“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity is the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
well it is the normal mode isn't it?
Ought it to be preferred?
well thats a little more nuanced but its a bit ridiculous that young kids are being taught a word is wrong despite me (a 53 year old reasonably intelligent ,successful and educated man) never having heard of it before.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
In the Bible it is stated that only 144,000 people will be saved (Revelation 7:4-8 and Revelation 14:1-5), so you need to have been pretty bloody good to get into heaven.
That's gross, a thousand times over!
Or more accurately RCS post was gross one hundred and forty four thousand times over.
In the bigger picture of Christian Faith God saves by grace, not by our worthiness. That applies to all of us.
RCS is using Bible quotes in a misleading way, afraid of the bigger picture and truths I expect by his swerving of them, ultimately to claim contradiction against a clearer picture overall - this in turn only achieves a superficial or immature basis upon which to laugh at or mock people of Faith, and all the reason and knowledge which comes with Christian Faith versus the lazy platform the mocking noises are coming from.
The inherent vice in the mocking of HY, and everyone else of faith reading or contributing to the blog, is the Bible is not a Haynes car manual, it is not alive in all the old world science, but in the fresh of paint Lessons, Parables, Philosophy and Reason.
If what I am saying isn’t clear, or if you have any doubt at all, just look at Matthew 20 and compare it against what RCS did with the 144,000 post, for an understanding of the importance and relevance of the Bible today, and the very poor understanding RCS has of it.
MATTHEW 20 1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ 8“So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
Apart from my posts, PB has been a very poor read today, so I’m going to tap out.
You read your own posts?
How can you doubt the judgment of the poster who wrote this on Thursday evening?
As bad predictions go it would embarrass Sion Simon.
Harsh, I’ve been predicting the Truss comeback since October without such opprobrium.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity being the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
Which would also be wrong, my point is things like this shouldn't be secretive and parents should be able to see and discuss course materials with other parents
As I understand it, the parent was able to see and discuss the course materials, but she wasn't given a copy of the materials because of their commercial value. So, it does not appear that the school was being "secretive" in this case.
Which meant she couldn't discuss her concerns with other parents.
Course materials have no commercial value for a parent as they are not going to be reselling them. Schools using them would be having to licence them.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Utterly ridiculous. The provision of such material should, of course, have been a condition of any contract that allowed them to work in schools. I think that this will be appealed. The Department of Education should be involved in the appeal too.
While the Ukrainian counter-offensive has been talked about for months, one of the considerations as to why the West will want this wrapped up fairly quickly is the timing of the US (and UK) elections in 2024. There are probably only five real months in which the Ukrainians can launch the offensive and, if you are the US in particular, the last thing you would want is the war dragging on into 2024 and impacting the Presidential elections both directly (Trump asking why aid is continuing, for example) and indirectly (it is keeping inflation higher than it needs to be).
The conclusion from that is that the West is probably going to give Ukraine all that it needs to finish off the job by the end of the 2023 campaign season.
The UK election is unlikely to result in a change in direction, so long as the US one goes the right way. But I think you're right given it is getting more partisan, and will only be more so once Trump wipes the floors with his rivals.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity is the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
well it is the normal mode isn't it?
Ought it to be preferred?
well thats a little more nuanced but its a bit ridiculous that young kids are being taught a word is wrong despite me (a 53 year old reasonably intelligent ,successful and educated man) never having heard of it before.
You've heard of it now. Well done.
well yes but its hardly a word that needs to be brought into school sex education . I am not against sex education but if its just going to be a wankfest of university generated long words then little point. But I think you are a lawyer so will hardly get the argument!
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Didn't you ever do chemistry in school? Or consider the importance of evolutionary thought to biotech, such as GM crops? I'm in the middle of reading a botany book which comments on the impact of plants' Darwinian behaviour on the GM crop industry and both its customers and its unwilling recipients.
But no, neither are Latin nor posh, so obvs not important in your view.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Ayesha Hazarika - who I generally find to be sensible - was arguing for this on the politics show at lunchtime. Starmer should not touch this with a barge pole. It would be a gift to the Tories.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity is the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
well it is the normal mode isn't it?
