A lesson in deception
I had lessons in maths at the age of five, yet I didn't become a mathematician at the age of five. I had lessons in French at the age of 11, yet didn't become French. But...
...of course. Having lessons in parenting at 14 will make you become a parent at 14, won't it? Won't it? No, I imagine it won't. But that's the leap of logic we're meant to try and achieve with this story. Here are the ingredients the story has going for it, as far as the Mail's concerned:
New Labour
teenagers having immoral sex
teh evil state (even, remarkably, being a 'nanny' state by somehow encouraging teenagers to be parents. Is that what nannies do nowadays?)
liberals secretly running our country
poor people all want to live on benefits (and guess who's paying?!)
And here comes the conjuring trick:
Watch that 'alarming rise'... watch it... keep your eyes on it... are you watching it...?
Inner-city areas are more likely to have teenage pregnancy than the Cotswolds... wow, who knew? But hang on, where's that 'alarming rise' gone? Like any great conjurer, the Mail distracts you with the "Look at the difference between nice rural people and EVIL URBAN TYPES, MANY OF WHOM ARE PROBABLY... WELL YOU KNOW" bit of misdirection, and then, all of a sudden, the 'alarming rise' is gone. Now for all I know there may be an alarming rise, but it's not mentioned in the story, or referenced anywhere. Those figures are just comparing different regions, not plotting a 'rise' of any kind. The Mail's said it's there, it's told you it's there, and then... all of a sudden, it's not there. But you're too busy being angry about the poor people on benefits to notice.
The moral compass of the story comes here:
Who are these experts? Expert experts or just someone from a pressure group who could be found to prop up the Mail's pearl-clutching panic? I sense you know the answer to this already, but:
It 'might create an interest where the was none', according to someone somewhere. Because that's what happens. Children live in this isolated bubble where they don't notice things like babies and families, and then all of a sudden school tells them it exists, so they decide that they're going to be a parent. Is that what we're expected to believe? Is that really what happens? And what if the 'parenting' lessons are going to reflect the true difficulties of parenthood, the financial costs, the strain on relationships and so on? Will that really make it more attractive?
It's such a piss-weak argument, the Mail can't even get the Tories to back them up:
A neat side-step there from Michael Gove, who fails to join in with the outrage but attempts to make a political point anyway - which is fair enough.
What the story promised, though, has failed to materialise. There is, as far as we can see, no 'alarming rise' in teenage pregnancies referenced anywhere. There isn't even much outrage over the plans - even the Tories fail to agree with the Mail's argument, and the only 'experts' they can find to back it up are a single pressure group. Indeed, of the sources named in the story - Margaret Morrissey, Michael Gove, David Paton and Lynn Edwards - only one spoke out against the plan, two expressed neutral views (though David Paton asserted that sex education has very little impact on behaviour) and one spoke in favour. The elements of the story, then, are balanced - but the presentation doesn't quite appear that way, does it?
This whole diabolical mess is backed up by a screamingly angry comment piece, though:
Not content with imposing lessons on sex, 'relationships' and domestic violence, Children's Secretary Ed Balls is adding yet another subject to the overcrowded school curriculum.
Incredibly, this inveterate social engineer wants 14-year-olds to be given compulsory lessons on parenting.
There's a childishness about the presentation of this whole policy as being Ed Balls's idea as a 'social engineer' - as if Government policies are things that are dreamt up by one person acting alone. The Mail says schools should concentrate on the "Three Rs" instead, which is face-slappingly stupid - if you need to do that by the age of 14 then pupils are really beyond help; but it's the kind of 'common sense back to basics never did me any harm' attitude to schooling that the Mail probably thinks its readers hold dear.
That aside, it's still trying to squeeze the outrage out of the situation of children and young adults being given some preparation for the world they'll face outside. Which doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me at all. But no, let's just manufacture some pointless outrage instead, shall we?
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
January 4th, 2010 - 10:07
It'd be a whole lot more usefull than trigonometry!
There really is nothing wrong with teenagers having children. What is wrong is that they are then effectively excluded from education through stigma and lack of support services.
January 4th, 2010 - 10:13
One half-joking comment my wife and I made to each other when parenting was tough was, "They [children] don't come with an instruction manual". It seems that this was to stop us having kids too young (us too young, not the kids – they start at age zero). Seriously, parenting is tough, and some sensible preparation for it would have saved a lot of stress
January 4th, 2010 - 10:22
There is a very good article on LC about teenage pregnancy which quite clearly shows there is NOT a rise, or even an 'alarming rise' in teenage pregnancies. Also points out that:
"the most affluent areas of Britain are not only those with the lowest teenage pregnancy rates but also the highest teenage abortion rates relative to the number of conceptions in that area."
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/03/06/a-few-facts-about-teenage-pregnancy/
January 4th, 2010 - 10:32
Refreshingly brilliant, Again.
The next link, which I'm shocked they did not include, is educating young people on the harms of drugs. Talk to them about the canals of Amsterdam and they all become raging crystal-meth filled Agassi converts.
Why do they not apply the same principle to Geography lessons and the lack of Christopher Columbus wannabes emerging from the state social engineering machine that is comprehensive education. The word comprehensive maybe giving away the intentions of the left-wing freedom bigots. We need an education system that makes 'simples' out of people. The State Simple System.
(my word verification is the word 'miner', does this mean I can expect cultural references everytime I post? Being from Yorkshire, I would like 'thick' 'tight' and 'pudding' as my next 3 please.)
