Dept. for Education doc "Primary school disruption over LGBT teaching/relationships education"

[langclegflavoredbananamush]

Sorry if this has been discussed already (this gov.uk document is dated last October), I saw it in a very scary Twitter thread by @genderisharmful , who I will commence to shamelessly rip off here.

twitter.com/genderisharmful/status/1222256489097781255

From the document:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/managing-issues-with-lgbt-teaching-advice-for-local-authorities/primary-school-disruption-over-lgbt-teachingrelationships-education
Relationships education will be compulsory for all primary age pupils from September 2020. In addition, relationships and sex education (RSE) will be compulsory for all secondary age pupils and health education will be compulsory for all pupils.

Some organisations are opposed to the introduction of these subjects, or to some of the expected content set out in the statutory guidance for the subjects, and have been campaigning nationally against the subjects and organising locally to encourage parents to influence their schools’ teaching.

The document seems to offer strategies to identify and preempt "parents influencing their schools' teaching."

Further:
Signs to look out for
In areas where we have seen the beginnings of co-ordinated activity, the following signs have been seen:

followed by a list of things parents asking schools about their curriculum with regards to this area, parents having meetings, leafleting, etc.

One of their tips: (sounds eerily familiar, no? Hello Mumsnet!?!? Lang Cleg, what happened?!!

develop a communications strategy for the local authority, including monitoring media and social media and determining which Members will represent the local authority in any media activity. You may wish to consider proactive media to get out in front of the issue

It goes on to suggest considering legal responses, for example:

making a Public Space Protection Order under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to prohibit stipulated activities from taking place in specified public places in order to prevent or reduce any detrimental effect caused by those activities to local people

Under the section titled What do we mean by disruption?
we see items like:
upsetting children
upsetting staff
(Will "upsetting" be the new "offending?")
public victimisation of teachers, parents or children in relation to this topic, such as through social media, WhatsApp groups or in-person harassment

I think a narrow definition would be fine, but we've already seen how that goes. Failure to affirm = victimisation of anyone in earshot who feels victimised. (Waiting with bated breath for Harry's judgment...)

Post disturbance suggestions include:
taking enforcement action against the parents for unauthorised absence from school

Nothing dystopian about this bit:
Intel and support
It is important that you pass on intel to DfE about disquiet in your local area and signs that this might be building towards disruptive activity. DfE can better support local authorities if there is a real time picture of issues in local areas and patterns of activities.

Send any local intelligence to [email protected].

Thank you to Twitter's @genderisharmful for bringing this up.

@Langcleg

Disturbing

"parents influencing their schools' teaching."

So much for school-parental relationships

I take it there is nothing about monitoring the influence of partisan political lobby groups whose aim is to ‘remove single sex exemptions’, who purposefully ignore the law and undermine/erode child safeguarding —Stonewall looking at you

I take it there is nothing about monitoring the influence of partisan political lobby groups whose aim is to ‘remove single sex exemptions’, who purposefully ignore the law and undermine/erode child safeguarding —Stonewall looking at you

There's a link to "mythbuster FAQs" from the DoE, with potential questions from parents and how to answer them. (Skimming this hasn't done my blood pressure a bit of good.)
link:
www.gov.uk/government/news/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education-faqs

Quote:
Q: What support will schools receive to deliver these subjects well?

...There will also be training available for teachers through existing regional networks, offering opportunities to improve subject knowledge and build confidence.

We’re working with expert organisations, schools and teachers to develop this support.

Existing regional networks! Expert organisations! Trust us, don't bother your silly little heads with the details like which expert organisations...

This bit caught my eye, we should look out for when this is released- when they say "available," I hope they mean available to the public, too, if they are so interested in diffusing concerns.

A: We are investing in a central support package to help teachers introduce these subjects well and with confidence. This will include a new online service, featuring access to high quality resources, innovative training materials, case studies and an implementation guide, available from Spring 2020.

We've been heading in this direction for a long time, with schools emphasising teaching students "correct" attitudes about all kinds of social, historical, and scientific subjects. Dismissal of the views of parents deemed to have incorrect and backwards views. I'd go so far as to say there's been an almost triumphalist attitude to the use of state schools as a means to create and promote "desirable" social attitudes.