Ought it to be preferred?
well thats a little more nuanced but its a bit ridiculous that young kids are being taught a word is wrong despite me (a 53 year old reasonably intelligent ,successful and educated man) never having heard of it before.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Didn't you ever do chemistry in school? Or consider the importance of evolutionary thought to biotech, such as GM crops? I'm in the middle of reading a botany book which comments on the impact of plants' Darwinian behaviour on the GM crop industry and both its customers and its unwilling recipients.
But no, neither are Latin nor posh, so obvs not important in your view.
If Thucydides didn't say it it isn't worth knowing.
While the Ukrainian counter-offensive has been talked about for months, one of the considerations as to why the West will want this wrapped up fairly quickly is the timing of the US (and UK) elections in 2024. There are probably only five real months in which the Ukrainians can launch the offensive and, if you are the US in particular, the last thing you would want is the war dragging on into 2024 and impacting the Presidential elections both directly (Trump asking why aid is continuing, for example) and indirectly (it is keeping inflation higher than it needs to be).
The conclusion from that is that the West is probably going to give Ukraine all that it needs to finish off the job by the end of the 2023 campaign season.
Better, from an electoral point of view, to patiently but slowly succeed than to rush to deadline and make a bad news story of it. A major Ukrainian failure would be bad for Ukraine, which would make those supporting Ukraine look bad, which could help bring to power people who would make things even worse for Ukraine.
On top of all that, it might not be so easy to convince Ukraine to take a high risk approach just to conform to someone else's electoral timetable
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
Ah., so this is the next Tory big policy feeding down from CCHQ. Saving on schools for the capites censi ...
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Didn't you ever do chemistry in school? Or consider the importance of evolutionary thought to biotech, such as GM crops? I'm in the middle of reading a botany book which comments on the impact of plants' Darwinian behaviour on the GM crop industry and both its customers and its unwilling recipients.
But no, neither are Latin nor posh, so obvs not important in your view.
If Thucydides didn't say it it isn't worth knowing.
Other Historians and/or Philosophers Are Available.
Edit: including H. E, MArshall whose effort I suspect is going to be the sole textbook in the Future Proletarian Academy at this rate.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Bart is an ultra libertarian liberal, why on earth he ever voted for a Conservative Party is beyond me!
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Didn't you ever do chemistry in school? Or consider the importance of evolutionary thought to biotech, such as GM crops? I'm in the middle of reading a botany book which comments on the impact of plants' Darwinian behaviour on the GM crop industry and both its customers and its unwilling recipients.
But no, neither are Latin nor posh, so obvs not important in your view.
If Thucydides didn't say it it isn't worth knowing.
Other Historians and/or Philosophers Are Available.
Edit: including H. E, MArshall whose effort I suspect is going to be the sole textbook in the Future Proletarian Academy at this rate.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Peter Singer has argued that there is no ethical distinction to be drawn between late term abortion and infanticide. For that reason, he believes the latter should not be unlawful.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Can you view what they are being taught? If not how do you know. Now I accept the woman might have an agenda but the crux seems to be they are being secretive about what is in the lessons
No. But I (shock, horror) talk to my son. He asks me questions about things as well, which I try to answer truthfully (even if I gloss over certain messy details). But if he asks me about the messy details, we'll talk about it.
Which means you don't have the full curriculum, if your son was like mine he talks about the bits that interested him.
For info I don't mind kids being taught that some people like people of the same sex and thats ok, nor being taught that somepeople believe they are born the wrong gender thats also ok. I would object to them being sold that either of those situations were preferable to heterosexuality.
I would object to my kid being sold. Well, except when he annoys me...
Well we all would, but I think you got my point. It is fine to teach kids that how they are whether gay, trans or heterosexual is a positive. I just don't think kids should be taught that some of these are preferable. Sadly I worry that some choices have become almost "trendy" and its not so much teachers but the likes of tiktok and youtube driving childrens choices
Surely your last point is a good reason to get education on these things in early, so they don't have to rely on TikTok and YouTube? (*)
Also, where are you getting this 'preferable' thing from?
(*) There are actually some brilliant resources for kids on YouTube, but they do need carefully curating.
I was laying out what I thought ok, teaching all things are ok but no ways are preferable which you might notice includes heterosexual
Which is interesting. As the original complainant cited her daughter having learned that heteronormativity is wrong. Heteronormativity is the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation.
well it is the normal mode isn't it?
Ought it to be preferred?
well thats a little more nuanced but its a bit ridiculous that young kids are being taught a word is wrong despite me (a 53 year old reasonably intelligent ,successful and educated man) never having heard of it before.
