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but this document, dated September 2010, basically promotes Section 28 - the homophobic legislation which had to be repealed after a lengthy campaign, and has since been apologised for by David Cameron.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?

Op: I'm sure you're not the first person to read this document so there's obviously not a lot wrong with it - if there was, 1000's of people would have complained to Ofsted and if they thought it was offensive they'd force the school to re-word it - wouldn't they? ( I dunno? )

Fwiw, most of the lesbians I know went to Catholic/faith schools (where homosexuality was totally frowned upon ) it didn't stop them.

And I agree with AlpinePony - schools are there to teach Maths and English - not how best to satisfy your lover...

I would be angry about the "section 28" bit too. By having this wording about homosexuality, the school is specifically saying that homosexuality is abnormal. FFS, I thought we'd moved on from this. Some people are gay, get over it. It's not about not encouraging sexual experimentation in general, it's specifically anti-homosexuality. I would assume any school with this in their policies probably does nothing to discourage homophobic bullying.

The second section is a bit different. It might be badly worded, but I think all schools and young people's services have a policy on when they have to breach confidentiality - if a girl is being groomed for sexual abuse by an older boyfriend might be an example.

You should never take bits in isolation-when we are given the whole it reads quite differently and I see nothing wrong in it.

YABU.... there was another long thread on here recently saying that schools should do more to alert children to the dangers of predatory, manipulative or violent sexual partners. I don't happen to agree that is the job of sex ed, but clearly quite a lot believe that children should be steered away from 'moral or physical danger'.

As for the homosexuality paragraph. It's one thing to educate about sexual activities - straight, gay or otherwise - and quite another to actively promote them. In fact, many are concerned that even by learning about sex, that constitutes encouragement to give it a try.

Obviously schools are there to teach Maths and English etc. , but I don't see why that is incompatible with teaching about sex and relationships. People's templates for relationships are formed first of all in their families, but if schools teaching an understanding of respect, consent and healthy relationships can prevent even a small proportion of the abusive relationships that are all over the Relationships section then why is that not just as valid a goal?

"Many are concerned that even by learning about sex, that constitutes encouragement to give it a try." Not learning about sex doesn't mean not having sex, it means having unsafe sex - you only need to look at the failure of 'abstinence only' policies in the US.

My goodness throught it was something out of the 1930's not this day and age!

@ninjasquirrel... I agree with you. Which is why the sex ed syllabus is usually based around biological facts and straightforward information, rather than going into too many details of value judgements or morality if you prefer. There are sadly still some people that believe that any kind of information equates to 'promotion'

I would be fuming if I found a paragraph stating: "There is no place for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the 'norm', or which encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils" without a concomitant paragraph stating that: "There is no place for teaching which advocates heterosexual behaviour or which encourages heterosexual experimentation by pupils." I don't see how anyone can claim that singling out homosexual behaviour in this way is not homophobic.

Just to clarify, I've already stated that I'm not saying that 'moral danger' necessarily means homosexuality. I just don't think that I want decisions about 'moral danger' made by a school which is being homophobic within its sex education policy! Homophobia isn't exactly what I would consider to be moral.

1000's of people would have complained to Ofsted - I doubt it. The document is not immediately obvious on the website, and it is quite possible that those who are interested enough to seek it out are generally those who are concerned about the teaching about 'abnormal' & 'controversial' things like homosexuality.

& in response to the facetious comments about the role of schools - education is not purely how to solve quadratic equations, write a critical analysis of a text or perform titrations. A huge amount of school is about how to live in the adult world & how to interact with people socially. This, to me, would include acceptance of other people's sexual feelings and behaviour in the context of consenting adults. I would say that somebody who leaves school in the 21st century & is still under the impression that homosexuality is somehow wrong or abnormal has been failed somewhere along the way - and so has every non-heterosexual person they encounter in their lifetime.

I don't know how they are getting away with saying that teaching does not advocate homosexual behaviour. This is clearly homophobic.

It can only be taken to mean either that
a. the school management thinks homosexual relationships are wrong.
b. the school thinks that homosexual management relationships are solely about sex (which is what some people on this thread seem to be assuming) and therefore homosexual behaviour is about fucking, otherwise the school is in the bizarre position of not advocating kissing, buying boxes of chocolate, going on a fun fair ride together, holding hands or a million and one other romantic things which constitute homosexual behaviour when done by a same sex couple.

