Ed Balls is right that the introduction of Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education – education which informs and empowers children and young people to take control of and shape their own lives – for all pupils in our schools is a great progressive achievement. He’s also right that an important part of it is education in relationships, including sexual relationships (Sex and Relationships Education or SRE). Good SRE is known to reduce unwanted pregnancies, reduce the spread of sexually transmitted infections, and equip young people with the language and tools to be clear about personal boundaries, understand appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, to be able to resist pressure assertively and to know who to talk to and how to ask for help if and when they need it. For older children it helps them resist pressure, make safe choices and be able to challenge and be critical of misleading and inappropriate messages about sex in the media. Again, its introduction in the present children, schools and families bill is a great progressive achievement (though many people wanted it to go further, and the maintenance on a parental right to withdraw their child from SRE and deny them this entitlement caused much anger from young people and children’s rights campaigners).
An important part of the bill lays out the principles which schools will have to follow when they are teaching PSHE (including SRE). Ed Balls lays them out in his article, and the suggested amendment is displayed below. The bill says that ‘information presented in the course of providing PSHE should be accurate and balanced’, that it should be taught in a way that ‘is appropriate to the ages of the pupils concerned and to their religious and cultural backgrounds, and also reflects a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives’, that it should be taught in a way that ‘endeavours to promote equality, encourages acceptance of diversity, and emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities.’
In his article Ed Balls says that the bill ‘makes clear that all schools must teach PSHE and do so following [these] three key principles’. It is bizarre, therefore, that he has tabled an amendment to his own bill which would disapply all of these principles – the principles he admits are so important – in state-funded religious schools if they are thought to be an obstacle to PSHE being ‘taught in a way that reflects the school’s religious character’.
Progressive groups from the Children’s Rights Alliance to the Accord coalition have stated their opposition to the amendment, as have young people themselves, through the UK Youth Parliament. The only conceivable reason why the government should have tabled an amendment is under pressure from some or other organisation involved in running state-funded religious schools, and indeed, the Catholic Education Service of England and Wales has claimed on its website that its lobbying achieved this change.
Ed Balls needs to explain why the sectional interests of one religious denomination should endanger the PSHE entitlement of pupils in a third of our state schools. The Catholic Education Service needs to explain precisely what they wish to do in their lessons which means they cannot be held to a duty to provide an education which is ‘fair and balanced’, which ‘is appropriate to the ages of pupils and their religious and cultural backgrounds’, ‘endeavours to promote equality’ and ‘emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities’. Progressives – religious or non-religious – need to oppose this amendment and support equal educational chances for all children in this vital area.
Clause 11 of the bill with the new amendment (amendment number 70) in (8) and (9) below
(4) It is the duty of the governing body and head teacher of any school in which PSHE is provided in pursuance of this Part to secure that the principles set out in subsections (5) to (7) are complied with.
(5) The first principle is that information presented in the course of providing PSHE should be accurate and balanced.
(6) The second principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that-
(a) is appropriate to the ages of the pupils concerned and to their
religious and cultural backgrounds, and also
(b) reflects a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other
perspectives.
(7) The third principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that-
(a) endeavours to promote equality,
(b) encourages acceptance of diversity, and
(c) emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities.
(8) Subsections (4) to (7) are not to be read as preventing the governing body or head teacher of a school within subsection (7B) from causing or allowing PSHE to be taught in a way that reflects the school’s religious character.
(9) A school is within this subsection if it is designated as a school having a religious character by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 69(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
I support Andrew Copson totally. I do not think that anybody who supports what amounts to sectarianism in Education can be a member of the Labour Party let alone the Progressives.
I taught in Scottish Schools for 32 Years and as a trade unionist in the E.I.S , I have fought against sectarian education being funded by the state. I had no objection if people want to set up these schools with their own money as that is their right but state education should be for all and equality rights should be safeguarded.
Finally let us get into the twenty first century and move on that is what we as progressives should be about. We need to show that we have moral integrity on this issue instead of trying to buy the Catholic vote ! All strength to Alan Copson’s stand for a modern education system.
There comes a point at which a choice has to be made on this between access to objective information, the development of important interpersonal skills and assertiveness against an aggressive market-driven culture on the one hand and respect for and tolerance towards religion on the other: which should be the tail and which the dog? I put one of my children through religious-based education and concluded that I would not repeat this for the second. Personal relationships seem to me too important an element of learning.
I’ve just listened to Ed Balls on ‘Today’. He virtually acknowledged the weakness of his position by insisting on contrasting the amended bill not with the (excellent) original bill, but with the current situation.
Andrew Copson is exactly right on this matter. By putting forward this Bill, the government clearly believes that PSHE is a valuable and essential part of a child’s education. When did the religious sensibilities of (predominantly MALE) communal leaders become more of a concern for this government than protecting and developing our children?
It is important to remember that more often than not, children have little say over whether they wish to go to a faith school. It is usually the case that the choice of school is made by the parent. By contrast, outside of school, children interact with their peers far from their parents gaze.
An opt-out clause for PSHE will only serve to put those children who find themselves in a religious school (through no choice of their own) at a dissadvantage which could prove so disasterous to their well-being. As with all equalities opt-outs, it will also perpetuate the notion that discrimination is against the law, unless it is “divine discrimination” ordained by God.
It is obvious that children at a ‘religious’ school do not have sex and, arguably, do not require a sex education. Their parents can teach them as they do not have sex either. All births were virgin. This is fortunate because as we know sex education leads to promiscuity, teenage mothers and STDs. Just as teaching kids about drugs leads to…and do not get me started about TV and the frightening spectre of Nicholas Wichell on before the watershed!
If Ed Balls wants to know why Labour did not get re-elected they want to look no further than the previous Governments attempt to impose secular values upon Faith schools. Despite the admendment to the Bill, the reality is that the new breed of Labour politicians share the militant secularism of Andrew Copson and see Faith Schools as essentially sectarian and divisive. This growing intolerence is reflected in the comments made by Ed Archer, who perhaps should acknowledge the blatant sectarianism faced by Scottish Catholics, which led to the need for Catholic schools in the first place. Catholic schools as well as being highly successful are far more sophisticated than you comentator gives them credit for and do give the full range of opinions on moral issues.
I was also struck by Andrew Copson’s over reverence for the PSHE curriculum, which is clearly a religious substitute for him. Let me assure him that the majority of teachers do not have such a high regard for this subject.