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.

Yes, you make very good points there, Goosefoot.

Here in Scotland there was consultation on new RSHP (if I've got the acronym right) guidelines. Parents were asked to read them and contribute their thoughts.

rshp.scot/

I believe they have been amended after feedback, and the last time I checked they seemed fairly reasonable (I only read for my kids' stages, perhaps selfishly, but there's a lot to wade through and my time is limited).

Is there not similar for other parts of the UK?

Yes, Goosefoot, it's always a balance between protecting children (the state needs to have the power to intervene in cases of abuse or neglect, and to check that this isn't happening, I fully support this) - and respecting families differing views and beliefs.

As far as I can tell, parts of 'gender' ideology are a belief or thought system that not everyone agrees with. For the govt to effectively try to use schools to impose a set of beliefs on families is ... well. It's either sinister or it's just very stupid. Let's hope the latter.

Placemarking to digest at a later point

As far as I can tell, parts of 'gender' ideology are a belief or thought system that not everyone agrees with. For the govt to effectively try to use schools to impose a set of beliefs on families is ... well. It's either sinister or it's just very stupid. Let's hope the latter.

Yes, I think it's clearly so far outside of what most people believe it is seriously problematic. I think the reason people are seeing this as ok is because there is an element apart from just trying to balance the parental right vs the responsibility of the state to look out for kids who are being neglected. There is also an element that says, it is ok for the state to promote certain values and ideological beliefs to those parts of the population who might be a bit behind, or vulnerable, to inappropriate attitudes.

The question of where does the state get to insert itself with regard to ideological values, how niche would it have to be for the state to ignore it, is very difficult. I think the tactic of presenting parents objecting to some of this stuff as homophobic is really about this line. Probably a majority of people in the UK are happy with the law and social trends around LGB issues. But there are some communities of people who are not, or who are perhaps only partly, and that includes some of these parents. Maybe they are happy for others to follow their own beliefs, or for the law to be fairly secular, but their religion, their ideology if you will, generally says that marriage and maybe sex are directly related to procreation. And they don't want schools telling their kids that is a bigoted view, or that it's somehow unscientific.
So the effort to criticise all the discomfort with these teaching packages is concentrating on these people as their view is a minority view, and can be pretty successfully presented to the public as a form of hatred, and as something that will die out anyway. They are attempting to sidestep anyone questioning the legitimate role of what is supposed to be a secular state institution in taking over the parental role of teaching values, because in a society that claims to be about diversity and pluralism, that might not go the way they want. It's an inherent problem of progressivism, that it is in tension with any kind of diversity of thought because many people, without really realising it, believe there is a sort of true endpoint society is working toward, where we will all believe the right and true things.

I just saw this- Posie Parker addressing this issue, with her style of typically down to earth, straight to the point suggestions for parents.

So do you think no books w positive gay relationships (I'm thinking stuff like Annie On My Mind or Last Night At The Telegraph Club, fairly standard but well written teen romance) should be allowed?

Or that no speakers for LGB rights or books about them should be allowed?

I see the issue you raise, but this seems too draconian.

How would it work for other contentious issues like abortion or divorce?

I agree bc for children without parents' knowledge is wrong. Not sure about LGB clubs. Otoh I guess if the parents were merely disapproving then you should tell them. But otoh in some families, and yes, Muslims would sadly be more likely, children might face violence. I guess the answer is to emphasise that if children are actually being abused, for whatever reason,,they can come to the school for help.

🧟‍♀️

Joy is at it again I see…

Blimey, it's been a while since I saw this username.

Didn't you promise yesterday never to do this again, @TheJoyOfWriting..? Anyone would think we can't trust anything you post.

Aghhhhhhhhhhh