SPHE whistleblower

[TheLurkingOne]

Is there already a thread about this? I didn't see one.
This teacher is speaking about a training session she attended re the delivery of the SPHE content in irish secondary schools. It seems the topic includes teaching children about porn, fisting, rimming.....

I'm all for classes for teens approaching the topic of porn, what it is, what it's implications are and the exploitation that comes with it, what constitutes a healthy relationship, sex, consent etc etc but this just seems unnecessary and graphic.

The later part of the video refers to the indoctrination of children, how politics and education are linked.

I'm interested in other people's views here. I almost don't know what to think. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of my young teen children being taught these things, but is it me who is being unreasonable? Is this stuff they need to know?

Not sure how to do clicky link; maybe this copy and paste will work.

That doesn't really address the issue that is there now though.
The legal age of starting school is between 4 and 6.
Ignoring the fact that many start at 4 and many don't do transition year is ignoring facts.
15 is not 16+.

Education can only create for the mass and individual teachers will interject for the not typical. In the seven secondaries within a few miles no children are that age profile. I know because they were part of a third level research project into the success of early years programmes.

I am fully confident every teacher in line with their routine child protection training would double down in reviewing their materials, communication with parents etc should they be faced with the very unusual situation of having a 15 year old in 6th year. Because the curriculum has set pieces per year. No typical child is leaving cert at 15. And you can only account blanket policy for the typical learner profile.

This is a hyperbole. No school is doing what the scaremongering individuals are saying.

Look at the curriculum, I am confident any responsible parents will have covered it well before age 14 to be honest. Consent, right to privacy, factual information on where to get medical advice on contraception etc.

No person writing a curriculum does it solo, they are individuals with a mass of national and international experience who are doing it for the learners.

Where was it said they were in 6th year. As I have said repeatedly, they would be in 5th year which is part of the senior cycle and this age would be far from unusual in this year. The failure of those who set the curriculum to take this into account would be a worry.

The framework sets out the curriculum the syllabi will set out the particulars.

So for context think of the maths honours programme. In fifth year you do the basics, you learn the equations then in sixth you learn to apply them independently.

The curriculum developers have access to all the data in their planning. So it will be built into the timeline.

I know of 2 families who moved their children to diffrent schools to avoid transition year because they thought it was a waste of time and money. I wouldn't agree with this but you can't assume everyone is 16 starting 5th year.

And in fact the link you posted o NCCA says the senior cycle is from15-18.

Which means the teachers have this in mind as to how they decide what is delivered when .

But to be honest if parents are taking actions so children don't avail of the full education program I would consider that a parent not prioritising education.

The whole precedent of it is to allow learners to explore their interests and consider their future, what parents wouldn't want that?

To be honest Marbles, if the educators who set the curriculum have the same, somewhat elitist, attitude that you are showing in your replies, then we are in serious trouble.
I don't intend that in derogatory way, as I appreciate you have engaged here in good faith, but your replies smack of someone who is very invested in pushing forward a particular viewpoint, despite serious concerns being raised on here and by the teacher in the OP's video.
I, like I suspect most parents, would lie somewhere in the middle on this topic. But I have would serious concerns that the training provided in the DCU module was led by people who are so invested in their own world view that they are willing to ignore serious child protection issues that have been raised in the video and by teachers on this thread.

I appreciate your post. I am anything but elist. I am however very confident that significant work and consultation takes place in all curriculum development. I trust the process and I have decades of curriculum to lean on. This will be no different.

While I am in education, I am engaged as a mother of learners in this space. And I like others have to accept that their world means they need more information than ever.

To be clear nothing in the DCU model is referenced on the curriculum, it was in my opinion and approach to replicate the scenario of uncomfortable learning for the teachers attending. But that does not stop it being used to manipulate people.

Hopefully parents will get comfort and trust when the information for teacher tools are published. That will show how the curricula are taken down to the classroom level.

