Skip to main content

A lamb to the slaughter

I'm sure I won't be alone in being saddened by the treatment of primary school headmistress Andrea Charman of Lydd School in Kent, who was effectively forced to resign after a hate campaign against her.

What terrible thing did Ms Charman do? Did she beat the children? No. Did she embezzle funds? No. She had a lamb that had been reared at the school slaughtered. This wasn't a sudden whim, when she fancied something to go with mint sauce. It was the whole point of having the lamb in the first place - so that pupils at this rural school could get a better understanding of just what is involved in putting meat on their dinner plates.

Hypocrisy is too mild a word for the attitude of the people who made Ms Charman's life hell after this very sensible act. Whether you are a vegetarian or a meat eater, you would surely encourage making sure that children had a clear idea of what happened to the lambs from the fields. And it's not as if they were taken to the slaughter house to watch the process. This was simply because the lamb that had been reared at the school ended up as someone's dinner.

I began by saying I was saddened, but to be honest this sort of pathetic response makes me angry. Apparently Ms Charman is an excellent head who brought a school out of special measures into good Ofsted results. She clearly is the sort of person we can't afford to push out of schools. The people who criticized her should be ashamed of themselves.

NOTE posted edited to change 'Chapman' to the correct name 'Charman' after my typo was kindly pointed out in the comments.

Comments

  1. I agree that children should be educated to understand how food is produced. As a vegetarian and a father, I want my children to be aware of the ethical dilemmas to make an informed decision on their dietary choices. In our society we are very much removed from the production of food, especially meat products, and what we pick up at the supermarket, or a fast food chain.

    However, in this particular case I feel that the Ms. Chapman used poor judgment in her approach. These children obviously had an emotional bond to the animal as they protested against the slaughter. This animal was then rather more so a pet than a "food product". We can but speculate on the psychological impact on the children knowing that their teacher made the decision to slaughter, not a food product, but a pet, not very unlike a family dog, gold fish, or other common pets.

    Yes, Ms. Chapman got her point across, but she put the psychological well-being of these children at risk. For that, her conduct is to me unacceptable, and I agree with her voluntary 'dismissal'. There are many other ways she could have chosen to put the point across and still achieved the academic goal, perhaps even more efficiently than through a 'shock' method.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As far as I'm aware most of the protests came from adults. The school council (made up of children) voted to have the lamb slaughtered by a huge majority.

    I really don't think children's psychological well-being is put at risk by getting an understanding of what eating animals really means, something that can only be achieved by knowing the animal before it is slaughtered.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm with you Brian; two further thoughts come to mind; one is that she resigned which I think is becoming increasingly rare these days - the majority, even in high office, always seem to want to wait to be sacked; and second that your anonymous respondent has jumped into battle without reading the BBC news item that you included; it's quite clear that the children voted for the slaughter and that the majority of the complaints are from parents and other pressure groups.

    It reminds me of the Creationism v Evolution debate in the USA where one side still regards science as if it were another philosophical principle; or of the Homeopathy issues you have referred to earlier this month where the science means nothing to a well opinionated believer.

    Down with blind faith and cod science.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting news Brian. I hadn't seen it. I agree that it would be much better if people really think about where the beef/lamp/meat comes from. I know that it is sort of gruesome to see the alsughter house, and maybe you don't need to push smaller children into the actual house but surely it is only fair and good to explain "this is lamb, wolly little cute one that we now eat at the table".

    It seems again like the parents might be "helicoptering" (or what ever you'd call it "my little one can't handle this" when in reality it is them who feel finicky about the whole deal) or just plain confused about why they choose to eat meat.

    Then again, wasn't there a study in UK where 30% thought that bacon came from lamb? Maybe the parents really didn't know that wolly cute lamb is the sorce of the nice meat on the plate?!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brain, please be aware that the headteacher concerned is called Mrs Charman and not Mrs Chapman. As a parent of a child who attends this school I am very saddened that we have lost an outstanding head who has turned the school around. She will be missed by many.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As I said on your facebook page, I agree with you Brian. My stepkids go to a school with a farm and they slaughter the animals there periodically - it's a working farm. We would never lie to the kids about it. We bought some bacon and sausages from the last lot and were very open about where they had come from. Our youngest said at first she didn't want to eat it so we asked her if she'd rather eat the meat from animal that she knew had been well looked after and had a good life, or one that was probably kept in a small pen and maltreated. She changed her mind. Well, at least, once she smelled the bacon cooking she did! I don't think kids are ever too young to be told about the facts of life and death and where our food comes from. It's part of nature - as are they. Ill treatment by farmers and slaughterhouses would not be so easily tolerated if everyone was properly in touch with where meat came from. I think we've lost our connection with that, and that farms in schools like this are a way of helping people reconnect at a young age

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the interesting comments.

    Thanks also anonymous 2 for the correction - a mental typo, I'm afraid! I've edited the original and noted the edit at the bottom.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope