Everything you need is below, courtesy of Christian Concern for our Nation. The Department for Children, Schools and Families published a consultation on home schooling. Please respond in order to preserve the freedoms of those parents who wish to educate their children at home. The closing date is Monday, 19th October 2009. Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children receive a “suitable” education. The Government wants to usurp the role of parents and impose more governmental control, thus intruding upon families who choose to educate their children at home. Both the Bible and the law recognise it is a parent’s responsibility to educate their children, not that of the Government. Education is compulsory, but school is not. Parents can choose either to send their children to school, or to educate them at home. The Badman Report reviewed elective home education. In our opinion, the Badman Report makes disproportionate and unreasonable recommendations for compulsory registration and invasive monitoring of those families who choose to educate at home. The point of most concern to all parents, especially Christian ones, is the proposal that those who choose to educate at home will have Government officials interview a child alone—without even a parent being present. To read the Badman Report, the Consultation, or to respond on line, click here. Please note that the Government have produced a full response to the Badman Report very recently. To read the press release or the Government’s response, both dated 9th October 2009, clickhere. To read our response click here. To watch the YouTube Response by Education Otherwise to the Report on the Review of Elective Home Education, please click here. Send your response headed “Home Education—Registration and Monitoring Proposals Consultation Response” by e-mail to:homeeducation.consultation@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk There is no need to answer all of the questions in this Consultation unless you wish to do so; you could instead send two or three points by e-mail. Please say that you reject all of Graham Badman’s recommendations and ask the Government to abandon them. We would also suggest you make some of the following points, in your own words: Interviewing Children Alone It is a violation of parental responsibility and rights to interview a child alone. Even the police do not do so. Under no circumstances should this proposal be allowed. National Register Annual registration of children will make no difference to safeguarding them. The current guidelines for local authorities already make it clear that safeguarding applies both to children who attend school and to those who are home-educated. Compulsory annual registration and inspection visits by the Local Education Authority is not welcome, as in many cases it is precisely because of the education system having failed them, that parents have chosen to educate their children at home. The suggestion of criminalising parents who educate at home for failure to register their children is totally inappropriate and disproportionate. It is the parent’s choice to send a child to school or to educate at home. It incorrectly implies that it is the Government who has the responsibility for education, not the parents. No evidence has been provided of the need for a national register. The idea of registering children who are educated at home is akin to the Government imposing a licensing scheme on home education, when it is not the Government’s responsibility to do so. Freedom of Choice Christian parents may wish to educate their children according to Christian values and should be free to do so. Undergoing a state education may result in children learning more about other religions than about Christianity. The UK is subject to international legal obligations that require it to respect the right of parents to ensure their children’s education is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The freedom to educate at home should not be taken from parents. The Government appears wrongly to be set on a course of eroding parents’ rights in this matter by compulsory means. Misapplying Child Protection Systems to Home Education The Badman Report and the recent DCSF press release of 9th October 2009, inappropriately apply child protection methodology to home education implying that home education can lead to child abuse. In doing this they have cast an unjustified and unfair shroud of suspicion over home educators. Home educators have been tarred as "guilty" merely because they are home educators and are feeling the need to prove their "innocence" in relation to safeguarding issues. The DCSF needs to produce a measured response rather than allowing a small number of safeguarding cases to make “bad law”. Home educators have pointed out that the most dangerous and damaging abuse of children often takes place in children too young to go to school, where children have been withdrawn from school, or where they are already known to social services. Expensive and Unnecessary The proposals are both expensive and unnecessary, because there are already powers the local authority can use to make a School Attendance Order where it appears that a child is not receiving a “suitable” education. Government Control The Government should not seek to control or to intrude on family life. The Badman Report states that, “Few would argue with the assertion that parents are the prime educator within or outside of a schooling system”. The Report then seeks totally to undermine that assertion in the recommendations made which will erode a parent’s freedom of choice over their own child’s education. The proposals reverse the correct presumption of family freedom to educate one’s own children as a matter of parental duty rather than governmental duty. Thus, the Badman recommendations should be rejected as they are founded on this incorrect principle. Children may be withdrawn from school because parents are dissatisfied with the school system for one reason or another and the last thing they would want is more Government intervention. Unjustified Government Control It is of real concern that the proposals include asking parents to provide the local authority with achievement and future attainment data. This question is indicative of the Government’s attempt to assert control over what the child is taught and is eroding the basic freedom of parents to educate their children at home. The recent Government proposal to clarify what a “suitable” and “efficient” education means, threatens the freedom of parents to devise a tailored or flexible educational approach for their children in their own homes without one being dictated to them by the Government. Procedural Concern The Department for Children, Schools and Families (“DCSF”) published their Response to the Review of Elective Home Education in England on 9th October 2009, which creates uncertainty for respondents to this Consultation. Members of the public are bound to wonder whether their responses to the present Consultation are actually going to be taken into account in the formulation of policy on home education. The correct procedure should have been either to include the Government’s Response to the Badman Report in this Consultation, so that members of the public could comment on it, or to wait until all responses to the Consultation had been considered before producing a Response. Please also click here to sign the petition to reject the Badman recommendations and retain the freedom for parents to educate at home.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Homeschooling consultation: last call
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Home Schooling in the spotlight
The actual proposals here don't threaten serious damage to homeschooling, but the threat is always there.
