UKC

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/nov/11/primary-school-headteacher...

In reply to Timmd:

They need to call the police for a rowdy P&T meeting....honestly!

In reply to Morgan Woods:

People feel to need to be abusive and threatening in a P&T meeting... Honestly!

In reply to Morgan Woods:

https://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/safeatschool/

These people seem to be behind some of the alarm about same sex marriage and relationships being taught about.

Anybody might think it was immoral?

In reply to Timmd:

Sounds like a bit of an own goal by the headmaster to start with and now (to continue the analogy) he's going to be used as political football by the vested interests on both sides. He says there was no problem with homophobic bullying in the school so why on earth, with two thirds of his pupils coming from ethnic groups which historically have pretty conservative views on homosexuality, did he feel the need to go looking for this fight? Many parents would feel primary school kids are too young for this and others would oppose the message on ideological/moral/religious grounds so were never going to be ripe for persuasion. It was a fight he did not need to have and a subject which could be safely left to secondary school when at least of the 'too-young-to-understand' /sexualisation of children argument would have resolved itself.
Now he's trying to play it down but the councillor and the 'union' rep have a cause celebre they can talk up with lurid quotes and he's stuck in the middle.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


You do have the benefit of hindsight. I dare say he didn't expect what happened to occur. It seems he did it because he thought it was the decent thing to do, in wanting to make society a bit better, rather than looking for a fight.

In reply to Timmd:


I agree. Badly phrased on my part. I was going say it may have been naivety but could not be bothered to look up how to spell it

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

he did however say that it was something that happened a lot in the surrounding community. Given that surely a better understanding and values are best instilled when their minds are yet to be corrupted by the values of their elders in the community?

In reply to Timmd:

About 25 years ago, my 8 year old daughter came home from school one day, asking us loads of questions about black people.

"Are black people different from me?"
"Am I white?" (Until that day she had never considered what colour she was).
"Is Jamie (her best friend) white or black?" (he was 'black')

And all this because the school suddenly started teaching about racial equality.
I thought the school was in the wrong to do these lessons, because they had actually put the idea in her head that there was a difference between black and white people. Kids at that age don't see a difference until its pointed out to them.

In reply to Fredt:





Would you rather the school just waited till the kids parents who are likely to be 'conservative' when it comes to homosexuals point out the difference and tell them it's wrong, perpetuating that belief?

In reply to Fredt:


She's a year younger than I am, it's true that children don't notice race as something significant, but I don't agree the school was in the wrong, It could have been used as a way of explaining how we might be different on the outside, but we're all equal (and the same in a being human sense) underneath.

In reply to Fredt:

but a year or two later she'd become aware of the difference, and likely the way the kids with parents who held those prejudices had started to copy them. It's best the questions are raised early and in the correct manner than after the damage is done.

In reply to Fredt:


This is very true. But it is a difference that will manifest itself at some point in their life and I would rather see it delt with in an open, honest and unprejudice manner at school. Many kids are conditioned by their parents from pink for girls and football allegance to racial and homophobia. If I say nothing and school says nothing, chances are our kids first encounter of the difference is going to be very negative.

In reply to Ashley:


Education is a partnership between parents and school and wherever possible they should work in harmony in the interests of the kids. Sometimes that does mean skirting round areas of pointless conflict. When my kids were little they were sometimes told things I knew to be factually wrong but we let it go knowing we or another teacher could correct it later, assuming the kids even remembered. It seemed better than to undermine a 6-year-old's faith in the all-knowing figure of Miss.
Here the school has clearly damaged, if not fractured, relationships with a very substantial and now vociferous proportion of parents to solve a problem which the school itself says did not exist. The kids are now caught between a school teaching one thing and their parents telling them the opposite. Those parents are also much less likely to be supportive of the school and staff generally, It's hardly a recipe for partnership, harmony or a happy school and overall will probably end up harming both school and pupils before it is sorted out, especially now outsiders on both sides are wading in.
So in answer to your question, in the interests of the wider well-being of the school and the kids and given the lack of any current problem with homophobic bullying, yes I'd have skipped it and left it to a secondary school to deal with when the kids would in any event be better equipped to discuss it.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

At what point does the parent's intransigence, and their willingness to engage in disruptive behaviour, dictate what the school should or should not teach?

In reply to wintertree:


Some fine loaded words in there. You might as well ask up what point do the parents have to allow their children's heads to be filled with what they consider to 'immoral' teachings they profoundly disagree with? Or whether parents' intransigence should be allowed to dictate the menu for school dinners.
Heads have to make judgements taking account of all kinds of factors, including the backgrounds of their pupils and parents. Otherwise we could have schools run by computer programmes.
In this head's shoes I'd have asked myself
Q. Is this going to cause problems? A. Very likely.
Q. But aren't some fights worth having anyway? A. Yes
Q Is this a fight worth having? A. No. This is not a problem we have in this school
Q Is it a fight worth having, given the effect it is likely to have on the school? A, No.
Q Would such a fight be in the wider interests of the kids education? No
Q So that's a No then? A. Yes

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Pretty mild I suspect compared to those of the parents that escalated the situation.

