Labour has voted down the Tories' amendment to allow parents to see sex ed resources in schools.

Holy fuck, that's ringing all sorts of alarm bells!

I thought all Scottish schools had to use the curriculum set by the SG?

Edit: And the right to see materials is laid out pretty clearly.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/guidance-delivery-relationships-sexual-health-parenthood-rshp-education-scottish-schools/pages/3/

Nope, we are in Scotland and weren't allowed to (School of Sexuality Education brought in).

could cause strict gender roles to be reinforce
In my example it was homophobia. Teaching the children that Hetero is 'the only' / the 'normal' and that F&F or M&M as an adult with drugs will change into F&M.

Our in house stuff is fab

That is a teacher writing a text book but not getting paid or controlling the copyright

but the bought in slides are awful and patronising. I use them as a launch pad.

Our curriculum is fully viewable- to be honest I’m not sure about the bought in stuff as I haven’t had to deal with any requests.

Thats a pre-purchase issue same as buying a tablet, computer or printer which has anti-compeditive type restrictions. The school should have a tender requirement that all materials can be accessed by parents. At least then the school is not expecting teachers to be the 'copyright enforcer' or fear litigation if a supplier decided to sue.

This is ongoing though. It’s been the case all through my career but it’s got worse as we have had to replace other services. When I started teaching Sex Ed was covered by the community nursing team but now it’s form tutors. We do get specialists in to do some drop down days (mainly First Aid related) but it’s resource dependent. PSHE is often given to whoever has space on their timetable at secondary, and I imagine at primary there’s little time to plan/review properly.
And then OFSTED come and tell you that your PSHE Association approved curriculum isn’t acceptable. It’s confusing. Under-resourced and teachers are under trained.

Disclaimer: I rarely agree with the majority on this forum BUT it does seem that some schools are using resources that aren’t age appropriate and in the hands of someone who is untrained or not experienced could cause strict gender roles to be reinforced - which as far as I can work out nobody on this board particularly wants!

I’m a sixth form tutor and have been for a while now. I’m familiar with our PSHE curriculum. Our in house stuff is fab but the bought in slides are awful and patronising. I use them as a launch pad. However, that’s because I’ve been in this year group team for nearly a decade. Not everyone is as experienced.

Our curriculum is fully viewable- to be honest I’m not sure about the bought in stuff as I haven’t had to deal with any requests.

GrammarTeacher ypu made some very good points and I think it boils down to politicians who passed the legislation but are too afraid to put the resources in to implememt the teaching of the subject as they dont want ownership of any of it let alone the mistakes which are happening

Scotland may be pushing some highly questionable bullshit in schools, but at least we are able to see all the materials!

Thanks for all your work, OP. This must be incredibly frustrating.

Youd think a government would want to keep parents concerned with children's safety on board.

I know I rarely agree with people on here but there are issues with the bought in PSHE lessons.
I wouldn’t focus on this part alone though. The materials are often chaotic, inappropriate for age group, will cause more problems than they solve (looking at you Year 7 session on neurodiversity and disability that implied people with autism are barely functional!).
That said, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t carefully check and adapt their PSHE resources (somewhat ironically I have to as the slides are too busy and don’t work for me - autistic).
PSHE is a scandal really, but it’s much much wider than this would imply (although the discussions sometimes get close to the issue). Teachers are not really trained in PSHE/form tutoring (it’s better than my nothing 20 years ago but still nowhere near good enough). This is how we end up at the bought in materials. These will never really work as they’re not planned for a specific school/cohort. You then rely on teachers making sure they adapt in advance.
It’s a real issue in a whole lot of areas.
It goes deeper than asking to see the materials (which seems like an extension of all the companies who rip off schools protecting their trade). Teachers need to be trained properly in PSHE.

All schools in Cornwall use Jigsaw. It's full of stuff like that. There have been threads about Jigsaw on here before.

I'm not a parent but will gladly contribute to any crowdfunder for a challenge to this. It's bonkers and the arguments for not making materials available carry no water at all.

They are producing "new" to a "new" market so I can see why they try commercial confidentiality.

But the school are buying on behalf of the parent so why sign that contract. Was it easier than asking all the providers to remove it etc

Or In the end is the school hiding behind the contract as most parents will not have time to spend the time needed in the school reading the materials.

They aren't in breach of anything for other subjects. There are textbooks that school has paid for, and printouts with text or artwork reproduced under various different legal arrangements of copyright, fair use, etc. Music publishers protect their work with huge "no photocopies" notices, but DC can still borrow the original if they need help reading the dots.

The RSE supplier is claiming "commercial confidentiality", not copyright, which is weird - this is a lesson plan, not a cola recipe.

Ask about why the different contract arrangement was aproved for that?

If its online how the school approves the content, if they keep a "hard copy" of that version and how they are notified of changes and how that is tracked.

Are they in breach and dont care in other subjects?

Whats the penalty for them if they give you a copy

Etc.?

The thread seems to have got away so bit of a non-sequiteur but to come back to say:
I was told that school can't give me materials to take away or view in the way that I can for all other subjects. It has to be at a meeting in school. My DC has a shelf of textbooks and printouts for science, maths, English etc. Copyrighted materials all available for the kids to take away.

The only subject that I can't see the materials for is the most sensitive one of all. But I'm not even sure that's the main point. I already know I don't like it. Do all the other parents think it's okay? That's the real question.

Why be outraged?

To be clear that list didn't come from anything to do with Education! It was from some research I read about ND individuals of which I have a personal interest as I have an Autistic child.

This was you being a parent^^
Nothing to do other teachers.
Just you.

You are looking at materials:

My understanding is that the term "queer" is used now to cover changing preferences and fluid identity.