As for the morality issue, of course schools should give pupils guidance on sexual morality. Many ways that people can treat each other in sexual relationships are wrong (and may be against school rules) - bullying of former sexual partners for example, but not illegal.

"There is no place for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the ?norm?, or which encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils."

Anyone trying to deny that this is blatant homophobia, you'd better explain again..

I'll have to dig out our schools prospectus - I'm sure the sexual/relationship bit has emphasis on 'marriage and the family' - will have a look.

'The teaching will foster recognition in pupils to behave responsibly in sexual matters
and will help pupils to appreciate the benefits of stable married and family life and the responsibilities of parenthood.
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.'

I find it very worrying. To say they cannot avoid... 'controversial sexual matters such as homosexuality...' - WTF Why would they want to avoid discussing all of these matters, it is important that they are discussed at school but it sounds like the school would like to not discuss contraception and homosexuality.

I think they are not controversial at all, a part of daily life and this kind of attitude would worry me immensely. Not least, I would feel that if my child was gay, or became pregnant, they would be most unwelcome and disapproved of by this school. I am amazed it is not a Catholic or Church school.

Actually, the getting pregnant thing is an interesting point & something I'd somehow forgotten about. A few years ago, a girl in year 11 got pregnant & decided to keep her baby. She was told not to return to sixth form no matter what her GCSE results.

RyCooler:
We had a discussion at a recent governors' meeting, which resulted in removing "marriage" from the policies and replacing it with the neutral phrase, "committed relationship"

The churchy gang weren't very happy, but the majority felt this was more suitable to the relaity.

Ok this is what it says.

Our philosophy;

'To enable students to develop a healthy balanced, well-informed attitude towards relationships, personal development and sexuality. To this end our policy is one of providing the necessary information, reflecting the best principles of education in accordance with Christian values, rather than a form of indoctrination.

Summary of the Sex Education Programme;
? Reproduction.
? Sexual development in adolescence.
? Relationships.
? Parenthood.
? Family planning.
? AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases and sexual health.

In accordance with the DoE circulas, parents may, if they wish, withdraw their son from all or part of the sex education provided.

That all sounds good to me.

I don't think homosexuality should be promoted to teenagers as teens often experience confusing feelings about sexuality and find themselves attracted to their friends due to their development stage. I'd be furious if either of my dcs were actively encouraged to be homosexual.

If homosexuality was normal within a species it would die out eventually.

"some people are gay, get over it"

"some people don't want homosexuality promoted, get over it"

Everyone is entitled to their opinions

There is nothing wrong with those statements when taken in context with each other.

It is not the school's place to advocate a 'norm.' It is not the school's place to promote homosexuality. Or bestiality. Or any other sexual activity.

The phrasing can only be taken as provocative if the reader has an axe to grind and - OP - it seems to me you are deliberately trying to take offence.

Itsokay: I don't think homosexuality is 'promoted' in any school tbh.

Xposts.

I think its fair enough to say they aren't encouraging homosexual experimentation if they also say they aren't encouraging heterosexual experimentation, but it doesn't look like that is what they are saying which leave the homosexual pupils feeling a bit shit, I would imagine.

"which presents it as the 'norm'" is also very dodgy. Its not the 'norm' as in more people are heterosexual than homosexual but it is 'natural' insomuch as it occurs in nature across many animal species and by saying 'norm' in that way it does imply they mean not normal, abnormal, not right, not natural rather than the more accurate 'not in the majority' way.

I don't think you can say 'not normal' in a nice or neutral way about lots of things which technically aren't normal or are in the minority. Its not the norm to be ginger or under 4 foot ten or or to be a blue eyed Chinese person but it would be shitty to actually write down that you wouldn't present 'ginger' as the norm, even though it is technically isn't the norm because how can a person take it any other way than 'abnormal'.

I can't see anything remotely offensive in the policies. Nada. Zilch.

yanbu, they should not bracket homosexuality as "contraversial"

Given the massive gray area that is the Equalities Act 2010, they really would be better just saying nothing at all about any of it unless asked.
I'm not going to start on how itsokay has totally missed the point, but I am going to say that saying 'If homosexuality was normal within a species it would die out eventually' is utter homophobic crap, because it's been scientifically documented that homosexuality exists in many species.