Those exact same arguments you give could be used to argue against teaching any other controversial concept however. Slippery slope.

I'm afraid I agree with other posters, it may not be a problem for these children, now, but the response of their parents clearly and unequivocally demonstrates the formative influences they will be exposed to if the school do nothing. That's where the next generation of bigotry and homophobic bullying will come from.


Well, if some of those children are going to go on to suffer homophobic bullying throughout their secondary education, from their peers who have been left to inherit the divisive views of their elders, it is very much in their best interests that they and their peers are exposed to a positive influence.

In reply to Ashley:

They'll get those influences anyway. I think the idea that a school can override what a parent teaches their children is wrong - parents have far more formative effects on their children than a teacher, and if parents wants to tell their child that their teacher is wrong, then the result is that the child won't listen to the teacher.

On that basis, it's far more prudent to build up a partnership than to take on a fight like this.

In reply to wintertree:


It depends on whether it's a factual issue like maths/science/spelling or a political/social one. If the school wants to teach a political viewpoint parents have a right to make their views heard. Teachers get too used to dealing with kids and try and deal with parents as if they were giving a lesson rather than having a discussion in which the other person could be right. In the UK today this will likely be to further a politically correct agenda but in other countries or at other times teachers could be taking the same approach to push completely the opposite viewpoint.

In this particular case the Guardian article says the school's scheme intentionally dealt with the subject in reading lessons rather than Sex and Relationship Education because parents had the right to remove their children from Sex and Relationship Education i.e. the school was trying to make an end-run around an opt-out the parents were given by the law in order to avoid this kind of contention.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It is not a political viewpoint, it is a legal one.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
What agenda is it a part of?

Since there's gay and lesbian and trans-gender posters on here, and bi no doubt too, and in wider society, I'd probably call it 'reflecting reality', rather than being a part of a politically correct agenda.

Agenda seems like a potentially loaded term, I think. What do you mean by politically correct (in relation to this)?

In reply to wintertree:


Yet the results so far do not bear out your concern. The head says there's no problem with homophobic bullying in the school. So despite the home and cultural influences and whatever (if anything) the parents may or may not be saying to the children it still seems there has been no homophobia demonstrated so far as the school is aware, So it still seems to me that the head has managed to stir up a problem where there was none and that seems to be to be a bit daft.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Until the parents got involved.

In reply to Timmd:

It is amazing that story about two penguins in a zoo and raise concerns about the sexualisation of children. It's prudish conservatism gone mad I tell you!

In reply to The New NickB:
I'm wondering how if I told a child from a potentially more conservative background about the gay couple who run my local hardware store I'd be following a politically correct agenda.

In reply to The New NickB:

S

The Guardian article says:
'A DfE spokesperson said: ....... However, “Primary schools are not required to teach about relationships. If they do, it must be age-appropriate and done in consultation with parents’ wishes.” '

So the law is they don't have to teach it at all and if they do they should consult with parents.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I never said it was a problem in the school. My concern was quite clearly something else. If you can't extract that from my post, explaining it again won't help.


I can see the argument that head created trouble where there was none. I can also see the argument that presenting a different world view to children in a positive light could affect the way they develop in the future, with both direct and indirect benefits. Certainly the religious side are allowed and encouraged to get their hooks into the kids at an even younger age, why should it be more restricted for promoting the democractically chosen views of what society considers normal?

Oh the other hand, did he create trouble, or just pull it forwards from a future year when the children, now older, would be taught that there exist views their parents disagree with?

It is a shame individual heads are left to decide on s course of action, or to shoulder the blame, in the absence of a clear policy from the DfE.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


When did I say that?

In reply to The New NickB:


You said it wasn't a political view it was a legal one, implying that the law was on the side of the school.

Personally, I'm a card carrying atheist and I'm in favour of gay marriage. The problem I have with this school is that the whole gay marriage/gay adoption thing is still very much a political issue. There is a majority in favour but it is by no means overwhelming and it is only recently the law was changed. Many countries are on the other side of the debate - even Northern Ireland bans gay marriage.

I think it is sneaky for schools to teach a particular political view on gay adoption/marriage in a reading lesson in order to get round the wishes of parents who disagree and would have the right to remove their kids from a Sex and Relationships lesson.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You assumed what I implied. You were wrong.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Northern Ireland is rather more religious than here.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


The story of Goldilocks and the three bears involves a relationship, implicitly if not overtly sexual, 'mummy bear' ( interesting aside, the story was originally 3 male bears!) but Goldilocks is a school staple and not taught as part of SRE (sex and relationships).

