Why are any schools allowing this in their libraries?

[tabbycatstripy]

There was a mini scandal over a Catholic school in Southwark last month, with complaints to the Archbishop from a Tory MP (Eliot Colburn), after an invitation to a writer to come and promote his books and talk to the kids was withdrawn because his books were judged by the diocese to be ‘outside what is permissible in a Catholic school’. Complaints were made to Ofsted, the governors were dismissed by the diocese, and apparently the HT, who wanted the visit to go ahead, was at odds with the church.

So far so normal.

Twitter then went crazy in support of this writer, saying the books were lovely, fun, inclusive, with hardly any sexual content, and it was all so homophobic.

Anyway, I just saw an extract from the book:

twitter.com/dolphinmaria/status/1503490597931339785?s=21&t=0ZURhjXM1Ln6esoraw6Ilw

Why does a Tory MP (or any adult) think this content is suitable for adolescents?

Why is any librarian placing books in KS3 collections that talk this explicitly about (and trivialise) anal sex, oral sex, and porn?

‘ If 11 year olds are subjected to that, then deal with the problem in more constructive ways.’

Exactly. You can teach the principle that language that denigrates someone for their sexuality is wrong without repeating it or making it sound so trivial.

You might expect to hear this sort of language on a night bus in Soho. I don’t expect teachers to be handing it to my Y8 kid.

Eightiesfan

I am 100% in favour of educating children about the dangers of prejudice. My point is that that is very simple to do without exposing them to obscenity, and it’s not an excuse to do so.

@tabbycatstripy

“If an 11 year old is gay (or just accused of it by schoolmates) then they will have heard language like that. This book allows them to see themselves in a book, and (I assume) gives them a positive uplifting ending.”

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Some children are abused, so let’s present them abuse in a ‘fun, inclusive way’ and say it’s helpful.

If a child is targeted with racist slurs, do we include hardcore right-wing racism in KS3 libraries? No we don’t. We tackle it in lessons or in private, and we involve adults to stop it happening because they shouldn’t be hearing it.

We don’t add more.

Actually I think books which talk about what it's like to be a victim of racism do have a place in school libraries. Because if you are a victim of any kind of bullying it is often reassuring to know it's not just you, to feel seen. And again, useful for the kids who are not targeted to be able to put themselves in the shoes of the victims, and hopefully make them think twice about joining in with the bullying.

There is a lot of power in fiction. In its ability to let you see the world through another's eyes, in a way that lectures from adults doesn't.

I’ve read the book and its not aimed at 11 year olds. I’d say 14+. It condemns homophobic bullying and is a really good read and has a lot of themes young people should read about. It ends with a really healthy and loving gay relationship and I think portrays a really healthy message. A book having bad language and bullying to condem that language and homophobic bullying is acceptable. At 14+ the age group will be aware of all this stuff I promise you and better they get it from a book that explains these themes well than just their peers. Maybe read the book instead of taking a small part out of context?

I'm not a Catholic and my own children are adults now, thank goodness. I think this kind of language is totally inappropriate in a school library.
It's a weak excuse to say that children / teenagers hear and use this kind of language amongst themselves. Some might, I really don't know. But it shouldn't be encouraged in school, no matter what the denomination.
This whole 'woke' thing goes too far.

‘Actually I think books which talk about what it's like to be a victim of racism do have a place in school libraries.’

So do I. 100%. But we adapt things for children. We don’t throw it all at them at once.

I have heard some DISGUSTING things said to children about the colour of their skin. I have also seen sensitive, challenging material offered to children that takes a graduated approach to teaching them what is/isn’t an issue in terms of language.

We can all imagine what some children are exposed to. We don’t need to expose them all to that language to make the point that racism is wrong.

Also I read Of Mice and Men in my English class when I was 13. Contains lots of hard themes and racism but its an important book and good for young people to discuss

‘At 14+ the age group will be aware of all this stuff I promise you and better they get it from a book that explains these themes well than just their peers. Maybe read the book instead of taking a small part out of context?’

At 14 some children use or are aware of this language and many do not and are not.

