Diversity week-do my dc need to know they're teachers ' sexuality?

[SistemaAddict]

Dd has been sent a video for the school diversity week. Teachers hold up pieces of paper with something about them written on it e.g. Gay and Proud, curly hair, Jamaican etc to give 3 examples. The information before the video states:

"...please watch the staff video to get a sense of how diverse our school is. We have such a range of different personalities, hair colour, opinions, genders, sexualities, religions, beliefs and colours that our school is a rich, welcoming diverse pot..."

I struggle to see how it's anyone's business what sexuality you are especially for a child to know that of their teacher. Surely sexuality is a private matter and not one to share with students? The video shows one teacher with a piece of paper saying gay and proud. They are not the only gay teacher in the school so it makes me wonder why they chose to say this about themselves but the other teachers chose something else about themselves. Another teacher declaring they have bipolar which seems something else that is not something to share with students. I get that they might be sharing so that students feel they have something in common with their teachers but it doesn't sit comfortably with me.

@DidoLamenting

Mfl teachers ask those questions because it is part of the bloody syllabus, not because they are nosy parkers fgs! And kids don't have to tell the truth if they don't want to

A poster said she asks children about their families. It is none of her business. The suggestion that , oh well it's ok just to lie is appalling. Maybe telling lies comes easily to you but don't assume every one is like that.

So the teacher should ignore the curriculum?

I take it you don’t mind that there will be parts of the exam (whether that be oral or written) the student cannot answer.

Pretty obviously, the MFL syllabus should have a minor tweak to explicitly allow for, or even encourage, a fictionalised account of the child's life. Being able to describe families and activities is useful, feeling any compulsion to do so truthfully in class is a bad idea.

A poster said she asks children about their families. It is none of her business. The suggestion that , oh well it's ok just to lie is appalling. Maybe telling lies comes easily to you but don't assume every one is like that.

Actually I specifically said that I tell the truth about my family etc - so why are you suggesting that 'telling lies comes easily to me'?
I find it quite bizarre that you believe that schools and teachers don't know about their pupils' families. And also that you apparently aren't aware that talking about your family is (and always has been) a perfectly normal part of the MFL curriculum (in Englandat least), which teachers can't just decide not to bother with.

I find it quite bizarre that you believe that schools and teachers don't know about their pupils' families.

That doesn't mean that a child should feel compelled to give an account of their family and activities in a classroom.
Yes, talking about families is, and always has been normal - but surely there is more understanding now that it may be necessary to use some tact and discretion. Simply making it clear that they can use fiction rather than autobiography seems like the simple solution. Invent a sibling or a hobby to use more vocabulary, why not?

Pretty obviously, the MFL syllabus should have a minor tweak to explicitly allow for, or even encourage, a fictionalised account of the child's life. Being able to describe families and activities is useful, feeling any compulsion to do so truthfully in class is a bad idea.

It doesn't really need a tweak. There is nothing to stop anyone giving a fictionalised account. It is very common in lots of MFL topics to give tasks involving describing made-up situations, dream holidays/houses, bizarre pets (monsters or incongruously coloured animals etc).

And we make it pretty clear that inventing and embellishing is fine with normal questions. You don't get many marks for saying 'nothing' when asked what you did at the weekend. It's about the language, not about the content. But when asked a non-fantasy type question, most kids answer about their real families, hobbies etc imo.

Aesop yesterday at 10.35 👏

I also think I could respect the schools actions if it happened organically and teachers did this when it wasn't diversity week. Otherwise it feels contrived to"tick a box". I'd want to watch and see if the school may rush to do other things or initiatives to desperately be seen to be diverse and accepting without perhaps doing real due diligence on source materials/organisations.

So long as it's crystal clear to eg a child with autism that they don't need to be - possibly painfully - honest, then fine. The implication of previous posts by various people is that children don't always understand this.

I'm sure that if the school was operating normally, diversity week would have taken a different slant. But given that everyone is operating remotely, the video seems a good idea to me.

Also parents would be aware that OFSTED is likely to mark the school down if it doesn't participate in diversity week.