So why should stories about non-traditional families be relegated to SRE lessons?

In reply to winhill:


The point of having the story about the two male penguins being given an egg is so the teacher can make points about gay marriage and gay adoption. The lesson is about gay marriage and gay adoption, not penguins and eggs or reading. It is a sex and relationships lesson teaching a particular political view that the kids parents may well disagree with.

You can teach pretty much any political view with a allegorical story: how would you feel about teachers intentionally using stories with a religious allegory and calling them reading lessons rather than RE.

In reply to Timmd:



SPUC have had Muslim Division for a few (8?) years now.

In a thoroughly unholy alliance they teamed up with a mob ( actually little more than a one man band) called SRE Islamic in 2011 to try to influence a gubmint consultation on SRE, and to attack a school in Tower Hamlets.

SRE Islamic is run by a former Hizb ut-Tahrir (the global caliphate nutters) member called Yusuf Patel, who also runs the Association of Muslim Governors, who used to have talks by Tahir Alam, the governor at the centre of the Trojan Horse allegations. SRE Islamic have run their own anti gay marriage events and events in Birmingham as well.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/s960x960/886...

SRE Islamic lack the resources to be very involved but the much larger SPUC find it easy to attack individual schools. A bit like the Trojan Horse saga, SRE Islamic advocate infiltrating governing bodies to achieve a strict islamic approach to SRE and PHSE, separation of the sexes, no sex before marriage, no gayness etc.

Did you see the news about the awfully nice chap from Derby who blew himself up in Iraq? Previously imprisoned for distributing Death to the Gays leaflets in Derby, he is, according to some, the sort of cove who should be influencing our foreign policy, although possibly not domestic policies?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29974766

In reply to winhill:

That's very interesting about the alliances, and kind of alarming too. I did hear about the guy from Derby and his views on gay people.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Huh?

Are you saying no children's book should have any stories which have anything to do with families or straight couples and adoption?

If you 'not' saying that, then what is political/the problem with the two gay penguins and the egg?

Studies have found that children adopted by same sex couples grow up to be as well adjusted as those adopted by straight couples. It might be something different to the conventional norm, but it's not something people should be concerned about, it's just another aspect of modern society.

Please explain your reasons for using the word political.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Where did the penguin story come from? You were talking about agendas.

Is there a penguin in the CHiPS stuff?

The author of the CHiPS stuff, Andrew Moffat, was forced to resign after a bunch of (mainly) muslim parents complained that they didn't want their kids taught by a gay teacher (he was Assistant Head at a Birmingham primary).

Is it OK for a teacher to say to the children that they went on holiday with their wife but not for a gay teacher to say they've been on holiday with their boyfriend?

Because that is political and can only be referred to in SRE lessons?

In reply to winhill:



Exactly.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I don't usually swear, but it's not political, it's f*ckwhitical, to have a problem with anything that's same sex couples or parents related being mentioned in schools.

In reply to Timmd:


It is pretty clear from the Guardian article that it is a 'reading' lesson designed to teach primary school kids a view of gay marriage and gay adoption that a fair number of parents wouldn't subscribe to.

---
Afterwards, Dutton asks questions: “Why did the zookeeper think Roy and Silo were in love? Did he think they’re both boys, they can’t be in love?”

“No,” the children chorus.

“It’s usually a girl penguin and a boy penguin, but this time it was two boys – is that ok?”

“Yes!” comes the reply.

Later the children, who’ve already learned not just about same-sex families but also single-parent and adoptive ones, settle down to draw a family of their choosing. Amarah draws two mummies and a baby, while her friend Maysa goes for two daddies.

---

I can't understand why you don't accept that gay marriage and gay adoption are contentious political issues: maybe they shouldn't be but they pretty obviously are because religious people get to vote too.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:









I'm not sure if you mean can or can't in the sentence above, but something being a contentious political issue, doesn't mean that it follows that something which is contentious politically, was talked about *for political motives*. This last point is the cause of our misunderstanding, I think.

The motive could be to simply reflect reality, which is that it's perfectly harmless, and not immoral (because it doesn't harm anybody), so that prejudice has less of a chance to develop.

In reply to Timmd:


I think another 'reality' you have to recognise, even if you don't approve of it or even understand it, is that some, perhaps many, of these parents would not accept your definition of 'immoral' and are unhappy at this being done in a reading lesson which their kids must attend rather than SRE from which they can be withdrawn. Since there is a process for parents to opt out of SRE it seems that the powers-that-be accept that principle too. Given that opt out, it seems at best disingenuous to cover what is still for many people a controversial, albeit legal, relationship under 'reading'. At worst it could be interpreted as trying to smuggle something which might better be covered in optional SRE into a mandatory non-SRE class.

