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 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’.

As the parent of two SN Dc this has not been our experience. I don't know anyone who has had this experience either. I am sure there are possibly examples of it but I don't think it's the norm.

I've learned a lot I didn't know about Catholicism on this thread (didn't know they don't teach via Bible stories

Of course they teach bible stories. Bible stories (old testament and new) are a major part of catholic teaching. I am not sure where some of the people posting here get there knowledge from.

As the parent of two SN Dc this has not been our experience. I don't know anyone who has had this experience either. I am sure there are possibly examples of it but I don't think it's the norm.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about? Statistically, faith schools have more affluent children (fewer on free school meals). That is the impact of being able to set criteria that favour a certain demographic - churchgoers - that is overall more affluent than the population as a whole.

It’s well established that faith schools that are oversubscribed, and therefore able to select by faith, are not representative of their surrounding areas in socioeconomic terms. Which isn’t surprising; being able to attend and interact with a church in a way that satisfies admissions criteria excludes those inclduing the more chaotic families, single parents who work shifts, families that move very frequently so as to make it difficult to become established and known in any parish.

Arguably the children who need a good education the most.

Of course they teach bible stories. Bible stories (old testament and new) are a major part of catholic teaching. I am not sure where some of the people posting here get there knowledge from.

Other posters on this thread. I’ll leave you and math to discuss this one; I suspect non-Catholics are not as invested!

Yes, it's a faith school, but they'll get Ofstedded like all other schools. I'd be informing them that any pushing of their agenda on my child will result in a complaint to the LEA and Ofsted. They will not want that!

It’s not just catholic schools. In my borough we have hindu and islamic schools who will also take this line. In fact two of my hindu colleagues think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice made by white men predominantly. They were shocked to be told otherwise. They were educated in the UK.

Let us all give thanks that our country isn't a dominantly Catholic one! Hoorah!

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

It is the judgement of the school that this is subject matter suited for older children, especially as RC schools are bound to impart the RC concepts associated with the words 'marriage' and 'family', which are complex.

RC schools also tend to be quite respectful of the fact that parents are equipped to do a lot of teaching themselves about society, relationships, sexuality, sex, etc, according to their own priorities and values. RC schools are often explicit in describing themselves as partners with parents in education.

Somewhereovertheroad

Neither I nor my children were taught bible stories as children in RC schools. I had actual nuns as teachers. Nor was my DN, in a convent school in Dublin with 99% RC children attending and some actual nuns in senior admin positions.

My DCs did some study of St Paul and the early church when they were about 12/13. They heard the Nativity story as 4/5 year olds. As prep for first communion they heard of the Last Supper, and other appropriate NT selections were used as prep for reconciliation and confirmation. The parts of the NT focusing on the events leading to Easter were covered in church pageants with groups representing apostles, pharisees, Roman soldiers, the crowd, and individuals representing Jesus, Pilate, the thief Dismas, Judas, John and Peter, Mary, Mary Magdalene, etc.

Children are supposed to be taken to Mass by their parents and will hear the entire OT and NT there, give or take, in a three year cycle in the readings and gospel if they attend on Sundays only. If they go on weekdays too they will cover it all in two years. Some parts are left out - the genealogical passages for example. From about age 10 on, my DCs' classes discussed the previous Sunday's readings and Gospel in religion class. This was the same approach as when I was in school. This is not the same as teaching bible stories. The discussion is supposed to pick out themes common to the readings and the Gospel and the psalm.

It is quite a well known cliché that RCs tend not to be all that familiar with the bible.

It is the judgement of the school that this is subject matter suited for older children,

Ah, but when the church decided to let the state pay for them to educate children through the state system, they ceded some of the power to make all those decisions themselves.

I can understand they don’t want to.

Interestingly, reading the C4M resources endorsed by the school in question, they think that teenagers ‘as they become sexually aware’ may be able to understand same-sex marriage, but are fine with ‘traditional’ marriage from KS1.

Which is a bizarre POV.

Puzzled
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

The situation as it stands, with faith schools permitted to impart their values and argue for their own particular moral priorities, is the law.

Separation of church and state exists in the US but not in the UK.

Ah, but when the church decided to let the state pay for them to educate children through the state system, they ceded some of the power to make all those decisions themselves.

The state is actively seeking input from parents as to the content of PSHE curriculum. The matter is up for grabs. In this situation, the state is acknowledging that parents and congregation members may have the right to influence what constitutes the PSHE curriculum in future.

