Schools ‘let pupils switch gender without informing parents’ - Policy Exchange Report

Matt Hood CEO of Oak tweeting in 2019 saying parents could just home school if they don't like RSE, and defending Andrew Moffatt, who consistently re-writes the protected characteristics to omit sex, by saying you can't 'pick and choose protected characteristics. Which is exactly what Andrew Moffat does. This is a stitch up from the start.

Related story:

LGBT charity Proud Trust ‘contacted teenager without parent’s permission’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/845a89da-cfee-11ed-9a78-fca06b87e87b?shareToken=d753ad3ac3bd1d4a8e041758a5ed8b03

And doubts about Oak National and the independence of the review:

https://twitter.com/safeschoolsuk/status/1641743277090037762?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

twitter.com/japanesepolar/status/1641849982398365715?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

twitter.com/zeno001/status/1641777969893916672?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

A contract to do similar work in 2019:

twitter.com/afertileheart/status/1641892658011426833?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

A job with Oak on RSE paying £68,054 (including market supplement)

app.beapplied.com/apply/l60h6jqcfo

Stonewall commented:

Schools told to show parents what they’re teaching children about sex

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a7f4a70a-cfb1-11ed-9a78-fca06b87e87b?shareToken=ad14e0ab0f95c73fbf849b762619208d

"The right-of-centre think tank Policy Exchange said in a report this week that many secondary schools would not reliably inform parents their child was in “gender distress”.

Stonewall said in response: “The fact that a child or young person is LGBTQ+ is not inherently a safeguarding risk. However, LGBTQ+ children are at risk of being targeted at school, including by other children. Having a trusted adult at school who they know they can talk to plays an important part in reducing that risk of harm. All of this is clearly set out in the government’s statutory guidance on keeping children safe in education, which we completely support.

“If LGBTQ+ children are to have the same opportunity to thrive as any other child, it is essential that they have the space to speak out and share their concerns, and that school staff have the tools they need to support them with confidence.”"

Keeping Children Safe in Education does not include the Q+

Late to the chat, but this just triggered a memory.

Back in the early 2000’s, I was at an all girl's (private) school where someone external gave a one-off RSE lesson instead of our usual teacher. The class covered contraception and early-stage termination - can't remember if this was just the morning after pill or later stage.

What really bothered me about the class was the provider stressing that we could get contraception and the morning after pill while keeping this a secret from our parents. I'm not even sure if we had all reached the age of consent by that point.

I know there are (sadly) situations where going behind the parents' back is the safest option for a child. I would also, naively, hope that those are cases where social services would get involved. But to hear someone telling us openly that we could keep emergency contraception use secret from our parents really didn't sound right. And I wasn't the only girl bothered by this.

I didn't have the language at the time to describe that as a safeguarding risk. But now I wonder if a) it was and b) this was an early version of the attitude now being taken by some about children wanting to change their name/pronouns/gender etc.

I'm sure the government did have some materials online a couple of years ago because I remember reading them. No idea how to find them now though and I don't recall them being worrisome

There must be some materials somewhere eg on TES that can be used?

There is no quality control on resources available on TES. Some of them are dire.

Incredibly, the ASCL claims it's being done on the cheap:

"The Association of School and College Leaders, which represents headteachers, has criticised Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, for implying that teachers are not providing sex education responsibly.
In her statement announcing a review this morning (see 11.35am), Keegan said she was “deeply concerned” by reports of what was happening in classrooms. Geoff Barton, the ASCL general secretary, said:
It is very disappointing to see education secretary Gillian Keegan’s implicit criticism of schools when she says the review will restore the confidence of parents.
In fact, the vast majority of schools teach this subject cautiously, sensitively and in an age-appropriate manner. Claims made about inappropriate teaching are overblown, sweeping and supported by evidence which is flimsy at best.
Barton also said the government should fund specialist teachers for this topic.
The government has provided very little training support for the teaching of this subject and we sincerely hope the review that is due to take place will make recommendations around providing more and better-resourced training.
This is such a sensitive and difficult subject to navigate that it really requires the provision of specialist teachers, but the government expects it to be taught by existing classroom teachers who are also teaching other subjects. As ever, it expects to deliver major policies on the cheap, and then is quick to criticise schools."

www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/mar/31/rishi-sunak-kemi-badenoch-trade-deal-conservatives-tory-labour-keir-starmer-latest-politics-updates

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1641689281617088512?s=20

What is conversion therapy? What is hate and who decides?

