THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 112517

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at s...> 
wrote:
> 
> SSSusan:
> Having begun my schooling in the States in the mid-'60s, I am asking 
> for clarification:  You're saying that with the '50s model, schools 
> did not put the content of "learn this" into the context of a moral 
> code or ethics?  It seems to me that, as you argue later--
> 
> >>> And (no doubt to the distress of Nora) little class-time was spent
> discussing ethics or morality. We got that at home or at our local
> church. Generally speaking it was a parents responsibility to ensure
> that a child understood the moral guidelines that govern society, it
> wasn't abrogated over to the educational system. And it was
> seen as a parental *duty*, laxity was frowned upon - if a child
> misbehaved persistently the parent was first in line for blame. <<<
> 
> --you're saying that it was NOT placed in such a context, but rather 
> that was an expectation for teachings in home/church life.   (As an 
> aside, I find it interesting that many of us "modern educators" would 
> LOVE to see a return of this particular aspect of education to those 
> roots, but with the frequently cited concept of _in loco parentis_, 
> it's ALL expected to come from the schools.  Just don't cross the 
> line and teach them TOO much "morals" or the parents will complain 
> about that, too.)
> 
Kneasy:
Yes, the main burden fell on parents -  though there were R.I. (Religious
Instruction - non-denominational) classes that most pupils took for the 
first couple of years. Mostly it was back-up for what it was assumed
you had learned elsewhere.
However, after then you could opt out unless you wanted to take an
exam in it (in which case it was back to the pedantic mode again - just
another qualification.) Whatever -  ethics didn't take up much of the 
curriculum even so.
I agree; it shouldn't be left to the schools - but I have a sneaking suspicion
that if you check back the situation will mirror that in the UK -  it was the
professionals that first suggested that the subject be dealt with in schools;
and now they're stuck with it.

> 
> SSSusan again:
> I agree with this assessment of DD and of what we're being invited to 
> do by JKR.  (And I think it's how we often get "bogged down," Kneasy, 
> in discussing modern sensibilities & standards.)  Yet, there's still 
> that niggling annoyance in wondering how & when our little witches & 
> wizards are being exposed to these concepts.  H/R/H have fairly 
> routine encounters with DD, enough for Harry, at least, to have heard 
> & begun to assimilate the "it's our choices" motto. 
> 

Kneasy:
He may whitter on about choices, but how often does he offer guidance
as to which choice is best, most efficacious, most moral, most ethical,
or even most likely to cure dandruff? It seems to me he doesn't. It
seems to me that *we* are the ones demonstrating practical ethics
rather than the characters in the books.

> 
> 
> SSSusan again:
> So, that leads me to this question:  Is JKR's model so recognizably 
> a '50s system that we should all just be *assuming* that the 
> moral/ethical considerations are being handled at home?  And how does 
> that mesh with the kids' not BEING at home 10 months out of each 
> year?  (Sorry, Kneasy, I don't think age 11 is or ever has been 
> adequate for the more complex issues here.)  And how does it mesh 
> with JKR's "invitation" **to us** to consider all the things Nora has 
> pointed out that she's inviting us to consider?  We're "modern," and 
> so we're invited to consider? while the kids are old school, and so 
> it's just not done?  
> 
Kneasy:
I'll admit it's dangerous to assume anything - though in defence
I'll point out that the books are set in the UK and UK law has an opinion
on this. Any child over the age of 10, is assumed, in law, to know the
difference between right and wrong. In the UK 10 is the age of
criminal  responsibility. OK; I don't believe  they'll appreciate the
nuances and subtleties, but they should have a firm grasp of basic
legal (which covers most ethical and moral) concepts of responsibilities 
towards others.

SSS:
> I really don't think I'm trying to IMPOSE modern standards onto 
> Hogwarts; I think Nora has shown that JKR DOES want moral & ethical 
> considerations to be important to the WW kids, too.  It just begs the 
> question of how the kids are supposed to be considering it all, when 
> there's precious little presentation.
>
Kneasy:
Mostly I  don't think they are considering it. The phrase "You can't" 
(meaning it's not possible) appears much more often than "You shouldn't."
Or am I mistaken?