Updated relationships, sex and health curriculum guidance

[umbel]

Updated government guidance, released today!!!

@MichelleofzeResistance

So you've moved from 'I agree with the guidelines' to 'yippee, guidance on safeguarding children isn't compulsory'?

Very glad you're happy.

I didn't say yippee. I just pointed it out because I hadn't realised before and I assumed people discussing this would be interested in having the correct information.

No, they can just ignore them, as long as they follow what are the statutory guidelines here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education

No they can't because they set up a legitimate expectation. They also reference a range of laws that schools have to abide by well beyond the statutory guidelines you have linked.

@FloralBunting

Michelle, it's all a bit 'shifting constellation' really. It's not changed anything, it's an open door to the very right wing, it's going to ban socialists and feminists from schools, it's very,very bad guidance, Amnesty hates it (and women, obvs), schools can ignore it anyway, whatevs, oo, another squirrel!

Is nuanced thought really so difficult to understand. I don't oppose the guidance on stereotypes and don't think they will change much however I do oppose the clauses about anti-capitalist organisations and so because of that then I am glad they aren't mandatory. It doesn't strike me as a very complex position to hold.

jj, no, not complex at all. Really very obvious, actually. I'm so glad you shared your thoughts here. We're all richer for it.

I do oppose the clauses about anti-capitalist organisations and so because of that then I am glad they aren't mandatory

You see this is where you have missed the fact that these guidelines are explaining how schools must comply with the law - which is mandatory.

@Aesopfable

I do oppose the clauses about anti-capitalist organisations and so because of that then I am glad they aren't mandatory

You see this is where you have missed the fact that these guidelines are explaining how schools must comply with the law - which is mandatory.

No they arent, the statotory guidance I just posted is mandatory, the additional guidelines should probably be seen more as recommendations.

Really good of you to break it down for us jj, since it's so nuanced and difficult to understand. You've been very generous with your time.

Or more likely a cheap stunt from a beleaguered government desperate for a few positive headlines from the gender critical press and people worried about cancel culture. You can't trust Tories.

Isn't this where the political balance part comes from? I may be wrong, of course

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/407#commentary-key-6f7ad3e2cc8ee9e0ff2977c70c6c2e41

Duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues.
(1)
The [F1local authority], governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are—
(a)
in attendance at a maintained school, or
(b)
taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school,
they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.
(2)
In this section “maintained school” includes [F2a community or foundation special school] established in a hospital

Correct beargrass
It's been updated in a later education act and the Prevent legislation also covers issues about 'extremist' organisations and balance. I was just commenting on another thread that some aspects of this SRE guidance have been statutory for many years,

No they arent, the statotory guidance I just posted is mandatory, the additional guidelines should probably be seen more as recommendations.

Feeling like a stuck record here:
The guidelines in part tell schools what they are required BY LAW to do and therefore those bits are mandatory.
The guidelines set up a legitimate expectation

Wow that's a lot of messages, I haven't read them all but it sure looks like a change for the better and move away from affirmation model- no matter how upset that might some people make! Frankly it's funny to read some of the reactions here .

I wonder what case law there is on that. I saw at least one right wing group claiming on twitter the new guidelines means school can't teach anti-racism without presenting the opposing presumably pro-racist argument.

*sorry meant to say 'make some people', English is my second language

@Aesopfable

No they arent, the statotory guidance I just posted is mandatory, the additional guidelines should probably be seen more as recommendations.

Feeling like a stuck record here:
The guidelines in part tell schools what they are required BY LAW to do and therefore those bits are mandatory.
The guidelines set up a legitimate expectation

Yes, in the updated guidelines when they refer to the actual statutory guidance then they point out that bit is the law. However much of it, including the contentious parts discussed on this thread are not in the original guidelines and so are not law. Schools can choose to ignore them, presuming schoolsweek are right of course, but they appeared to have confirmation from the DfE.

Wow. It’s like the Cold War never happened.

The brocialists on my Facebook feed have just started squawking about the audacity of the fascist Tory pigdogs making it illegal to teach kids that alternatives to capitalism exist. Having been following this thread since the outset I've been well-placed to do a bit of awareness-raising about some of the stuff that's been making its way into teaching resources while reassuring them that the guidelines do no such thing. It's all been remarkably civilised (and I got to use the word hyperbolic, which I do so enjoy.)

Thanks jj for giving us the heads-up that the wokebros were going to froth without reading the guidelines or considering their context. Always good to be prepared.

I've posted a summary of this before but for the few posters having problems in believing that schools have been teaching controversial issues in a balanced way for years, here's a link to the teaching controversial issues by the Citizenship subject expert advisory group in 2015.
A quick glance should reassure those panicking that schools are well equipped to teach all manner of complex issues looking at all sides of an argument. But just as the Prevent duty requires schools to ensure that children in schools are are not targeted by extremist groups, so the SRE guidance focuses on children receiving factual, age appropriate SRE rather than ideologically motivated inputs from special interest groups.
www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk/sites/teachingcitizenship.org.uk/files/downloads/FULL%20Prevent%20and%20controversial%20issues%20guidance.pdf

Tyro, it's so public service-minded, don't you think? I'm thoroughly edified.

@persistentwoman

Correct beargrass It's been updated in a later education act and the Prevent legislation also covers issues about 'extremist' organisations and balance. I was just commenting on another thread that some aspects of this SRE guidance have been statutory for many years,

They go somewhat further than the Prevent Stratgey which is not without problems. For example the police hurriedly withdrew Extinction Rebellion from Prevent guidelines they sent to schools, but XR would be seen as extremist, as would any group which supports them, under the guidelines published over the weekend.

Schools who fail to follow any non statutory aspects of guidance have to be able to demonstrate that what they are doing is better than the SRE guidance.
So a secondary school who fails to address LGBT issues in an age appropriate way would be criticised as they are not preparing children for the world. That's been one of the criteria for Ofsted / the DfE closing down some of the non registered schools in certain communities who are teaching and modelling to children children sexist, discriminatory / homophobic beliefs.
That's why these guidelines are so important.

@TyroBurningDownTheCloset

The brocialists on my Facebook feed have just started squawking about the audacity of the fascist Tory pigdogs making it illegal to teach kids that alternatives to capitalism exist. Having been following this thread since the outset I've been well-placed to do a bit of awareness-raising about some of the stuff that's been making its way into teaching resources while reassuring them that the guidelines do no such thing. It's all been remarkably civilised (and I got to use the word hyperbolic, which I do so enjoy.)

Thanks jj for giving us the heads-up that the wokebros were going to froth without reading the guidelines or considering their context. Always good to be prepared.

Both sides were going to froth and both sides did. I suspect that was the intention and we'll see a lot more of it, this is culture war stuff used as a distraction from the Covid farce.

jj1968
My comments are not about the Prevent strategy - they were about teaching controversial issues in schools as demonstrated in the linked guidance..

Ta @persistentwoman.

I've no problem with my DC/DGC being taught about Extinction Rebellion. I wouldn't want them being taught by Extinction Rebellion however, or by a teacher who had been trained by Extinction Rebellion to promote a certain viewpoint.

No problem at all though with them being taught all the viewpoints around Extinction Rebellion at an appropriate age, with resources that have been checked and approved by teachers, not special interest advocates.