THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 112532

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 you're saying that it 
was NOT placed in such a context, but rather that was an expectation 
for teachings in home/church life.<<<   

 
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 now:
Not that this matters for canon discussion necessarily, but out of 
curiosity, in your perspective (or other UKers' perspectives), has 
the trend many have remarked upon in the U.S.--that less & less 
moral/ethical training is occuring in the home--also been mirrored 
in the UK?  Was this a transfer of that role to the schools or a 
supplementation by the schools?  Is woefully little attention being 
paid to such "training up" in homes in the UK, or other nations 
represented here, as I would argue is the case in the US?

 
SSSusan:
>>> 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 now:
Indeed, precisely my point.  Harry gets the benefit of DD's moral 
spoutings, but who else amongst the Hogwarts student masses does?  

 

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.<<

SSSusan now:
Fascinating.  Can't speak w/ full knowledge of the U.S. Code, but as 
best I know we have no such expectation in the legal system (and 
certainly among the prevailing social mores, I'd add).  *TEN*.  
Wow.  Typically it's only 16-18 year-olds who would be tried as 
adults, for instance, and the younger only if the crime is heinous.  
[Any US attorneys feel free to correct me here!]


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?<<


SSSusan now:
I don't think you're mistaken at all.  And it's part of what 
concerns me.  Why is the reading audience being so invited [if we're 
right about that] if the little urchins aren't even being told "you 
should" or "you shouldn't" as part of their educations?  Or perhaps 
that's the point you were trying to make originally--that BECAUSE 
Hogwarts seems to operate along the UK '50s model of education, the 
expectation IS that the urchins received their moral grounding 
before arrival at Hogwarts, so it needs little addressing [beyond 
punishments & rewards] in their lives there.  Pity, I'd say.  Even 
assuming the grounding did take place in the home, it still seems--
since the subtleties & more abstract concepts need fleshing out as 
children grow older & more capable--it would be good to see some 
instruction or at least discussion or ethics & morality in their 
classes.

Siriusly Snapey Susan