1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

My child my choice

Discussion in 'Education news' started by moscowbore, Jun 7, 2019.

  1. elder_cat

    elder_cat Established commenter

    Tolerance only works when it's practiced on both sides of the fence.

    In 21st Century Britain, there are many people for whom the LGBT lifestyle is neither abnormal nor abhorrent. I think the parents should be tolerant enough to accept that. No-one says they have to like it, or even agree with it. But they should at least be prepared to acknowledge the right of those individuals to determine how they wish to live.

    The school, the State, and the LGBT community itself for that matter, should be tolerant enough to accept that certain groups have values and beliefs that may differ significantly from those which they hold dear. They should be allowed to hold those views, and express those views, as long as it's' not done in a way that causes distress to others.

    I have to confess that you could write the sum total of my knowledge of Islam on the back of a postage stamp. But if the parents' objections are based on the teachings of their religion, then surely we need to respect their wishes, otherwise we're guilty of religious intolerance, which doesn't say much for our progress towards the multi-cultural society we say we want to live in.

    If their protests are grounded in misunderstanding of what exactly the children are being told in these classes, then we need to educate and inform, and I think that's far more likely to be successful through the use of an intermediary from their own community.
     
  2. JaneBennet

    JaneBennet New commenter

    In the recent past, in some US states, an attack on a slave was legally defined as an attack on a person’s property, justifying commensurate punishment. (And an owner’s attack on his own slave could be justified by the slave’s status). Thank God we now recognise the horrifying immorality of that. The BBC yesterday reported on police dog Finn’s Law, which reclassifies an attack on a working animal as more than an attack on mere property. Not everyone agrees with this. Your ‘personal interest’ is subjective. Defining it requires moral judgement.
     
    JL48 likes this.
  3. JaneBennet

    JaneBennet New commenter

    Again, I find your comments a bit naively reductive. Consider current reporting on the case of the woman who killed her husband in a case of coercive control. It has brought about recognition in courts of law that physical violence is not the only way in which devastating damage can be done to a vulnerable individual or society.
     
  4. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    Just as some Christians would agree with anti-gay (e.g. homophobic) actions, and other Christians (the majority in this country certainly) wouldn't, the same dichotomy is true of Islam.

    You cannot, however, allow the religious beliefs of a minority to outweigh the views & rights of a majority. The bottom line is that those who support such extreme religious views need to move somewhere they are in a majority, or accept that society has its rules and they have to abide by them.
     
  5. num3bers

    num3bers Occasional commenter

    This is a difficult one . On a general view of course we have to teach diversity and alternatives but as a parent I have to admit I do not want my children taught the things ( and in the way) that I see in the school where I work.

    I am looking for a school for my own children which suits my preferences.
     
  6. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

  7. num3bers

    num3bers Occasional commenter

    What makes you so sure that the incident isnt a result of too much education rather than not enough? I do not condone in anyway what happened but I think it is a bit glib to suggest this is because of a lack of education.
     
  8. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    If you mean that the attackers perhaps have been indoctrinated, whether by religious fundamentalists or right wing homophobes...then you may have a point*. The answer in either case is more education that exposes both of those stances for the dangers they pose. Both have to be educated out of society.


    * Or maybe they are just nasty little yobs, of course...
     
    Missbubbleblue and agathamorse like this.
  9. Mrsmumbles

    Mrsmumbles Star commenter

    If it is a UK school, with British teachers educating British citizens, then if it is on the curriculum, parents kicking off in this way makes the job of those poor teachers impossible. But it is surely wrong for parents to tell schools what should be taught. It sets a bad precedent. We are supposed to be teaching British values and tolerance.
     
  10. num3bers

    num3bers Occasional commenter

    That is more likely. I have taught a few of these in the past. No amount of schooling ( education) will change them. Their education is the education of the street and their cultural values are far more reaching than anything devised for the curriculum of the 1990's.
     
  11. moscowbore

    moscowbore Lead commenter

    If people want to protest to change the law, that is fine by me. Go to Parliament Square and wave your banners as is your legal right.

    The protests outside this school are clearly homophobic. There are plenty of countries which have strict anti-gay laws. I would suggest that the protesters go live in those countries. The UK has anti-discrimination laws which may not sit well with the protesters.
     
    agathamorse and FrankWolley like this.
  12. JL48

    JL48 Star commenter

    and yet they all do - right back to the drafting of the US constitution. (I'm guessing that you are American. If not, you've been heavily influenced by their way of thinking.). Whenever states are set up, constitutions are written or decisions are made about fundamental rights of the citizen, then moral judgements are made. The irony is that your first post both said that the State shouldn't make moral judgements, and then went on to allow the State to make at least two. Make your mind up.
     
  13. themiram

    themiram New commenter

    The logic has to be that if these uneducated parents can protest about children being taught that LGBT families exist (and exist in a not-satanic, non-evil, generally regular loving and normal way), other poorly educated parents must be allowed to protest about religious indoctrination on the r.e. syllabus and refuse for their children to be presented with a view of Islam and Muslims as non-satanic, non-evil, generally regular non-terrorist normal people. You can't have it both ways.
    We either need to promote tolerance of all law-abiding ways of life, or allow public displays of intolerance of all.
     
    agathamorse and Missbubbleblue like this.
  14. num3bers

    num3bers Occasional commenter

    Without wanting to sound intolerant. In the case of religion parents do have the option of removing their children from lessons. That is not the case with this.

    What is really going on here is identity politics and which identity is going to trump the other. In the middle is the lost principle of parents having a choice in what happens to their children and what their small children ( we are talking five year olds here too) are taught. I recall very well when I went home from school once - I was about six - asking my parents why they were still living together because nearly everyone else in my class had either single parents of divorced parents and no father on scene. My parents were most upset. They moved pdq to another area where the school reflected parents similar to them. That is what most parents want for their children. OK I could have been taught that being a single parent is normal etc. but this is where experience splits from outcomes and so called education. In relationships we are not dealing with facts. We are dealing with feelings and values. Not all share the values that are prevalent here. Not all want their children taught those differing values either.
     
  15. Bond231

    Bond231 New commenter

    Your parents moved house to be in a community with more married people rather than just say that some people are divorced? Wow.

    Surely if this is the case we should all live in ghettos with people exactly like us. What a gloriously bland view of the world.

    I hate to bring this point up - one major difference between excluding a child from RE is that religion is 100% a choice, something you have decided to do. Sexuality is not a choice, you do not decide one day to become LGBTQIA+.
     
  16. JL48

    JL48 Star commenter

    Which opens the door to segregation. Where does this end? I don't want my child to be told that people of races are equals? Of different religions? I don't want my child in a class with someone from a different background? What then happens if one of the children comes in with same gender parents?
     
    agathamorse likes this.
  17. num3bers

    num3bers Occasional commenter

    [QUOTE="Bond231, post: 12845207, member: 1580348" I hate to bring this point up - one major difference between excluding a child from RE is that religion is 100% a choice, something you have decided to do. Sexuality is not a choice, you do not decide one day to become LGBTQIA+.[/QUOTE]

    Are we really certain of the facts here? I know I have just opened the can of worms.
     
  18. num3bers

    num3bers Occasional commenter

    Well you are quite right but parents who can are exercising those choices every day. Many parents who send their children to independent schools ( and especially those who pay for the top public schools) do so that their children are in classes and are mixing with children who are like themselves ( wealthy and middle class or upper middle class). You would never find Prince George or Princess Charlotte in a school in Cherry tree Estate now would you? No one says anything about that though - why not stop all expressions of choice if you want to go down that road?
     
  19. Bond231

    Bond231 New commenter

    I am refusing to even dignify that with a response. Sexuality it not a choice and I am amazed people still hold that opinion.
     
    agathamorse and Missbubbleblue like this.
  20. num3bers

    num3bers Occasional commenter

    Sexuality is a preference. It seems highly fluid over lifetime according to many studies. That undermines any "Born that Way" argument. However, there are other better formed arguments, so stop being indignant and concentrate on an argument that works.

    I have a problem with teaching things that have limited factual basis as facts I am afraid. Much of what is being discussed here has more to do with teaching social engineering policies than facts.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2019

Share This Page