I would like to see child-development science curriculum implemented for secondary high school students, and it would also include neurodiversity, albeit not overly complicated. It would be mandatory course material, however, and considerably more detailed than what’s already covered by home economics, etcetera, curriculum: e.g. diaper changing, baby feeding and so forth. I don’t think the latter is anywhere near sufficient (at least not how I experienced it) when it comes to the proper development of a child’s mind.
For one thing, the curriculum could/would make available to students potentially valuable/useful knowledge about their own psyches and why they are the way they are. And besides their own nature, students can also learn about the natures of their peers, which might foster greater tolerance for atypical personalities. If nothing else, the curriculum could offer students an idea/clue as to whether they’re emotionally suited for the immense responsibility and strains of parenthood.
I strongly feel that the wellbeing of all children — and not just what other parents’ children might/will cost us as future criminals or costly cases of government care, etcetera — should be important to us all, regardless of whether we’re doing a great job with our own developing children. But I’m not holding my breath, as I’ve found that most people are pessimistic and/or hostile towards such concepts (to many they sound too much like socialism or communism).
Regardless, a psychologically and emotionally sound, as well as a physically healthy, future should be every child’s foremost right, especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter.
COMMENTS
BY Frank Sterle Jr.
ON June 4, 2021 04:11 PM
I would like to see child-development science curriculum implemented for secondary high school students, and it would also include neurodiversity, albeit not overly complicated. It would be mandatory course material, however, and considerably more detailed than what’s already covered by home economics, etcetera, curriculum: e.g. diaper changing, baby feeding and so forth. I don’t think the latter is anywhere near sufficient (at least not how I experienced it) when it comes to the proper development of a child’s mind.
For one thing, the curriculum could/would make available to students potentially valuable/useful knowledge about their own psyches and why they are the way they are. And besides their own nature, students can also learn about the natures of their peers, which might foster greater tolerance for atypical personalities. If nothing else, the curriculum could offer students an idea/clue as to whether they’re emotionally suited for the immense responsibility and strains of parenthood.
I strongly feel that the wellbeing of all children — and not just what other parents’ children might/will cost us as future criminals or costly cases of government care, etcetera — should be important to us all, regardless of whether we’re doing a great job with our own developing children. But I’m not holding my breath, as I’ve found that most people are pessimistic and/or hostile towards such concepts (to many they sound too much like socialism or communism).
Regardless, a psychologically and emotionally sound, as well as a physically healthy, future should be every child’s foremost right, especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter.