Confusion...

Exam times are here, revision is in full swing and I am left wondering here about the types of lessons taught to our children...

For example, in my son's first standard English text book, there is a lesson about a frog who is about to be eaten by a tiger (poor tiger, slim pickins' ???) The frog escapes by saying that he is covered in mud and would like to wash himself before the tiger tastes him. Of course, the lesson's name is "Clever Frog".

Move over to the Value Education book - here's a lesson about an honest goat. She is threatened to be eaten by a lion (this lion probably came down to a village because the tiger was reduced to catching frogs). She asks him for enough time to get take her kids to her uncle (guess she was a single mom). The goat then COMES BACK! But the lion is so impressed by her honesty that he leaves her alone and presumably goes off to hunt any dumb frog that might be left over.

What are our kids supposed to take away from these lessons? Is any story acceptable as long as it is presented in the animal fable form? Are we supposed to let our kids swallow both lessons without questioning? Apart from the fact that school authorities ought to be a little more careful when picking out books, I guess it is the job of parents to ask the kids what they think about the lesson. I could say that the goat was dumb. But then one could also argue that her consciousness level was very high and after securing her children, she was ready to sacrifice her physical body, leading to the upliftment of their soul. Gosh! By the same token, the frog was really a rogue to have escaped by lying??

Hmm, but I taught my kid both the lessons and found out that he didn't care about it either way. It was just a lesson to him. May be that is the way these lessons should be taken - just to be skimmed over superficially. The real values they will learn from the behaviour of those around them - including their parents. After all, there is only so much a story can do.

What do you think???