It's exactly the same as the old rule that faith formation was the most important aspect of primary education and an important aspect of secondary education (despite not being an exam subject). The faith has changed, the impulse remains the same.

There's a deeply conformist streak in respectable Ireland. The thing that has to be obeyed has changed a little, but the enforcers remain as convinced of their righteousness.

With respect @DeanElderberry I completely disagree. The process is open, transparent, offers engagement opportunities. That is completely different to the past.

I suggest have a look on the website NCCA and other government websites and you see open consultation opportunities. If you look at closed ones you can see the feedback, the report on the feedback etc.

I am not relying on blind faith. I am relying on my analysis of a transparent, consultative process.

I am not relying on blind faith. I am relying on my analysis of a transparent, consultative process.

And yet, questions are met with "fake news," "far right,' "conservative christians".

I don't see the link to my comment @yesmen . I have given clear posts on my opinion. What I did say was respectfully I wasn't engaging in a specific rabbit hole discussion which are on other threads.

The fact is there is material that is in circulation to parents that is blatantly lying saying the material is for sixth class
I have seen the messages first hand.
The material is not on the published curriculum. So yes it is fake news. I stand by that statement, it is simply a fact.

I don't care what if any religions people hold. As long as they don't control the agreed factual information being given to learners. So yes contraception, consent, acceptance that a proportion of learners will be sexualy active at 16 and deserve medical information for their own health care if nothing else, e.g. what steps can be taken to avoid STI.

I categorically completely disagree with other states education approaches where for example teaching abstinence is the only option. I hope that provides clarity.

@marblesbackagain you are a ticket.

1. Transition year IS senior cycle, and only 75% of all Irish students participate in the programme. That is a full one quarter do not. Not that it is of any relevance to this thread.

1. Your assertion that a group of professional Junior Cycle SPHE teachers were invited to DCU and DELIBERATELY made to feel uncomfortable, as some kind of boundary pushing exercise, without their consent, is frankly bizzare. Is this a teaching methodology frequently employed at DCU?

1. Here is the crux of the issue.

Learning Outcome 3.6. "Appreciate the breath of what constitutes human sexuality, and how sexual orientation and gender identity are experienced and expressed in different ways".

As you can see "the breath of what constitutes human sexuality" is not defined and open to interpretation. As such the materials and methodologies shared at the DCU professional training day were perfectly in line with what appears to be THEIR interpretation of Learning Outcome 3.6. The teachers that attended the training day are free to adopt or discard the teaching materials and methodologies shared.

Most publishers, schools and teachers will adopt a much more conservative approach to this learning outcome. I suspect also, that after this furore, the trainers that train the teachers will also adopt a more conservative approach

A pity really. I had this gleeful notion that we could remove all the trophies at our school entrance and use it instead to display the myriad of willlies created by our wonderful SPHE teachers at their professional training days. 😆

To clarify. Senior cycle curricula are for fifth and sixth year they don't include transition year.

There is a separate programme for transition year.

I never said I knew what happened in DCU I don't work there, I don't have "insider" information. I did say it could be an approach used, it is a common approach internationally when working with difficult subject matter. Putting the teachers in the headspace of the learners.

Of course the learners would be told that the material would be challenging and they may feel discomfort. The teachers are well aware some learners will struggle with the material.

The learning outcomes are currently without indicative content so until these are published. I don't see the issue with the learning outcome you quoted.

There is literally endless sources and resources stating different viewpoints and the learners will at that stage 16+ have their opinions. The reality is that topic is everywhere in their world.

In my opinion trying to get the learners to understand STIs are still with us, can have life long impact and to encourage those who are sexually active to understand and engage with sex health professionals will be more challenging. Teenagers feel invincible!

"The fact is there is material that is in circulation to parents that is blatantly lying saying the material is for sixth class
I have seen the messages first hand.
The material is not on the published curriculum. So yes it is fake news. I stand by that statement, it is simply a fact."

