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?

Math, you’re entire post is so hyperbolic and twisting that I’m going to bow out. I’ve tried hard to have an honest, reasonable discussion (as discussions happen even when not part of a formal curriculum) but if you’re going to keep insisting that it’s dystopian for the state to attach fair and reasonable (and testable at JR) conditions to funding, I think I’m done.

1. *your

1. Your definition does Orwell quite a disservice if you’re trying to stretch him to all of dystopian and totalitarian models. He was more interesting and precise than that. Poor bloke, being misused by thousands for ‘this system is not working exactly as I’d like it to’.

But perhaps you do have an argument for which part of 1984 you think is mirrored in the state offering money to organisations to run schools, but attaching conditions to that money, and I’m doing you a disservice.

It's a pity that there are so many misconceptions about RC schools, but it is mind-boggling that people are apparently not informed at all about the distinction between 'voluntary maintained' and 'voluntary aided' schools, a distinction that has been in place since 1944.

The 1944 legislation remains in force. It would not only be dystopian for the state to attach fair and reasonable (and testable at JR) conditions to funding, it would require overturning the 1944 legislation. My argument is neither 'hyperbolic' nor 'twisting'.

I am simply stating the facts here. You can look up R. A. Butler's legislation for yourself for yourself if you think I am referencing some arcane or irrelevant detail or throwing in some red herring in bad faith. The 1944 legislation is central to an understanding of the legally enshrined rights of RC schools to not have to teach whatever the government wants them to teach.

If you think the government should dictate the curriculum, then you would no doubt have been happy to see Michael Gove's proposals for History come into effect, and thrilled that your children aged 5-7 were learning about 'the concept of the nation', or ruminating on topics like 'civilisation, monarchy, parliament, democracy, war and peace'.

The Gove proposals serve as a reminder that it only takes one determined nutjob, not even a whole government of them, tweaking a key subject (and History is far more significant than PSHE when it comes to influencing thought) to effect a very far-reaching change that can be long lasting. There is nothing wrong with a minister deciding that we will all learn about the glory days of the British Empire and very little else and no reason why anyone should expect a challenge to this sort of drivel to get anywhere, according to the logic of the quid pro quo arrangement that you propose.

It is a very good thing that the consultative process exists and has become habitual, and that the voluntary aided status with all the rights of schools that it entails exists under the law.

As an expert on these matters, you’ll know that the right to a delegated budget for VA schools is contingent on meeting the standards and requirements set for its type of school by the government of the day. If the school fails to meet the standards that are a condition of that delegated budget, their right to manage that budget will be withdrawn. New governors may be appointed; ultimately the school may be forced to convert to academy or in the most extreme cases, to order the closure of the school.

Reading the 1944 Act to the exclusion of subsequent primary legislation is something of an error.

How many faith schools will be either VA or VC five years from now, anyway, I wonder.

If you think the government should dictate the curriculum, then you would no doubt have been happy to see Michael Gove's proposals for History come into effect, and thrilled that your children aged 5-7 were learning about 'the concept of the nation', or ruminating on topics like 'civilisation, monarchy, parliament, democracy, war and peace'.

Error of logic: believing that it is beneficial for all children to be taught to roughly the same standards via a national curriculum is not automatically equivalent with agreeing with everything (or even anything) contained in a particular curriculum.

There is nothing wrong with a minister deciding that we will all learn about the glory days of the British Empire and very little else and no reason why anyone should expect a challenge to this sort of drivel to get anywhere, according to the logic of the quid pro quo arrangement that you propose.

There is plenty wrong with this, and if any government was foolish enough to try to force something like that through I don’t think the Catholic Church is our only line of defence. There would be every reason to challenge, as many did and continue to do via both formal consultations and informal lobbying.

Ultimately, when it comes to overreaching governments we have these marvellous things called ‘elections’. (Hint: not found in 1984)

The RC church is not the only line of defence. The voluntary aided status and the rights that implies might well be, as long as the current educational setup remains. All legislation subsequent to 1944 and one significant court case has strengthened the VA position - from the right to use faith among admissions criteria to the right of LEAs to establish VA schools without first seeking proposals for an academy.
How long the current educational landscape remains intact is yet to be seen of course.

In 2016 the government quietly dropped its plans to force underperforming schools to convert to academies. www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/government-scraps-education-all-bill
This is old news. It is not known what if any future proposals will take the place of the old ones.

While the proposals were still all systems go, however, the Catholic Education Service and the DfE published a Memorandum of Understanding. The main points wrt RC schools and academies were:
The MOUs state that the Church will have a final say on whether schools convert to academy status.
The Catholic Education Service agreement says: “The DfE respects the statutory right and requirement for Diocesan and Trustee consent, to allow a Catholic school to become an academy.”...