January 4th, 2010 - 11:34
I really like this bit:
"The guidance will be scrutinised to see if it emphasises marriage as the most favourable foundation for raising children."
I bet it bloody will. Nothing like lining up a front page in advance, eh?cy
January 4th, 2010 - 13:24
Lol, typical DM crap. Many schools in America have parenting classes, and I wish I would have had them. Bringing up a kid is a pretty big deal, so why not be taught about how to do it at school?
January 4th, 2010 - 13:57
I don't see why they have such a problem with it being 'as young as 14'. Many people leave school at 16, so if they're going to do it, they'll need to do it then. Strange how a newspaper that so often blames inner city parents for the way children turn out are also opposed to measures to encourage good parenting.
January 4th, 2010 - 16:50
Fun new game.
Go through any paper, but especially the Daily Mail and Daily Express, and read the stories out loud, replacing the words 'critics say ' and 'experts say' with 'some bloke down the pub reckons'. See how much sense the article makes then,
January 4th, 2010 - 17:04
Okay, this is a few years old now, but not much has changed:
"Health professionals and the general public should be wary of claims that the rate of teenage pregnancy in Britain is `high' and increasing in an alarming way. International comparisons suggest that the rate is moderate and that the past six decades have seen a decline rather than a rise. Over the same three to six decades the number of adolescents having sex has increased greatly and the age at menarche has decreased. The fact that birth rates have not risen in a time when the at-risk population rose sharply, suggests that (again contrary to popular opinion) teenagers are reasonably competent at preventing unwanted pregnancies. We believe that the selective reporting of international and time comparisons by policy makers results in a `manufactured risk' and has more to do with moral panic than with public health."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079321/
January 4th, 2010 - 18:13
Another day, another stupid idea.
1) It's not the states place to tell people how to raise their children;
2) This is especially relevant when educating children about having children, seeing as the children themselves are young and impressionable, being children.
Done and dusted. Education should be about the facts, not moral sets.
The state can keep its fucking opinions to itself. A school is a house of learning, not indoctrination. Learning to be a good parent is a matter of much debate, yes, it's not as clear cut as This Goes Where. So this entire policy is completely crackers, from start to finish. Giving the state a personal say in how children believe children should be raised is a surefire way to rapidly creating an orwellian nightmare.
Sidenote: This probably won't get approved.
January 4th, 2010 - 19:32
This story is hardly new, unsurprisingly. I've been at my current Secondary School for nearly 7 years and we've always had a 'child development' GCSE available (basically a GCSE in looking after children). Plus, all 15-16 year old at my school are able to take a very realistic robotic baby home for a night or two so they can take care of it. It's so realistic that it will wake you up two or three times a night.
These measures are hardly to encourage teens to have children of their own at 14. They're deliberately designed to put them off having kids. It worked for pretty much everyone I know.
January 4th, 2010 - 21:08
Fairly sure we did something like this at some point in PSME (Personal, Social and Moral education). Fairly sure after an hour talking about changing nappies and cleaning up baby sick pretty much no-one in the room wanted a child. Ever.
January 4th, 2010 - 22:24
Pavlov: Don't do the "Go on, reject this" comment martyrdom again or you will get rejected. Because anyone who does that is a twat.
January 4th, 2010 - 22:50
the "child care" badge was a popular task when i was in both brownies and the girl guides.
i must have first joined up when i was about 9 and i don't remember there being an ages limit on badges. i did that one when i was in both groups.. still not up the duff yet.
January 4th, 2010 - 23:20
Hmm, someone named after Pavlov is complaining about indoctrination. There's a surprise.
I also don't think Pavlov's cat has read any George Orwell.
January 5th, 2010 - 09:22
I know, with absolute certainty, that Pavlov has not read any George Orwell.
Didn't see any place where the state was 'telling people how to raise there children'? Thought it was about educating, with facts, about parenting.
Such as, this parenting lark is going to be a really tough job when it comes round.
Feeding, changing nappies, reading to children. But no, lets listen to Pavlov's Express Mail Indoctrination, do not feed your child, do not change nappies, and for God's sake do not read to your children. Education, for 14 year olds, the Orwellian nightmare come true.
January 5th, 2010 - 15:05
Do the DM believe the same outcome will come of having lessons on managing money for 5 – 16 year olds? Another 'proposed' addition to the work teachers have to cover. After all it wouldn't be too bad if a new generation grew up thinking that debt might equal slavery. Not that I think Mr Balls will want it delivered in quite the same tone. Thinking about it, a generation of young parents all able to read, write and manage money. Maybe there's hope?
January 5th, 2010 - 20:32
For christs sake, the state already bans literature it doesn't like. (Go see Henry Porter on that one). Do you really think that their classes about parenting Won't seriously overstep the mark on what's factual and what's pure agitprop for the states moral system?
The state is amoral. And this agenda, which you believe is oh so innocently telling kids about changing nappies, is a trojan for raising children with certain ideals (The states ideals).
They teach AGW as fact, even though the debate is clearly far from over. It's about creating the perfect citizen. All across the curriculum, lies and half truths.
As for me not reading Orwell, this stank to me of the kid reporting on his father for saying "Down with big brother" in his sleep.
Not to mention with flavours of Brave New Worlds encouraging children to have casual sex.
'Scuse me, I have to go fold another tinfoil hat