From CFNews: A review of home education in England is expected to recommend a national registration scheme for home educators. It is also expected to say local authorities should have the right to visit any child taught at home.
The government commissioned a review to find out whether local councils were monitoring home educated children, or offering parents enough support.
But the government has also been concerned that home education could be a cover for abuse. The review, conducted by former director of education for Kent, Graham Badman, will say that parents who home educate should have to register annually on a scheme administered by local councils. But a parent's right to home educate will not be challenged, ministers have said.
Support
Local authorities currently have no statutory duty to monitor children educated at home. But they must ensure that all children are receiving a suitable education, either in school or otherwise.
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said: 'We will ask local authorities to provide easier access to extra support for those home-educated children who need it - particularly the relatively high proportion of home-educated children who have special educational needs and others who need or want to access services that would otherwise be provided through their school.' He said asking home educators to register would bring England into line with other European countries.
Scotland differs slightly from the rest of the UK in that local authorities are encouraged to inspect home educating families at least once a year.
'Outdated'
But home educators say authorities should stop treating them with suspicion and concentrate on giving them support.
Ann Newstead, spokeswoman for home education group Education Otherwise, said: 'If one thing could come out of this review which would mean it was not a complete waste of public money, it would be that the decision to home educate is treated with respect and as a positive choice.'
The review is not expected to propose any minimum standards or set subjects. It is understood the review has not found any evidence that home education was being used specifically to conceal trafficked children, or forced marriages.
Children's charities have urged the government to tighten up rules regarding home education. NSPCC head of policy and public affairs, Diana Sutton, said current legislation was 'outdated' and a system was needed to deal with cases where local authorities had concerns.
Estimates of how many children are home educated vary from between 20,000 and 80,000 children. [BBC]
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
£100 'smash and grab' from Catholic schools
Briefing. Like many really important things, this has not been picked up by the official Church organisation responsible for the matter - in this case the Catholic Education Service - but by an independant group, the new Las Casas Institute.
The size of the bill could force some dioceses to sell struggling schools or transfer them out of Church control so the Government will pick up the tab.
The figure is contained in a report published this week by the Las Casas Institute at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford, which called the move 'a smash-and-grab raid on the Catholic community'.
Diocesan officials across England and Wales are deeply worried about the cost and are trying urgently to work out a national strategy to deal with it.
The report, entitled Ed Balls, Michael Gove and the Challenge to Faith Schools, said: 'While professing public support for faith education in public... deep below the surface of public conversation and beyond the debates of Westminster, the Secretary of State has been introducing detailed rules that represent a smash-and-grab raid on the Catholic community and the wide range of stakeholders who benefit from its schools and their community service.'
The £100 million represents 10 per cent of the total cost of renewing Catholic primary school buildings under Government plans over the next 12 years. The plans, known as the Primary Capital Programme (PCP), were introduced after it was reported that the run-down state of buildings was harming children's education.
The previous school rebuilding programme, called Building Schools for the Future, was funded entirely by the Government.
In contrast the PCP requires a total of £350 million from the whole faith school sector. Each diocese is expected to negotiate the bill separately with all the local authorities in its area. Sympathetic local authorities may offer to pay some of the money if - as is likely in some cases - the diocese cannot afford it.
However, it is thought that the Conservative Party would pay in full for faith school rebuilding programmes - which would mean that the cost to the Catholic community would be nothing.
Stephen Morgan, chairman of the conference of diocesan financial secretaries and financial secretary of Portsmouth diocese, said: 'It's a really big problem, and a problem we don't have a way of solving at the moment.
'The Catholic community is growing and the new arrivals are not wealthy. It's all very well to ask Catholics in the leafy suburbs to pay extra money but it's more difficult if they are from Ghana or eastern Europe and living in the East End of London.'
Gerald Curran, financial secretary of Brentwood diocese, agreed that it would be very difficult for dioceses to raise the funds. He said: 'Basically the dioceses would not have that sort of money - it's a huge amount of money. Those primary schools that needed work would be immediately dealt with but others would have to be put on the long finger.'
Noel Loughrey, financial secretary of Salford diocese, said: 'It's clearly going to be difficult to raise the 10 per cent because of the sheer size of the sums involved.'
Martin Lockery, schools commissioner at Salford diocese, said it would be 'difficult, probably impossible' to raise the money - but that good relationships with local authorities meant the diocese would not have to pay the full 10 per cent.
He said one £6 million project to merge two schools into one - as part of the PCP - was funded entirely by Manchester City Council.
'We have ongoing conversations about what we can afford. The [Manchester] authority was well aware that suddenly having £600,000 thrown our way would be a non-starter. It was an acceptance of the reality of the situation,' Mr Lockery said.
No help from the CES
One financial secretary said dioceses had received no help at all from the Catholic Education Service. 'It was not even on the CES's radar - or if it was, they didn't let us know about it,' he said. The Catholic Education Service was not available for comment.
According to the Las Casas Institute report the £100 million bill is just one of a series of 'raids' by the Government on Catholic schools.
The report discloses that the Government has withdrawn its insurance cover for school buildings, transferring it to local authorities which are then not obliged to provide it.
In Hull, for instance, the local authority has demanded that Catholic schools pay for their own insurance. If this move were repeated across the country, the report says, the cost to the Catholic community would be £30 million a year.
The report also points out that under current Government regulations the Church cannot keep the proceeds from a sale of a school unless they are reinvested in another school in the same area. This means that if the Church tries to adapt to changing Catholic demography - to respond to an increasing need elsewhere in the diocese - it could lose tens of millions of pounds of assets.
Some claim the report is likely to reinforce a sense among Catholics that the Labour Government is hostile to Catholic education.
Last year Schools Secretary Ed Balls accused faith schools of breaking the admissions code in an 'unacceptable' way. Months later, a report by the schools' chief adjudicator said the vast majority of admissions arrangements at Catholic schools were 'fair, transparent and fully compliant'.
In 2006 the Government sought to impose a 25 per cent quota of non-Catholics on Catholic schools but was forced into a U-turn after pressure from the Church.
A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: 'The £1.9 billion Primary Capital Programme will rebuild or improve at least half of all primary schools in England, so that they reach 21st-century standards and help provide wider services for children and families in their communities.
'Since an Act of Parliament was introduced in 1944, it has been a requirement that voluntary aided schools contribute to the cost of any building work that takes place. Local authorities can, of course, assist voluntary aided schools with this contribution if they are able.' [Catholic Herald]
Friday, May 01, 2009
Compulsory sex ed from four years old
Parents must be alert! Note this from the LSN article:
Earlier this week, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Lessons will include those on "different types of relationships including same sex and civil partnerships" starting at age eleven. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses.
Even if you can opt out of PSHE classes your children will be getting sex education under the guise of science lessons.
There will be a 'consultation' period, but the policy has already been determined.
From the Telegraph (full article here): Pupils as young as 11 will be taught about homosexuality and civil partnerships in compulsory sex education classes.
All secondary schools - including faith schools - will have to teach children about same-sex relationships as well as traditional families.
Previously, heads could decide to opt out of teaching the controversial subject. Personal, social and health education classes are due to become part of the compulsory national curriculum in primary and secondary schools from September 2011. Family and faith groups yesterday condemned the proposals.
From the first year in primary school, four and five-year-old children will learn about different body parts, with lessons about sex from the age of nine. At Key Stage Three (ages 11 to 14), pupils will learn about contraception, pregnancy, sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. Schools will also have to teach about ' different types of relationships, including those within families and between older and young people, boys and girls and people of the same sex, including civil partnerships'.
At Key Stage Four (ages 14-16), they will continue to learn about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases and same-sex relationships.
From Life Site News (full article here): LONDON, April 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British government announced this week that it will adopt the recommendations of homosexualist activists and pro-abortion groups to make explicit sex education a compulsory part of the national curriculum for all schools from primary school onward. The plan, however, has angered some of these same groups by allowing "faith schools" to teach traditional Christian sexual morality and allowing parents to remove their children from morally offensive classes.
Earlier this week, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Lessons will include those on "different types of relationships including same sex and civil partnerships" starting at age eleven. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses.
But some groups are outraged that the regulations will include an option for Christian schools to apply the "context, values and ethos" of their religion to the lessons and for parents to withdraw their children on religious grounds. Currently, about 0.04 per cent of children are withdrawn from sex education classes by parents and the government said that while the opt-out will remain in place, it will be kept under "constant review."
Monday, April 27, 2009
Atheists evangelise children
Weirder and weirder.
From CFNews: The National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS) plans to launch a recruitment drive this summer. Backed by professors Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling, the initiative aims to establish a network of atheist societies in schools to counter the role of Christianity.
It will coincide with the first atheist summer camp for children that will teach that religious belief and doctrines can prevent ethical and moral behaviour.
The federation aims to encourage students to lobby their schools and local authorities over what is taught in RE lessons and to call for daily acts of collective worship to be scrapped. It wants the societies to hold talks and educational events to persuade students not to believe in God.
Chloë Clifford-Frith, AHS co-founder, said that the societies would act as a direct challenge to the Christian message being taught in schools. She expressed concern that Christian Unions could influence vulnerable teenagers looking for a club to belong to with fundamentalist doctrine. In particular, she claimed that some students were being told that homosexuality is a sin and to believe the Biblical account of creation.
'We want to point out how silly some of these beliefs are and hope that these groups will help to do that,' she said.
The federation's bid to improve co-ordination among atheists in schools follows a successful campaign at universities.
The number of groups reported by the AHS to be active on campuses has risen from seven in 2007/2008 academic year to 25 in 2008/2009, including societies at the universities of Oxford and Durham.
Leeds Atheist Society claims to have experienced discrimination, vandalism, theft and death threats from religious groups on campus, who oppose the open expression of an atheist viewpoint and blasphemy.
