to be offended by this as a homophobic policy in a school?

[Section28WasRepealed]

I have just come across a 'Sex Education and RE' document from a prestigious school in Birmingham - a very diverse city, obviously.

There are a few points in it which raise my eyebrows, but this document, dated September 2010, basically promotes Section 28 - the homophobic legislation which had to be repealed after a lengthy campaign, and has since been apologised for by David Cameron.

The most offensive parts to my mind are:

The school has a responsibility to ensure that pupils understand those aspects of the law which relate to sexual activity and cannot avoid tackling controversial sexual matters such as homosexuality, AIDS, contraception and abortion. On these particular matters:-
i. There is no place for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the 'norm', or which encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils.

and

If the teacher believes that a pupil has embarked upon, or is contemplating, a course of conduct likely to place him or her in moral or physical danger, or in breach of the law, the teacher has a general duty to warn the pupil of the risks and may, depending on the circumstances and the professional judgements involved, advise the parents, Head Teacher, or specialist support services.

Perhaps homosexuality is not the norm, but it is a norm. What is wrong with advocating it? It is an absolutely valid orientation and not a choice which can be influenced anyway. How can one defend a child against homophobic bullying without being a defender of their right to be sexually attracted to somebody of the same sex?!

& just what is 'moral danger'? Who judges it? & in context of this document and the other points expressed, do we want the author of said document to be making such judgements about our children?

So basically, AIBU to think that this is incredibly badly worded, at best? Or is this normal and even acceptable within schools?

Section 28

Is it a catholic school?

the 2 parts are not necessarily linked - they do not say that homosexuality is what they mean by moral danger - you need to link the whole thing, not just selective quotes which support your view if you want us to make an informed judgement as to whether UABU

No, it's not a Catholic school. It is a state school and has the standard C of E emphasis, but the main bit of the 'RE' section of the same document says:

Outline Scheme: ?By examining some of the beliefs and practices of some of the worlds great religions - but with particular reference to Christianity ? we try to understand what a religion is, and what kinds of questions religions try to answer about being a human being. We look at this critically, but sympathetically. This leads in Years 10 and 11 to an attempt to look more maturely at some of the problems of growing up and living in society, as illuminated in religion?.

Oh no, I'm not saying that 'moral danger' necessarily means homosexuality. I just don't like the idea of a school making judgements on what constitutes moral danger. Obviously things like theft are different, but that is covered by 'breach of the law'. I'm not sure if I should link the whole document, because it will identify the school...?

I don't think it is fair for any of us to judge this without seeing the full document - does the second paragraph you have highlighted apply only to the section on homosexuality, or is it a more general statement talking about ANY sexual behaviours, relationships, drugs, crime etc?

I don't see how they are able to advocate any sexual behaviour at all or encourage sexual behaviour of school-aged children, homosexual or otherwise and I wonder if it explains that in the rest of the document, or have they really just singled out homosexuality?

Would this be an academy?

I'd be complaining. Strongly & repeatedly.

Okay, here's the link to the document. If it's deemed unacceptable to post it, I'm sure MNHQ will remove it.

I would be fuming!

I am a lesbian AND a parent and god help any school that tells my children I am immoral!

My daughter was forced to make a father's day card one year at school, despite her protests that she dosn't have a father but has 2 mum's they said she had to do one for another male relative instead.

Fair enough BUT when it came to mother's day she was only allowed to make one card and when she protested that she has 2 mums was told by the fucking idiotic assistant that it's impossible and only one of us can be her real mum so write the card to that one.

Needless to say I nearly ripped that assistant a new arsehole and now school are ever so carefull not to piss me off.

Children should be taught about ALL relationships, imagine how hard it is to be 15 and confused about your sexuality, knowing you will be teased and bullied if you reveal it and then having school confirm how immoral it is in sex education.

Sickening.

Right I can see now, how the first paragraph you mentioned could cause offence. The document states the school...'cannot avoid tackling controversial sexual matters such as homosexuality' but is not willing to present homosexuality as a normal behaviour. If you do find this offensive (not everyone will find it offensive, but I can see how people might) then I think YANBU to speak to the school and ask them how exactly they approach the subject, and to ask them how this fits within the law, given the repealed Section 28.

SacreLao! That 'real mum' thing is just disgusting. I don't even know what to say to that.

I don't want to say too much about my relationship to the school, but I'm not really in a position to complain directly & yet I know people who have been bullied in a homophobic capacity & have not been protected by the school. To discover this official policy is salt in the wound, to be honest.

I'm really glad that I'm not the only one to think that it is at least badly worded. & it is something that you would hope would be carefully considered & phrased for this exact reason...

Believe me the school were grovelling with apologies after I stormed in.

