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?

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.

Great. What is the school and the Coalition 4 Marriage trying to achieve by this lobbying, if the obvious - there is no age appropriate way to teach same sex marriage, therefore it should not be included in discussions of marriage but ‘traditional’ (Male/female gold standard, their words) should be part of the curriculum from KS1 onwards - is off the table?

I agree with you on the ridiculousness of the position but I don’t agree that ridiculous and undermining credibility is mutually exclusive from being taught in a faith school, given my own experiences.

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.

I don’t, but I note your shift to a position that the school would not treat same sex marriage as acceptable. Perhaps our definitions of ‘valid’ differ.

I’ve just gone through my posts on this thread; I’ve only used ‘promote’ or ‘promoted’ in relation to schools promoting Christianity above other faiths (as they are entitled to do). I have not used it in relation to marriage except to clarify to another poster that the OP isn’t complaining about the school promoting the Catholic idea of marriage; perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

What I would expect a school to do is give an even handed explanation of the facts. Which excludes the statement that ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’ unless that statement is suitably qualified. The Coalition 4 Marriage lobbying position, promoted by this particular school, would not seem to allow for that.

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

And yet isn't it the case that Catholics can be refused Holy Communion if they marry in a civil ceremony without later having that marriage validated by the church?

My children go to a CofE vol aided school but admission is based on local authority criteria not church attendance (a throw back to when it was a voluntary maintained rather than voluntary aided school) and they have recently changed their uniform policy so that it is gender neutral. I am really pleased that they have taken that step, it is a really positive one and I can't imagine them teaching my children that marriage is only between a man and a woman. We as a family are religious and did want our children to go to a church school, but only CofE, not Catholic, as not all faith schools are the same. My personal religious views are that God is a God of love and a loving, respectful couple is pleasing in God's eyes regardless of the gender of the couple. I know a lot don't agree with me but my personal experience of God makes me believe that.

Math, I was responding to ‘they believe there is no age-appropriate way to teach primary school children about same sex marriages’.

I cannot for the life of me see what is non-age appropriate about talking to primary school children about the fact that families (quite possibly even their friends' families) can be composed in different ways, and that sometimes two people of the same sex form a couple. Can you explain to me what there is about this information that is not suitable for all ages?

I have yet to meet a primary age child who keels over in shock at this, unless it is directly signalled by the informant that there is something shocking about it.

My dc certainly had no greater difficulty dealing with the fact that our friends X and Y were a couple than that their dad and I were a couple. There was nothing difficult there for them to understand.

I went to a Catholic Boarding School from the age of 7-17 years and this indoctrination does not surprise me in the least. It had the opposite effect on me though and turned me off and away from Roman Catholicism. I sent my children to.a Methodist Primary Shool because it's ethics were all encompassing and inclusive. There were some Parents though who still chose to withdraw their children from particular classes. You can fill in the form as you wish, but if you feel this way, I am surprised that you still want your children to attend the school. It seems like a breeding ground for hatred and disrespect for the LGBT community.

If you have to be age appropriate to learn about marriage does that mean you can’t teach about men and woman getting married until the children are age appropriate? Or is it just marriage between same sex that has to be age appropriate?

If you have to be age appropriate to learn about marriage does that mean you can’t teach about men and woman getting married until the children are age appropriate? Or is it just marriage between same sex that has to be age appropriate?

According to the Coalition 4 Marriage this school is promoting (in the pure marketing sense of the word), same-sex marriage involves ‘complex sexual relatiomships’ while ‘traditional’ marriage does not.

Funnily enough, I’ve managed to explain marriage and the concepts of love and mutual commitment to my six year old without talking about sex at all.

Jassy
Valid is a term with RC connotations and legal connotations.

A marriage between RCs that is civil only is not sacramentally valid but completely legal. A civil marriage between any other individuals is valid in the sense of being legal. Not just legal but advisable.