AC Grayling, the philosopher and writer, said: 'As well as making the case for reason and science, it is great to know that the AHS will be standing up against religious privilege and discrimination. The AHS shows that increasing numbers of young people are unwilling to put up with it.'
Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: 'Atheists are becoming increasingly militant in their desperate attempts to stamp out faith. It is deeply worrying that they now want to use children to attack the Christian ethos of their schools. Many parents will also be anxious at the thought of militant atheists targeting their children.'
In a further development to strengthen the role of atheism among the younger generation, the first summer camp for irreligious children or the children of nontheistic parents is being held this summer. Organisers say that Camp Quest, which originated in America, offers 'a godless alternative to traditional religious summer camps, such as vacation Bible schools'. [Telegraph]
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Teacher suspended for resisting homosexual indocrination
Briefing.
From CFNews: In the UK, a Christian teacher has been suspended from a senior post for complaining that a staff training day was used to promote homosexual rights.
Kwabena Peat, 54, left a compulsory training session with several other Christian colleagues at the north London school after the speaker, Sue Sanders, invited by the School headteacher, openly questioned why people thought heterosexuality was natural.
Mr Peat says that Ms Sanders, who openly describes herself as a lesbian, told him and his colleagues that those who did not accept that being homosexual was 'normal' had 'issues' they must deal with.
He said: 'I expected the training session to help us by providing good information on how to handle bullying but she had another agenda. She started promoting homosexual lifestyles and suggesting those who had objections should sort out their prejudices. She clearly asked us 'what makes you all think that to be heterosexual is natural?''.
Mr Peat, who is a year-head on a £50,000 salary, and other staff were deeply upset that teaching staff, and others, who disagreed out of Christian conviction were given no opportunity to respond. It would seem that at the school only one position was acceptable, denying free speech and respecting staff's human rights, in a training establishment which is intended to encourage students to think for themselves and claims to respect every individual's moral convictions.
Following the training day Mr Peat wrote privately to three staff members involved in organising the session, including a deputy head, complaining about Ms Sanders aggressive' presentation. Sue Sanders is the co-founder of the Schools Out organisation which campaigns for homosexual equality in education and last month attended a Downing Street reception hosted by Gordon Brown to mark Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender History Month. She was paid £850 for conducting training in the school.
The three staff complained to the school's principal, claiming, although they were senior to Mr Peat, they felt 'harassed and intimidated' by the letter. Following an investigation, Mr Peat was suspended and placed on paid leave pending outcome of disciplinary investigations hearings. He is now being supported by the Christian Legal Centre who have instructed the leading Human Right's Barrister, Paul Diamond, to represent him.
Mr Peat, who has spent most of his teaching life working in inner city London Schools and is a father of three children said: 'I'm not surprised by all this, but I am disappointed. I'm the one being harassed and intimidated - for expressing my religious views. As an experienced professional I am very supportive of 'equality and diversity' programmes and have always got on well with colleagues who are well aware of my Christian beliefs.'
Mr Peat has been suspended since January after the training day and has not been allowed to return to work.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, barrister and director of the Christian Legal Centre said: 'Mr Peat is being discriminated against for expressing his Christian faith. A legitimate orthodox Christian view as expressed by Mr Peat, however disagreeable others may find it, should not be construed as harassment or discrimination. If this is allowed to continue it will be state censorship leading to the infringement of a person's right to freedom of religion and speech.' [CLC]
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
GCSE in soft port
Briefing.
The latest edition of Zoo features 'Britain's sexiest blondes - 14 topless pages proving they really do have more fun!' Family campaigners are outraged at the move by assessment body AQA.
The news follows a survey last week which showed nearly nine in ten 14 to 17-year-olds had viewed pornography. And alarmingly almost one in five confessed to accessing pornography more than once a week - mostly online or via mobile phone.
The updated syllabus is currently being taught to children aged 14 to 16, with the first examinations due to take place next June.
The examination requires students to 'identify/describe targeting of specific markets by magazines and comics eg 'lads' mags''.
They should 'analyse/interpret the relationship of content to target audience in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, social and educational background'.
Margaret Morrissey, Chairman of campaign group Parents Outloud, said: 'If we want to bring back some vestige of normality for our teenagers then we have got to stop exposing them intentionally to such things.'
An AQA spokesman insisted the magazines were not a compulsory part of the syllabus.
Last year MP Claire Curtis-Thomas warned that notorious lads' mags such as 'Zoo', and 'Nuts' were little more than pornography and should be given age-appropriate 16 and 18 certificates.
Mrs Curtis-Thomas voiced her concerns after commissioning The Top Shelf Report which recommended introducing 'statutory guidelines that are comparable to the existing standards for video, film and television.'
In the report a sample of sixth-form students were surveyed and it found that 100 per cent of girls who looked at 'The Daily Sport', 'Zoo' and 'Nuts' expressed being angry, offended or upset by the images they contained.
One fifth of male students sampled admitted that looking at this material encouraged them to see women as sex-objects. [Christian Institute]
Friday, March 27, 2009
Morning after pill by text for 11 yr-olds
Briefing.