And it you explaining a new sexual classifiction
Based on the mental state not the physical body.

You need to ask the question (or not) why has the researcher added in a special class ND + GD and what benefit if any did it provide to the research to invent this.

Queer theory and TRA have dominated research

You as parent should now be aware that the research has a bias which may skew the document you are reading.

You can be a bigot about your research after all its your child.

But as a professional be educated by parents who have give you examples of how they are being blocked by teachers in your industry and dont insist that it never happens.

Note you did not list hetero as it is the assumed orientation. So girls and more so lesbian girl are put under preasure to class boys as something they are not (girls).

Ignore the cross out

In schools
girls risk of sexual assault after puberty remains high
boys fall as they age through into adulthood
So clear boundries if sex and sex segration help safeguarding
Girls are less likely to be sexually agressive and a boy can cross a boundry in a way a girl could not ( the Slut V Stud dynamic).
And TRA ideology says all girls be told that boys can be girls but SSA girls are told that the boy is a girl he so also a girlfriend canditate.
ND girls too have a risk of missing early warning of boundry crossing.
Boys will be much more effective in using intimidation to remove girls from their spaces.

Evidence suggests that neurodiverse people, particularly those on the autism spectrum, are more likely to be gender diverse and have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or asexual sexual orientation, compared to neurotypical people.

Was thinking about the maths behind this. ^^
(statistical analysis methods make me sad so feel free to point out errors)

Whole pop (F&M)
96% He
2% Ho
2% Bi

Sexual orientation is random cant be tracked by stats or mapped into the gene code.
But the ratio tracks across locations and races in western data reporting

TRA claim that gender diverse GD cant be tracked but is at least 1% of the population

(Per a quick google from semi-reliable sources )

autism as ND has a genetic element and therefore can be detected and screened out of the population.
It runs on fathers having higher causation than mothers

Rough detection rate in the US
1 in 100 girls
4 in 100 boys

Whole pop 2,000,000 (50% F & 50% M)
So
0.990 F NT
0.010 F ND

0.960 M NT
0.040 M NT

Then apply Random SO
If F & NT * SO
0.990 * 96%
0.990 * 2%
0.990 * 2%

If F & ND * SO
0.010 * ??__ % ( -Y% - Z% +96%)
0.010 * + Y% + 2%
0.010 * + Z% + 2%

Adding in GD the Y and Z get move the ND but not NT control group.

If this tracked, screening and removing the "gay gene" would have been possible as SO is then proven not to be random.

Just in case parents are interested, these materials are in the pack from Jigsaw.

I asked to see the materials taught at my DD’s school as part of the ‘right to consult’ process. The information made available to parents simply referred to other policies which it didn’t share. When I asked to see it, the head let me come to the school to see the documents in person. She wouldn’t send them to me for copyright reasons. Lo and behold, there was a slide suggesting that if a girl likes boy toys, or a boy likes girl toys, they may be trans. It didn’t use the word trans, but that was the implication. This was for young primary children. I objected on the basis that it was sexist to suggest there is such a thing ‘girl toys’ or ‘boy toys’ and the head agreed to remove the slide from the lesson.

No normal parent would be as motivated as I was to wade through the materials and check this. This material IS being taught to our children and it’s disgraceful that Labour are now going to build in more obstacles for parents who should be able to access lesson information easily.

*spaces

A number of concepts push into the area around sex with children or animals so if a researcher is moving away from a sub-class of 3 to a new classification system of I am who I say I am that can be a problem*

That is quite a leap and that seems to suggest that using "queer" or "asexual" is a slippery slope towards acceptance of bestiality or paedophilia which really is ludicrous.
I'm going to bow out of this now as whilst I have respect for concern around single- sex spaces for example or but I find the idea that teachers can turn kids gay or trans by mentioning it utterly offensive and ludicrous. Children don't suddenly think they are these things because they find out about it. The arguments around protections of women and woman only species are absolutely valid and I support this but a link being made with sex with children or animals means I have no interest in engaging with this anymore.
I wish parents with genuine non-bigoted concerns every luck and I hope schools are professional and helpful in supporting any concerns- because they really should be.

*Sorry you clearly ^^ did and that misquoting was due to my poor edit.

But I think that the over all point of hetero being assumed is still valid*

I'm really not understanding why you think heterosexual needs to be included in a list in that context? Can you explain?
It's saying ND are more likely to identify as something other than heterosexual. The assumed norm is always Heterosexual is it not? Purely by virtue of statistical likelihood if nothing else?

I did, but didn't get anywhere - I did write to the Governors but didn't get a reply which was shocking. The school haven't done any more trans indoctrination because I keep an eagle eye on the RSE curriculum when they send it out. I have said that I have no problem with my DCs being taught RSE, but I they are to be removed from any lessons where they are indoctrinating the children with GI.

My children are almost at the end of their school careers though so I would have pushed back and escalated MUCH harder if this was primary school and if I wasn't confident that they know that all of this is unscientific claptrap.

Parents have a right to know what their children are being “taught”.

Is it going to take a court case?

queer sexual orientation,
asexual sexual orientation,
.....
^ is TRA ideology been pushed into sex education^

Now that you can spot this you can be more aware of the concepts underlying some research.

A number of concepts push into the area around sex with children or animals so if a researcher is moving away from a sub-class of 3 to a new classification system of I am who I say I am that can be a problem.

If they are teaching queer sexual orientation that is what the school is doing.

Evidence suggests that neurodiverse people, particularly those on the autism spectrum, are more likely to be gender diverse and have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or asexual sexual orientation, compared to neurotypical people.

Sorry you clearly ^^ did and that misquoting was due to my poor edit.

But I think that the over all point of hetero being assumed is still valid