No faith school system has ever waived its right to impart its own values on topics in the PSHE curriculum or any other subjects taught. No government has ever required this.

Parental and educator uproar has already resulted in at least one change of direction in education - in this case the Gove history curriculum mess.
www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jun/21/michael-gove-history-curriculum
Five- to seven-year-olds will no longer have to grapple with "the concept of the nation", as controversially suggested in the February draft, but instead should be taught about "changes within living memory".
Here we see a nod on the part of the government, faced with almost universal insistence from teachers and parents, to the idea that some concepts are too complex for young children to grasp.

Out Five- to seven-year-olds are no longer likely to have to figure out the concepts of "nation, civilisation, monarchy, parliament, democracy, war and peace".
In They will simply learn about historical events and changes, important figures and local history.

An indication of acceptance that seemingly harmless or well recognised terms can be loaded and may require some editorial comment from a teacher:
Out Terms such as "Britain and her empire" and "the Heptarchy".
In Now just "the British empire"; the "Glorious Revolution" is still there, but firmly in quotes.

Interestingly, reading the C4M resources endorsed by the school in question, they think that teenagers ‘as they become sexually aware’ may be able to understand same-sex marriage, but are fine with ‘traditional’ marriage from KS1.

There is nothing bizarre or contradictory here.
Traditional marriage with the necessary commentary from a RC perspective is not formally taught to KS1 students. It is implied by use of illustrations in books, workbooks, etc.

The word 'parents' is used to refer to parents, guardians, parent (single), step-parent/s, and any other responsible figure in a household. Very few teachers in any sort of school are so conscious of their language that they take care to refer to 'parent(s), step-parent(s), guardian or responsible adult' every single time they refer to such a figure.

When students are older and can grasp the instruction in RC values that (in RC schools' eyes) must accompany discussion of relationships, then those topics can be introduced.

More people need to get behind the Humanists UK campaign against faith schools. I think it's particularly appalling that they are state funded. If you want faith-orientated education you should pay for it yourself

The situation as it stands, with faith schools permitted to impart their values and argue for their own particular moral priorities, is the law. Separation of church and state exists in the US but not in the UK

I absolutely appreciate all of this, but the current (to me, regrettable) situation doesn't preclude pushing for change through the democratic process

Ah, but when the church decided to let the state pay for them to educate children through the state system, they ceded some of the power to make all those decisions themselves.

The RC church did not make the decision to let the state pay for them to educate children through the state system.

This was accomplished by the 1944 Settlement (of 'Rab' Butler, minister for education) under which schools had to opt for voluntary aided or voluntary controlled status. Most CoE and non-conformist schools opted for voluntary controlled status, which involved reduced scope for religious influence, while RC schools opted for voluntary aided status, with scope for religious influence intact.

State funding for building costs for RC schools (and any other voluntary aided schools) has risen to about 90% since 1944 when the proportion was 50%, but the basic premise of the term 'voluntary aided' remains intact - RC church (or founding body) influence has not been waived, and no government has sought a shake up of this aspect of the 1944 Act.

The cynic in me says that this will only change when the number of Muslim faith schools shows a big increase.

Davros Sun 04-Feb-18 22:38:20
More people need to get behind the Humanists UK campaign against faith schools. I think it's particularly appalling that they are state funded. If you want faith-orientated education you should pay for it yourself

'Campaign against faith schools' is an unnecessarily divisive and alienating concept and phrase. I think it would provoke unnecessary opposition from people who might otherwise be persuaded of the merits of alternative funding and the uncoupling of church and state. Best to be positive with slogans.

'Separation of church and state' is a much more attractive concept, but it would by definition be far-reaching in its scope and would require a huge amount of unpicking of centuries of legislation to accomplish. It would also require a fundamental change in the position of the monarch as head of the CoE and the disestablishment of the CoE.

I didn't describe the campaign very well but if you look at Humanists UK I'm sure it will make much more sense. At least it's a formal campaign rather than random opposition.

There is nothing bizarre or contradictory here.
Traditional marriage with the necessary commentary from a RC perspective is not formally taught to KS1 students. It is implied by use of illustrations in books, workbooks, etc.

The C4M is not a Catholic organisation, so that isn’t relevant. What is relevant is that the organisation (endorsed by the school ) is calling for ‘traditional’ marriage to be specifically taught as part of the curriculum from KS1 (as the ‘gold standard’). It is also advocating for same sex marriage never to be part of the curriculum but to be considered only when the students are sexually aware.

