Should there be a prenatal care training in public schools in which all teenagers have to take in order to get a certificate of approval?Should there be a prenatal care training in public schools...
Should there be a prenatal care training in public schools in which all teenagers have to take in order to get a certificate of approval?
At least in the United States, this is an unthinkable thing. Your question implies that in some way people would have to get approval to have children. This would be completely contrary to our ideas of personal freedom and liberty.
Even if it were possible to require this as a graduation requirement (as opposed to some sort of requirement for having children), I would argue that it is a bad idea. The majority of teens are years away from having children. Sure, some will have children soon, but the majority will not be having kids for probably 6 or 7 years after the leave high school. If this is the case, they will surely have forgotten the training that they got all those years before. It would not, in my opinion, be worth it to require everyone to get trained on the idea that a few of the kids will be having kids soon enough for the training to be useful.
This seems like an incredible intrusion into private lives of people. Sex education is one thing. What people decide to do with this knowledge is really no one's business except the people involved. A course that is a voluntary one to teach child rearing to someone who was interested, could be an elective that someone chooses to take. However, it seems to me that forcing people to take a course like that is condescending in that it implies that no one would be able to be a good parent without it. This seems ridiculous to me. I think any money available in a school budget should go to courses that will help our students become thinkers and productive citizens, such as reading, writing, math and science. Or, it could be used to hire more teachers and make class sizes more managable.
I agree with #6 in that offering childcare as an elective may be the way forward: we offer childcare as an option here in NZ. The idea of a 'certificate of approval' does concern me though. Would people not be allowed to keep their children if they were not 'approved' of as parents?
It reminds me of the 'pen licence' idea around some years ago whereby a student could not be allowed to write in pen until they could write in joined up writing. I never got my licence. I am left handed and our school required fountain pens to be used. However, with postgraduate qualifications and years of teaching behind me, I have been using a pen -without a licence - for some time. With reasonable success, I think.
The lack of education and conversation about sex is a great American tradition. Many school boards would prefer that children learn about abstinence than motherhood. Even if couched in the idea of preparing girls for the future, most districts would balk. Sex education in its current form is very limited, and does not prepare girls for motherhood. In many districts, there is no talk of contraception or the result of sex, how to raise a baby.
I actually like the idea of teaching more practical things in school sometimes, like the difference between an adjustable rate mortgage and a fixed rate one. But the idea of expecting all kids to go through pre-natal care training is a different issue. Like the previous post, I can't imagine the backlash against this from quite a variety of groups and I would agree that it likely wouldn't be super useful in the end.
This idea is not practical for most situations. 1)Schools would struggle to fund new programs like this. 2)It assumes that all students need instruction in these areas. Some know from taking care of siblings, some have no desire to learn. I do think as one of the posters has said that students would benefit from more practical classes, but until those classes are "tested" it will probably never come to pass.