...Catholic schools will have more control over who takes over any schools found to be underperforming.
The MOU says the Diocese’s “preferred sponsorship arrangements” will be accepted if the Secretary of State is satisfied the sponsorship package, which includes any additional support provided or brokered by the Diocese, “contains the appropriate capacity and expertise to address the needs of the particular school causing concern”.
schoolsweek.co.uk/church-agrees-new-academies-plan-with-government/

All now moot of course, though RC schools continue to examine academy status with an eye to 'what's in this for us?" While forced academisation has been shelved, the perception in the CES is that academies are the wave of the future.

I am not sure whether you deliberately sidestepped my comment on Gove's history curriculum or if you genuinely did not understand my point there. My point was that Gove attempted to force through a reorganisation of a certain significant curriculum, and the rational and reasonable extrapolation there is that if this was attempted in History it would be possible to attempt it in PSHE or in Science or any other subject that matters in the wider culture.

It would be a mistake to believe that the prospect of determined individuals pushing for the inclusion of their own version of reality in curricula is farfetched. We have already seen a strenuous attempt. If your argument were to hold, nobody would have the right to criticise or protest such a departure. Because money.

You don't seem to realise the implications of your own argument here about the state having the right to call the tune - you are making the argument for Gove's right to change the History curriculum (and by extension anyone's right to change any other curriculum), to impose a curriculum focusing on certain topics and with a certain tone and slant. He was foolish enough to try to force this through. It is your contention that he who pays the bills gets to do that.

You are very naive to place your faith in elections. The current government is being propped up by a party from Northern Ireland whose supporters are for the most part the looney fringe of fundamentalist Christianity. Jacob Rees-Mogg might well be the next PM. Ladbrokes are offering 7/2.

In 2016 the government quietly dropped its plans to force underperforming schools to convert to academies.

You have misread. Those were the plans to make all schools in underperforming local academies convert.

The powers to force individual underperforming schools to convert are still in place, and featured in guidance updated and republished this month.

He was foolish enough to try to force this through. It is your contention that he who pays the bills gets to do that.

Under the law, he could have. That’s what you continue to miss. However politicians tend to be sensitive to things unpopular with their electoral base. The history curriculum wasn’t dropped because Gove didn’t have the legal powers to implement it, but because of public pressure.

All now moot of course, though RC schools continue to examine academy status with an eye to 'what's in this for us?"

And plenty have converted.

You are very naive to place your faith in elections. The current government is being propped up by a party from Northern Ireland whose supporters are for the most part the looney fringe of fundamentalist Christianity. Jacob Rees-Mogg might well be the next PM. Ladbrokes are offering 7/2.

I don’t think elections always get it right from my own self-interested perspective. That’s democracy. But ultimately, if a government were to try to implement your straw man, it would be on shaky ground with the populace given our current values. And given the track record of the major Chiristian churches over the last century, I’ll put my faith in elections and demoncracy.

Otherwise it all gets a wee bit Orwellian, doesn’t it?

Earlier you made the blank statement: religious schools have responsibilities to those who bankroll them with the further statement that compromises are necessary, clearly indicating that compromise should be on the part of the RC schools.

So now you are saying it's not the case that he who pays the piper should call the tune?
There should be some sensitivity to the electoral base when deciding on curriculum?
It's ok to push back against a curriculum if some groups don't want it?
The fact that Catholics are taxpayers too should be taken into account?
Maybe also the fact that RC schools have the right under the law to promote the RC religion in RC schools while at the same time their running costs are met by the state?

In other words, the situation as I have described, with RC groups and any other groups allowed to push back against efforts to institute any curriculum changes they do not want to see, and the idea that money talks loudest very much tempered by established relationships and interplay among the stakeholders?

The groups pushing back may not get it right, from your own perspective. But that is democracy.

The alternative that you argued for, that money gets to decide and compromise should come from the schools, is Orwellian indeed. ('Some stakeholders are more equal than others' - to paraphrase Animal Farm).

clearly indicating that compromise should be on the part of the RC schools.

Compromises happen on both sides.

So now you are saying it's not the case that he who pays the piper should call the tune?

You keep using that phrase, and also ‘money talks loudest’ and ‘money gets to decide’ it is not one I have used, and neither is the sentiment. You seem determined to invent. In your mind, having baseline responsibilities as part of being within the state system, funded by the state, is totalitarian and dystopian. Fill your boots.

As long as an RC school is within the state system, it has responsibilities that come with being within the system. Standards of performance, teaching to the required curriculum, etc. Faith schools get an awful lot of latitude but ultimately they are spending public money, and if they do not meet the required standards, their right to manage that money and ultimately the money itself, and the right to run a school, can be removed.

You may not like it - I’m sure you’d prefer full state funding with no strings attached - but that’s the reality of the law.

But you want the churches to compromise when it comes to their religious ethos. That is very clear from your posts.

...religious schools have responsibilities to those who bankroll them is your phrase, a very clear indication that bankrolling gives the state the right to expect a quid pro quo, and in the context of the discussion we are having here, what you mean is that RC schools should water down the RCness if it does not coincide with your view of what schools should be teaching.