If a family has a world view does that include schools indoctrination of children or indoctrination of family members at work - that goes against a family world view?

I also found something Matt Walsh said recently along the lines of Diversity, inclusion and equality are HR slogans, they aren't a moral code in which to live your life.

Our kids are preached Christianity in Scottish schools, they go to a church service (this is a non-denom school). I don't much like it, I'm an agnostic, but I tolerate it and try to discuss these issues openly and sensitively with them.

I treat 'gender' in the same way. A wacky belief that I don't share, but my children are forced to endure lessons on it so I have to talk about it with them and we are very clear on the issues with the ideology.

Schools should be properly secular, imo. They should learn about different belief systems even handedly and without fear or favour.

Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Budists, atheists can request why schools are teaching this faith and fabricating that they are a secular school? Why are they using taxpayers money on scripture from these organisations, erecting alters aka mixed sex spaces (which is against guidance) for this quazi religion and not fostering good relationships between protected characteristics.

Schools are taking away parental responsibility on names and family world views causing problems in families, what made them believe that they have this right over other peoples children they carried, birthed and reared?

Teachers will not be who the children want to give a speech at their Wedding, they aren't who a woman will want with her in labour, they are nothing to children in the overall lifespan of a human. Who do they think they are? Why is there this type of culture in schools?

If Sunak is really worried about how all this is going to blow up, he needs to properly join the bloody dots between swathes of children thinking they are trans, and those same children, being taught that yes they probably bloody are.

He needs to stop it entirely. Not still present it as an option.

The review will also consider how to make sure all RSHE teaching is factual and does not present contested views on sensitive topics as fact.

This means trans ideology.

So if all the teaching is supposed to be factual, are they still intending to present trans ideology in the context of 'contested views on sensitive topics.'. As a belief system? Why? You might as well present witchcraft, or ghost hunting.

Considering budgets are evidently so squeezed in schools it begs the question as to why they are paying £££ for matériels. There must be some materials somewhere eg on TES that can be used?

It would be excellent if all parents could now request full copies and when it's denied, due to 'commercial sensitivity' the firms are added to a list and schools to stop using those materials immediately. Any school shelling out ££££ to outside providers should have to justify why Ofsted.

I would have liked to see this go further in that all children must be called by their name as registered at the school until this is settled. Teachers should not have to put up with all this name changing and pronouns nonsense. I am really surprised they do it, it must be so stressful.

Government announcement / update from Keegan and Kemi:

www.gov.uk/government/news/review-of-relationships-sex-and-health-education-to-protect-children-to-conclude-by-end-of-year

Review of relationships, sex and health education to protect children to conclude by end of year
Review to be informed by expert panel, in response to concerning reports of inappropriate content being taught

From:
Department for Educationn, The Rt Hon Gillian Keegan MPP, and The Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MPP_
Published
31 March 2023