It’s fallacious to think all kids talk like this. My cousin is 14. This language would shock and horrify her. I’ve taught many, many 14 year olds. I’ve heard them relate what someone else has said (much tamer than this) with genuine shock.

It is complete nonsense that this is standard language in schools. It’s hyper-sexualised, and not what teachers should be passing out as the norm.

The rest of the book might be brilliant. This passage is unsuitable.

‘Also I read Of Mice and Men in my English class when I was 13. Contains lots of hard themes and racism but its an important book and good for young people to discuss’

Good book. Deals with difficult themes. Uses the occasional shocking phrase and is situated on the curriculum so that language can be critiqued in a safe environment.

Not comparable to a book sitting in a kids’ library with a whole passage of highly sexualised content, that kids can read without guidance or critique.

@tabbycatstripy

‘At 14+ the age group will be aware of all this stuff I promise you and better they get it from a book that explains these themes well than just their peers. Maybe read the book instead of taking a small part out of context?’

At 14 some children use or are aware of this language and many do not and are not.

It’s fallacious to think all kids talk like this. My cousin is 14. This language would shock and horrify her. I’ve taught many, many 14 year olds. I’ve heard them relate what someone else has said (much tamer than this) with genuine shock.

It is complete nonsense that this is standard language in schools. It’s hyper-sexualised, and not what teachers should be passing out as the norm.

The rest of the book might be brilliant. This passage is unsuitable.

14 Year olds should have had sex education in which case they should know about anal sex, blow jobs, and coming. The rest is homophobic language which should be taught in the context of it being wrong and bullying

‘14 Year olds should have had sex education in which case they should know about anal sex, blow jobs, and coming.’

How many sex education courses have you delivered?

I’ve delivered those courses. You talk about these acts. Informal language like ‘coming’ would be used with great care, if at all. The presentation would be for the purposes of helping young people understand the mechanics and the risk factors involved in sex. It would not be pornographic.

@tabbycatstripy

Eightiesfan

I am 100% in favour of educating children about the dangers of prejudice. My point is that that is very simple to do without exposing them to obscenity, and it’s not an excuse to do so.

I do sympathise to some degree, but have you actually read some of the books children in KS3 are reading? Believe him, it was an eye-opener. Jacqueline Wilson who is an author that a lot of mums encourage their KS2/3 children to read. The covers look super age appropriate, but the content contains rape, incest, alcoholism, DV and more. Robert Muchamore is the same. Many books include a lot of bad language the list goes on and on. As parents we need to ask ourselves who are we trying to protect them from.

However, Just to add that I would not judge a book on a paragraph that has clearly been selected to fit in with the outraged narrative.

(And obviously it’s taught alongside relationship education. It’s not “how to have sex and talk like a porn star”.)

You have taken an extract of his work out of context and tried to relate it to his visit being banned - also out of context.

Do you know the purpose if his visit?
Do you know what the content of his talk was?

The answer to both of these are no. So stop trying to raise an issue about something you are not well informed of.

Your opening post talks about the governors being disbanded. Actually what happened is that 2 governors resigned (the foundation governors), the Diocese tried to 'sack' the remaining governors and put in an IEB. The LA have informed them they are acting unlawfully and not allowed to do that. The governors have been reinstated.

Eightiesfan

Yes. It’s a problem.

You can present (for example) alcoholism with care. You wouldn’t give an 11 year old a book that presented the hard realities of liver failure or oesophageal cancer. You might mention some of those things as a way of introducing a difficult theme.

‘ Do you know the purpose if his visit?
Do you know what the content of his talk was?

The answer to both of these are no. So stop trying to raise an issue about something you are not well informed of.’

That’s irrelevant to my point. This content (IMO) isn’t suitable for kids and I’m allowed to raise the issue.

You think 14 year olds don’t know the word cumming?! People act reserved in front of teachers and teaching doesn’t give you much idea of the language used when you’re not around. I’m 19 so wasn’t too long ago I was in school at that age. Maybe less of the girls but most people knew all this language from unhealthy sources. Promise you 90% know this languafe and if they don’t this book teaches it in a good context. And of course your cousin doesn’t say this language in front of you 😂. God you’re naive. This passage says the stuff in a good context. I understand but I think you’re kidding yourself

To be clear about where I think the line is, I wouldn’t have an issue with a book for 13-14 year olds that used the term “blow job” in passing.