As long as the teachers were able to choose whether to participate, and decide what they said about themselves, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It doesn't 'promote' homosexuality in any way. It confirms that it exists among people we know, and frankly any child who doesn't already know that, is being abused by being holed up in their home without any access to the world outside.

I would feel worried about people being pressured into taking part and disclosing personal information, especially in relation to health.

So long as it's crystal clear to eg a child with autism that they don't need to be - possibly painfully - honest, then fine.

No, tbh I don't think it probably always is clear even to NT children. I think questions about family and life are probably quite often asked straight by lots of teachers with the general assumption that kids will mostly answer truthfully. Pretty much the whole MFL syllabus from primary up to GCSE is based on kids talking about ther family, personal and social life, so it's impossible to avoid.

There is nothing stopping kids from inventing and nothing to compel them to be truthful, but inventing is generally seen as a way of maximising language use or enjoying imaginative work rather than a privacy thing, and it's far from a hard and fast policy to announce to kids that they can or should do it in order to avoid over-sharing.

I've no issue with teachers sharing part of their personal lives if they wish, including allowing pupils to infer their sexuality.

That video sounds really othering though.

Mr Jones is gay. Subtext Mr Jones is different.
Ms Mason is black. Subtext Ms Mason is different.

Diversity surely should be about everyone being accepted as they are without a big fuss. Gay teachers should be "normal". Black teachers should be "normal". This campaign seems to be all about making people different when in reality gay or black shouldn't be really worth commenting.

Just a quick aside about autism and honesty. I find when asked to just make something up I completely freeze up. So lieing to cover something up about my family life in that context would not have been possible anyway! However... I am generally not bothered about covering stuff up either. It is other people who feel the discomfort when I overshare! Not me. The trauma to me is in other people's reactions. When I was teaching I was possibly overcareful about discussions on life outside school with children as I recognised my oversharing as a problem and was aware not to make kids either uncomfortable or give them fuel to use against you! Part of the reason I left teaching is that classroom management was so tricky for me as in a lot of ways I'm an open book and the difficult kids actually play up more when you're like that as you lose authority.

I think that's why the thought of this video makes me uncomfortable rather than some deep-down homophobia or mental health prejudice I am not aware of!

Absolutely ridiculous to say teachers shouldn’t share their sexual orientation.

But equally, they shouldn't have to. If they want to mention it, fine, but just as fine if they don't. I have colleagues where I know most of their life histories, and others where I don't even know if they're in a long term relationship or anything - different people have different boundaries, and some people compartmentalise work life and home life much more than others.

@LonginesPrime

it is part and parcel of a tendency in education toward bringing things into the curriculum that don't belong there

I agree that the information was shared in an incredibly clumsy way which won't lead to true inclusion and may have the opposite effect by othering pupils who share characteristics with those teachers, and causing them great anxiety if they feel they might be encouraged to 'bring their whole self' to school.

I also personally have an objection to declaring that one's identity is gay, as opposed to one's sexual orientation being gay, because it suggests that it's self-determined and self-defined. One's sexuality can only be oriented in relation to others, so it feels artificial to express it in this way.

I also feel that the notion of 'gay' as an identity akin to gender identity assists in the argument that sexual attraction is something that should move with the times and adapt to accommodate heterosexual relationships pursuant to gender ideology, as if it is controlled by the person and can flex as necessary when told to.

And obviously, it would be horrific and completely bizarre if pupils were quizzed on their sexuality and forced to reveal this publicly.

However, if it comes up naturally in conversation, I strongly disagree that it's inappropriate for pupils to know a teacher is gay. As a gay teen myself, it was reassuring to have a gay teacher in my school, and she was the only one who tackled any of the homophobic bullying going on. She also stopped a lesson once because a kid made a sexist comment and she explained why gender stereotypes were a load of bollocks and incredibly harmful to everyone.

And later, as a gay teacher who wasn't out, it was really awkward because teenagers are curious and would pry into my personal life - they wanted to know everything. Obviously I maintained professional boundaries, and part of my job was to teach boundaries to the kids (e.g. explaining why it's not appropriate for me to tell them my address). But had I been out, I would have seen no issue with mentioning a partner.

Yes, OP's DD's situation sounds awful, but not because knowing a teacher is gay is inherently inappropriate for pupils to know - because of the way that information has been conveyed.