In reply to Timmd:


That is your view of reality and the teacher's view of reality. I may agree with you but a large number of people don't and I bet in some parts of Birmingham the majority of parents won't. The school is setting out to teach a world view on a social issue which is contrary to that held by the children's parents.

I actually don't have a problem with that. Schools should go ahead and teach evolution in science lessons or gay equality in SRE lessons to kids that are old enough to form their own view no matter how much parents get angry. However, doing it in reading lessons to get round parent's rights to be consulted and opt kids out from SRE lessons is sneaky.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


It's an interesting question, and not actually that obvious to me. The existence of gay relationships is not a political issue, it's a fact of reality. And the certainty of a proportion of kids in any school being/imminently becoming gay is not a political issue but a fact of reality, one that the school has a duty to consider. Exactly what the law should say about how they might be married and under what circs they can bring up kids are indeed political and contentious - and the teaching doesn't seem to address those issues.

Just as school stories and resources self-consciously try to show different ethnic groups' existence and portray men and women as equal, the existence of gay people is starting to get similar treatment it appears. We don't pander to racists by keeping school resources in white BNP-voting communities "black free" in case of offence - is there really good justification for keeping education "gay free" for Muslim communities?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Reality is as reality is, one's point of view doesn't change things. If these parents go and search for studies into how children with same sex parents fare, they'll find they do just as well, and consensual sex between same sex couples is obviously harmless (and therefore not immoral).


It's possibly sneaky, or it's possibly representing what is harmless in modern society.

I can't help thinking if there were two children's stories and one of them had same sex parents in them, it's that book which would cause the problems.

Try explaining that to the happy 8 year old daughter of two lesbians whom I saw a while ago.

It's not some kind of abstract concept being discussed...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I think that the 'opt out' is the anomaly. We all pay taxes into the education system, to help bring up the next generation in a way we think will benefit society. If you want your kids educated in some different crackpot/racist/religious doctrine or whatever then do it yourself, 'cause the taxpayer is not going to help. Or, in fact, don't.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

It's about logical thought, though, when it comes to immorality and gays and lesbians, and same sex couples adopting.

Does actual measurable observable harm come from children being adopted by same sex couples? No.

Does actual measurable observable harm come to couples who are happily in same sex relationships? No.

Do some people have a problem with it, despite the above? Yes.

This is something I fully recognise, but I won't accept it.

If I encounter people who have a problem with same sex couples, and same sex adoption, I'll politely and tactfully explore what actual comes from gays and lesbians and them adopting children. As I have done and remained on friendly terms. In talking about different things in everyday life, it's something I seem to manage to be able to do.

What else can you do when there's happy (children of) same sex couple living amongst us? It's something we owe one another, I think, in how we all make up society.

It's not fair, for that which is harmless to be hated or called immoral.

In reply to Timmd:

I don't dispute any of that but simply repeat that your definition of morality is yours and not necessarily the same as some other people's, including perhaps some of these parents. The fact that something does no harm may not be sufficient for them to accept it as 'moral' and, yes, some of them may even invoke religious teachings. However, if that is their view of morality, so be it. And if they think they have an opt out for their children being taught about gay relationships in an SRE class they are not surprisingly going to be angry if they feel it is being smuggled in through the back door as 'literacy' instead.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I realise that.


It's not 'so be it', though, because it can effect how society functions, how much tolerance there is. If people see it as immoral, they need to clearly articulate why, and be challenged.

Can you imagine what an eight year old girl would feel on hearing that her mums are immoral and wrong?

'So be it', I guess?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

It seems we're a bit faster to employ a spot of moral relativism with regard to homophobia (excused with religion) than racism. Any idea why that is?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Exactly.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


How I wish that were a universal rule in England. Sadly the taxpayer still will help with religious indoctrination if your parents happen to live in the right area and can go to church to sign the register on Sundays

If the parents are so mortally offended by a school teaching a philosophy that consenting adults who harm no one are not in fact immoral, they are perfectly free to pull their children out of said school. If 10% of a school's pupils were black and parents had moral outrage about the school teaching that white and black people are equal, parents who become so threatening the police were called would not be defended on here.

(Jon, the following rant is not directed at you!)

Why should it be any different with regards to sexuality? The concept of parents, partners, husbands and wives is freely presented to children thought school. As a progressive, democratic society that pays attention to the evidence we now accept that same sex relationships are commonplace and have made them legally equal, so why should we censor our schools teachings to hide this? It is normal. It always has been, it's just that for an intermediate part of our history privileged groups sort to demonise it for reasons of power and control. This is exactly what some do the parents in the OPs linked article do now.

I still see the argument that choosing to represent healthy normals in the curriculum offends some parents and ferments trouble now. Tough luck, democracy and the law have spoken. It may cause a storm now, but eventually it will settle down and for the first time since modern Christianity came to this island children will be presented with an accurate view of adult human relationships. Perhaps when they grow into adults the endemic homophobia that causes so many problems for so many people will be gone.

