MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday school

[jdlessley]

All standard Primary classes have the class membership criterion for sex as male or female.

If the standard is mixed male and female, I wonder why so many Primaries have segregated some classes by gender.

We have been discussing what is in MLS. So when I said "all standard Primary classes" I was referring to what is in MLS. In MLS the standardized classes all have the sex criterion set as male or female. How individual units manage their classes is up to them. What is available in MLS is another matter. I would not take this limitation of how MLS has restricted all Primary classes to be "male or female" a change in policy. Without the ability to designate the class membership sex criterion, the automatic class population feature is more limited. This forces us to manually manage the classes.

[aebrown]

Does anyone know if is preferred and encouraged to have all mixed gender classes in Primary? Or is that just the default standard without any particular reason for it?

The Handbook position on this is simple (see Handbook 2, Section 11.4.3): "...children are normally grouped in Primary classes according to their ages." There is no mention anywhere in the Handbook of dividing Primary classes by gender. That may be a local practice in some units, but I can only assume that it is a matter of convenience; it is certainly not a policy or guideline.

[russellhltn]

11.4.3 says:

"In a ward with many children in an age-group, Primary leaders may organize multiple classes for those children. This adaptation may be especially helpful in wards that have many nursery-age children."

So splitting of classes is the in handbook. The speculation that use of gender as a easy way to decide who belongs in which of two classes seems like a likely answer. I don't see anything wrong with that, just that it's no longer supported by the computers.

[genman]

Are you sure it is just a bottoms-up development-schedule-resource driven decision and not a top-down priesthood direction to be more standardized?

I have no idea where you think I said that. I have never stated. nor intended to be inferred, any such thing.

Sorry, I inferred that it was your opinion from this:

The changes to classes to support only standardized classes is in preparation for adding the capability to manage classes online. After the basic capability to support standardized classes online is met, I expect further development to continue for other capabilities such as editing class membership rules.

I wasn't sure why you were expecting that. But if so, that would imply a temporal reason for the temporary removing of the capability.

I have no idea what the future plans regarding class management is. I have only stated my opinion in that regard.

Okay. I was just exploring your opinion.

What I am hearing is that the class rules editing capability was removed from MLS so it can be added back later in the online version.

Where did you hear that?

I inferred that from your opinion. See above.

Was it an official source?

No, just from a respected community moderator who has had his ears to the ground for a long while.

MLS is going to be around for a number of years more. Having a capability such as this online but not in MLS does not make sense. That line of thought does not consider those units that are not able to manage classes online because of limited or no Internet access. It makes more sense that the class editing rules may be added back in to both MLS and online, if the intent is to add it back in at all.

I agree. That's why it seems implausible to me that it is going to be added back at all to MLS. Doesn't seem to make sense to spend precious resources to originally implement it, then remove it, then put it back again. That's why I was questioning what I thought was your stated opinion. Sorry if I offended. The bottom line is that we don't know.

[genman]

11.4.3 says:

"In a ward with many children in an age-group, Primary leaders may organize multiple classes for those children."

In our ward, and sounds like in many others, the splitting of the classes is not because of too many children in an age group. Many times they first combine age groups, and then split by gender. Sounds like this local practice is not supported by the handbook and is not supported by MLS. It may be one of those traditions that a ward sees so often that people get the idea that that is how the Primary classes are supposed to be organized. Kind of like the practice of cutting off the ends of the roast. May be okay. Maybe it doesn't matter one way or the other.

[jdlessley]

Sorry if I offended.

None taken. My comments and questions where not a response to offense but rather to ensure clear understanding. I try to go beyond addressing a poster to whom I am responding. I try to ensure other readers viewing the thread have a good understanding and try to avoid miscommunication. That is not always possible when trying to keep posts short.

[russellhltn]

In our ward, and sounds like in many others, the splitting of the classes is not because of too many children in an age group. Many times they first combine age groups, and then split by gender. Sounds like this local practice is not supported by the handbook and is not supported by MLS.

Reading the full quote: "In a ward with many children in an age-group, Primary leaders may organize multiple classes for those children. This adaptation may be especially helpful in wards that have many nursery-age children.

In a ward with few children, Primary leaders may combine two or more age-groups into one class."

Logically, there would never be a case of "many children in a age-group" at the same time as having "few children". (The quote does NOT say "few children in a age-group")

So a strict interpretation does suggest that one could either split or combine but not both.

[Gary_Miller]

In my ward we combined the 10 and 11 year old girls and boys by gender mostly because the 11 year old scout leader is also the class teachers and this allows them to to have more contact with the boys. We have also done the same thing with the girls the activities day leaders are also the class teachers for the same reasons.

[genman]

In my ward we combined the 10 and 11 year old girls and boys by gender mostly because the 11 year old scout leader is also the class teachers and this allows them to to have more contact with the boys. We have also done the same thing with the girls the activities day leaders are also the class teachers for the same reasons.

Wouldn't that also apply for 8 and 9 year olds, with the boys in Cub Scouts and the girls in Activity Days?

I know what you mean though. It seems to be an almost universal local adaptation to have at least the 11 year olds segregated by gender. Not sure if it was just an organic tradition, or maybe a previous version of the handbook had it that way. I'm guessing it is just organic.

[Gary_Miller]

It seems to be an almost universal local adaptation to have at least the 11 year olds segregated by gender. Not sure if it was just an organic tradition, or maybe a previous version of the handbook had it that way. I'm guessing it is just organic.

I think it stems back to earlier days when the Blazers (11 Yr old boys) and Merry Miss (11 yr old girls) were separate classes.