New Relationships, Sex, Health and Education (RSHE) statutory guidance will be completed by the end of the year, in response to disturbing reports that inappropriate material is being taught in some schools.
The review is needed to make sure all children are protected from inappropriate content in all cases, even if many schools already teach RSHE and engage parents in a positive way.
The review, which was recently accelerated by the Prime Minister and Education Secretary, will be informed by an independent panel to be appointed over the coming weeks to provide external expertise. The panel will bring together input from health, children’s development, curriculum and safeguarding. The review will also draw on close work with Ofsted, to understand what material is currently used in the classroom, and consider what improvements might need to be made.
The panel will advise on how to put in place clear safeguards to stop pupils from being taught contested and potentially damaging concepts, including introducing age ratings setting out what is appropriate to be taught at what age, to prevent children being taught concepts they are too young to understand.
Oak National Academy, the independent provider of freely available online curriculum and lesson resources, will develop curriculum materials to make sure every school can access high-quality, compliant resources which will build on what is already available for schools. This will help support teachers as they develop their curriculum and lesson planning in this sensitive area.
The Education Secretary has also today written to schools to remind them they are required by law to publish a relationships or a relationships and sex education policy and consult parents on it, and should also provide all curriculum materials to parents and stop entering into contracts that seek to prevent parents from seeing materials.
Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan said:
I am deeply concerned about reports of inappropriate lessons being taught in schools.
This urgent review will get to the heart of how RSHE is currently taught and should be taught in the future. This will leave no room for any disturbing content, restore parents’ confidence, and make sure children are even better protected.
The letter makes clear that parents should be able to view all curriculum materials, and that parents can ask to see material if it has not already been shared, especially in relation to sensitive topics.
The review will also consider how to make sure all RSHE teaching is factual and does not present contested views on sensitive topics as fact.
It will also engage widely with those working with children across the education and health sectors.
The government is determined to make sure RSHE teaching leaves children equipped to make informed decisions about their health, wellbeing and relationships, in a sensitive way that reflects their stage of development.
The government expects new statutory guidance to be released in the coming months. It will then be subject to public consultation to conclude by the end of the year, coming into statutory force as soon as possible after that.
Separately, the Education Secretary, working with the Minister for Women and Equalities, will publish guidance for schools for the summer term on how to respond to children who are questioning their gender identity.

Labour will make this even worse (yes that's possible):

twitter.com/uklabour/status/1641689281617088512?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

What a fucking mess this all is.

Labour have a bloody nerve , when Starmer and Co have embraced the whole crazy ideology

The Times view:

The Times view on teaching gender identity: Classroom Minefield

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3438783a-cf36-11ed-9a00-73fd2b90e22e?shareToken=247281943f4cdff1ee5c7c2964d2ea4b

At the moment, Education Secretary Gillian Keegan exhibits the urgency of a sloth

From the Mail article, spot on, Ms Mooney.

Good piece by Bel Mooney in the DM today on this here.

@ResisterRex thanks for that. interesting snippets from that article

"It would be wrong to portray the entirety of the civil service as hostile on these issues. Far from it. A small minority of activist officials are the tail wagging the dog, often to the dismay of their colleagues and the hand-wringing of far more senior officials. This includes some permanent secretaries who are too scared to challenge their own staff and instead see ministers as obstreperous."

"The Whitehall machine often becomes the voice of interest groups in government rather than government’s voice to interest groups. This stems from a sincere, yet naive, belief that you can appease special interests with platitudes and “lines to take”. The truth is some battles have to be fought and won.
This requires strengthening a civil service that is terrified of controversy and recalibrating it towards policy and away from posturing on issues it believes as too “contentious”."

We are lucky to have Kemi as the Minister for Equalities and Women

Yes

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a300-1022-11ed-b7aa-67f5549661eb?shareToken=d76eac38474f0b3d4f1372e12ceb3454

"The government machine wants to be comfortable and consensual and campaigners and activists know how to take advantage of this. A minister asking tricky questions can be stopped in their tracks by accusations of stoking “culture wars”. Minutes of private meetings with whistleblowers and concerned citizens can be selectively leaked or become the subject of numerous innocent-looking freedom of information requests, designed to identify targets for harassment on social media, as I discovered in one unfortunate case."

And

"I was astonished that in trying to help mostly gay children whose childhoods were being destroyed by experimental treatment, I was misrepresented by mischief-makers and their friends in certain media outlets as being anti-LGBT with slurs gleefully retweeted by Labour politicians such as Angela Rayner and Chris Bryant."

Kemi Badenoch is on R4 at 8:20. Interview isn't in this but it's possible she might be asked

Depressing isn't it? One answer is in curtailing social contagion and removing the organisations from school currently grooming children into believing they've got the wrong body, are trans or genderqueer as a 9 year old etc.
Remove all those groups now .Schools are meant to be politically impartial.

It does appear to be the case that if a department and minister is in hock to trans ideology - as pushed and promoted by Stonewall etc- then it is frustratingly slow for the "government" to get clear traction on a move forward. I remember reading Kemi Badenoch saying that she was actively discouraged by officials from talking to Kiera Bell about one issue and the officials were just pushing gender ideology proponents forward as experts and lived experience supporters to talk to her.