From SPCU: Children in England aged 11 will be able to request morning-after pills
from nurses by short message service texts. Schools are involved in the scheme in Oxfordshire. The opposition Conservative party said morning-after pills were only for emergencies. Family and Youth Concern said the move would not cut teenage pregnancy. Rev John Saward of SS Gregory and Augustine Catholic church, Oxford, said it was horrendous and would encourage promiscuity.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Former Headmistress wins £400,000 over Islamophobia smear
Briefing: one can forget than an employer - in this case the local council - has a duty towards its employees. They shouldn't assume accusations are true just because they come from people good at whipping up public support. The same is true of priests accuse of sexual abuse.
From the Daily Mail, in part: A headmistress who was hounded out of her job after being falsely accused of racism was yesterday awarded more than £400,000 in compensation. Erica Connor had run a 'happy and successful' primary school but was driven to a breakdown by the allegations.
The Daily Mail can reveal the school's troubles started when a local mosque decided to pack the governing body with Muslims. Paul Martin - a Muslim convert - and Mumtaz Saleem began monopolising meetings with the aim of turning New Monument in Woking into an Islamic faith school. ...
But when Mrs Connor resisted the new governors' plans - such as the introduction of Islamic worship into the school - she became the target of a smear campaign. An anonymous petition was circulated among parents, stating that those signing 'no longer have confidence in Erica Connor to educate our children in a way that respects and values our faith, culture and heritage'.
An accompanying document accused the headmistress of 'racism and Islamophobia'.
See the full story.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Gay History week: parents rights trampled
Briefing.
From CFNews: Parents who took their children out of school in protest at them being taught about homosexual, bisexual and transgender history could be prosecuted.
Council bosses said the protest resulted in around 30 primary pupils missing school and had 'taken action' against parents who pulled took their children out of George Tomlinson School in Leytonstone, east London, but refused to state what sanctions are being taken.
Pervez Latif, a 41-year-old accountant whose children Saleh, 10, and Abdurrahin, nine, attend the school, said his wife Shaheen, 38, was worried they could be taken to court.
He said: 'My wife is very concerned she might be prosecuted. 'As yet we haven't heard anything from the council about whether they are taking action.'
He said he knew of about 30 children who had been taken out of classes during the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Week after parents objected to their youngsters being encouraged to 'celebrates the lives and achievements of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in the community'.
Under current laws parents can be prosecuted for failing to ensure their children attend school.
Mr Latif, from Leytonstone, said: 'We were worried because weren't sure how they were going to teach our children these issues. We don't think it is necessary to teach it for a whole week and the children are so young. It is more appropriate for secondary school. Most children that age don't understand these things. When we took our children out of school we had to explain why - they didn't know what two parents the same sex meant.'
A spokesman for Waltham Forest Council refused to reveal how many children missed lessons or what action would be taken against pupils but the council's website said parents of truant youngsters can be asked to sign a contract, given an on the spot fine or hauled into court.
The spokesman added: 'As part of the borough's policy of promoting tolerance in our schools, children are taught that everyone in our society is of equal value. At George Tomlinson, parents were invited to meet with teachers and governors several weeks ago to discuss what work would be taking place throughout the national LGBT History Month, and how this work would be delivered.
'Regrettably, some parents chose to remove their children from school. The council does not condone any unauthorised absence from school and action has been taken.' [Telegraph]
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Petition for parents' rights in education
Action: please sign up here.
'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remind his government that parents must remain responsible in law for ensuring the welfare and education of their children and that the state should not seek to appropriate these responsibilities'.
The deadline for signing the petion is May 20th, 2009. You have to be a British citizen or resident to sign.)
Monday, March 02, 2009
Boycott Red Nose Day
Action: do NOT give money to Red Nose Day / Comic Relief. They give millions to charities such as Oxfam which promote abortion. Their claim in 2000 to the Bishops' Conference that they do not is simply not true. Do they think we are stupid?
The African Women's Development fund (AWDF), according to Comic Relief, received £1,560,000. The AWDF charter of feminist principles proclaims its commitment to "Freedom of choice and autonomy regarding bodily integrity issues, including reproductive rights, abortion, sexual identity and sexual orientation".
See his full post.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Gay propaganda in schools
Action: parents must find out what is happening in their children's schools in the name of 'LGBT History Month' and protest, if necessary. It can't be stressed enough that the most gross propaganda is being shoved down children's throats in all sorts of subjects - it can come in anywhere in the school day.
LGBT History Month has taken place every February since 2005. It was conceived by 'gay rights' campaigners with the aim of educating pupils to recognise homosexuality as normal.
In the past it has tried to teach children that Florence Nightingale was a lesbian and that Isaac Newton was gay.
The organisers commend the efforts of one school in Stoke Newington in 2007. In a report on the school's events, the teacher responsible said: 'Six girls tried to walk out of the Year 9 assembly because they were Christians and their parents had said they were not to take part in any of the LGBT celebrations.'
The teacher said the girls were told 'students must not be racist, sexist or homophobic' and were made to attend the assembly despite their beliefs.
Its current suggested lesson plans include discussing genes, gender and the concept of 'intersex' in science, producing images of LGBT people in art, and exposing Leonardo Da Vinci's bisexuality in Design and Technology classes.
