Skip to main content

Parliament fails children on sex education

The Children, Schools, and Family Bill was passed last night by Parliament. In general this was a good piece of legislation that made Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (which includes sex education) part of the National Curriculum. However an amendmend was added that seriously weakened the bill by allowing tax-payer funded schools with religious foundations to opt out of these requirements. This means that while all other schools are required to teach "balanced" and "accurate" sex education, tax-payer funded faith schools (around a third of all schools in Britain) can choose not to if they believe it contradicts their "religious ethos." The bill as it stood without the amendment already allowed for education that explored and respected different cultural and religious perspectives, and would have already allowed tax-payer funded faith schools to teach their religious views on issues of sexuality. But now the religious ethos can trump all other principles. If you claim its because of your religious ethos, there is no requirement that your sex education has to be accurate.

This is a failure of the thousands of children in state-funded faith schools. In a country with a large teenage pregnancy problem, this is a failure on behalf of the government to have the courage to deal with the problem.

Also worrying is the fact that homophobic bullying is a worse problem in tax-payer funded faith schools. The bill will now do nothing to address that problem.

What's also got me angry is the fact that there wasn't even time to debate this amendment last night in Parliament. This is a huge issue and Parliament didn't even get around to talking about it before they were asked to pass it? What is going on? Whatever you think about an issue, surely the whole point of Parliament is to debate an issue? How much more evidence do you need that Parliament is in dire need of reform?

If you are as annoyed as me about this, please support the Accord Coalition, that campaigns for an inclusive schooling system.

Comments

a said…
No debate because we're running out of parliamentary time. But in any case, with a large majority, there's very little fear that a government amendment will fail. We need to move to PR and coalition governments, even though that'll lead to BNP MPs.
Yewtree said…
I've signed up for Accord's bulletin. Thanks for the tip-off.
Tim said…
Thanks for raising this. I too support the aims of the Accord Coalition.

A: I agree with you about proportional representation. I don't think the current reforms for Alternate Voting go far enough. I personally would advocate a (southern) Irish voting system whereby voters state a numbered preference for 3, 4, or 5 seats in each constituency. It's complex, but much more democratic than the British system. I agree that PR would probably bring in the BNP and other lunatics, but to me that is the fault of the political culture, not the system. Interestingly, although Irish politics isn't without its problems (starting with nepotism), there are actually fewer parties represented in the Dail than in the House of Commons!

On faith schools, I recently offered a reflection on another blog I comment on regularly:
http://www.gladysganiel.com/uncategorized/the-religious-education-debate-does-religion-need-the-state/

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th