Aibu in being shocked at this school newsletter?

[whensitmyturn]

Aibu in being pretty appalled at this school news letter or am i being naive?

Children attend a catholic primary school- dh is Catholic I am not. Never had an issue with the school, children are in the last couple of years there.

Had a newsletter home tonight saying that a new ‘children and social work act of 2017’ has been passed and that parents will no longer be able to remove their children for PSHE lessons but that the government are still deciding what content the lessons should have. There is a public questionnaire on gov.uk to write your ideas.

The newsletter then goes on to say that we need to ensure that things that are age suited to children get suggested and I quote ‘to avoid respect for alternative lifestyles being allowed to undermine Christian principles of marriage and family life’.

It then goes on to link ‘coalition for marriage’ for help with us filling in this questionnaire.

Coalition 4 marriage is a group that promotes a traditional family set up and states that children should be taught that ‘marriage between a man and a woman as the gold standard of adult relationships’ Also that ‘they believe there is no age-appropriate way to teach primary school children about same sex marriages or transgenderism’. In blinding hypocrisy it then goes on to say ‘we should be teaching children broad values of tolerance and respect’.

!? I thought that in this day and age in the uk even if you attend a faith school inclusivity was seen as important/ the norm.
Would you be angry at this or just see it as an unavoidable downside of attending a catholic school?

You can't stop the school teaching catholic values; your job as parents is to make sure your children understand the difference between the dogma of the church and the laws of the land. But if you care, they will.

The Christian teaching is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Of course this is the message that a Catholic school will teach. They will teach about marriage being a sacrament and what that means to Catholic people. It isn't homophobic but it isn't PC either. Don't send your children to Catholic schools of you have a problem with this.

This!

And it isn’t ok for teachers to tell children something is true when they know for a fact it is untrue.

Just out of interest - would you be pulling your child out of a visit to say,a mosque, or about a lesson learning about Diwali? Or Eid?
I'd much rather my children learnt about all religions, had a wide view of everything, and not just told "it's all a load of sky fairy" etc.
Parent your kids as well as just expecting the school to do everything. Just pooh poohing everything else that isn't your way of thinking makes you pretty bigoted yourself.

Exactly,Mermaid, it really isn't difficult,is it? You'd think it was a no brainer.
It's amazing how there's only one way to apparently think now.
People are entitled to their beliefs. If you that opposed, you don't send them. Not expect everyone to change just because it doesn't fit your world view. You find something that does if you're that rigid.

You can't stop the school teaching catholic values; your job as parents is to make sure your children understand the difference between the dogma of the church and the laws of the land. But if you care, they will

Exactly.

Marriage between a man and a woman is gold standard!?!? So what is silver and bronze!?

Just out of interest - would you be pulling your child out of a visit to say,a mosque, or about a lesson learning about Diwali? Or Eid?
^I'd much rather my children learnt about all religions, had a wide view of everything, and not just told "it's all a load of sky fairy" etc.
Parent your kids as well as just expecting the school to do everything.^

If you’d bothered to read my posts, rather than scanning for the bits you think you can disagree with out of context, you’ll see I’ve drawn a very clear distinction between that which is a matter of belief and that which is a matter of empirical fact.

The former encompasses religious belief, and on this thread I’ve advocated children be taught about all different religions under the umbrella of ‘some people believe this’; a religious school will want to add a layer of ‘but we believe that instead’. I agree that children should be taught about all kinds of different beliefs.

I don’t believe religious schools should be exempt from teaching about them under the excuse that it’s not what they believe in, just as I don’t think religious schools should be exempt from teaching about secular practices that are accepted in society.

The latter is those things that empirically exist. Same sex marriage is one of those things. A teacher telling a child that ‘two women cannot get married’ without adding something like ‘in the way that the Church or God thinks it counts, but they can get married in a register office but the marriage won’t be blessed by God’ is lying to children on a point of empirical fact.

Just pooh poohing everything else that isn't your way of thinking makes you pretty bigoted yourself.

Any evidence I’ve done that? Real evidence, I mean. Not implications about ‘sky fairies’ (I’ve not used the phrase) or suggestions that I don’t want my children exposed to learning about other religions (verifiably untrue). As I’ve said, my own child is at a CofE school; I am very careful to be supportive of the school and never go beyond ‘some people believe’ with my son, he has no idea what I think about deities. He can make up his own mind.

Nowhere have I suggested that faith schools, as allowed and enabled by the law, shouldn’t promote their faith. I just don’t think their faith should be used as an excuse to dodge the national curriculum, or as an excuse to lie to children on points of empirical fact.

I am however surprised by the open hypocrisy that advocates that children be taught about different religions, but not about secular practices.

I think what is happening in the OP's child's school is very wrong.

I don't agree with state faith schools as they are but, as a thing, I don't see why they couldn't work fairly for those who want them.

The church does contribute money to their schools doesn't it? About 10%

If so then could you not argue that the education, premises and resources are paid for by the tax payer but the religion is paid for by the faithful?