This attitude was present already back in the late 90s when I was in high school and people who spoke against it were seen as conservative bigots. It's only been when it's started to cross people's personal line for indoctrination of their own kids that more have begun to object.

Goosefoot, your comment made me want to add this from the page.

They (pesky backward parents) may also request withdrawal from other subjects or activities that parents do not have the right to withdraw their children from (for example. ‘assemblies on equality’ or sex education within the science curriculum).

I guess it's not called compulsory education for nothing.

At one time there would have been proper piloting of innovations with interactions with the parents so that they

A. Know and understand what is happening and

B. Can reflect back so that the weaknesses, unexpected consequences, and things that turn out to be plain wrong in the real world can be ironed out.

And this should have happened with the educationalists and teachers long before that.

It seems to be a one way version of A.

At best, imposing ideology will just result in deep seated mistrust which will not achieve the stated aims in the long run.

I guess it's not called compulsory education for nothing.

Depending on how things go, I would not be at all surprised to see increasing state control over elements of private education as well, or restrictions on home education. Though it may not be necessary as both become difficult for parents in a poor economy or one where all adults have to work to get by.

But I do think it's important to look at the bigger picture. For lots of people gender ideology is the point where they are not happy for the state to be teaching their kids values, or a philosophical perspective. But there have been other parents all along who had other lines. The real question is, to what extent should the state be looking at trying to influence or teach kids on these types of subjects at all? And what measure can a supposedly secular, non-partisan institution use to decide what it's values are, especially when one of those values is meant to be diversity and acceptance of everyone in society?

I am conflicted about this. On one hand it is right that schools should be supported in stopping groups protesting daily outside them - especially primary schools. Given the open homophobia of some of the protests and the fact that the protesters were led by a non parent with no stake in the schools I'm not going to ally myself alongside those protesters.
The elephant in the room is the religious identity of the majority of the protesters - this is the State quite clearly mobilising against a specific group. The lack of any 'partnership with parents' is worrying. Having taught SRE for years in ethnically diverse schools, it has been by talking, meeting and discussing with parents that the schools I know have been able to develop SRE programmes that meet the needs of children and only in exceptional cases have a tiny minority of parents not "accepted" the curriculum.
The schools in recent cases seem to have steamrollered through factually incorrect and proselytising approaches adopting a confrontational approach to parents (as has been discussed on here before). The 'we know best' approach rather than one where they tease out the common ground. But that's what happens when adults prioritise a political 'queering the primary curriculum' approach rather than centring the developmental, emotional and social needs of young children.

uncompromisingwoman great post and 100% agree.

But there have been other parents all along who had other lines

My line isn't "trans". It is "indoctrination" and "anti-science".

I see increasing sexism and policing of gender norms in primary school kids, which I think is related to homophobia or turns into it when they are older. Kids are obviously just reflecting the attitudes picked up from home and wider culture.

I absolutely think tolerance towards differences needs to be taught, encouraged, modelled and gently enforced in schools. Whether that difference is in ability, race, religion, sex, sexuality etc.

Teaching a child the observable fact that some children have two mummies/daddies and that is OK is not forcing that child to have same sex parents nor is it forcing that child to be gay. It is in no way comparable to the current wave of organisations entering schools to teach about gender ideology. They are not teaching children to tolerate differences. They are teaching children a whole bunch of ideology that is utterly anti science (the comparable is creationism, surely).

There is no way to opt out, gender atheism is not recognised. Child is indoctrinated into a system of trans and "cis". Told to work out what their "gender identity" might be, aided by helpful charts with questions about their personality and how closely it adheres to feminine and masculine stereotypes. Told that stereotyping is actually a bad thing to do and is what you are doing when you use your senses to tell you whether the person in front of you is a woman or a man; a girl or a boy.

I think schools could deal with this but they would have to have the courage to be able to say that indoctrination is the line and they won't teach anti-science.

It's the typical kind of brain washing you expect from the state.
The difference to us and places like China is that they generally admit it.