She's 15, not a young kid.
well even so - if ever a subject needed a bit of plain speaking and not pseudo academic wordspeak its this
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Didn't you ever do chemistry in school? Or consider the importance of evolutionary thought to biotech, such as GM crops? I'm in the middle of reading a botany book which comments on the impact of plants' Darwinian behaviour on the GM crop industry and both its customers and its unwilling recipients.
But no, neither are Latin nor posh, so obvs not important in your view.
If Thucydides didn't say it it isn't worth knowing.
Other Historians and/or Philosophers Are Available.
Edit: including H. E, MArshall whose effort I suspect is going to be the sole textbook in the Future Proletarian Academy at this rate.
The way of mrs Cosmopilite for one
Eh? Elucidate, please? We did use to pass round Cosmopolitan at my school, but that was rather a long time ago ...
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Ayesha Hazarika - who I generally find to be sensible - was arguing for this on the politics show at lunchtime. Starmer should not touch this with a barge pole. It would be a gift to the Tories.
Yes I would agree with that. Proponents are saying it does not change anything, the time limit would still stay the same but, in practice, it would of course - if you decriminalise it, what incentive is for someone not to repeat the trick? BPAS would cover themselves by saying that their form asked people to confirm they were being truthful.
If the likes of Nokes and Creasy - who, TBH, are two pretty good contra-indicators as to what is a good policy - want abortion up to the point of birth, they should be honest enough to admit it rather than hide behind a weasel formula.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Didn't you ever do chemistry in school? Or consider the importance of evolutionary thought to biotech, such as GM crops? I'm in the middle of reading a botany book which comments on the impact of plants' Darwinian behaviour on the GM crop industry and both its customers and its unwilling recipients.
But no, neither are Latin nor posh, so obvs not important in your view.
If Thucydides didn't say it it isn't worth knowing.
Other Historians and/or Philosophers Are Available.
Edit: including H. E, MArshall whose effort I suspect is going to be the sole textbook in the Future Proletarian Academy at this rate.
The way of mrs Cosmopilite for one
Eh? Elucidate, please? We did use to pass round Cosmopolitan at my school, but that was rather a long time ago ...
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Peter Singer has argued that there is no ethical distinction to be drawn between late term abortion and infanticide. For that reason, he believes the latter should not be unlawful.
A good Roman practice, [edit] in their view, and Roman culture was and is famously lauded at posh schools.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Didn't you ever do chemistry in school? Or consider the importance of evolutionary thought to biotech, such as GM crops? I'm in the middle of reading a botany book which comments on the impact of plants' Darwinian behaviour on the GM crop industry and both its customers and its unwilling recipients.
But no, neither are Latin nor posh, so obvs not important in your view.
If Thucydides didn't say it it isn't worth knowing.
Other Historians and/or Philosophers Are Available.
Edit: including H. E, MArshall whose effort I suspect is going to be the sole textbook in the Future Proletarian Academy at this rate.
The way of mrs Cosmopilite for one
Eh? Elucidate, please? We did use to pass round Cosmopolitan at my school, but that was rather a long time ago ...
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
None of that has much relevance to day to day work in most of the tech industry and of course the Darwinian theory of evolution is still rejected by some
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
I would argue that trying to promote pseudo-academic subjects (like astrology, Lysenkoism, Lamarkism, Ways of Knowing, Afrocentism, or German Physics) as actual academic subjects, will almost certainly have a detrimental impact on learning, and in time, a detrimental impact on the economy.
Nice to have moved off the controversial topic of sex education onto the more relaxed abortion debate.
Indeed if we legalised retrospective abortion we could bring in the death penalty by the back door (for info no I am not a proponent of retrospective abortion)
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
So you advocate murder of babies so extreme is your liberalism. We kill live animals well past birth for meat, that doesn't mean we should legalise murder of human beings.
Human life begins at its latest at 24 weeks as the vast majority of scientists and doctors agree, thank goodness you are no longer voting Conservative. I could not be in the same party as you if you hold such views
Nice to have moved off the controversial topic of sex education onto the more relaxed abortion debate.