As has been pointed out repeatedly, while some parents on WhatsApp groups may have misinterpreted what was said in video, the interviewee, Mary Creedon, is very clear in that video that she is discussing the secondary school curriculum.
Therefore I think that labelling this as fake news is very disparaging to that teacher who is obligated as part of her job to raise issues regarding child protection and it is very important to highlight the distinction between encryptied messages on WhatsApp groups and what she actually said in that interview which is entirely accurate.

@Sunlightinclouds I saw edited messages which clearly stated it was sixth class material. I have explained that very clearly in previous posting. And again it isn't the curriculum the curriculum is published.

When did consent, how pregnancy happens (including common myths), contraception, STIs etc etc STOP being taught in schools? We covered all of that between biology and religion classes in my mid 70s convent school. We even had the very very creepy Fr Michael Cleary talking about homosexual men, possibly because he knew that might rouse curiosity.

The big change since then was making it much clearer to the young that they can say 'no' to older people and to authority figures - but this programme seems to be all about telling them they can't say 'no' to the people delivering it, even if they seem dodgy.

Anything that uses the concept 'struggle' approvingly sounds like a neo-Maoist nightmare.

The openness and transparency of the process is very questionable, I engaged in this so called consultation as both a parent and a teacher....when I questioned as a teacher whether conscientious objection had any place in this discussion, I was firmly told by a staff member of the NCCA that if one had a conscientious objection, they shouldn't be teaching SPHE.
I also submitted my concerns as a paremt through a written submission. Ultimately, the NCCA and Department of Education under the direction of Minister Norma Foley steam rolled ahead with the implementation of the updated SPHE Junior Cycle curriculum content on gender ideology and pornography against the wishes of thousands of parents (more than 4,300 parents’ submissions as acknowledged in the Consultation Report on the Junior Cycle Curriculum), who made submissions on the draft SPHE Curriculum rejecting the radical sexuality education proposals. While parents submissions were acknowledged, they were ignored in the final content of the SPHE Curriculum, though parents were by far the largest group who made submissions during the consultation process.
The written submissions which were published and taken into account included the National Women's Council, TENI, BeLongTo, ShoutOut and other pro trans lobby groups and NGOs.

Consultations can't please everyone unfortunately. I am sorry you don't agree with the Curriculum I see it as fair and appropriate as an educator and a parent.

Unfortunately the national curriculum has to suit the majority.

The learning outcomes are currently without indicative content so until these are published. I don't see the issue with the learning outcome you quoted.

IF and when indicative content is published, it can and will be selected or rejected at the discretion of each individual teacher/SPHE department. They may for example, choose to adopt some of the methodologies suggested by DCU instead. The Learning Outcome is problematic (for some) as its interpretation is entirely at the discretion of educators, and unfortunately people no longer trust educators.

There is literally endless sources and resources stating different viewpoints and the learners will at that stage 16+ have their opinions.

Ya but we're not talking about 16+. Neither is the video. Or the DCU training course depicted.

And again it isn't the curriculum the curriculum is published.

It is the curriculum. Everything covered in that video falls within the parameters of Learning Outcome 3 6. At the end of it students will have experienced the 'breath of what constitutes human sexuality, and how sexual orientation and gender identity are experienced and expressed in different ways". Job done

With respect as an educator I disagree as do a significant portion of my colleagues. I appreciate your opinion but I do not agree.

The written submissions which were published and taken into account included the National Women's Council, TENI, BeLongTo, ShoutOut and other pro trans lobby groups and NGOs.

This about sums up why we are in this situation. They listened to the kind of people that think kink shaming is practically a crime (some kinks should be shamed)

Those worried about things like today’s children feeling shame are massively reaching. Many of today’s parents never experienced the fire and brimstone type of Catholicism that previous generations did and aren’t particularly religious themselves.

But in this case it seems to suit the minority.