Like it or not, social change starts with children. Others may argue as they wish, but perhaps they should pause and consider that homophobic bullying as an adult and/or in the work place carries potentially serious ramifications, so they may wish to consider that, regardless of the parents views, being given an opportunity to learn an accepting stance gives the children important life skills for interacting with the democracy they will grow up into.

In reply to Timmd:


Which is precisely why the school should have left well alone. The headmaster says there was no homophobia problem at his school. Now same sex relationships, though with the parents rather than the pupils, have become an issue because the school has made it one. As I said hours ago. Seems a bit daft to me.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'm not sure there is any 'homophobia' here. Certainly, according to the headmaster, there was not any in the school. All the parents have said it they don't want their primary school aged kids taught about it (as they are entitled to do if it's done in SRE classes).

In reply to wintertree:

They have. And it seems that what they said was that parents can opt out of SRE lessons if they so choose. These parents are unhappy because they appear to feel their kids are nevertheless getting SRE but dressed up as reading in a story about penguins that they cannot opt out of.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


It's not SRE. It's normal.

Would the parent's object if there was a male-female penguin couple? No. What about a mixed race penguin couple? No. The laws of our democratic society now view same-sex couples equally. So having a same sex couple is a reflection of the same reality as having a mixed sex couple.

If there was a same sex marriage between two teachers, would you have them forbidden from mentioning it on school grounds? Will the parents be able to stop any same sex couples from holding hands in sight of their children in the park?

The school has stopped presenting a censored, skewed view of the real world. This is all. The parents may feel that it is more, but perhaps they need to look at the wider world around them.

This is absolutely no different to removing racial bias or disability bias in the way children are constantly exposed to the real world via school. The parents may feel otherwise, but with all due respect I consider that this is no excuse to threaten teachers or seek to disrupt the schools functioning.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The bible/Koran says no and religion has a get out of jail free card. Although I can see that if you think being gay will result in your chd going to hell you might not be too keen on this teaching. Sounds to me the head was ambushed.

How far would you want schools to go in teaching on matters of judgement? Abortion, capital punishment, drugs?

In reply to MG:

Same sex relationships aren't really a matter of judgement, they are legal in this country (much as some people might abhor the idea), so teaching that they are normal and acceptable merely fits in with the laws of the land. Capital punishment and drugs are a bit different in that they're illegal, so teaching that they are acceptable would be a bit odd.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I know what you are saying but I'm not sure it's the place of schools to insist that everything that is legal is a good thing. Some things like gay relationships, capital punishment and abortion, while legal, are still contentious. Maybe a tactful silence on such matters unless they cause problems such as bullying is a reasonable approach. Or at least leave them to be taught in classes that are devoted to such matters rather than shoe-horning them into books in general reading classes.

In reply to MG:

They don't need (nor is anyone suggesting they do) to insist they're good, merely an acceptable part of the human condition. Waiting until you have a homophobic bullying situation before you teach children that same sex relationships are fine seems a very odd approach, would you advocate the same approach to first aid?
Oh and I'm ignoring capital punishment, I don't know where you are but it isn't legal here.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Suppose the school found a kids story about people coming together and used it to teach a lesson about the benefits of the European Union and how it eliminated wars and increased prosperity as a reading lesson. Or they found a nice story about windmills in Holland and used it to promote wind power and be negative about fracking.

There are plenty of politically contentious issues where the law of the land is currently on one side: that doesn't mean the issue is settled forever or that it is inappropriate for a parent to have a dissenting view. Primary schools don't really have any business trying to influence children's views on politically contentious topics in a reading lesson. Some of these things need to be taught about but it should be done in an above board way in the right lesson.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tripe, it isn't about promoting homosexual relationships, nobody is being taught to be gay or that they have to marry someone of the same sex. Merely teaching that those options are acceptable.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


There is no 'merely' about it. You may see it as obvious that gay marriage/adoption are acceptable and I may agree with you but a large fraction of the population and parents in this school disagree which makes it a political issue and not something for a reading lesson for primary kids.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Thought experiment: A reading book had a couple in it, one was black and one was white. The parents raised merry hell that a book represented a perfectly legal relationship that they however disagreed with. Would you therefore say that the school must ensure there are no mixed race couples in any of their reading materials? Or is homophobia somehow more acceptable than racisim?

The subject of same sex couples is not being used as a political issue with the children, as you keep suggesting. The course materials are being updated to reflect the realities of the land we live in. This is not being done to politicise, or promote, same sex relationships. It is done to remove previous distortions from course materials.

The parents, who have a problem with the legal and democratic environment around them, are politicising the children's education to make an issue out of their views. The parents are using their children's education as a political tool. It is despicable.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


So now you want to ban kids from reading about gay couples? And black ones as well? After all, some people don't like blacks (possibly there is some overlap with the people who don't like gays).