Of course for that to work, the religion would have to be opt in by those who had chosen the school for the religion and paid their 'religion tax' (offering to the church). So, for example, the school day runs as normal but there are two assemblies - secular and religious. And two RE groups. And prayers said by those who choose to remain behind in the classroom for them. Religious views that don't tally with society's views could only be mentioned in the religious 'sessions'.

That model would also need enough local school places for every child but that's a much wider issue anyway.

I think it would benefit both non religious people and people (like me) who are non denominational Christians so not 'eligible' for a faith school but would like one.

Don't send your children to Catholic schools of you have a problem with this.

The problem with this reasoning is that the way our education system is run, there are many places where you don't have an option: if the only school in your village/catchment is a faith school, you may not be able to get your child into any other school, however hard you try, because they will prioritise children from their own area. And you will not be eligible for school transport unless you choose the nearest school.

The church does contribute money to their schools doesn't it? About 10%

10% of capital (unless it comes under certain school building programmes, in which case it’s 0). None of the running costs.

JassyRadlet - what does that translate into in terms of how much less money the school would have if the church withdrew from it? (in really, really basic terms for someone with absolutely no knowledge of finance and law!)

how much money the school would lose not have.

Not read all the thread, but my kids went to a C of E high school, where being gay was considered totally normal. They even got Ian McKellen in to give them a chat about why homophobic bullying was not cool. DD2 is gay and never had the slightest bit of hassle there. Not all faith schools are the same.

My daughter attends university and is required to write essays that reflect the professor's opinions. More than one class has required this. They are far more liberal and feminist than she feels.

My children (and even me! Long ago) were told political or social things in school that our family disagrees with in class.

Simply (sigh, it's never simple) have discussions at home that reflect your opinion. Catholic schools are often great academically. We considered enrolling dc and decided if we did, our family values and our penchant for discussing everything to death would counter balance their conservative lessons.

That said, transgender is still under scientific and medical discussion so you should be informing yourselves anyway. (Beat me up, if you must) but I've read many differing opinions about transgender issues and while i agree absolutely that every person is valuable and deserves love, respect and all rights, i think that this could be very confusing to children and maybe wait until they are teens.

Transgender is a huge topic that has nuances that could confuse young children. That can wait.

I taught my young dc in broad terms and became more precise as they grew older.

I hope that you find a way to stay in your school if your dc are happy. Parents are more influential than teachers if you want to be.

I don’t know, manic - I guess it would depend on the school size and local property prices?

The schools are obviously providing the land, which has value. Some may still have the original buildings from pre-state education, so those would need a value put on them too (minus upkeep/improvements funded by the state). Others will have had the buildings totally replaced (ours is one of these).

But basically - all the costs of actually running a school are funded by the state. Most of the building costs etc also come from the state.

So if the church withdrew, the school would have to find new premises or buy the existing. The running costs wouldn’t increase at all.

And parents might get fewer begging letters for money for the parish

Ah ok. So it's more of an ownership stake that a contribution one.

I think I still think it's fine for the church to have input and teach their beliefs (barring intolerant ones like those in the OP) in those schools - but only to those children whose parents subscribe to it and want it.

Born & raised as an Irish RC (I consider myself atheist) and I have to say I never heard anything like that being taught - it seems so extreme. It would annoy me if I thought my DC was now being taught that.

I do get the annoyance of having to conform though, there is only the choice of catholic schools here. Being atheist here is kinda like hiding in the closet.

JassyRadlett
What isn’t ok is the bit where they refuse to tell children being educated at the taxpayers’ expense that, while other forms of marriage aren’t as good in their eyes and aren’t recognised by the church, they still exist, and therefore the children may well come across other children who have two mummies or two daddies who are married. Particularly given that many faith schools will have children who are not of that faith.

Is this what you think happens?
Where did you get that impression?

And even if you weren’t taking taxpayers’ money, if your mission is tolerance and understanding why wouldn’t you want children to be able to understand and be kind to those with other family set ups, while still emphasising those set ups are not sanctioned by the Church?

Why do you think this doesn't happen?

while other forms of marriage aren’t as good in their eyes
This is simply not the case.
The RC church recognises civil marriage as valid. It doesn't recognise it as sacramental marriage. This fact alone doesn't mean anyone can assume the RC church considers one superior. Both have their place, as well the RC church understands thanks to the history of religious persecution in Britain and Ireland. From 1753 to 1836, under Hardwicke's Marriage Act, RC and non-conformist and non-Christian (apart from Jewish and Quaker) marriages were not considered legally valid unless celebrated in the CoE too. 1836 saw the introduction of civil marriage in England and Wales. The RC church sees the civil validity of RC marriages as proof of an end to religious persecution by the state.

The RC church wants RCs to choose sacramental marriage but recognises civil marriage between RCs as valid. In a RC school the importance of RCs choosing sacramental marriage will be emphasised to the students.