Since the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act in 2003 there has been no statutory ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools.
LGBT History is sponsored by several Government departments, police forces and other public bodies.
Women and equalities minister Harriet Harman, and MEP Michael Cashman, will also be present at the Downing Street reception.
Organiser Tony Fenwick said: 'This is a fantastic moment for the LGBT community; we really are on the threshold of something big.
'Who would have thought five years ago that a group wanting to put lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans people into the National Curriculum would be welcomed by the Prime Minister of our nation?'
The organisers of LGBT History Month say: 'Schools have a crucial role in educating for equality. They have a responsibility to every pupil to ensure a safe and secure learning environment in which they can thrive. They have a responsibility to all pupils to prepare them for adult life in the real world.
'A key part of of the educational process is to ensure that the culture of our schools is inclusive and welcoming. Countering the prevalent assumption that everyone represented in the curriculum (including the hidden curriculum) is heterosexual becomes essential.'
They say: 'This focused month is uniquely placed as a national initiative encouraging staff and students alike to collectively challenge the homophobia and prejudice which is endemic in our society.
'Diverse images round the school that include LGBT people at work and as parents contribute much to set new norms.'
The organisers offer the following examples of how another school incorporated LGBT History Month into the curriculum.
* Maths lesson explored the work of Alan Turing, [a gay man], known as the Father of Computers.
* English lesson read James Baldwin [a gay man], and explored how his sexual orientation affected his work. Jackie Kay, a lesbian of black Scottish heritage is another fine writer pupils can study.
* Geography lesson explored population movement and discovered why and how LGBT people move to cities around the country and sometimes move to new countries.
* Religion class explored how various texts mention sexual orientation and gender and how people differ in their interpretation and behaviour and how these can be interpreted in terms of social harmony.
* Media lessons explored the images of LGBT people and why they are predominately young and male and white people.
* Science lesson discussed genes and gender and the concept of intersex.
* Art class used to produce images of LGBT people that could be used in the school
* Drama season used LGBT History as the basis of an improvised play to educate and entertain the whole school on the issues.
* Design and Technology lesson on some of Leonardo da Vinci's inventions, and remembering to expose his bi-sexual identity.
[Christian Institute]
Thursday, February 26, 2009
New teachers' code threatens Christian teachers
Action: please take a few minutes to complete the survey - the new code is undergoing consultation by the General Teaching Council. The key point here is that instead of being fair to pupils and not demeaning them (as the old code demands), the proposed code expects teachers to promote a particular political agenda, that of 'equality and diversity'. As we have learnt to our cost, promoting (as opposed to tolerating it or respecting it etc.) 'diversity' means encouraging non-traditional lifestyles and so on - a totally inappropriate thing for a teacher to do, even according to the government: he Government’s own Sex and Relationship Education Guidance says that it is “inappropriate teaching” to promote a sexual orientation.
From Christian Concern for our Nation: The General Teaching Council for England published their new draft Code of Conduct and Practice for teachers in England in November 2008. Teachers are required to sign a clause saying that they will adhere to the Code before they can be registered and the Code is used as a standard by which teachers are judged by the GTC or by Employment Tribunals, as well as by schools and Local Education Authorities.
It is of concern that the Code requires teachers to “promote equality and diversity in all their professional relationships” in Principle 4. This implies that teachers will be required to promote other religions and/or sexual practices outside marriage and it could lead to censorship. We believe that teachers should be required to respect pupils, parents and colleagues from other backgrounds, but should not be required to promote other religions and sexual orientations such as homosexuality that are contrary to their beliefs. The ordinary meanings of the words “equality” and “diversity” should not cause a problem, but recent cases have shown how these terms have been interpreted to require promotion of values contrary to Christian beliefs. For example, a nurse, Caroline Petrie, was suspended for offering to pray for a patient and a registrar, Lillian Ladele, was dismissed for refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies. It is important to respond to this survey because as a result of this draft Code, Christian teachers could face disciplinary action or even dismissal for practising their faith.
Please take a few minutes to defend the freedoms of Christian teachers by responding to the survey.
Responding to the Survey Anyone can respond to the General Teaching Council for
England’s survey on their draft Code of Conduct for teachers. Before you respond, you need to read the draft Code of Conduct and practice, which can be accessed here: http://www.opm.co.uk/gtc/GTCE_draft_code.pdf.
Replies are needed by Friday 27th February 2009.
The questionnaire is anonymous. Answers can be changed by going backwards and
forwards between questions and only once the ‘submit’ button is clicked will
the entire survey be sent. The website estimates that users should be able to
complete the survey in 15 minutes.
The survey’s website advises you that if you experience technical difficulties
completing the survey you can contact Jo Sloman on 020 7239 7823 and that if
you wish to talk to someone about the survey you can contact Kate Willcocks at
OPM by e-mail: kwillcocks@opm.co.uk or by phone: 020 7239 0875.
interest in the survey. You will therefore be asked whether you are a teacher,
a parent, a governor, a pupil and so on. You will also be asked what your
length of service is, or the age of your children as appropriate. All
participants are required to state whether they are responding from within
England and from which region.