Indeed if we legalised retrospective abortion we could bring in the death penalty by the back door (for info no I am not a proponent of retrospective abortion)
40th trimester seems a reasonable limit for abortion.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
None of that has much relevance to day to day work in most of the tech industry and of course the Darwinian theory of evolution is still rejected by some
Language families show almost exact Darwinian evolution across the centuries.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
None of that has much relevance to day to day work in most of the tech industry and of course the Darwinian theory of evolution is still rejected by some
On that logic, we shouldn't use satnav because reasons in Inverness ...
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
Ok, logical - I disagree but I can see the point.
In that case then, we should probably be looking at decriminalising offences where a pregnant woman loses the foetus after, say, a physical attack - it is not a life therefore there can be no harm done to it.
We should also probably consider - again under that logic - say that pregnant women should not be given maternity leave until they actually have had the baby. If the woman is suffering physical side effects due to the pregnancy, then it can be taken off as sick leave.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
None of that has much relevance to day to day work in most of the tech industry and of course the Darwinian theory of evolution is still rejected by some
On that logic, we shouldn't use satnav because reasons in Inverness ...
Nice to have moved off the controversial topic of sex education onto the more relaxed abortion debate.
Indeed if we legalised retrospective abortion we could bring in the death penalty by the back door (for info no I am not a proponent of retrospective abortion)
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
So you advocate murder of babies so extreme is your liberalism. We kill live animals well past birth for meat, that doesn't mean we should legalise murder of human beings.
Human life begins at its latest at 24 weeks as the vast majority of scientists and doctors agree, thank goodness you are no longer voting Conservative. I could not be in the same party as you if you hold such views
The biggest abortionist in history is the "God" you believe in, except "He" calls it "miscarriage".
Nice to have moved off the controversial topic of sex education onto the more relaxed abortion debate.
Indeed if we legalised retrospective abortion we could bring in the death penalty by the back door (for info no I am not a proponent of retrospective abortion)
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
None of that has much relevance to day to day work in most of the tech industry and of course the Darwinian theory of evolution is still rejected by some
On that logic, we shouldn't use satnav because reasons in Inverness ...
HYUFD obviously has no clue about genetic algorithms yet claims to be a techie, I bet he is a nodejs developer
I am not a techie, I work in information management but not IT.
However even if I did genetic algorithms have very little relevance to day to IT work and India still has one of the fastest growing Tech industries in the world
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
None of that has much relevance to day to day work in most of the tech industry and of course the Darwinian theory of evolution is still rejected by some
On that logic, we shouldn't use satnav because reasons in Inverness ...
HYUFD obviously has no clue about genetic algorithms yet claims to be a techie, I bet he is a nodejs developer
I am not a techie, I work in information management but not IT.
However even if I did genetic algorithms have very little relevance to day to IT work and India still has one of the fastest growing Tech industries in the world
They also have lots of curries and gulab jamms, which seems much more significant in the tech bros growth.
Nice to have moved off the controversial topic of sex education onto the more relaxed abortion debate.
Indeed if we legalised retrospective abortion we could bring in the death penalty by the back door (for info no I am not a proponent of retrospective abortion)
The correct term is "post-natal abortion".
Perhaps just go down the Philip K Dick idea of "The Pre- Persons"?
You are not human without a soul, and you cannot have a soul if you are incapable of doing algebra. Education and abortion combined
Nice to have moved off the controversial topic of sex education onto the more relaxed abortion debate.
Indeed if we legalised retrospective abortion we could bring in the death penalty by the back door (for info no I am not a proponent of retrospective abortion)
The correct term is "post-natal abortion".
Perhaps just go down the Philip K Dick idea of "The Pre- Persons"?
You are not human without a soul, and you cannot have a soul if you are incapable of doing algebra. Education and abortion combined
Add statistics and that'd be some PBers scratched from Homo sapiens.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
None of that has much relevance to day to day work in most of the tech industry and of course the Darwinian theory of evolution is still rejected by some
On that logic, we shouldn't use satnav because reasons in Inverness ...
HYUFD obviously has no clue about genetic algorithms yet claims to be a techie, I bet he is a nodejs developer
I am not a techie, I work in information management but not IT.
However even if I did genetic algorithms have very little relevance to day to IT work and India still has one of the fastest growing Tech industries in the world
No they are just used in medicine, economics, pipeline modelling, manufacturing etc.....really no relevance
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
None of that has much relevance to day to day work in most of the tech industry and of course the Darwinian theory of evolution is still rejected by some
On that logic, we shouldn't use satnav because reasons in Inverness ...