It is perfectly acceptable and considered completely necessary for the purposes of the legal protection of all parties in the marriage and any future children too that the civil marriage also exists once the registry is signed. The church marriage in and of itself is purely sacramental.

CoryThatWas, and also JassyRadlett
You mean because they live in a society where homosexuality absolutely doesn't exist and there is no chance they will ever come across a playmate with two mummies..

You both seem to be labouring under a major misapprehension here.

‘to avoid respect for alternative lifestyles being allowed to undermine Christian principles of marriage and family life’
Nobody is denying to anyone that gay people exist and marry.
What is proposed by the school is that the RC sacramental view of RC marriage needs to be taught as necessary for RC individuals and that there is a distinction between sacramental and civil marriage.

There is nothing to suggest that the existence of civil marriage will not be mentioned. Civil marriage is 100% recognised by the RC church and considered necessary for legal protection of all family members - civil and sacramental marriage takes place all at the same time in RC church ceremonies as in CoE, though this was not always the case for the RC marriages, as mentioned.

You would have to be completely ignorant of Catholicism and what happens in RC schools to choose any other interpretation.

math, again, I was responding to a poster claiming to think that you couldn’t expect a religious school to teach about the existence of secular marriage, including same-sex marriage. I hope she reads, learns and digests from your detailed response.

However, it’s the case that the school in the OP doesn’t want to teach about same-sex marriage; so clearly there is a degree to which some faith schools do not wish to teach about all forms of secular marriage.

It’s clear from this thread that this is not universal, which is good to hear. But it’s ignoring the OP to suggest that it never happens.

Nobody is denying to anyone that gay people exist and marry.

No, they just want to avoid telling children about them as required by the NC, as the sources linked to to ‘help’ with filling in the questionnaire hold that ‘they believe there is no age-appropriate way to teach primary school children about same sex marriages’.

The school may not be representative of the majority of schools or RC practice but it is difficult to draw a different conclusion from the OP than that the school is seeking to influence the outcome of a consultation (fine) with material that tries to prevent the teaching of same sex marriage at all, and that sees same-sex relationships as inferior (not the ‘gold standard’ of male/female marriage).

Why are some folk so resistant to the idea that not all schools may be displaying good practice? Surely it’s better to call out the bad apples and say ‘no, that’s horrible practice’ than to say ‘that can’t be true, it couldn’t happen, because nothing within the church could get it wrong’.

nextDayDelivery
Math Do you think human sexuality is a complex, nuanced matter?

nextDayDelivery No. It's "sucking dicks and licking clits" (to quote an Aussie comic) and I don't care what you're doing. It can be monogamous or an orgy. If everyone involved is consenting and able to consent then I'm all for it and don't think any less of you. I certainly don't think you deserve to be stoned to death for having homosexual sex.

That's sex you're talking about.
Sexuality is something else.

The rest of your answers betray an equal mix of ignorance, arrogance and complete lack of thought of any depth.

I don't know much about communism, Lenin or politics in general so it wouldn't be fair to answer.
Let's face it, communism, Lenin and politics are not the only things you know very little about.

Do you stone a rape victim to death for not marrying their rapist? Yes makes you a good christian who lives by the bible. No makes you a good person who ignores explicit biblical instruction.
You certainly have read a few bible stories, and you are definitely familiar with your Aussie comics, but you clearly know diddly squat about Catholicism.

Most scientists come up with a thesis after a little more research and testing of a hypothesis than you appear to have done.

No, they just want to avoid telling children about them as required by the NC, as the sources linked to to ‘help’ with filling in the questionnaire hold that ‘they believe there is no age-appropriate way to teach primary school children about same sex marriages’.

Age-appropriate is the key word here.
As an analogy - I am sure the school is permitted and perhaps even required to ask parents' permission to show children certain films in class. This is because it is understood that not all content and portrayals are suitable for all ages.

Age appropriate is indeed nearly the key phrase.

‘No age appropriate way’ is pretty exclusionary of teaching that those relationships exist, at all.

It is hard to argue against the idea that this school is seeking to avoid telling children about the part of civil marriage where it’s open to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples.

Jassy
‘No age appropriate way’ is pretty exclusionary of teaching that those relationships exist, at all.

That is where you are most likely wrong. There is no way the school will seek to deny reality. No school full of bright children will get away with that. Why would a school want to do that? It would eventually undermine its credibility.

The fact that civil marriage exists and who the law on civil marriage applies to (i.e. everybody), that civil marriage is necessary for all citizens getting married (though this is a fuzzy area because some Muslims and maybe others avoid it and it's not always followed up) and that it is legal and required of RCs but not sacramental is not at all implausible as an approach to covering the curriculum.

You seem to think a school would deny the existence of civil marriage between gay people because a school would demur from promoting this as an acceptable form of marriage. There is a difference between explaining all of that and 'promoting' any aspect of the curriculum, a term I have seen in your posts.

I do not think any school is asked by the government to 'promote' anything to do with the PSHE curriculum.