The idea that children as young as four can understand opposite sex marriage but can’t be expected to get their heads around same sex marriage until they are sexually aware near-adults is deeply odd and belies some very unhealthy views about same sex relationships and marriages.

I’m unsure the relevance of your paragraphs about parents.

Davros, it was incredibly clear what you meant from the context of your (admirably concise) post.

mathanxiety

"Interestingly, reading the C4M resources endorsed by the school in question, they think that teenagers ‘as they become sexually aware’ may be able to understand same-sex marriage, but are fine with ‘traditional’ marriage from KS1."

"There is nothing bizarre or contradictory here."

"Traditional marriage with the necessary commentary from a RC perspective is not formally taught to KS1 students. It is implied by use of illustrations in books, workbooks, etc. "

It's only you on his thread that thinks this isn't bizarre or contradictory.

The question you haven't answered anyone is why you need to be older to talk about homosexuality and gay marriage.

Why can't the "workbooks" have gay couples too?

What about any gay children in the school who are educated in this ignorance.

Can I ask, do you think homosexuality is a sin? If not, why can't children be taught about love without it being in a hierarchy of acceptability or desirability?

nextDayDelivery
It doesn't bother me at all that I may be the only one on this thread who holds any given opinion. The opinions of the rest of posters here (with a couple of notable exceptions) are opinions of people who know very little about the RC religion, with some making up for that with a healthy helping of prejudice.

There is no contradiction, as I pointed out in another post.

To answer both you and Jassy on this topic:
The idea that children as young as four can understand opposite sex marriage but can’t be expected to get their heads around same sex marriage until they are sexually aware near-adults is deeply odd and belies some very unhealthy views about same sex relationships and marriages.

The point I made was that children as young as four are not expected to "understand opposite sex marriage" in all its complexity, with the distinctions between civil and sacramental marriage that the RC church sees, and which the RC church wishes to describe and discuss alongside the introduction of the factual content, as part of its mission. Therefore the topic is not addressed per se. (A workbook might be used in an English class or any other class where children fill in answers to questions).

Only later in their intellectual development are students asked to try to understand what various forms of relationships consist of and also to understand the distinctions the RC church makes among different forms of marriage.

Parents are welcome to tell their children anything they feel is appropriate about relationships, any time. There is no reason whatsoever for parents to keep their children ignorant of anything that they feel is important, or to fail to impart whatever values they feel are important to pass on.

The RC church is legally entitled to include a discussion of RC values and RC teaching as it feels that this is a necessary component of any discussion of human relationships, and since this is a complex topic, it holds off until children are better able to handle the intellectual demands of this sort of discussion.

nextDayDelivery
Wrt your last (misinformed as usual) question - the RC church does not consider homosexuality a sin. You are mixing up Catholicism with fundamental Christian denominations. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Such persons [i.e. gay people] must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

It is beyond ironic that so many people here have got hold of inaccurate information and/or hold hostile opinions on a major world religion, given that a RE curriculum has been taught for a few decades now in English schools whose intention is to teach accurate information and create a climate of mutual tolerance.

And without batting an eyelid, so many insist that a PSHE curriculum can usher in a new age of respect and tolerance through teaching children accurate information from their earliest schooldays about the various kinds of relationships that exist.

It's profoundly irrational - there is no evidence on this thread that RE has had any impact at all.

Math, I continue to talk about the Coalition for Marriage’s position and the internal logic of it.

Perhaps I have a higher opinion of children’s intellectual and emotional capacity than either you or the C4M, I don’t know.

I do have a question, and it’s an honest one. In your view, what should a teacher in a school signed up to the C4M curriculum do if a male six year old says ‘I’m going to marry John when I grow up’.

That would be entirely normal speech for a child of 6 and I would hope the teacher would say 'That's very nice, dear'. It would be a huge pity if the teacher failed to realise how normal this sort of speech is and reacted critically, or read more into it than a declaration of friendly feelings for John.

Schools are wasting their time, students' time and everybody's money trying to teach children material that they are not capable of grasping. This is why the Gove history proposals were shot down.

What sort of material would you include in a history curriculum for 5 year olds, and why?
What about English - what sort of reading material should children who have become fluent readers, or at least those who have progressed beyond trying to master phonics - let's say children age 8 - be exposed to and what should they be expected to do with that material?