HYUFD obviously has no clue about genetic algorithms yet claims to be a techie, I bet he is a nodejs developer
I am not a techie, I work in information management but not IT.
However even if I did genetic algorithms have very little relevance to day to IT work and India still has one of the fastest growing Tech industries in the world
They also have shit railway system!
Modi's much-heralded "high-speed" trains run along the 365 mile coast of Kerala in 8 hours (for example) - an average speed of just 45 mph!!
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
So you advocate murder of babies so extreme is your liberalism. We kill live animals well past birth for meat, that doesn't mean we should legalise murder of human beings.
Human life begins at its latest at 24 weeks as the vast majority of scientists and doctors agree, thank goodness you are no longer voting Conservative. I could not be in the same party as you if you hold such views
The biggest abortionist in history is the "God" you believe in, except "He" calls it "miscarriage".
Stop repeating like a broken record, miscarried babies go to eternal life with Christ that is not the same as forcibly murdering babies at the early stages of human life
The actual write up beneath the headline doesn’t tell us anything new, but is still not as OTT than the very wrong headed headline. It definitely won’t go as far as 5.75, it probably won’t reach 5.5. Nor do the markets think we have lost control of inflation, if they did they would be acting already.
The truth in my opinion, Hunt and BoE want the markets to hear of such resolve, hear it at least 3 times a day, so probably slip the media these stories themselves. In my opinion inflation will be below 5 in the new year, so a success for Rishi Sunak. But a limited success in inflation at 5% doesn’t mean problems gone away, the next round of pay deals will need to be around 5% inflation.
This article seems to suggest Pay is responsible for underlying inflation going up. Truth is wage growth has been high. But there could also be other factors such as price gouging which Hunt and BoE don’t wish the media to flag up.
So many PBers, brains addled with too much freemarket ideology, post about UK better than expected growth and better than expected wage growth as though these things are always good in all situations. This is where PB free marketeers don’t understand the important subtleties of Thatcherism. Growth during overheating and high inflation is not great news if it means gains just getting eaten up by inflation so arn’t real gain at all.
If it sounds like I am calling quite a lot of PBs and their “growth and wage growth, lovely jubbly” posts stupid and naive in this situation, the truth is, I am.
Also to note TSE, I would hate you to be of mistaken idea I’m trolling your posts to hit reply and tell you that you are wrong, and actually take pleasure from that.
For example, With this post from earlier, where it may appear I actually hit reply and told you that you are wrong, inflation will go under 5 allowing PM Sunak to claim victory and urge us to rejoice, the post is not really about telling you that you are wrong, it’s about explaining how you are in fact right about the subtleties of Thatcherism - it’s wrongly thought today as just being all about free markets, tax down, and pushing back the boundaries of individual freedom - but in reality there were situations where Thatcherism put taxes up, where windfall taxes were imposed, the x-factor of Thatcherism that made it work was not a slavish devotion to liberal economics, but it’s application at every moment within framework of good government - like when Lewis Hamilton says the ideal race pace is being on the right tyre for every moment, every single lap.
So when you call yourself a Thatcherite, and I call myself a Thatcherite, here is the definition we want people to understand isn’t it?
Thatcherism considered uniting the political faiths and colours of British society behind aspiration for all, a genuine all in it together approach, very much the opposite of populism. The very opposite of Thatcherism is to divide on the basis of defending privilege so just to sneak over the line and win elections - the defending privilege approach is exactly the malaise through every policy and every effort the Conservative Party has fallen into these days isn’t it. The Party which gave the world Thatcherism no longer appears to understand it, none of its leaders seem capable of passing the exam question: what is Thatcherism?
Are we in agreement? The need for real Thatcherism, and don’t get us wrong, don’t think of cosplay Thatcherism.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
And as almost all scientists agree human life, consciousness as well as ability to feel pain starts from 24 weeks.
Be assured we will fight you secular liberals with such gross disrespect for human life you would abort to life up to birth every step of the way.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
So you advocate murder of babies so extreme is your liberalism. We kill live animals well past birth for meat, that doesn't mean we should legalise murder of human beings.
Human life begins at its latest at 24 weeks as the vast majority of scientists and doctors agree, thank goodness you are no longer voting Conservative. I could not be in the same party as you if you hold such views
Nope. The foetus is alive even as a couple of cells.
Human legislators decided that the dividing point for human rights purposes should be 24 weeks.