What I would expect a school to do is give an even handed explanation of the facts. Which excludes the statement that ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’ unless that statement is suitably qualified. The Coalition 4 Marriage lobbying position, promoted by this particular school, would not seem to allow for that.
Not so.
They argue:
"there is no age appropriate way to teach same sex marriage - to primary school children". Not that these topics should never be addressed in a formal educational setting.

It would be difficult in a primary school to do justice to the subject of what constitutes a sacramental marriage and what is a valid legal marriage, with the lesson aimed at an age range of 4-11. There is a lot more than just 'Exhibit A', Exhibit B' involved here in a RC school, and the complexity is not something primary age children can digest.

It is perfectly possible to teach broad values of tolerance and respect on an everyday level and in real life situations the students may experience - perhaps by means of addressing any issue there may be with bullying, exclusion, name calling, disrespectful speech, etc - before introducing complex material at an age when students can grasp the subtleties and the complexity involved. There is nothing hypocritical in the school's assurance that tolerance and respect will be part of what is imparted in the school while waiting until the children are intellectually mature enough to understand the fine lines the RC school will draw on the topic of sacramental and civil marriage.

If a PSHE curriculum requires schools to include details that are not age appropriate on relationships, or fails to address a RC school's core mission of teaching RC values, then perhaps that should be changed. The matter of what should constitute the PSHE curriculum is up in the air at the moment, with suggestions solicited. This ploy attempts to address the issue of schools being asked to follow a curriculum that is not supported by the school sponsors. It's papering over the cracks and the result will be that nobody is happy, but the government will be able to say 'this is what you asked for'/ 'voice of the people', etc. Obviously the only solution to this sort of problem in the long run is to have secular schools and faith schools separated in a system like the US. This is a political hot potato.

No, math, you can’t have it both ways. The C4M position is that same-sex marriage should not be included in education but that ‘traditional’ marriage should be taught. Their position advocates for dishonesty (by discussing only opposite-sex marriage without acknowledging that civil same-we’d marriage exists) and a potential breach of the duty to promote British values (a requirement on all schools since 2014), which includes the rule of law. That is the opposite of an even handed explanation of the facts. It is a partial explanation of some of the facts, in a way that obscures others and leaves children with a false impression of what marriage can involve under the law.

I agree that if any school or school sponsor feels it cannot deliver the curriculum it is being paid millions of pounds to do, it would be better to withdraw from the state sector.

However many on this thread, including teachers and parents at RC schools, have said it’s perfectly possible to do so and to do so well, so perhaps we’re not at that point yet. A great pity in my view.

NextDayDelivery, I am totally with your post and could not have put it better myself. In my experience of children, the younger they are for explanations that may be difficult for an adult, the better. They see the world differently and there is far more sense and acceptance in a young persons head then we give them credit for.

This is why RC schools only want practicing RC families - because they believe in what the RC church reaches. You can't pick and choose the bits that suit you.

*teaches

That’s awful!!! I’m not surprised you’re shocked. My kids go to a catholic school & I also worked there. As a supply, I have also worked in a variety of settings and can honestly say that my kids school teach family values in exactly the same way as all other schools I have worked in. The emphasis is on love and equality and acceptance. All families are celebrated and the children learn at a very early age that we should respect everyone, no matter who they have decided to marry/not marry/live with/have kids with/share their life with. I would seriously consider moving my children if I were you!

This is why RC schools only want practicing RC families - because they believe in what the RC church reaches. You can't pick and choose the bits that suit you.

Oh yes, I’m sure. But they’ve made the decision to have the state fund all their running costs and almost all of their building costs. They can’t pick and choose the bits of being in the state sector that suit them.

Although, of course, they’re permitted to do that to quite a large extent.

Among other things, that choice means that, while they still get to pick and choose their students to a very significant extent (particularly RC schools), they can’t exclude children who aren’t Catholics if the school isn’t oversubscribed, or if the children are or were previously looked after children.

