Dear ---This reply further reinforces the point made by many commenters that the Government's policy is not to say that Catholic schools may present Catholic teaching but that they are to present the Government's teaching. They may do so in some way or another that vaguely "reflects the school's religious character and ethos". What is absolutely forbidden is to suggest that that "their views" (Catholic doctrines?) are the only "valid" ones. This is simply a bureaucratic way of saying that they may not present Catholic teaching as true.
Thank you for your email of 24 February, addressed to Ed Balls about sex education within faith schools. As you can appreciate, Mr Balls receives a large volume of correspondence and cannot answer them all personally. On this occasion I have been asked to reply.
This amendment confirms that schools can teach Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education, including sex and relationships education (SRE) in a way that reflects the schools religious character and ethos. However, there remains a legal obligation on the head and on the governing body of all schools, including faith schools, to comply with the principles in the legislation. These include requirements that material presented is factually accurate and balanced, for example, that information provided by schools should reflect the latest medical evidence available on topics such as pregnancy choices.
All schools will be required to teach the full PSHE education statutory programmes of study. However, these are written at a high-level and do not prescribe how material should be presented, or what resources schools should used to deliver their SRE programme. This will allow schools to take account of the ethos of the school, the views of parents and pupils and the issues that affect their local communities, while ensuring all young people receive a consistent core of accurate information. Schools with a religious character will, as now, be able to teach their faith’s view on issues that arise within the teaching of PSHE education, but they will not be able to do is suggest that their views are the only valid ones, and they must make clear that there are a wide range of divergent views.
We recognise that a ‘one-size fits all’ approach to SRE is not appropriate. But at the same time, we do believe that every school should provide factual information on a core set of topics, to remove the current inconsistency in what young people receive. We believe that our proposals strike an appropriate balance.
Once again, thank you for writing.
Yours sincerely
Leona Smith
Public Communications Unit
www.dcsf.gov.uk
As for "latest medical evidence" and "factual information", the Government (and OSTED, which will enforce the Government's policy) is unlikely to accept facts and medical evidence which challenge the "view" that promoting contraception fuels the problem it is trying to solve (a soaring rate of teenage pregnancy) or undermines the "view" that abortion is a largely consequence-free "pregnancy choice".
6 comments:
In other words, 'I am writing for Mr Balls, and neither he nor I have any grasp of the concepts of "fact" or "accuracy"'!
The Church teaches facts; what Mr Balls and his cronies want is to promote the opinions of the muddle-headed and wooly-minded.
Personally, I think the solution is for Church schools to get on with teaching the truths of the Faith, and when challenged point out that these have been accepted as fact for hundreds of years, and that what the State appears to want taught is mere speculation of very recent origin, and can they please convince a Court that this is 'fact'.
Knowing the speed of this type of litigation, especially if it has to go to Strasbourg, I'd think we shall have seen the Winter Olympics opened in Blackfen before a decision is finally made on that point !
Isn't it strange how the government is relativistic when it comes to most policy but for this topic, it is incredibly absolute?
It's pro-choice providing it's our choice.
The prevalence of relativism throughout society is one of the major reasons why people can't see the difference between rational belief in absolue Truth and bigotry or prejudice. This is why Mr Balls is able to state "(Catholic schools) can't teach homophobia" (which is tantamount to saying "they do teach homophobia") - because of his mindset, he is unable to separate the belief that an action is morally wrong from the idea that everyone must be coerced to accept that belief.
There is a widely held view that it is a good thing to blow yourself up with the intention of killing as many of your fellow humans as possible.So when schools teach that it is wrong to kill your fellow men they must stress that this is just one of many different views allowable.....Does this mean that if someone were to kill Mr Ed Balls, he would not be doing wrong?
I have just been reading in Robert Graves of how, when Caligula declared himself a god whose statue must be in all temples, those who wanted to get at the Jews insisted that the legislation must apply to synagogues. Mutatis mutandi ...?!
Your comment here is spot on: "This reply further reinforces the point ... that the Government's policy is not to say that Catholic schools may present Catholic teaching but that they are to present the Government's teaching."
I have just finished a one term government sponsored RTT course (Return to Teaching) - as I have been two years out of the classroom - and I have sat through three months of government propaganda. I now know all about their agenda.
All students on Initial Teacher Training programmes are being 'enthused' with this political agenda. It technically falls short of 'brainwashing', by a few degrees, but comes very, very close to it, by repetition of key words and phrases that produce an ambience that cannot be disputed.
It is very difficult to disagree with the 'communitarian' agenda that is now standard dogma on teaching courses. If you argue with it you may not look 'unsafe' to work with children. If you dispute the politics, you begin to look like someone who does not believe 'Every Child Matters'.
This is indeed pure Orwell. I am frightened by it because when I read 1984, I honestly never thought I would live to see it.
How many teachers will fight this? Very few. The older ones want out fast, and seek early retirement. The younger ones are too busy shopping on the internet and increasing their count of 'friends' on Facebook. And the remaining thinking people of conscience (those with no faith like Orwell and thinking people of faith), will be eliminated one by one as soon as they say the wrong thing. When you put your head above the parapet to question the running of New Labour's communitarian farm, your job is on the line.
I do not think the Conservatives will be very good at controlling the country, and that is exactly why we need them in fast!
I'd teach the government's version: as the objection part of a Thomistic lesson on the Church's correct teachings on the subject. Hey! I gave them your information. You didn't say I couldn't skewer it!
Post a Comment