The history of the decision and its reasons are a bit complicated, but that is roughly the point at which the foetus can survive on its own. Now.
Originally, it was chosen to be well before viability, but those darned doctors keep moving the goal posts.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
Ok, logical - I disagree but I can see the point.
In that case then, we should probably be looking at decriminalising offences where a pregnant woman loses the foetus after, say, a physical attack - it is not a life therefore there can be no harm done to it.
We should also probably consider - again under that logic - say that pregnant women should not be given maternity leave until they actually have had the baby. If the woman is suffering physical side effects due to the pregnancy, then it can be taken off as sick leave.
I would consider that forcing a woman to have an abortion at 30 weeks, would be a crime against both the woman, and a crime against the unborn child, and that both crimes should be prosecuted. That is indeed the current legal position. The destruction of an unborn child is a crime, subject to the provisions of the abortion legislation. That must surely be civilised.
Singer, like all philosophers, is being deliberately provocative. But, his point is sound. There is not really an ethical distinction be drawn between late term abortion and infanticide. The new born child is after all, quite incapable of independent life or thought.
It's similar to the argument that I find some extreme libertarians put forward in relation to animals. Animals have no rights, therefore there is no case for prohibiting cruelty towards animals.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
India has much great tech expertise. It will take a while for Modi's educational "reforms" to work through, but they don't look good for the future. Or do you think it's wise to drop evolution and the periodic table from school curricula?
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1668686297295101978 … The documents were likely extremely detailed intelligence assessments, w/ potential foe (& friendly) capabilities & weaknesses & US capabilities we would not want anyone - especially foes - to know.
Many have said, this isn't a document issue it's a national security issue. 3/
The takeaway. … Yes, the President has declassification authority.
But that requires a process that then protects a LOT of people. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron.
And anyone who says someone can do it after leaving their leadership role is even more moronic. 10/.
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.
“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.
“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.
“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”
Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?
I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.
If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.
In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?
Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,
So the school may not even have the materials.
Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."
Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.
Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.
The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...
So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.
But in this case it sounds as though:
1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;
2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;
3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;
4) She's now bitching about that.
Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?
Of more import:
1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?
2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?
(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place
2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?
1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?
2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.
You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.
I never took you to be a communist...
Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.
Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.
Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?
IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.
Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.
My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.
Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.
India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.
India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too
You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?
Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry
Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry
None of that has much relevance to day to day work in most of the tech industry and of course the Darwinian theory of evolution is still rejected by some
Some people say the world is flat. So what? We should teach kids basic science and, I suggest, not wanting to tell another country what to do, India should also teach kids basic science.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
So you advocate murder of babies so extreme is your liberalism. We kill live animals well past birth for meat, that doesn't mean we should legalise murder of human beings.
Human life begins at its latest at 24 weeks as the vast majority of scientists and doctors agree, thank goodness you are no longer voting Conservative. I could not be in the same party as you if you hold such views
All the major UK parties avoid taking a partisan stance on abortion, and I don't believe that will change. We've seen recently how, for example, there are diverse views on abortion in the SNP, and that's true of other parties. Labour aren't going to stick this in their manifesto.
The vast, vast majority of abortions take place early on. Those opposed to early abortion like to talk about late abortion as a wedge issue. I think the exact legal approach to take to very late abortions is complicated, but I don't see the point of discussing the issue in a context where anti-abortionists are not discussing the matter in good faith.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1668686297295101978 … The documents were likely extremely detailed intelligence assessments, w/ potential foe (& friendly) capabilities & weaknesses & US capabilities we would not want anyone - especially foes - to know.
Many have said, this isn't a document issue it's a national security issue. 3/
The takeaway. … Yes, the President has declassification authority.
But that requires a process that then protects a LOT of people. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron.
And anyone who says someone can do it after leaving their leadership role is even more moronic. 10/.
Why he did it is a far more interesting topic.
Curious that Johnson met Trump in Texas less than 3 weeks ago. Wonder what that was about. Both of them want to stay out of jail I reckon. They're not naturally birds of a feather at all, but something has brought them together.
Comments
Course materials have no commercial value for a parent as they are not going to be reselling them. Schools using them would be having to licence them.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
https://twitter.com/andreajenkyns/status/1668619850179305481?s=20
Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.
But no, neither are Latin nor posh, so obvs not important in your view.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
On top of all that, it might not be so easy to convince Ukraine to take a high risk approach just to conform to someone else's electoral timetable
Colour me unconvinced.