It happens more than you think though, people who do not know which of us gave to birth to the children often ask which one is the real mum when they mean who was the one who carried.

I can sort of understand the phrasing of an off-the-cuff remark like that from people who aren't too familiar with 'non-traditional' families, but for a member of staff to make a comment like that in that context... Awful. I can't believe that these attitudes are still so prevalent in the 21st Century.

Yes they mean one thing but it comes out as another, I don't believe any intention to hurt is there it's just not thinking.

Schools need to be aware of these thing however, they will have many children from non-traditional families, in fact there is an AIBU post where a mum is upset about the school's teaching with regards to an adopted sibling, and need to make sure they cover all areas in there teaching.

Sacre - good on you!! Both situations were handled very badly by the school (well the Teacher/TA). I'm pleased you went in and tore them a new one explained your POV

I don't think it is unreasonable at all for people to consider the "real mum" to be the one that actually gave birth to the child. It's ridiculous that people expect the schools to teach kids about every possible kind of alternative lifestyle and storm into school about it. How many hours do you suppose there are in a school day? Kids are supposed to learn about how they can earn a living when they leave school, that should be a priority over all the other stuff.

Wow. Is a dad not a 'real parent' because he didn't physically gestate & bear the child? Really?

"I don't think it is unreasonable at all for people to consider the "real mum" to be the one that actually gave birth to the child."

Why the fuck not? My mother didn't give birth to me. Is she not my real mum?

"It's ridiculous that people expect the schools to teach kids about every possible kind of alternative lifestyle and storm into school about it. How many hours do you suppose there are in a school day?"

Enough to teach that homosexuality is NOT a sin.

Sorry if you adopt a child are you not a real parent?
Are dads not real parents?

How small minded!

I gave birth to our children but my partner is just as much a parent, she has raised them just as I have and has legally adopted them.

The school know that I am in a same sex relationship and so handled the incident really badly, they deserved a bollocking.

Cross posted haunted.

Thank you for confirming my point :)

And kids are not at school to learn how to earn a living, if that were true then why does my severely disabled son attend school, he will never be able to earn a living.

Kids attend school to learn how to be an adult, survive in the world etc. and a huge part of that is tolerance and acceptance.

Back to the OP

IF you read in its entirity:

^There is a clear distinction between teaching pupils about contraception and abortion, and advising pupils on such matters. A teacher approached by a pupil for advice on these or other aspects of sexual behaviour will encourage the individual to seek advice from his or her parents, or where necessary the relevant health care professional, since it is an inappropriate exercise of the teacher?s responsibilities to do otherwise. If the teacher believes that a pupil has embarked upon, or is contemplating, a course of conduct likely to place him or her in moral or physical danger, or in breach of the law, the teacher has a general duty to warn the pupil of the risks and may, depending on the circumstances and the professional judgements involved, advise the
parents, Head Teacher, or specialist support services.^

It then makes perfect sense (to me) and nothing to get out of your pram about.

Just because you are a nice family, others aren't. Don't you think there are some parts of our multi-cultural society where girls are still put into arranged marriages. Don't you think that is 'moral danger'? and the authorities should be alerted?

As that whole passage is about contraception and abortion, it is clearly regarding underage girls who are sleeping around for whatever reason. If the parents arent doing their job properly and educating her regarding her self worth, and the girls behaviour is the subject of playground gossip (and ultimately the 'slag' bullying that will ensue) then yes the parents should be informed.

I'm Just not seeing what the issue is, when read in context.

I think you're over thinking it.

The school state that they will not be encouraging sexual behaviour and/or dangerous activities.

This is a school right, not a sex commune. Why the ants in the pants? Or is experimental practical sex spotted in between Latin and double physics where you live?

I'm in agreement with trois

If the document suggested sex ed was about encouraging children to embark upon, or contemplate, a course of conduct likely to place him or her in moral or physical danger, or in breach of the law I'd suggest it was more of an issue

I'm not linking this to homosexuality and am not sure why you are?

The aim of the school?s sex education programme is to present facts in an objective and balanced manner to enable pupils to comprehend the range of sexual attitudes and behaviour in present day society; to know what is and what is not legal; to consider their own attitudes; and to make informed, reasonable and responsible decisions about the attitudes they will adopt both while they are in school and in adulthood.
What is wrong with that?

i. There is no place for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the ?norm?, or which encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils.
This does seem superfluous and could read ^There is no place for teaching which advocates sexual behaviour, which presents it as the ?norm?, or
which encourages sexual experimentation by pupils.^ I guess this depends on your view of whether children should be encouraged to consider sex whilst < 16yrs. I'd not personally advocate it and would be pissed off with anyone who did encourage it