That's what you get in a faith based school. Most will do regular weekly services, and heavily promote their own world view.

“This is why RC schools only want practicing RC families - because they believe in what the RC church reaches. You can't pick and choose the bits that suit you.”

RC schools seem happy to pick and choose the tax payers money that suits them....

Discrimination is for life, not just for Christ mas.

If a PSHE curriculum requires schools to include details that are not age appropriate on relationships, or fails to address a RC school's core mission of teaching RC values, then perhaps that should be changed

Sorry, but I really don't believe any religion should take public funds to deliver education in a state school, then ask for bits of the national curriculum to be changed to suit their particular doctrine

If parents wish to push religious "values" onto their children that's entirely their own affair ... but not on the taxpayer's tab, thank you

That’s another misconception; faith schools only do better when they are able to select their pupils (because selection by faith skews away from the general population towards the socioeconomic groups more likely to attend church; those groups tend to be associated with better educational outcomes)
So their better results will absolutely not benefit any child attending the school?

Or, as is actually the case, schools which are selective don't have to allocate resources to dealing with the issues which come with children who have lower attainment. If there are fewer disruptions in class and a teacher can concentrate on teaching a class of children who are open to learning, those children will do better. Whether or not that is socially acceptable or the right way to educate is a different debate, but the fact remains that individual children in faith schools have a better chance of attaining a higher grade.

“the fact remains that individual children in faith schools have a better chance of attaining a higher grade.”

No. Oversubscribed faith schools “select” the individual children who will attain higher grades. Children in faith schools that are not oversubscribed perform in line with any other school with a similar cohort.

I've learned a lot I didn't know about Catholicism on this thread (didn't know they don't teach via Bible stories and didn't know there were rules about teaching 'adult' concepts and relationships till much older. )

However, I still think it's wrong to say that it is inappropriate to teach younger children about different sexualities and family set ups. In fact I think it's essential.

I'm currently teaching the last generation of children who were not taught about same sex couples from age 3 or 4 at school. So, unless they were taught it young by parents, it is still 'strange' to them. Not every school has a diverse parent body. Our school is a prep school in the home counties. We have largely conservative parents. There are two same sex parent couples but both have a child in the young year groups. There are no gay staff (afaik). Our children aren't going to learn about different families by experiencing it. They have to be taught it.

I've just finished reading a book with a Year 7 class called 'A Storm of Strawberries' which is narrated by a girl with Downs Syndrome who has a lesbian sister. When the narrator walks into her sister's bedroom and finds her kissing another girl there was uproar in the classroom. The children thought it was hysterical. A few thought it was disgusting. All were shocked when I said 10% of people are homosexual. Only two knew any same sex adult couples. If they'd been taught from 3 or 4 about different family set ups they wouldn't be reacting like that at age 11 and 12.

catholic schools are like this. I went to one the same. It's the reason my kids don't go to one.

I attended RC primary and high school.for that very reason my kids do not attend rc schools
My experience was of a didactic approach imposed upon us,and Catholicism is illiberal
There’s no live & let live in Catholicism. It’s an atavistic religion

Re Faith schools attaining higher grades, only in oversubscribed usually mc areas
Attending a faith school is not a guarantee of higher exam grades

No. Oversubscribed faith schools “select” the individual children who will attain higher grades. Children in faith schools that are not oversubscribed perform in line with any other school with a similar cohort.

And overall, the difference is pretty marginal, as I mentioned earlier. But yes, as a PP mentioned, parents will pay or pray to get into an oversubscribed school that ‘selects out’ the local kids who might be more challenging, meaning those kids are disproportionately represented in other schools.

There’s nothing magic about faith education in terms of achieving results. Selecting by class and demographic (as all forms of selection do) makes more of a difference.

That faith schools know their criteria exclude the poorest and most in need of help, and apply them anyway, is an interesting application of what are described as ‘Christian values’.