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I don't want to ban kids from reading about anything. I even bought a picture book about two gay lions being kings together to read to my daughter. Unfortunately, it was crap as a story and she hated it.

I just think schools should teach about politically contentious topics in subject lessons not infiltrate them into reading. My actual hot button is not gay marriage but the way a 'green' viewpoint gets infiltrated into other parts of the curriculum as if it was established and non-contentious. It isn't about teaching about how things are it is about teaching about how the teachers think they should be and the world view of the teachers is quite far to the left compared with that of society at large. There is an underlying agenda to move society in the 'correct' direction by influencing children. The religious schools have exactly the same goal, they just want to push in the opposite direction. Both should keep the politics out of reading lessons and respect the wishes of parents when dealing with primary school children.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If you don't want to ban kids reading anything what happens when they ask questions about the giraffe having 2 mummies instead of a mummy and daddy? Do you refuse to answer? Or explain that sometimes 2 women love each other?
You could realistically argue this was political if gay marriage wasn't legal. But it is.

I don't know which specific "green" viewpoint is being taught to kids, give us an example and we could discuss it (although I guess it won't involve a law passed by parliament).

In reply to Timmd:

Not surprisingly given that this is UKC there is an awful lot of supposition and ascribing of motives based on few, and in some cases no, facts, especially given that the only 'facts' come from a newspaper report.

But can anyone find me these homophobic parents who are saying same sex relationships are wrong or immoral? All the lurid stuff comes from people who were not there (the SPUC woman, the councillor, the union rep and the head of another school) all of whom seem to have their own axes to grind.

The only parent quoted and that from a tweet says: “Homophobia is just as important as racism, sexism etc – but they are too young for this yet, it’s confusing,” . In the absence of any information to the contrary we should take that at face value,

Gay marriage is perfectly legal in this country. But so too is taking your child from SRE classes Both laws are valid and both bestow rights. You cannot accept one and disregard the other. If you want to change either of them take it up with your MP. It stretches credulity to breaking point to say that a book about two 'boys' in love (albeit penguin boys) is not about relationships and to teach such a contentious subject as 'reading' rather than SRE was asking for trouble.

In reply to Wiley Coyote and tom_in_edinburgh:

Your argument sounds reasonable, but it hinges on a premise many of us disagree with: that anything involving gays has to be cordoned off into SRE with a parental opt-out. The existence of gays is not contentious, and isn't any more related to sex and relationships than the existence of married couples and parents. There is no reason that the issue should be broached sensitively within the context of SRE and parents given an opt-out. It's just like featuring brown kids with funny foreign names in the maths text book where if Joanne gives Abdul 3 of her 10 sweets, how many does she have left? Well you know, the immigration issue is a bit of a hot potato, let's not let it infiltrate our kids' maths lessons, eh?

The only politically contentious issue - now law - was whether churches could perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples and the hair-splitting difference between civil partnership and (civil) marriage. That would be a topic for older kids and political discussion (if someone thought it was interesting...). How to use a condom, the risks of unprotected sex, what healthy and unhealthy relationships might look like, etc, are topics for SRE - education providing for what the kids might personally do before they're actually doing it. The existence of gays in the world is not a topic for SRE, kids should know about that - and many kids will from personal experience - long before they have any interest in sex and relationships.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
It's just like featuring brown kids with funny foreign names in the maths text book where if Joanne gives Abdul 3 of her 10 sweets, how many does she have left?

Which is also rather peculiar and somehow trying too hard - I remember even at school in the 1980s this struck me as odd (as I struggled with fractions!). A bit like doing maths in history or something because children need to know about maths.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


So, should the existence of black people be censored where white BNP-voting communities make up a sizeable chunk, or would you be prepared to say "shove you racist views up your arse, this is a state school, and we're teaching what we believe."?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:










But, the episode has flushed the issue into the open - it is a fair assumption to make that at home those parents would be happy to inculcate their children into homphobic attitudes and ultimately behaviours. at least by discussing the issue in the school place the children have the opportunity to question the bile at home they would otherwise be spoonfed.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I think the way the story ends with the police being called gives an insight into the probable motivations of the parents. You're right, we don't have all the information, but let's not cherry-pick to this degree.


So you assert.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


1. I don't see that the police being called gives any indication of the 'probably motivation' of the parents at all. The only evidence we have on motivation is that one parent says she thinks the kids are too young for this. There is no evidence for any other motivation whatsoever.

2 As for the police being called, was that necessary or did someone panic? We don't really know because again there's is no info to go on other than the fact that some parents came forward. There is no reference to any physical threatsbeing made let alone anything approaching violence. The head himself says the complaints - note that word, 'complaints' not 'complainants' - became very personal and very aggressive. I'm sure they were very unnerving, especially if, as the story asserts tho does not back up, he thought he was going to a run-of-the-mill parents' meeting with a handful of people and suddenly found himself confronted by 100 angry parents. However he also says the stories have been exaggerated (eg that he had to be escorted from the building). The parent who was there says it was not 'nasty' just 'very loud'.