It’s about being told their (the children’s) biological reality is wrong
It’s about being told their lived experience is wrong
It’s about being told their boundaries are wrong
It’s about being told how you name and define yourself is wrong
It’s about enforcing corrosive gender stereotypes
It’s about erasing gay/lesbian young people

It’s about being told their body is wrong

This is an ideology that celebrates young people - disproportionally girls/ those with autism and / or trauma - removing healthy organs and tissue, becoming infertile and journeying down a path of lifelong medicalisation for fucks sake.

Yet simultaneously - allows any adult just to say ‘I am a man/woman’ and bingo they are what they say they are

This is an ideology that removes safeguarding in plain sight

No no no.

I am looking in from the outside, as I don't live in the UK but, having read the FAQs, I am struck by the fact that, despite this being a compulsory subject, each school or chain of schools will be teaching it all differently.

I would have thought that if it is compulsory that is because there are some particular elements they want all children to know.

But this way, it is harder for a nationwide protest and easier for grooming to take place in schools where the parents are less actively involved.

It’s really disturbing-it’s evil. Not sure what to do. My DD is 5 and the only way I see to fight against this is for me to continue to tell her about the facts of life and biology. We also talk about real and pretend a lot.

They are relying on us parents being embarrassed about sex and genitals - a bit like abusers rely on kids’ ignorance.

Coyoacan that is a very interesting observation.

Slater met 1-2-1 with Stonewall to "learn about best practice and lead change".

Sorry posted too soon, didn't give that context.

Is this the change we are seeing now?

Given Slater was given an award from Stonewall for removing single sex toilets at three locations he really is the last person who should be having influence in schools.

Regulatory capture in action, clear as day.

Teaching a child the observable fact that some children have two mummies/daddies and that is OK is not forcing that child to have same sex parents nor is it forcing that child to be gay. It is in no way comparable to the current wave of organisations entering schools to teach about gender ideology. They are not teaching children to tolerate differences. They are teaching children a whole bunch of ideology that is utterly anti science (the comparable is creationism, surely).

I'm not sure that it necessarily matters if it is similar to creationism, at this point, because the principle of who gets to decide has already been ceded. It's almost inevitably true that many people were quite happy with what was being done before, because that is how it works - we allow the governing body to become authoritarian, or ignore opposing or diverse views, when it suits us, and soon find that they maintain that approach even when it doesn't suit us. We've given them the moral, and perhaps legal authority to do so.
I don't think it's possible to see what has happened with this so long as we say, yeah, the school and state approach to LGB has only been factual/scientific. That doesn't reflect what they were trying to achieve, or pass on to students, it doesn't reflect the wider school environment that includes the books in the library, or the speakers they invite. It really doesn't include the presence of Rainbow type clubs, or the fact that many people seriously felt that it was ok for kids who were potentially LGB to attend these without parental knowledge, or to receive support from staff without parental knowledge. Many people on the left have also strongly believed that students in the teen years should be able to access birth control without parental knowledge.
Most of these things the average liberal or left wing families have been fine with, in fact they've supported them strongly, well before gender ideology became a big deal. And they have not been what you'd call sympathetic, or even just concerned, about anyone saying that this is social engineering, or that it interfered with parental rights - such people have been dismissed as bigots which should sound familiar, and more importantly, ignored. The precedent has been pretty clear, when push comes to shove on values issues, the state is being expected to uphold values even when the parents are not comfortable with those values. Those pushing gender ideology are using the tools let lying around from other educational initiatives to do their work. They didn't start letting Stonewall into the schools to influence students about gender ideology.

This is really worrying. Spying on parents and reporting them to the DfE. What could go wrong? All parents should be worried about this. Everyone has a right to be heard. Everyone has a right to demonstrate.

They have used a lot of the successful techniques used by other groups, like those trying to get adjustment put into place to integrate disabled children and children with learning disabilities which were very needed as you cannot put a child in a classroom where they cannot get in, cannot see the work, or need someone with them so that they can interpret the teacher's instructions. It is fascinating how they have taken up the language and reused it in a new context.

having read the FAQs, I am struck by the fact that, despite this being a compulsory subject, each school or chain of schools will be teaching it all differently.

