The Editor, Sir:

The Minister of Education must be commended for his no-nonsense approach to the matter of same-sex education in the schools. This approach is arguably representative of the principles held by the majority of persons in this country. Some will, however, argue that this approach is backward, narrow-minded, non-progressive and not in keeping with the trend in the developed western world.

Esther Tyson, in her article published on Sunday, November 4, wrote a fine piece regarding the approach at Ardenne High, a school owned and operated by the Church of God in Jamaica, albeit with financial assistance from the Government. But another question arises: Ought the same rationale to apply to non-church schools?

what values should we teach?

Education has been defined as the "process of enabling persons to grow into maturity". What values should we teach our children as they grow into maturity? Or should we allow them to choose their own values? But do children have the moral, intellectual and experiential capacity to evaluate the issues? Isn't that the reason why there is an age of majority which even applies in the matter of voting? Isn't that too why we have a values and attitudes programme as we realise that academic learning without an infusion of good values only results in adults who exhibit an attitude deficiency? So, it seems to me that as a society, we have already accepted the principle that children need guidance as they develop to maturity.

In the social analysis of our problems as a nation, we have many times identified the 'breakdown of the family' as being one of the major causes of our problems. Shouldn't we now take the opportunity of providing a definition which will then assist us in providing the theoretical framework, a guiding paradigm - if you may - as we tackle these problems? Having said that, how can we define 'the family' without bearing in mind the almost national problem of the absentee father? And isn't it true that as a society we accept that both sexes are needed in the upbringing of a child?

Interestingly, at the time of writing I became aware of a recent speech given by ex-Prime Minister Seaga, highlighting the use of violence by mothers as a serious inhibiting factor in the growth and development of the child. Could it be that it is because of the absence of fathers why mothers in frustration resort to violence? Now is the time to reflect on the importance of the contribution of both sexes in the task of child rearing.

different household structures

It is sadly true that most of our children are grown by single parents. This is a reality which we recognise. Thus, we must ask: Is it possible to recognise this reality while retaining the ideal? Could this be dealt with by making a distinction between a definition of 'family' and that of a 'household'? We could, therefore, recognise these structures, but in order to keep an ideal refer to them as 'households' as distinct from a 'family'. One would, however, strongly recommend that there be no reference to gay and lesbian households as such written references would suggest approval of such structures. Further, this is a type of household structure which we know it exists, is disapproved of by the society in general. It is not all of reality that should be perpetuated.

It is time too to stop being ambivalent about the issue of 'marriage'. If we accept that children need both sexes, then why do we have a problem recommending marriage to our children as being the preferred sexual union? For all its drawbacks, marriage, because it has the support of the law, provides an environment of stability which we are told is so important in a child's development.

It is in families that habits, identities and character are established. As we proceed with the task of establishing our identity as a people, let us be careful of interfering with the foundations. If anything, let us make these foundations firmer.

I am, etc.,

S. RICHARDS

2 1/2 Ruthven Rd.

Kingston 10