I was not there either so I've no first hand info but my life experience tends to make suspect the truth probably lies somewhere in between and the parents were less aggressive than they may have seemed if you were the target of the anger of 100 people but also that they were probably much more agitated and vociferous than they think they were.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

It's the anger of the parents that suggests moral outrage. Might just be "too young, too confusing" outrage, but that's not credible to me.


Who knows, I'm just saying that the thing kicking off suggests moral outrage at the teaching that homosexuality is OK. It's much the best explanation for the thing kicking off, and in tune with the allegations of homophobic insults being thrown. Your painting of the picture in which there was no homophobic motivation simply isn't credible.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I accept that's your view and I accept it is one credible explanation. But I would add it is not the only credible explanation.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Is this bloody penguin story anything to do with CHIPS? People seem to think it is but no-one is saying where it came from in relation to this story.

CHIPS is not an SRE initiative, just because a story mentions Teh Gayz it does not make it an SRE issue.

CHIPS is a diversity lesson, so it comes under PHSE not SRE. This is part of the reason people are screaming that they need to withdraw from PHSE as well as SRE, but there is no right of withdrawal from PHSE.

So in that sense the Law doesn't support the parents at all.

Cross curriculum trendiness means that PHSE and SEAL objectives can be met through a single lesson (literacy) rather than having three different lessons.

The problem here isn't that the kids are getting sex education on the sly, it's that parents are preventing them for getting diversity training.

In reply to winhill:


The Guardian story certainly gives that impression

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I do wonder at what age these parents would consider it appropriate, though?

My 6 year old asked me what "gay" meant earlier in the week. I did wonder if it was because his classmates had noticed one of the kids has two dads. But instead it seems he'd already come across it as an insult in a video commentary.....

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The trouble with that view is that it isn't just the word racist that can be put in that sentence:

in Northern Ireland: "shove your republican views up your arse, this is a state school, and we're teaching what we believe."
in Scotland: "shove your unionist views up your arse, this is a state school, and we're teaching what we believe."
in North Korea "shove your capitalist views up your arse, this is a state school, and we're teaching what we believe."
in Iran "shove your atheistic views up your arse, this is a state school, and we're teaching what we believe."

In reply to Timmd:
You would hope that the school would have higher ethical views than any of those alternatives. We are I think hoping that our children can grow up to make the world a better place. Would you rather that parent power ruled and that...

in Northern Ireland: "shove your wishywashy liberalism up your arse, this is a republican school, and we're teaching what we believe."
in Scotland: "shove yourwishywashy views up your arse, this is a unionist school, and we're teaching what we believe."
in North Korea "shove your wishywashy views up your arse, this is a communist dictatorship school, and we're teaching what we believe."
in Iran "shove your wishywashy atheistic views up your arse, this is a radical islamic school, and we're teaching what we believe."

In reply to Wiley Coyote:



But in a different school?

Were the parents objecting to the gay adoption bit or the whole program? The SPUC email misses off the last few questions but it doesn't mention it in the story?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Why don't the parent want it taught, it isn't sexualisation. The kids will hear plenty of stories about hetrosexual relationships.

So it's not a sexualisation issue, it's not a relationships issue, what is it?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



Which is Northern Ireland as a devolved administration within the UK.


Which is Scotland as a devolved administration having held a referendum on independence...


And I'm sure they would teach precisely that, I'd think they were wrong to do so, but my view isn't relevant in North Korea as I don't pay their taxes and don't have to live amongst the people they educate.


As above.

In reply to The New NickB:


The only parental quote in the story says because they think the kids are too young.


I would say it is defintely a relationships issue

In reply to MG:


They weren't funny foreign names in my class.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Do you think all these parents are single then?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Even if the objections were as benign as this - and I very much doubt it - then it's still a totally crap argument and shouldn't be accepted. Too young for gay penguins* - what does that even mean? That the kids won't grow up believing that the only possible life partnerships are between a men and a women? And that's bad how?



*Good route name though, maybe?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Perhaps the parents felt that pushing the meaning of such stories at primary school is unlikely to make much difference to the childrens views on these issues at secondary school, and wanted the school to concentrate on teaching literacy ?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Yeah, and they got so angry about it that they started hurling homophobic insults and the police were called. Pull the other one.

In reply to The New NickB:

I didn't write that...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Interestingly, nobody who was there says there were 'homophobic insults'. That's from the councillor.

In reply to MG:


I know, UKC was doing its best to confuse things, but my point still stands.