Yes, for example this from the FAQs:

Q: Will my child be taught sex education at primary? This is too young.

A: We are not introducing compulsory sex education at primary school.

(paragraph followed by)

...Many primary schools choose to teach sex education (which goes beyond the existing national curriculum for science), and we recommend that they do so, tailored to the age, physical and emotional maturity of their pupils. In those instances we recommend you discuss this with the school, to understand what they propose to teach and how. If you continue to have concerns, you have an automatic right to withdraw your child from these sex education lessons.

But on the main page they list this as a "sign (for schools) to look out for:"

significant increase in schools reporting parents asking about relationships education/sex education/teaching on equalities/teaching on LGBT

Not encouraging...

This is very worrying.

I'm very much in favour of sex ed. Not in favour of gender bullshit being taught, and very much not impressed with the hostile attitude shown here.

What about Parent Councils, PTA, teachers who are parents? Governors, in England? Are they not allowed to ever raise concerns or discuss issues now, for fear of being 'disruptive'?

It is important that you pass on intel to DfE about disquiet in your local area and signs that this might be building towards disruptive activity. DfE can better support local authorities if there is a real time picture of issues in local areas and patterns of activities.

As people keep saying, 1984 is not a manual.

I’m very much in favour of sex ed. Not in favour of gender bullshit being taught, and very much not impressed with the hostile attitude shown here.

I suppose the vast majority of parents are in favor of sex ed, and also in favor of having schools mention that same sex couples exist and are not a threat. And that we should respect people who are gender diverse, including but not limited to trans people. How did that become “if you don’t fit stereotypes you might be in the wrong body but we can help you fix your body and if you don’t at least pretend to believe everything we say and give up your boundaries you’ll be penalized as a bigot?“

They have used a lot of the successful techniques used by other groups, like those trying to get adjustment put into place to integrate disabled children and children with learning disabilities which were very needed as you cannot put a child in a classroom where they cannot get in, cannot see the work, or need someone with them so that they can interpret the teacher's instructions. It is fascinating how they have taken up the language and reused it in a new context.

They are astoundingly adept at repurposing existing language, concepts, social movements, institutions, services, legal frameworks, etc. to suit their agenda, aren’t they. Taken on its own it is quite fascinating and impressive. Couldn’t live with myself if I was using techniques like that though. Makes me suspect they know their goals aren’t legitimate when they play so dirty.

This a bit off-topic, but I take issue with this Many people on the left have also strongly believed that students in the teen years should be able to access birth control without parental knowledge

Allowing young people to access birth control is a means of preventing them from suffering pregnancy, abortion and other life altering consequences. I am 66 and in my day we were all having sex young without being able to access birth control. Young people will have sex, some sooner than others, regardless of what their parents think or want.

Allowing young people to transition is to allow them to make life altering decisions without adult input.

Allowing young people to access birth control is a means of preventing them from suffering pregnancy, abortion and other life altering consequences.

Well, yes, that's the argument. But what it means is that the state, in its wisdom, has the final say about medical treatment in these cases where it deems it worthwhile. That is, it is up to the state to determine when it can suspend normal parental rights because it thinks its for the best.

The fact that many of us think that in the case of gender transition, it simply can't be, is a particular instance. There will be times when the judgement of the state on such things will be incorrect, just as presumably there will be times when parents make incorrect judgements. But we've established a principle that they are allowed to make that decision and leave parents out of it. And is that is how many fairly regular people are thinking about this, that the state knows what is best on this, and letting parents be involved is risking the children, just like it would be requiring them to be involved in their kids access to birth control.

It's one thing to complain the science they are using is bad. But if the complaint is that they have no right to go over the parents' heads, I think that battle was lost some time ago. People think they do.

There is a similar direction at the moment now with vaccination. because of the really problematic effects of the anti-vax movement, people are more and more talking about making vaccinations compulsory. And many people agree, in some cases even to the point of saying parents who refuse should have parental rights removed altogether. But again, there are wider implications every time we say, ok, we are going to lessen parental rights here and strengthen the authority of the state over people's kids.