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but this document, dated September 2010, basically promotes Section 28 - the homophobic legislation which had to be repealed after a lengthy campaign, and has since been apologised for by David Cameron.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

What I meant to say was OP you are just looking to be offended!

as in, the school could have chosen a different word, or it could simply have chosen not to start making an issue at all about the 'issue' of homosexuality

Sorry - my last post was to Itsokay -

yeah and mine was to myself, sorry

No, the parents didn't complain but I pulled my son out of Year 7 partly because of this episode and he goes to a faith different school now. Perfectly happy and his behaviour and attitude have improved too.

Good, and did you explain to the school why you were taking him out? Because that is important I think.

I am entirely at a loss as to what was going on in this disruptive kids example. I don't think it promoted homosexuality; it is just an absurdity. I can't see what it hoped to achieve.

Homosexuality certainly isn't the norm and the school is right about that.

But the school would have been on firmer ground if they would have written in the "Rules" that tolerance of peoples sexuality should be taught and understood.

What the fuck is "homosexual experimentation"?

When does it stop being an "experiment" and start being standard sexual intimacy between 2 people of the same sexuality.
What does this kind of archaic crap say to young people who are gay?
And what exactly is wrong about young people exploring their sexuality - why is there a presumption of exploitation because it is same sex?

No I didn't explain. It wasn't worth it. This is what the 'norm' is apparently and people just have to accept it.

I think the question we're all wanting to ask is if any of the kids put any of these

"We"?
Speak for yourself CaptainPeroxide.

IOTD, I don't think that people who believe that schools should advocate homosexuality generally envisage that this would involve children calling out a range of terms for homosexual. Because it seems to serve no actual purpose.

I agree with trios

IF you read in its entirity....It then makes perfect sense (to me) and nothing to get out of your pram about.

The the trouble is, there will always be someone who wants to put a spin on things and use their own agenda to find unintended meanings or controversy.
A bit like the newspapers like to do.

As I said earlier I am a gay mother.

I don't want the school to ENCOURAGE homosexuality in my children, but I don't want them to encourage hentrosexuality either.

I want them to be given the FACTS end of, not be told that homosexuality is 'experimentation' that makes it sound like a choice which it is not.

I don't want them to be told homosexuality is not normal or immoral.

The way the document is worded makes it sound like this is the case and other posters have said I would question the school's whole attitude to homosexuality.

I suspect those posters that would not want their children taught tollerance of homosexual people are the same type of people that disown their child for being gay.

FWIW I did tell a teacher I was gay in high school, after being told I was being silly, too young to know that etc. I was then told to not tell anyone else as if it got out I would be bullied.

No it didn't stop me but it took me a long long time to be fully comfortable with my sexuality, to the point I married the only boyfriend I ever had just to be normal.

School's should not treat homosexuality like it is some big dirty secret and hide it away.

I think that this is what the policy is saying- don't promote anything be it hetrosexuality or homosexuality.
Seems fair enough.
fact is what students should learn, no a particulate teacher's opinion.

not a particular !

I would be appalled if this appeared at a school my children were at and definitely complain. I absolutely cannot understand people saying that it makes perfect sense in context- it's even worse in the context of the document to single out homosexuality as though it's a massive risk or as though it's abnormal. The wording makes it quite clear that 'there is no place' for talking about homosexuals as though they're normal human beings- I assume they have a similar policy with regards to controversial topics such as "the disabled" or "children with nut allergies"...

yeah but (at the risk of sounding like a broken record now) it's not saying don't promote either heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is specifically singling out homosexuality for 'non-promotion', and that is not a neutral policy.

X-post sorry

Kitty, but then, why pick out homosexuality in particular? It would be so easy to phrase it differently.

For example, "There is no place for teaching which advocates any sexual orientation over another, or which presents one as the 'norm', or which encourages sexual experimentation by pupils."

Good post Sacre
What amuses me about some people is their complete conviction that they have or will have heterosexual children - and so none of this will really impact on them.
In their world their child will never be bullied or ostracised or made to feel abnormal for being gay - oh no it always happens to someone else's kid.

I don't know how many times I have seen borderline homophobes suddenly confronted with the reality of having a gay child. And once they see how that child struggles within a prejudicial society - they finally change their tune completely. It's a shame that only direct personal experience wakes some people up to this kind of casual discrimination.

Agree scary the wording could be better (yours is good BTW) but I doubt very much if the school is setting out to discriminate.

Is it just me or does this thread read like there are actually only one or two people disagreeing and claiming it's all PC nonsense/you're looking to be offended/they're turning our kids gay, but they're using several different names to say so?

I think it's homophobic, section 28 is ridiculous as many others have already said - you can't "promote" a sexuality anymore than you can "promote" being of above average height or having blue eyes, and I really would have thought we'd have moved on from this sort of archaic prejudice by now.

I don't think it's homophobic and I haven't namechanged.