There was nothing strange about names like Abdul or Mohammed when I was at Primary School. Typically such books were written by teachers, to the huge numbers of teachers working in the big English cities, racial diversity was the norm and the books reflected the kids they taught.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

The head said that the insults were very person and aggressive, but he seems to be trying not to inflame the situation. Presumably the Councillor is acting on somebody's account of the meeting. Doesn't sound very pleasant, whatever the exact words.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

The Head describes their language as “very personal and very aggressive". I wonder if they're talking about the same thing?

Do you honestly think that a concern about the literacy not being focused on would inspire this, or do you suspect that just maybe, the parents objected on the grounds that the kids were being taught that homosexuality was OK? What is the most likely explanation for the "very personal and aggressive" complaints, described secondhand as "homophobic"?

Why are you clinging to the least likely version of events?

In reply to The New NickB:

Same here. Still seemed contrived. Anyway, a tangent.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I agree that the parents were not concerned about literacy. I think they were upset by the nature of the materials. However that does not per se make them homophobic. The only explanation we have for their complaints is the one given by the sole parent quoted who, in my reading at least, comes over as one of the more restrained voices. She says the objection was that the kids were too young and would find it confusing. That is not homophobia. That is parents concerned about their kids being given stuff they feel their sprogs are too young to handle. Obviously with 100 parents present there will have been possibly 100 different motivations and degrees of anger underlying what they said but, again, that does not mean homophobic comments were made.

>What is the most likely explanation for the "very personal and aggressive" complaints, described secondhand as "homophobic"?

I think the most likely explanation for the parents' anger was that they felt the school was pulling a fast one by teaching this in literacy rather than SRE, which they could opt out of. Bear in mind this comes at a time when feelings in Birmingham schools are very raw post Trojan Horse and suspicions are high. Sweet reason was probably in very short supply. As for the councillor, we already know the second hand accounts have been exaggerated. The head himself has had to deny the claim that he was escorted from the building for his own safety so it seems highly probable that the nature of the comments has also been exaggerated by the same Chinese whispers. She would not be the first councillor to fire off some rent-a-gob quotes on the back of half-arsed info. I always found such people extremely useful on stories.

But if you go back to the Guardian story neither of the sources who were actually at the meeting mention homophobic comments. The head makes no mention of them and the parent says the meeting was loud but not nasty. Since she also says that homophobia is like racisim and sexism I think it's far to say she finds it unaceptable and would therefore almost certainly class it as 'nasty'.

People in situations like this believe what they want to believe. The parent says in so many words this is not a Muslim issue and even the rent-a-quotes haven't raised that but it has not stopped this thread piling in on the knee-jerk Islamaphobia.


I'm not. I'm going on the first hand sources and ignoring SPUC, the councillor, the union rep, none of whom were there.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


You're giving rather more weight to the parent who said “It was not nasty at all, it just got very loud" and not much to the Head who said it was "very personal and aggressive". None of the parents want to talk to the media, bar one who says on Twitter that "we didn't do nothing" or words to that effect.

The call of "Islamophobia" is interesting. I personally think it's fine to criticise people for stuff they choose to say and for what they believe in, but I don't think it's fine to alienate people (or worse) for traits they can do nothing about like their race or sexual orientation. "Islamophobia" might mean assuming someone's a terrorist because they're Muslim, for example. I think this is wrong because most Muslims aren't terrorists so it's totally unjustified (and I might call it "Islamophobia"); but assuming that a bunch of (largely?) Muslim parents hurling insults at a headteacher over some teaching materials that allude to homosexual relationships being normal are homophobic just seems like a completely fair treatment of the information. Why else would they be getting aggressive and personal? Prejudice, implied by "Islamophobia" is something rather different from drawing the most likely conclusion from the information.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

As far as I gather, I've only ascribed motives to the head teacher.




Thing is, if a story was about a mummy and a daddy penguin finding an egg and bringing it up, and that penguin being happy or whatever, that's a cosy lovely children's story. If it's two male penguins, despite same sex parents being part of modern society, it's suddenly different.

If both kinds of families are equal, it shouldn't have become something about relationships, I would suggest.

Wouldn't you agree?

In reply to Timmd:

No. And I'm equally sure I'm not going to change your mind so I think we can safely call this one dead. Or at least it is for me but feel free to carry on without me

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Why wouldn't you agree?

Surely one would, if one believes in equality..?

'I don't agree & don't want to say why...'

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


You've been asking people to stick to the one quote whilst making up motivations to fit your view?

You have frequently used the word fight in this thread, now we're talking about a vociferous debate?

So what's the big deal? If it hasn't been the meeting hasn't been that disruptive and the parent's aren't homophobic then it's not particularly controversial nor far off a resolution. On the other hand, you started in this thread asking why he poked the wasps nest and caused all hell to break out, which has caused more damage than teaching tolerance does good. In which case:


Creationism is still taught in American schools for this reason. How old is the Earth again?

Make up your mind.