired during the first seven years of our lives tend to be important - but not exclusivily so. After all in consideration of the fact that boys were left to their womenfolk generally speaking until age 7 and only learned their fathers' type of work after that, if it were true, we would never have needed Women's Lib, would we?

As to who decides what schools teach - the simple answer is the Ministry of Education in the relevant country.

Much more complex is the fact that at least in democracies, popular opinion and attitudes influence the decisions made by the relevant ministry.

Now sex education is important - in my school days it was left entirely to the home to deal with until we were 16 and the facts of human biology were taught - far too late to be of any practicable use in preventing teenage pregnancies, as most girls of my generation had had periods since they were 12 or 13. That there were teenage pregnancies testified to the fact that not all mothers explain matters to their daughters or sons, or incalculated the moral values they held themselves.

If parents disagree with the moral and ethical teaching given to their children, they will have to do as parents always did, make sure that they have incalculated the norms they hope their children will follow.

It will in these cases be unlikely to cause lasting harm to the children that their school is teaching differing values - after all the more you realise and the earlier that views differ, the greater chance you will have of forming your own judgement at some point in your developing instead of just parroting what parents or teachers say.

SueDonim

Remember the furore a year or two ago when a teacher told their young class that Father Christmas isn’t real?

I’d have told my child that the teacher was probably so naughty when she was little that FC never came, so no wonder she didn’t believe in him.

That’s what I told a dd of 5, after a so-called friend told her FC wasn’t real.
Worked like a dream.

Jaxjacky

Sago I though the quote was ‘..and I will show you the man’.
My brother went to a Jesuit school.

Yes. I was just about to post that.

"Imagine the uproar if teachers started spreading evangelical Christianity to our kids?"

But isn't that what happens in some religious schools? We had a poster on page one describing her catholic education?

Another interesting poster on page 1 thought that teacher might be a leftie, because they were taught abut the chartists.

I can be clear on this one - in the 1960's different exam boards had different GSE syllabus's. The board our school used had a history CSE called "Economic and social History" that teachers taught whether their view were right, left of centre. It was really a history of the Industrial Revolution in this country, a great deal about industry (ie factories instead of home industry, use child labour, how owners treated workers, actual how steam machines were developed, etc) and banking development, the history of getting the vote, the history of the rise of education for all, a history of how towns grew and so on.

Not sure how it's "leftie". it was certainly practically more useful than Constitutional History.

I'm very against some centralised body prescribing detailed POV because it could be very much used to indoctrinate children at some point. whats happening in the USA scares me. Schools that teach evolution is wrong, creationism is the truth not one way of thinking.
.
Climate change is a myth as fact not a matter for discussion.

I don't believe that my early childhood education on race was neutral at all. There was an absolutely clear impression that we were "better" and had "brought wisdom" to the "natives" and our values were the only ones.

children up to 7 are not blank papers on which teachers write. they bring the values and opinions from home and good teachers described above try to gently get across the ideas that there are a variety of ways off looking at the world and they and get young ones to look at evidence suitable for that age.

There's a problem in schools. There's a generation of teachers who have been trained to teach social justice as if it's the truth. I can't think of another theory or ideology that's been taught like that. Imagine the uproar if teachers started spreading evangelical Christianity to our kids? And yet, because this theory's first rule is 'be kind' it's avoiding criticism. Our kids are learning that white people are inherently powerful and historically responsible a lot of wrongs. They are taught that everyone has a gender identity, a soul that tells them how they 'fit in' with sexual stereotypes. Rather than kindness to gay kids this is likely to confuse and distract them. And maybe most importantly children are being taught that parents and family may be hostile to a child's true self. That the person you can trust is the teacher, someone you will know for a year. It's crazy.

Although my school had the usual religious twaddle because of the 1944 Education Act it did teach me to think for myself and not to take opinions from others regardless of their status.

I watched 7up with interest, I think that shows how very important those first 7 years are. You could see how their lives would be and the sort of character they had. Schools should have teachers, that do not promote their own views, certainly no sex education without parental permission when young.