Section B asks questions about the Code itself and offers the opportunity for
general comments regarding the introduction to the Code (box B2); the content
of the Code (box B5) and the language or tone of the code (box B7).
Section C gives you an opportunity to make general comments.
You can see our responses to the questions that ask for comments if you click on
this link http://www.ccfon.org/docs/CCFON_Response_to_the_GTCE_Survey.pdf .
Please answer the questions as you see fit, including a selection of our points
if you wish, but it is best if you try and put them in your own words. You may
forward this e-mail to others who may wish to respond to the survey, but please
do not post it on any website. You will need to fill in the survey at the
following link: http://www.opmsurveys.co.uk/gtcsurvey.htm.
We suggest that you use some of the following points in your answers:
All teachers need to be registered, so this means that Christian teachers, who
have to agree to abide by the Code, will be signing up for an equality and
diversity agenda that is contrary to their core beliefs.
A teacher’s job is to teach, it is not to be an equality and diversity officer.
The Government’s own Sex and Relationship Education Guidance says that it is
“inappropriate teaching” to promote a sexual orientation, it is therefore
doubly inappropriate to be disciplined for not doing so.
The new draft Code should take the approach of the current Code in setting down
minimum standards only.
Much of what is in the new draft Code (when compared to the current Code) should
be contained in non-disciplinary guidance. Teachers should not be disciplined
for acting on their values, but only when they bring the profession into
disrepute, such as by acquiring a criminal conviction or by demeaning a pupil.
The code should not cover matters of promoting higher professional standards,
which should be in a separate advisory non-disciplinary guide.
The code on equality and diversity could be used to victimise Christian
teachers, who do not wish to promote a sexual orientation and other religions
contrary to their beliefs.
The cases of the nurse Caroline Petrie and of Jennie Cain, a primary school
receptionist who is being investigated by her school after her 5 year-old
daughter spoke to friends about Jesus, show how the equality and diversity
agenda can be used to victimise Christians.
All current references to equality and diversity should be removed from the
draft Code and replaced by the wording on these issues in the current Code to
show that teachers’ duties amount to treating those from diverse backgrounds
with respect by refraining from demeaning them—the correct scope for
disciplinary matters.
The equality and diversity promotion aspects of the code could be used gradually
to remove from the teaching profession Christian teachers and prospective
Christian teachers, because they will be unable, in good conscience, to comply
with its requirements. The Christian ethos motivates many of the profession’s
most valued, loving, caring teachers. In short there is a danger that the
profession will lose many talented and experienced teachers who are currently
an asset to the profession.
Teachers should not be required to promote what may amount to a
politically-correct view that is contrary to their consciences and beliefs.
“Diversity” means respecting the diversity of staff as well as that of pupils
and/or parents.
The Code is used for the registration of all teachers and their discipline so it
is important to ensure that it is restricted to minimum standards only.
Christian teachers and prospective Christian teachers would have great
difficulty in agreeing to Principle 4 that requires the promotion of equality
and diversity; such issues should not be included.
There is already growing concern at the victimisation of Christian teachers in
schools in relation to diversity issues, including a head teacher who tried to
apply the statutory requirement for collective worship in assemblies, (see the
following article from The Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4623783/Christianity
-in-schools-why-were-losing-our-religion.html) and this code will make such
matters much worse.
The code could result in those who wish to attack both Christian teachers and
Christianity in schools having the ammunition to do so using terms such as
“equality”, “diversity” and “inclusion” as a pretext. These terms are causing
the marginalisation of Christianity.
The effect of this code could be gradually to remove Christian teachers and
those of other faiths from the teaching profession.
There is a difference between teaching about other faiths and promoting them.
The new draft Code should be reformulated along the lines of the current Code,
which serves its purpose as a disciplinary code well, because it restricts
itself to disciplinary matters. Much of the material in the draft Code should
be in a separate code of advisory, non-disciplinary status, covering
professional standards. For example, teachers showing the core values of
“excellence and continual development” and “commitment and empathy” are
professional standards to strive to achieve, but failure to attain them should
not warrant disciplinary measures.
Andrea Minichiello Williams
Christian Concern for our Nation
http://www.ccfon.org
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Don't give to the Catholic Education Service
Action: there may be a second collection tomorrow for them. For full details see John Smeaton.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
GCSE in political correctness
Briefing. More and more education is about closing children's minds, not opening them: giving them the one right answer and telling them that anyone who disagrees should not be listened to. GCSE have become notorious but this has invaded A-levels as well.
Academics said last night that the syllabus, to be taught from September, had turned a serious subject into a 'pat qualification for political correctness'.
One of the topics covered is 'religion and relationships', which will teach pupils about homosexuality, religious attitudes to contraception and the role of parenting.
Another topic is 'religion, sport and leisure'. Pupils will study 'religious attitudes towards the purpose, use and importance of leisure; types and purposes of relaxation, e.g stress relief, and the misuse of leisure time, e.g binge drinking.'