Edit: including H. E, MArshall whose effort I suspect is going to be the sole textbook in the Future Proletarian Academy at this rate.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
If the likes of Nokes and Creasy - who, TBH, are two pretty good contra-indicators as to what is a good policy - want abortion up to the point of birth, they should be honest enough to admit it rather than hide behind a weasel formula.
Human life begins at its latest at 24 weeks as the vast majority of scientists and doctors agree, thank goodness you are no longer voting Conservative. I could not be in the same party as you if you hold such views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHQJiqYqeM
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6024800
In that case then, we should probably be looking at decriminalising offences where a pregnant woman loses the foetus after, say, a physical attack - it is not a life therefore there can be no harm done to it.
We should also probably consider - again under that logic - say that pregnant women should not be given maternity leave until they actually have had the baby. If the woman is suffering physical side effects due to the pregnancy, then it can be taken off as sick leave.
However even if I did genetic algorithms have very little relevance to day to IT work and India still has one of the fastest growing Tech industries in the world
There's a lot we could learn from Alaska. 👍
You are not human without a soul, and you cannot have a soul if you are incapable of doing algebra. Education and abortion combined
Modi's much-heralded "high-speed" trains run along the 365 mile coast of Kerala in 8 hours (for example) - an average speed of just 45 mph!!
For example, With this post from earlier, where it may appear I actually hit reply and told you that you are wrong, inflation will go under 5 allowing PM Sunak to claim victory and urge us to rejoice, the post is not really about telling you that you are wrong, it’s about explaining how you are in fact right about the subtleties of Thatcherism - it’s wrongly thought today as just being all about free markets, tax down, and pushing back the boundaries of individual freedom - but in reality there were situations where Thatcherism put taxes up, where windfall taxes were imposed, the x-factor of Thatcherism that made it work was not a slavish devotion to liberal economics, but it’s application at every moment within framework of good government - like when Lewis Hamilton says the ideal race pace is being on the right tyre for every moment, every single lap.
So when you call yourself a Thatcherite, and I call myself a Thatcherite, here is the definition we want people to understand isn’t it?
Thatcherism considered uniting the political faiths and colours of British society behind aspiration for all, a genuine all in it together approach, very much the opposite of populism. The very opposite of Thatcherism is to divide on the basis of defending privilege so just to sneak over the line and win elections - the defending privilege approach is exactly the malaise through every policy and every effort the Conservative Party has fallen into these days isn’t it. The Party which gave the world Thatcherism no longer appears to understand it, none of its leaders seem capable of passing the exam question: what is Thatcherism?
Are we in agreement? The need for real Thatcherism, and don’t get us wrong, don’t think of cosplay Thatcherism.
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
Be assured we will fight you secular liberals with such gross disrespect for human life you would abort to life up to birth every step of the way.
Human legislators decided that the dividing point for human rights purposes should be 24 weeks.
The history of the decision and its reasons are a bit complicated, but that is roughly the point at which the foetus can survive on its own. Now.
Originally, it was chosen to be well before viability, but those darned doctors keep moving the goal posts.
Singer, like all philosophers, is being deliberately provocative. But, his point is sound. There is not really an ethical distinction be drawn between late term abortion and infanticide. The new born child is after all, quite incapable of independent life or thought.
It's similar to the argument that I find some extreme libertarians put forward in relation to animals. Animals have no rights, therefore there is no case for prohibiting cruelty towards animals.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1668686297295101978
… The documents were likely extremely detailed intelligence assessments, w/ potential foe (& friendly) capabilities & weaknesses & US capabilities we would not want anyone - especially foes - to know.
Many have said, this isn't a document issue it's a national security issue. 3/
The takeaway.
… Yes, the President has declassification authority.
But that requires a process that then protects a LOT of people. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron.
And anyone who says someone can do it after leaving their leadership role is even more moronic. 10/.
The vast, vast majority of abortions take place early on. Those opposed to early abortion like to talk about late abortion as a wedge issue. I think the exact legal approach to take to very late abortions is complicated, but I don't see the point of discussing the issue in a context where anti-abortionists are not discussing the matter in good faith.
Curious that Johnson met Trump in Texas less than 3 weeks ago. Wonder what that was about. Both of them want to stay out of jail I reckon. They're not naturally birds of a feather at all, but something has brought them together.