Sago

St Iganatius Loyola founder of the Jesuit brotherhood was way ahead of his time when he spoke these words, the first 7 years of a child’s development are the most important.
What is a little sinister though is the fact that Loyala’s words were apparently, “ Give me the boy from the age of 7 and he’s mine for life”

Sago St Iganatius Loyola founder of the Jesuit brotherhood was way ahead of his time when he spoke these words, the first 7 years of a child’s development are the most important.

Indeed.

FTR, for many people, being vegan isn't about cows/animal cruelty, it's about health. No reason for anyone to rudely say cows are murdered

As a secondary school teacher, I never pushed my vegetarianism, but if asked directly, I would've said I was. Ditto how my own kids came to be veggie.
I do remember Andrew in my tutor group who was veggie (1990? just before I became veggie), and as a group we discussed it.
A tougher one was hunting foxes. If a parent supported the hunt, and other kids were very opposed. It was hard for teacher to remain impartial there. Rule of thumb - families can have different viewpoints about what is acceptable and class can discuss it, until it breaks the law. (Fox-hunting wasn't against the law back in the day, but is now, and has been for years.)

Reading your post BigLouis I must have been so lucky in my parents school choice (well mum actually…. dad went along with her) as I never remember any bullying it was small by todays standards about 200 + from 4-18 and I think that was the best thing possible and it was a bit of a family thing the older kids were encouraged to look out for the younger ones It was a catholic school although I was not catholic I still meet up with up to 16 school friends up to two classes above and two below mine and at least half of us are not catholics or even church goers In fact I can only think of one that is an actual church goer
I can’t complain My mum had a poor education although she didn’t lack any brains and I think she so wanted me to have a good experience I don’t think I appreciated it at the time

Anyway I ve gone off piste yes I do think those first formative years are important in shaping children

As we live in such a multicultural society I would like to see practical aspects taught like being able to identify a predator/narcissist, how to keep yourself safe, and how to avoid people who are destructive to ones well being i.e. not hanging out with people who do bad things that hurt one. I am not sure that main stream religious values play such a role nowadays but the good old fashioned values of rock up on time, do the job properly, stop the endless chatting in the work place about rubbish and just get on with the job, check things before you present them to someone else, make sure as a parent you are there and not off pursuing your own interests, the whole family enculturating the child into a strong, loving, protected and safe environment, encouraging the love of knowledge and also practical skills like getting the kids to help on tasks from knitting to gardening etc so they are useful individuals in times of need, teaching them how to face adversity and stick to their values when challenged.

Those were the bad old days for some biglouis, but things have moved on and hopefully now little children don’t learn to cope by being cunning liars, successful only if they can throw their weight around.

These days, hopefully, a school can play a major part in elevating a child above its disadvantages, and can work with parents towards a positive outcome for the child.

Ideally, too, a good school environment would provide children with the ability to evaluate information and influences they are exposed to, and not passively accept things at face value.

Yes, children will inevitably be exposed to “a range of views”, that’s no bad thing, but schools and parents have a responsibility between them to equip them to start to evaluate views and ideas, and to build on that skill. Critical thinking can’t start early enough.

I went to a little church village school and then on to a very traditional girls school where the school song included the words 'you are mine to shape and fashion til you come to glorious end.. this combined with a very strict low church homelife.... as a result I became a buddhist and sent my son to a Steiner school where the parents had a huge say in the schooling.. to the point of interference possibly..

but in retrospect I believe they ALL endeavoured to produce kind, useful and independent thinking members of society

My parents had very little contact with the schools I attended except when something went drastically wrong. My father certainly was not going to take time off work to visit a school! Working class parents in those days did not argue with teachers who were figures of authority in the community. If the teacher said so then it must be so!

On one occasion I was bullied by a teacher into admitting I had done something when it was another child (much prettier than I). The only person who really had my back was my grandmother. She wanted to get her lawyer onto the matter but my parents prohibited it.

All too often I was told to tough it out when things went wrong. When I was at secondary school and being hit by a bigger boy my father told me I had to "stand up for myself" and taught me how to box. I broke the boys nose next time he hit me. But I was cunning enough not to admit that I had deliberately gone for his nose. "It was just a lucky punch miss."

The most important thing I learned about school was that it wasn't enought to be quiet and meek. The kids who got off with things were often the clever liars who were ready with a good excuse.

