Sex Education: Powerpoint Presentation or DVD?
Blogged by James Preece on 4th February 2010
Because that's as much freedom of choice as you're going to get.
This is the Director of Catholic Education Services favourite quote in the world. It's Ed Balls (Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families) speaking in the Houses of Parliament...
The decision to make sex and relationship education statutory is, I think, supported by all political parties, but it is essential that it is taught in line with the ethos, including the faith, of the school. That is clear in the legislation: it is clear that parents as well as school governors will have a say in how the subject is taught, while there is also a parental opt-out, which will apply to pupils until they are 15. I can thus give the hon. Gentleman the complete assurance that the school will be in charge of how to teach SRE, but the fact of teaching it will be in law and guaranteed to all children.
[link]
So, how does he tally that up with this? Here's Ed Balls again...
If their faith has a view in scripture, they can inform pupils of that. What they must not do is teach discrimination. They must be absolutely clear about the importance of civil partnerships
[link]
Must is a pretty strong word. It sort of contradicts his earlier comments about "the school will be in charge".
Then there's another Ed Balls quote...
You can teach the promotion of marriage, you can teach that you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, what you can't do is deny young people information about contraception outside of marriage."
[link]
Again... strong language... "What you can't do", sort of contradicts "parents as well as school governors will have a say".
Catholic Education Services quotation of the statement that "the school will be in charge of how to teach SRE" is misleading because it gives the impression that schools will be able to choose what to teach when they will not.
But then we look more closely at the first paragraph and we we discover that Mr Balls makes no assurances whatsoever about what may be taught. Only how.
Presumably parents, governors and schools will have the freedom to choose between a Powerpoint Presentation and a DVD?
"They must be absolutely clear about the importance of civil partnerships"
"what you can't do is deny young people information about contraception"
In short. Catholic Schools are going to have no choice about what to teach at all.
Reader Comments
+2
kate said...
Spot on James!
Oona Stannard cannot produce an assurance that Catholic Schools will be able to determine the content of sex education because one does exist. Ed Balls, whom you quote above, would otherwise have mentioned it when he spoke in parliament.
Oona may well have deceived the Bishop(s), as Eric Hester has claimed. Or, she does not understand the difference between 'content- what is taught' and 'presentation-how it is taught'. And, how a subject is taught has always been a matter for headteachers and schools to decide: there is no new assurance there. Either way, her position is untenable.
Time for a vote of 'no confidence' perhaps?
+-
John said...
What is your problem with Civil Partnerships?
Someone has shown me an article in The Tablet, dated January 2010, in which the Chairman of the Department for Catholic Education and Formation, a Malcolm McMahon O.P., appears to defend Civil Partnerships, and indeed value them; and he rightly states that the Church appreciates the Gay people working in our schools, and goes on to say that we should recognise that a Civil Partnership is not a statement about conjugal acts but a legal agreement with no such overtones, as there is in a marriage service. If he is quoted correctly, and he might not have been - or indeed I may have misread it - then the Catholic Gay Head Teacher of a particular school, who is in a Civil Partnership, would be more than able to witness to Catholic values and their total consistency with the equality leglislation of the Government.
I was only shown the article and he may have been misquoted but that, it seems to me, appears to be the gist of his argument.
+-
+1
James said...
Hi John,
If civil partnerships have nothing by way of sexual overtones, why are the government making them a compulsory part of sex education courses?
If they have nothing to do with Marriage, why do they look like this?
Besides which, my point in this blog entry is not to have a go at civil partnerships (which, as Bishop McMahon points how, are not intrinsically wrong of themselves), my point is to suggest that it is wrong of the government to mandate the content of sex education courses and even more wrong of them to try and give the impression that they will not be mandating anything.
James
+-
John said...
Whatever way you look at it, people in Civil Partnerships are making a statement about their relationship, and, clearly, they are NOT saying they only have stamp collecting as a hobby. Generally, they prefer to call it married as that is how, presumably most, if not all, see it. THe Bishop appears to be say openly Gay people in a Civil Partnership , i,e in the terms of most gay people married, if not in law, can be Head Teachers in schools. Is that what the Pope/The Church says? If it does what was the fuss about the Popes address to the Bishops on their Ad Limina?