Sexual orientation is completely different from gender identify. If OP had an issue about the impact on safeguarding of this material in relation to paving the way for discussions around gender ideology (and the ones I'd be concerned about are listed above) then I can see the tangential relevance to FWR.

But the OP and title seem more concerned about the inappropriateness of knowing a teacher is gay. As if being gay is related to gender or in any way similar to being trans. It's not.

I don't think mentions in passing really are a problem - of the "my wife and I were at the park and saw an enormous pelican" variety.

But I think the problem goes beyond just the weird method of the lesson. I think it is a good idea for schools to say - there are lots of kinds of people here in this school and in society - like the teacher who saw a pelican at the picnic - and you need to be respectful.

I am no convinced that schools have any business teaching kids about sexual ethics as such, what sexuality means or is for, who it is right or wrong to have sex with (beyond legal stuff etc) or what marriage is meant to be about, or any of these kinds of topics. They simply have no standing and IMO no expertise to talk about these issues. And to take a position on them really puts a lie to their claims of valuing diversity because clearly they ave chosen which kinds of diversity count (LBGTQ+ good) and which don't (traditional Muslim family, bad.)

We shouldn't be surprised if we support that kind of approach and then find that they are teaching kids the correct viewpoint to have on gender issues and that their parents are bigots if they see it differently.

I am no convinced that schools have any business teaching kids about sexual ethics as such, what sexuality means or is for, who it is right or wrong to have sex with (beyond legal stuff etc) or what marriage is meant to be about, or any of these kinds of topics. They simply have no standing and IMO no expertise to talk about these issues. And to take a position on them really puts a lie to their claims of valuing diversity because clearly they ave chosen which kinds of diversity count (LBGTQ+ good) and which don't (traditional Muslim family, bad.)

Absolutely, this is over-ruling parents’ rights to educate their children according to their religious and philosophical convictions, and a right to respect for their family life. Schools cannot say to children that it is wrong to believe, for example, that sex should only take place within a monogamous lifelong marriage between a man and a woman. Nor should they be discriminated against for holding such beliefs.

Perhaps it will reinforce the image that primary teaching is only for women and gay men - unless there are a lot of hetero male teachers but ime that is unlikely. So could put some kids off.

I am no convinced that schools have any business teaching kids about sexual ethics as such, what sexuality means or is for, who it is right or wrong to have sex with (beyond legal stuff etc) or what marriage is meant to be about, or any of these kinds of topics

Goosefoot, I appreciate what you're saying about schools moralising about sex and relationships, and accept that it's inevitable that, if schools are teaching about sex, some lifestyles/beliefs will be given more airtime (sometimes deliberately and sometimes unconsciously, perhaps because people sometimes forget that not everyone is like their circle or because there's insufficient time to be inclusive of all of them).

And I agree that schools shouldn't be taking a moral stance on legal activities. I wouldn't expect any schools except faith schools to be teaching that sex should only take place within a marriage, for example.

But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water on women's rights.

I think it's absolutely imperative that schools take responsibility for teaching pupils some important aspects of sexual ethics, such as consent and the differences between respectful and abusive behaviour in relationships. For many young people, school will be the only place they can pick up these messages, and I think it's absolutely vital that they're discussed. Similar to vaccinations typically being done in school to reach as many children as possible.

Even outside of sexual ethics, homosexuality should be coming up in the context of sexual health (contraception, etc) too. It's important for schools to acknowledge that many people aren't having heterosexual sex and that this isn't the only possible or acceptable option.

There are several issues with not acknowledging homosexual sex when teaching sex education, including the fact that many pupils might not appreciate that safe sex is still an important consideration between two partners of the same sex (I know I didn't!). Depending on their background, a heteronormative approach to sexual education might also trigger feelings of shame and isolation about a pupil's own sexuality, since in that context, it appears to diverge so far from the expected norm that it's not even been mentioned as a possibility.

IMO, challenging gender ideology in schools and elsewhere is essential. But scrapping sex education altogether in schools isn't the way to achieve this and will also have unintended but devastating consequences for a great many young people, and especially women and girls.