I would have an issue with a book that described anal sex in any detail, or talked about “sucking cock” on the same page as making a joke about a banana going up a child’s bottom.

@tabbycatstripy

‘14 Year olds should have had sex education in which case they should know about anal sex, blow jobs, and coming.’

How many sex education courses have you delivered?

I’ve delivered those courses. You talk about these acts. Informal language like ‘coming’ would be used with great care, if at all. The presentation would be for the purposes of helping young people understand the mechanics and the risk factors involved in sex. It would not be pornographic.

Hmmm, so the passage would be rendered acceptable to you if the boys referred to "ejaculation", "fellating penises" and bananas "fully inserted into rectums"?

‘ Maybe less of the girls but most people knew all this language from unhealthy sources. Promise you 90% know this languafe and if they don’t this book teaches it in a good context. And of course your cousin doesn’t say this language in front of you 😂.’

My cousin is autistic. She doesn’t think like you are implying she thinks. And girls matter. If it’s less common for girls to use language like this, it’s less common, and it should be taken into account.

Professionals in education have a responsibility to safeguard children before other things. They don’t need to say to themselves, “Well, some kids use this language so we’ll expose all of them to it.”

You sound irresponsible and very young.

‘Hmmm, so the passage would be rendered acceptable to you if the boys referred to "ejaculation", "fellating penises" and bananas "fully inserted into rectums"?’

No. The tone and content of the passage is overly sexualised in relation to the needs of the target children. A more oblique joke might be fine. It would depend on what it said.

@tabbycatstripy

‘ Maybe less of the girls but most people knew all this language from unhealthy sources. Promise you 90% know this languafe and if they don’t this book teaches it in a good context. And of course your cousin doesn’t say this language in front of you 😂.’

My cousin is autistic. She doesn’t think like you are implying she thinks. And girls matter. If it’s less common for girls to use language like this, it’s less common, and it should be taken into account.

Professionals in education have a responsibility to safeguard children before other things. They don’t need to say to themselves, “Well, some kids use this language so we’ll expose all of them to it.”

You sound irresponsible and very young.

It’s some kids use this language so it’s better we teach them it in a safe book that shows healthy relationships and how to better use language before they hear it out of context on the playground

You sound irresponsible and very old…

‘ It’s some kids use this language so it’s better we teach them it in a safe book that shows healthy relationships and how to better use language before they hear it out of context on the playground

You sound irresponsible and very old…’

Ha! Touché.

But no. This isn’t a ‘safe book’ and we don’t need to teach language. Why do teenagers need to learn sexually explicit language because we want to teach them that homophobia is wrong? Why is “sucking cock” necessary language in that discussion? Why does it need to be presented in that way?

It doesn’t. And yes, being old, I’m very confident in saying that this is poor safeguarding and doesn’t centre the needs of the children.

Coming at this as a Children's (public libraries) and School Librarian.

Libraries will carry a vast array of titles that lots of parents or teachers or other children will disapprove of or think are inappropriate. The job of libraries is to enable all people to access all kinds if material and to have a choice or what they want to read. To not do this would be censorship.

The only material we would not hold is something that would be illegal or could cause harm. For example, it's not illegal to make bombs, but providing material on how to make them is probably not in the public interest. Being gay is not illegal, the act of gay sex is not illegal, talking about how some people are perceived and treated in schools is not illegal. The language may not suite everyone, but nothing will ever suite anyone.

Most school libraries will have a junior and senior section and an active school librarian (as happens to be the case here) will ensure that only the right age groups will be borrowing that material.

The example that comes to mind is that of Harry Potter. At the time there was uproar that this was being carried in public libraries due to the witchcraft. If we had taken out everything that contained witchcraft (e.g. The Worst Witch, Room on the Broom, The Witches) we would have to look at everything else that might possibly offend someone in some way. Meaning that the library would have ceased to exist.

So which schools have this in their libraries? Can you provide a list as that is your issue.....
Can you name even 1 school?