In a sample exam paper pupils are asked, under the heading religion and planet earth, 'what is conservation?' and 'is recycling good stewardship?'. Teenagers must also give two reasons why many religious believers oppose deforestation.
A second paper asks candidates to name two illegal drugs, give three reasons why people take illegal drugs and explain the attitudes of religious believers to smoking tobacco.
The syllabus, one of a number offered by the exam hoard the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA), is expected to be popular with schools. But Prof Alan Smithers. the director of the centre for education and employment training at Buckingham University. Said it was a blatant example of the 'politicisation of education'.
'This does not seem to be about religion and spirituality at all. There are just a lot of tenuous connections which teach the preferred attitudes and beliefs of the moment,' he said.
'I think it comes from the desire of politicians to stamp their influence on everything. It looks as if they are turning RE into a pat qualification for political correctness. How is it to benefit the students?
'It is not going to be a basis for the further study of RE or spirituality to a higher level. All it can do is clock up league table points for the school and keep young people occupied. One has to ask, where is the religion?'
Prof Smithers said the changes reflected those already made in the core subject of science, where scientific knowledge was replaced with the discussion of topical science-related questions.
Students can choose four of six units to study for the qualification, which means they can avoid more traditional material covered in the 'worship and key beliefs' and 'religious philosophy' modules.
AQA said only one of the units was designed to enable religious studies to link with citizenship and personal, social and health education.
'It will contribute actively to pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and the Every Child Matters agenda,' it said. [Sunday Telegraph]
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Gay sex in school for 5-yr-olds
Briefing: this is no joke. Parents have got to find our what is happening in their schools and remove their children if necessary. In this context to do nothing is to consent.
Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of 'creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated'.
The ambition was revealed in documents prepared for the No Outsiders project run by researchers from universities and backed with £600,000 of public money provided by the Economic and Social Research Council.
The stated purpose of the project - which is operating in 14 primary schools - is to stop bullying and prejudice aimed at homosexuals.
A document prepared for an Exeter University seminar and couched in convoluted academic jargon says: 'The team is concerned to interrogate the desexualisation of children's bodies, the negation of pleasure and desire in educational contexts, and the tendency to shy away from discussion of (sexual) bodily activity in No Outsiders project work.
'The danger of accusations of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire - and that it is therefore not about bodies.
'Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.'
No Outsiders is led by researchers from Sunderland University and also involves academics at the Institute of Education and Exeter University. Books, puppet shows and plays are used to teach children about same-sex relationships.
During the project, the seminar paper says, its members have 'challenged each other to go beyond imagined possibilities into queer practice'.
The seminar will 'question the taken-for-granted of the supposedly sexless, bodiless and desire-less primary classroom' and examine 'the place of the research team members' own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research'.
The discussions provoked a furious reaction from critics of the homosexual rights agenda. Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: 'When an adult who is working in a primary school suggests that children should explore their sexuality, that should result in a complaint to the police.'
Patricia Morgan, author of studies of family life and gay adoption, said: 'The proposal is that primary school classrooms should be turned into gay saunas. This is about homosexual practice in junior schools. The idiots who repealed Section 28 should consider that this is where it has got them.'
Project leader Dr Elizabeth Atkinson said the seminar had no connection with No Outsiders work in classrooms. 'The seminar is part of a long-standing academic debate and has nothing to do with schools,' she said. 'It has no connection with sex education.'
Section 28, the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in state schools, was repealed five years ago. Current guidance on sex education says it should not promote sexual orientation or sexual activity. [MailOnline]
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Bishops seek to end Catholic education
Briefing. First, by bad catechesis; then by joint Anglican-Catholic schools with women vicars as RE teachers; then by sex education, and now, not for the first time, by going beyond even the government's demands for the Catholic credentials of parents to be taken into account in admissions.
See Damian Thompson. The whole thing is very sad.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Condoms for children
Briefing: a 'dog bites man' story but it still shocks people. What's happening in your school? Wake up!
From the Daily Mail: Teenagers as young as 13 are being offered free condoms at school without their parents' knowledge.
All 'non-faith' secondary schools in Manchester have agreed to let their nurses hand out contraceptives and give advice about sex.
And the service could 'in principle' be offered to children aged 11 and 12 - although council sources say any evidence that children of that age engaging in sexual activity would trigger an investigation.
See the full story.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
FPA drums up abortion custom in schools with DVD
Local action: find out what your school is doing!
From SPUC: A British abortion provider has made a DVD aimed at schoolchildren aged 14 and above. The Family Planning Association's film has nine case histories of women and men involved with abortion. The association wants pupils who watch the disk to know that older women, as well as teenagers, have abortions. [Times Educational Supplement, 28 November] The scenarios on the DVD try to portray abortion as a sensible, altruistic decision, and arguments against abortion are not mentioned. Pro-lifers are demonised and teenage commentators argue that churches should not moralise. None of the young people in a scripted discussion supports the pro-life position. Prenatal development is not mentioned and the risks of breast cancer and trauma are dismissed as myths. The DVD promotes private abortion facilities even though it is supposed to be an educational tool. [John Smeaton, 4 December]
See John Smeaton's comments in full.
