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.jdlessley wrote:genman wrote:If the standard is mixed male and female, I wonder why so many Primaries have segregated some classes by gender.jdlessley wrote:All standard Primary classes have the class membership criterion for sex as male or female.
MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday school
-
- Community Moderators
- Posts: 9912
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:30 am
- Location: USA, TX
Re: MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday sc
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the ChurchofJesusChrist.org Help Center or Tech Wiki?
Have you tried finding your answer on the ChurchofJesusChrist.org Help Center or Tech Wiki?
- aebrown
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 15153
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
- Location: Draper, Utah
Re: MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday sc
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.genman wrote: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?
-
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 34485
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
- Location: U.S.
Re: MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday sc
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.
"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.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
-
- Member
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:51 pm
- Location: US
Re: MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday sc
Sorry, I inferred that it was your opinion from this:jdlessley wrote:I have no idea where you think I said that. I have never stated. nor intended to be inferred, any such thing.genman wrote: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 wasn't sure why you were expecting that. But if so, that would imply a temporal reason for the temporary removing of the capability.jdlessley wrote: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.
Okay. I was just exploring your opinion.jdlessley wrote:I have no idea what the future plans regarding class management is. I have only stated my opinion in that regard.
I inferred that from your opinion. See above.jdlessley wrote:Where did you hear that?genman wrote: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.
No, just from a respected community moderator who has had his ears to the ground for a long while.jdlessley wrote:Was it an official source?
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.jdlessley wrote: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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:51 pm
- Location: US
Re: MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday sc
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.russellhltn wrote:11.4.3 says:
"In a ward with many children in an age-group, Primary leaders may organize multiple classes for those children."
-
- Community Moderators
- Posts: 9912
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:30 am
- Location: USA, TX
Re: MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday sc
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.genman wrote: Sorry if I offended.
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the ChurchofJesusChrist.org Help Center or Tech Wiki?
Have you tried finding your answer on the ChurchofJesusChrist.org Help Center or Tech Wiki?
-
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 34485
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
- Location: U.S.
Re: MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday sc
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.genman wrote: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.
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.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:42 am
- Location: Emmett, Idaho
Re: MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday sc
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:51 pm
- Location: US
Re: MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday sc
Wouldn't that also apply for 8 and 9 year olds, with the boys in Cub Scouts and the girls in Activity Days?Gary_Miller wrote: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.
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:42 am
- Location: Emmett, Idaho
Re: MLS 3.5, No more custom classes in Primary and sunday sc
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.genman wrote: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.