AIBU to object to these sex education sessions?

[balletgirlmum]

Had a letter from school informing me that the as part of phase children will be getting a some relationships & sex education sessions. Standard type of letter I've had them before.

Except this time the sessions will be delivered by the area Schools Christian worker. Further googling informs me he/she is employed by Scripture Union.

At the very least I feel I should ask the content & viewpoint that will be presented.

AIBU to object to this?

[BertrandRussell]

"Because many teachers would rather die then stand in front of a room full of teenagers and say words like pre-cum"

Then they shouldn't be PHSE teachers. It's not compulsory!

[irretating]

Then they shouldn't be PHSE teachers. It's not compulsory!

Who says there were PHSE teachers in the room?

[BertrandRussell]

Sorry?

[myotherusernameisbetter]

once again you beat me to it bertrand

There is nothing about being a christian that gives you special skills to speak to teenagers about sex. I seem to manage it despite being an atheist. I wouldn't teach it to a whole group for the same reason i wouldn't teach any other subject - I'm not cut out to be a teacher - the subject matter would be irrelevant.

[RickRoll]

it's not the fact that they are Christians that gives them special skills, it is the fact that they teach sex education every day of the week and take specific training in the subject.

[myotherusernameisbetter]

that would be fair enough if they were marketing themselves as sex educators and not as christian sex educators and offering their service for free as a result.

[irretating]

There is nothing about being a christian that gives you special skills to speak to teenagers about sex.

Did I say there was? Christian sex educators are like non-Christian sex educators, they get training to do the job they do. That can be why they're brought in, teachers often haven't received the training and PHSE as a non-statutory subject just isn't a priority.

[irretating]

that would be fair enough if they were marketing themselves as sex educators and not as christian sex educators and offering their service for free as a result.

I wondered where you getting this ''for free'' idea from so I scrolled back and found this

They are charities, who are presumably providing their services free of charge.

Basically you made an assumption and then carried on as if your assumption were fact.

In my experience, schools pay for the service, and educators are paid to deliver the sessions. Do you feel happier now?

[myotherusernameisbetter]

No, not really, because now I'm wondering why schools would pay money to an organisation marketing themselves as christian sex educators rather than getting their own teachers to take the class? No matter which way round you turn it, free, paid for or otherwise, it just isn't something that should be happening. And once again, if they are not running the classes on the basis of their christianity then why are they even mentioning it?

If Christian Youth Clubs want to run such sessions then obviously that's a different matter but they have no place in schools.

[AdjustableWench]

Back in the 80s, when I was in my teens, I knew many people who were arguing for gay equality and for pro-choice agendas precisely because they were Christians. I also knew a few evangelicals, who had more conservative approaches, but back then I had a distinct impression of Christianity as a force for social justice. I think it's still true of many Christians - certainly most Christians of my acquaintance (maybe because I choose not to spend much time with conservative Christians).

Having said all that, I'd still want to know the content of any work done by external organisations with my kids - although, to be frank, my kids tell me they haven't learned anything about sex at school that they didn't already know.

[irretating]

Specialised knowledge, and the kids respond well to them. Schools bring in outside agencies all the time, did you not know that?

[irretating]

that's to myotherusername

[SuburbanRhonda]

I managed to get a planned visit to DS's school by SPUC cancelled after I went and spoke to the head of RE about it. They were due to come in to talk to the students about abortion

[myotherusernameisbetter]

I know they bring in outside agencies, those agencies shouldn't have a hidden agenda. We are going round in circles here and the point still is the same, regardless of what training they have and whether they get paid or not, it is not appropriate for schools to be relying on a service that specifically calls itself Christian to deliver a subject to pupils that has feck all to do with being Christian and which could be specifically at odds with an unbiased opinion. If the Christian organisation was coming in to talk about their beliefs in the context of an 'RE lesson and other religious organisations were given equal opportunity to do the same then that would be completely appropriate. This scenario isn't.

[Withgraceinmyheart]

Sorry i didn't respond sooner, busy day.

myother

Again, why is it all Christians have hidden agendas, but no one else does?

I'm also not sure why you think christians get up in front of classes and say things they don't believe. I would never do that.

[myotherusernameisbetter]

I'm not saying a non-christian wouldn't have a hidden agenda, but generally outside people brought into a school are coming to talk about the organisation they are representing so you know that they may be biased etc. Teachers are paid to be non biased and are accountable to their employer (the school) if they are shown not to be.

Then you have a christian organisation coming into a school (paid or free) to talk about something unconnected to christianity per se but stating they are christian. I just don't see why that is appropriate as you don't know therefore if they are specifically reflecting the christian stance or are apparently giving a neutral view. And if the latter then why are they doing it at all and why are they doing it under the banner of christianity? I am maybe not explaining it well but that is why they have a hidden agenda as it is not obvious why there is a link - or you make the obvious link and that means that the view they are giving is based on their christianity and not an unbiased view of sex and relationships.

I'm sure I didn't state that all christians have a hidden agenda. They have an upfront agenda of recruiting others to their faith, same as all religions.

I also don't think I said that christians get up in front of classes and say thinks they don't believe either, but if I did perhaps you can remind me?. However, surely there may be a conflict between christian views and unbiased information about sexual inclusion and practices depending on how the person chooses to interpret the various views given in the bible.

[BertrandRussell]

"I'm also not sure why you think christians get up in front of classes and say things they don't believe. I would never do that."

That was me. My point, clumsily made, was that if a Christiqn organization was offering teaching on sex and relationship education it would reflect the organizations views, and they would be coloured by their Christian agenda. I can't think of any Christians I know who don't have views on marriage, for example, or abstinence or abortion. And if they were to present the straight facts about sex they would have to hold back their sincerely held beliefs. They could not present the curriculum without saying things they don't believe.