How can you reconcile a desire not to teach about Civil Partnerships, indeed an opposition, - which is presuambly your possition, with the Bishop's - which appears to be "whats the problem?" - and the Pope's which is that some laws are against Natural Law.
What is the correct position?
Is Bishop McMahon safe from crticism because he is generous in the provision of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, as say compared with Bishop Conry?
Or can Rome, the Bishop, and Civil Partnerships leglislation be said to be from the same Hymn Sheet so to speak?
+-
James said...
My understanding is that civil partnerships are not a problem of themselves but what is a problem is when people go around equating them to Marriage, which, as you say, most people are.
My point here is only that schools should be free to choose whether to teach sex education and if they do choose to teach sex education, they should be free to choose whether to include a reference to civil partnerships.
Bishop McMahon has not avoided criticism on this matter, see here and here.
I haven't seen the interview in The Tablet for myself but if he is suggesting that people living lives that openly contradict the teaching of the Church can occupy positions of headship in Catholic Schools then he is wrong.
If the secular world feels uncomfortable with an england captain who cheats on his wife, shouldn't Catholic's feel uncomfortable with a head teacher who isn't faithful to Catholic teaching?
+-
John said...
James,
I must confess I was playing The Devil's Advocate with you! It might be I am misinterpreting what the Chair of the Education and Formation Committes says or he has been misquoted, and so I advise any interested party to read it. But I have obtained a copy of the article since I first wrote on your blog on this matter.
The Tablet itself says he has softened the stance of his own Conference, given in 2003, and says the Pope has also opposed "psuedo forms of marriage".
Realistically, I would say it is highly unlikely that a person would enter a Civil Partnership unless they were saying to the World ' we are in a gay loving relationship (with all that might entail)'. Much of that the CP provides can be attained by writing a will, or listing someone as next of kin. Indeed a chaste, single, gay person would not need to say anything at all. Therefore, can the Bishop say, as he appears to, we will not at least query why you have entered into a Civil Partnership - if you want a Catholic Leadership role; as we are allowed to, if we are going to safeguard our legal right to bar from employment, in a high profile Teaching role, those whose lives contradict Church Teaching?
I am more than curioius as to why the Church militant who have hounded Bishops for less innocuous statements are ignoring him on this. I know some have praised him for the provision of the Extroardinary Rite, but we not also want authentic Church Teaching? What was the Pope saying on to them on their Ad Limina, and what value the Catholic Teachers Contract if we are not realistic in saying most people, if not all, are not saying we are openly gay, and how can I put it, "loving it" when they enter a Civil Partnership?
The right to a Civil Partnership is undeniable in law, but the Catholic Church must surely be realistic in questioning what the persons means by entering into one, if they are seeking a high profile job,that requires them to adhere, publicly,to Catholic teaching.
The House of Lord's threw out the Equality Bill because the Church would lose that right, and the Pope has just called on the Bishops to protect it. Has the Chair of the Education and Formation Committee surrendered it already?. Or exactly what is left to defend, if we suurender the right to bar from certain jobs those who publicly flout Church teaching? ( He is technically, I guess, Ms Stannards boss.)
The article was published in The Tablet on January 16th 2010.
+-
James said...
I don't know about the other bloggers, but I haven't intentionally given Bishop McMahon an easy ride, it's more that I haven't got around to him yet.
When I started blogging there would be some kind of scandalous activity that needed challenging once or twice a month. If I wanted to blog them, I had to keep an eye out for them. These days there's several a week and I simply can't blog them all, besides which, even if I could, it's not my primary aim in blogging to produce a catalogue of errors (though it seems like it sometimes).
If your point is that the heat needs to be directed less at Ms Stannard and more at Bishop McMahon, you may good have a point.
Thanks for your comments by the way, I really do appreciate it when people take the time to leave them.
James
+-
John said...
James, by the way, my whole point is that most people, except it seems M McMahon, would realtically believe Civil Partnerships, for most people in them, would be a statement we are actively gay, not just in love, or concerned about legal matters!
+-
John said...
As you observe, Ms Stannard is presumably answerable to the Bishop, and not the other way round!
I remain puzzled why his comments have largely gone uncommented on by others, especially in the light of the duty placed on the Conference, by the Pope, on subjects such as this, during their Ad Limina. Isn't this a prime example of failure/selling out?
Will McMahon get Southwark, as is widely rumoured?
+-