Special:Badtitle/NS100:JamesMoore/UK Schools Are Not Required To Teach About Greed

Ever wondered why there is so much crime in the UK (or your country)? Could one factor be that many of us do not receive a positive moral upbringing, of which one aspect is that "greed" has many negative effects upon oneself and society? "Yes!", I hear you cry. But isn't that the responsibility of parents? What if the parents never had a positive moral upbringing or education themselves? Does that cause a cycle of never ending immorality (both involuntary or voluntary) with children today, being brought up by morally flawed parents, growing up to be morally flawed adults and then having children of their own to teach their morally flawed views on life (repeat previous sentence for infinity)?

Is it the responsibility of the government to provide a safety net so that those who do happen to have morally flawed parents manage to receive the correct teaching in school? Sort of makes sense right? Is it the responsibility of religion? Unfortunately we know that this was the case up until recently to a large degree but in the past half-century we have gradually understood that most, maybe all, of the world's religions were probably corrupted long ago and so we've fallen out with them. They are no longer trustworthy or virtuous enough to bear that responsibility to our society, to put it mildly.

Greed is something that we Earth humans still have problems defining. Greed is the desire for excessive material wealth. What's excessive? (Bankers anyone?) Well in the UK, one can provide for a family of 4 quite easily with only a £50,000 household gross income. The average household income is just £25,000 gross, after tax that will be about £20,000 (but we have a system of benefits that help to alleviate the pressure of lower incomes, by a small amount, but clearly not enough.

What's wrong with greed? The bottom line is that it creates an unharmonious planet to live on and slows evolution of the consciousness by prolonging inequality and thus jealousy and resentment of others for ones apparent lack of living a supposedly respectable life with all of the trappings that we expect it to come with (cars, holidays, gadgets etc). But also it prolongs suffering in the very poor by their inability to even feed or house themselves in other (non-UK) countries of the world. The now overpopulated planet we live on exacerbates the negative effects of greed by making the demand for food and other products even greater, causing an increase in prices, or by reducing household incomes when prices stay the same (remember the food riots in Algeria in January 2011 anyone?) Anyway, it's obvious that greed ruins economies and therefore lives, put it that way. Greed results in the few owning most of the wealth and the majority owning a very small proportion of the total wealth of a country. The effects of greed can be counteracted by a reduced desire for wealth however this only helps to a certain degree.

So <summary>I wrote to my lovely country's Department for Education to see if they have a safety net in place for our morality. The answer comes down to this:

Therefore, the only compulsory elements of the PSHE curriculum are sex education in secondary schools, and schools should also teach pupils about the effects of drugs (including alcohol, tobacco, volatile substance and medicines) within the statutory science programmes of study. (full e-mail at end)

Therefore, schools in the UK do not have a statutory obligation to teach about the negative effects of greed. Some probably do but do they all? I don't know but I wouldn't bet on it. To find out I'd have to e-mail every single one of them and that could take ages.</summary>

My household has a gross income of £40,000 (after taxes that's about £30,000). We cannot afford to go on holidays abroad and will probably never be able to buy a house but we have home entertainment and can visit the park, the woods, the hills and mountains, lakes, other cities and playgrounds etc. We even have 2 cars (1 is leased)! That's plenty of wealth (don't tell the wife, she still has a materialism issue). I used to earn a lot less and I may earn a little more one day but if I didn't then I am not bothered at all. I can forget FIGU membership though, probably.

I'd say that anything more than a £50,000 gross income (for people in the UK) is where greed would start to set in unless you are going to spend every last excess penny on helping others (or the entire planet preferably). People on less income have to make do with even less material objects that my family has access to.

But people on £50,001+ should really examine what they are doing with their "disposable income". They should really go out there and make the world a better place with their excess cash, if they really care for the environment that they themselves will be reincarnated into in their subsequent lifetimes, that is. You can't take your money with you after you die anyway, right?

Here is one word: Overpopulation (multiplies the negative effects of greed). Another term: Spirit Teaching (explains greed and how to become a real human being and no longer be an actor or actress). Go research it and do some good in the world, please. Make them aware of these two subjects and it will certainly bring our planet one step closer to a paradise without any suffering.

Full e-mail from the UK Department for Education

Unmonitored.ACCOUNT@education.gsi.gov.uk <Unmonitored.ACCOUNT@education.gsi.gov.uk>Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM
To: jamesgtmoore@gmail.com
Dear Mr Moore

Thank you for your further email of 18 October, asking do our schools have a statutory obligation to teach pupils that desiring excessive material wealth is immoral and has negative effects upon society? And if not then why not? I have been asked to reply.

As you are aware from our previous response, personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education teaches young people about the real-life issues they face as they grow up. However, we are committed to giving schools greater freedom over the curriculum so we do not specify what issues. Therefore, the only compulsory elements of the PSHE curriculum are sex education in secondary schools, and schools should also teach pupils about the effects of drugs (including alcohol, tobacco, volatile substance and medicines) within the statutory science programmes of study.

The reason for this is because as it has developed, the National Curriculum has come to cover more subjects, prescribe more outcomes and take up more school time than originally intended. It is our intention that the National Curriculum be slimmed down so that it properly reflects the body of essential knowledge in key subjects and does not absorb the overwhelming majority of teaching time in schools. This will free up timetable space, so schools can use their professional judgement to design their own broader curriculum that meet the needs of their pupils.

Our aim is for all young people to have high quality PSHE as part of a broad and balanced curriculum.

To reflect this, the 2010 Schools White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, announced the Government’s intention to carry out an internal review of PSHE to determine how we can support schools to improve the quality of PSHE teaching, including giving teachers the flexibility to use their judgement about how best to deliver PSHE . The review was launched on 21 July and the consultation ends on 30 November and I would encourage you to contribute to this debate. Details of the consultation can be found at: http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1759&external=no&menu=1.

Once again thank you for writing.

Yours sincerely
Val Shiels
Public Communications Unit
www.education.gov.uk