Reference to academic standards is a red herring. It goes without saying that schools have a responsibility to teach maths, reading, social studies, science, and to do their utmost to ensure that children make academic progress. It also goes without saying that there are matters such as pastoral care that fall under their remit. Children don't live or learn in a vacuum. They are also required to participate in safeguarding protocols, and to communicate with relevant authorities. The responsibility is to the parents, with whom they are partners in the educational endeavour, and to the children. They are regulated by the state in the form of the LEA in some cases, and the DfE. Ultimately, all relevant parties must answer to the courts, to the law.

The regulation by the state can only go so far in the case of VA schools, which have the right to promote a certain religious ethos or founding influence.

Academy status will confer on schools even more latitude when it comes to religious influence than VA schools are currently allowed under the law, incidentally.

Fwiw, I am only explaining to you how things currently stand in England and Wales. I am not endorsing any of it.

I am a great admirer of the separation of church and state in the US, where faith schools are all fee paying and state schools are supported by taxpayers. It is by no means a foolproof system, with great inequality among state schools.

Faith schools get an awful lot of latitude but ultimately they are spending public money

This reminds me of the point that, back at the time of the 1944 act, churches were paying around 50% of school costs but now pay only 10% of the capital and none of the running costs

Perhaps, if churches wish to maintain such a strong influence on curriculum content, it might be time to revisit that financial balance?

If the principle is admitted that financial contribution by the state should eliminate schools' latitude in any area of the curriculum or wrt religious or founding ethos, then the consultative process as it affects curricula in all subjects goes out the window.

It is really only voluntary aided schools that have the latitude that seems to be so unacceptable when it comes to PSHE. The vast majority of CoE schools are voluntary maintained. This is why the CoE has embraced academies so warmly - academies have far more latitude than maintained schools or voluntary aided schools currently enjoy.

The freedom the RC church has wrt religious ethos and promotion of RC values in its schools is enshrined in law since 1944.

What you are suggesting is basically the removal of the legally established rights well established partners with the state in the provision of education - based on the principle that the state should have complete control because the state pays the majority of the bills. This would be the end of even the pretense that education is a democratic partnership.

As I pointed out upthread, while in the short term ushering in a new autocratic era in education might result in curriculum that some here would like to see, the pendulum might swing in another direction too. What if, God forbid, UKIP or the BNP were to become coalition partners, or if the DUP were to wield wide ranging power in a coalition?

You should be very careful what you wish for.

What you are suggesting is basically the removal of the legally established rights well established partners with the state in the provision of education - based on the principle that the state should have complete control because the state pays the majority of the bills

Spot on, math; this is exactly what I'd like to see, and while I'm massively in favour of democratic partnerships in principle, I'm not at all convinced that churches (any churches) and democracy belong in the same sentence

While I accept your point about possible involvement of unsavoury elements, let's not forget that even they could be removed by the process of universal suffrage - can the same be said of the Pope, the Chief Rabbi, the local Imam and so on?

I also wonder if it's wise to let worries about the future deflect us from what's happening right now. Given the numerous atrocities which churches have presided over and sometimes even encourage, I'd personally much rather concentrate on the here and now than some hypothetical future threat

Every potential side effect in the future should be taken into account when making decisions on education in the present.

What you want in the here and now is not what Jacob Rees Mogg may want when he is PM. If you eliminate the checks and balances that currently exist to block both of you from getting what you want, you clear the path for whatever he wants to do, along with his friend Michael Gove. Hello Latin in Reception? Hello to everyone standing up and singing God Save The Queen every morning?

If you want to have a system where stakeholders have a say, you are going to have to put up with the fact that other stakeholders may not want what you want. At least you get to have a say this way. It's a compromise for a greater good.

I received this to and was disgusted you can't get a job in the school if ure with partner and not married and have kids why is it like this in this day and age our children will listen to this bullshit and remember it when older which myt effect how they are if they arent what they were taught to be and be ashamed etc it should be upto parents what they are taught but there will be parents that support this but high school is different all together kids are splitting into groups of bi sexuals transgender people who cut themselves it's scary as kids are saying there these things in order to fit in and have friends my friend now home schools as her daughter was having to talk girls out of suicide etc and the bullying is rife maybe the government should spend money on tackling these problems instead of putting there ideas into primary kids

G120810 maybe you didn't get that job because you don't use full stops?

I don't believe anybody refuses a job due to martial status and if they do take them to court!

Really full stops stop being a dick most things on this site people don't use full stops you going to go on them all and bring it up

99.999% of posters here here use a full range of punctuation marks.

Your chances of being hired for a teaching role in a school are slim to none if you don't follow the conventions of written English.

Where did I say I was a teacher when I'm not and I don't need to use them if I don't want to

@G120810 no you don't have to use punctuation marks, but as a consequence your posts are very hard to actually read so it makes people not want to bother trying. If you don't care about that, why bother to write your posts on this thread??