I don't think the religious/moralistic stance is relevant when considering gender ideology anyway, because no-one who believes in gender ideology regards it as a moral/philosophical belief (yet!). It's not an opinion to them, it's a fact.

People know they're not allowed to take religious/philosophical stances in certain circumstances. But having that kind of rule for schools wouldn't prevent them from teaching gender ideology as a fact, because they believe it is a fact and not a matter of belief. On gender, they're not saying 'you should believe this' because they believe it's the most morally-worthy position to take, they're saying 'you should believe this' because they believe (or want to be seen to believe) that it's an indisputable fact.

Yes, I am saying I think it's fine to talk about things like consent and abuse, and also things like how STIs work or contraception, in different kinds of relationships. They should also insist that people in the school respect each other whether or not they agree with their views etc.

And I think you are right that supporters of gender ideology believe they are teaching something "true".

However, I think a lot of this has been on the backs of schools going outside of their proper remit on ethics and especially sexuality issues. The Muslim families protesting the teaching around sexuality are a good example, they clearly felt that what the school was saying was opposed to their families' philosophies around sexuality. A lot of people have felt that talking about gender was just a cover for their real agenda around homosexuality and so that should be ignored, but why is that an argument? This is a state funded and run school, it's not supposed to belong to a particular philosophical outlook, even something like humanism. Families of all kinds should feel comfortable there.

When the state starts to overstep like that, you are going to see all kinds of problems. Ghettoisation being one as groups begin to opt out and organise their kids education in a different way. Another being that you don't have much call to complain when they teach something you don't like.

I wouldn't expect any schools except faith schools to be teaching that sex should only take place within a marriage, for example.
They should definitely teach that some people hold this view if they are also teaching about other views regarding sex.

Yes, otherwise Catholics are being discriminated against on the basis of religion which is prohibited.

The introduction of the totally nebulous, ill-defined 'British Values' was a huge problem in that respect. The fact that, actually, some values are mutually exclusive didn't really enter into the heads of those dictating that it must be taught. So, yes, acceptance of homosexuality is a British value. Of course it is. And, yes, acceptance of different religious beliefs is a British value. Of course it is. But hang on... A fair number of people do not accept homosexuality as a direct result of their religious beliefs. How do you deal with that? You have to put one set of beliefs above the other. You have to make a moral judgement. Tricky tricky. As an atheist I know where my moral compass lies, but do I really have any right to tell someone following their centuries-old religion that they are just wrong, get over it? There's loads of stuff about religion I think is wrong. But I don't get to go round shouting "this is all bollocks" at Eid or Christmas.

Moral relativism is always going to cause problems.

As a former teacher, I would really, really hate to participate in that kind of activity. It seems so intrusive and forced and fodder for piss-taking.

Yes. This is the difficulty I think with the goal of a truly secular education. Secularism isn't about anti-religion, it's about the state not choosing one philosophy over another so people have freedom of thought and conscience. So a secular school has to find a sort of lowest common set of beliefs to teach from and not go beyond that to where you begin to see really different views from different parts of society.

It's been interesting to see how the left and right have tried to deal with this - the left seem mostly to ignore it and pretend there is no issue when they say it's racist to consider social cohesion and belief systems. The right has been more up-front in the discussion despite differences between conservative atheists and conservative religious groups. Though I don't know that they have come up with any practical conclusions.

A fair number of people do not accept homosexuality as a direct result of their religious beliefs. How do you deal with that? You have to put one set of beliefs above the other. You have to make a moral judgement. Tricky tricky.

it's about the state not choosing one philosophy over another so people have freedom of thought and conscience

Well, you two have made your views on homosexuality crystal clear, so that's helpful.

Let me know when you catch up to the 21st century and perhaps we can pick up this discussion then.

@LonginesPrime

A fair number of people do not accept homosexuality as a direct result of their religious beliefs. How do you deal with that? You have to put one set of beliefs above the other. You have to make a moral judgement. Tricky tricky.

it's about the state not choosing one philosophy over another so people have freedom of thought and conscience

Well, you two have made your views on homosexuality crystal clear, so that's helpful.

Let me know when you catch up to the 21st century and perhaps we can pick up this discussion then.

What are you on about LonginesPrime?