Having taught in schools where we desperately tried to teach peaceful means of resolving disputes, only to watch two of the mothers stand holding their sons' coats whilst they resolved an issue in the time honoured and accepted method of fighting it out, I very much doubt that our education system successfully achieves anything in the way of conversion. Local habits and the environment play a much more significant part. And I couldn't really blame the mothers if my DS had been going to frequent the local pub (where the children informed me a man had taken a snooker cue to another one, one night) I think I might have wanted them to be able to fight.
Schools attempt to. teach fairness, peace and equality. It doesn't necessarily take.

Violetsky, even if you are legally permitted to do so, what would be the point of telling a child that keeping an elephant in the garage and a giraffe in the bathroom is illegal (using your example as an illustration of information that a child is not in a position to fully comprehend or do anything with).

I think Ignatius Loyola was wrong . You have only got to look at the complete change in opinionss on anything and everything now compared with our childhoods, to see that whatever a child is taught at home and at school, they have no problems about changing their opions and values when they reach adulthood.

I think parents and schools should have a clear set of views and standards that they teach children, so that children have something to protest and argue against.

As a child I was a hard critic of the adults in my life and was more than ready to find them wanting. As a result it made me think about my own values and realise that I wasn't always right either. I am sure my children benefitted from having parents with clear values who were willing to discuss them. IT helped them form their values, not necessarily the same as mine and they have grown up to be principled adults.

Indoctrination of any sort is dubious. I think religious education should be banned in all primary education. My father was sent to Sunday school (three sessions each day! and had the attendance prizes to prove it) but fortunately he had an independence of mind that rejected the whole thing, fortunately for me.

No, I know what you mean, Rosie. Oddly, I'm less concerned about the occasional teacher with 'unusual' beliefs, as parents can usually counter those pretty easily, or complain to the Head/governors if there is a serious issue.

I'm more bothered by policies that must be taught, and ones that arise from 'collaboration with outside agencies' bother me the most. Nobody is going to object to anti-racist policies or teaching about religious diversity - or indeed any sort of 'some people believe' cultural differences - and it's arguable that anyone who does object should be overruled.

When it comes to teaching that dinosaurs were there in the Garden of Eden, or that people can choose between a hundred genders, however, (with no caveats about these things being belief systems that are far from universally held), then I feel that parents should be consulted, and have the option to remove their children from any classes where they are taught, and given lessons on evolution or biology instead. It's not ideal, as it could be divisive if not handled tactfully, but schools should not be indoctrinating kids with false information.

The jury's out here on the Santa issue. I can see that expecting a teacher to go along with that whilst objecting to other things I see as myths is probably hypocritical, but we bought into it and it gave the children a lot of pleasure, and nowadays it probably counts as a tradition. Maybe the topic should be avoided, (as it probably already is), and maybe so should the other controversial issues, so that school can concentrate on teaching topics that are more relevant to more children. But that could result in Gradgrindian teaching of facts, facts, facts, and I wouldn't like that either.

I told you I hadn't sorted out my own thoughts . I'm going round in circles, and am not much further forward than I was at the start.

Doodledog

It must be difficult at times. Daft example, but teachers can’t be expected to go along with it if parents tell their children that giraffes live underground and whales can fly. It’s not fair to the kids. It’s when things stray into belief territory that I worry.

I agree that some things have to be corrected but I'd hope it would be done in a kind way. It was the idea that a child should need to be instructed to keep quiet and pretend to agree to avoid a backlash that concerns me. Scientific fact is one thing, theories and beliefs are another. Teachers are a cross section of people just like in any other job, some of them are going to promote their own beliefs whether consciously or not. I don't buy the perfection claimed for them by some. Some adults deny basic proven science when it clashes with their beliefs. I'd not want a child in my family exposed to those beliefs and not feel safe to challenge them.

And a link would help.

www.theguardian.com/education/2008/dec/12/schools-christmas

This is a ‘Father Christmas isn’t real’ news story from some years ago. I’m pretty sure there was another, three or four years ago, but I can’t find that one. Same principle applies though.

Teachers quite often have to deal with conflicting views from home and the school ethos. So children may have parents with right wing racist views who think England is for the English. The school teaches consideration, acceptance and equality and hopes that some of it is remembered.