21

Clare Page is a mother who is challenging the Information Commissioners on their refusal to allow her access to lesson plans provided by School of Sexuality Education (SoSE), a charity that provided some of the educational content for the Family Sex Show, advertised for an audience of age 5+. The show was cancelled due to inappropriately sexualising content.

She is crowdfunding for the legal fees.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/transparency-in-schools-foi-ap/

From her crowdfunder page: "I was denied access to the slides used to teach a sex education lesson to my 15 year old daughter, by her school, Haberdashers' Hatcham College. I was also told I may not know who taught the lesson.

My daughter reported that the lesson included some controversial claims, including the idea that we live in a 'Heteronormative' society, that this is not a good thing and that she should be 'Sex Positive' in her attitude to relationships. I was concerned these views might breach the Education Act's prohibition on political indoctrination and also fail to meet the school's Equality Act duties, regarding protected fundamental beliefs.

The lesson was provided by an external charity called School of Sexuality Education and at the time they had inappropriately explicit lesson plans on their website and live links to their teacher's private company, which advertises sex toys, pornography and anal masturbation techniques to young people.

This presented a potential conflict of interest and a possible safeguarding risk and so I wanted to know exactly what was taught to my daughter, and by whom, with a view to raising a formal complaint.

I made a Freedom of Information request but it was declined on grounds of commercial secrecy for the charity and privacy for the teacher. I therefore referred the case to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

In a landmark decision, the ICO backed the school's choice to keep the lesson and teacher's identity secret from parents, prioritising the commercial interest of a third party education provider over the public interest of parents to know what their children are taught. They have also prioritised the privacy of the teacher over safeguarding concerns."

Clare Page is a mother who is challenging the Information Commissioners on their refusal to allow her access to lesson plans provided by School of Sexuality Education (SoSE), a charity that provided some of the educational content for the Family Sex Show, advertised for an audience of age 5+. The show was cancelled due to inappropriately sexualising content. She is crowdfunding for the legal fees. https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/transparency-in-schools-foi-ap/ From her crowdfunder page: "I was denied access to the slides used to teach a sex education lesson to my 15 year old daughter, by her school, Haberdashers' Hatcham College. I was also told I may not know who taught the lesson. My daughter reported that the lesson included some controversial claims, including the idea that we live in a 'Heteronormative' society, that this is not a good thing and that she should be 'Sex Positive' in her attitude to relationships. I was concerned these views might breach the Education Act's prohibition on political indoctrination and also fail to meet the school's Equality Act duties, regarding protected fundamental beliefs. The lesson was provided by an external charity called School of Sexuality Education and at the time they had inappropriately explicit lesson plans on their website and live links to their teacher's private company, which advertises sex toys, pornography and anal masturbation techniques to young people. This presented a potential conflict of interest and a possible safeguarding risk and so I wanted to know exactly what was taught to my daughter, and by whom, with a view to raising a formal complaint. I made a Freedom of Information request but it was declined on grounds of commercial secrecy for the charity and privacy for the teacher. I therefore referred the case to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). In a landmark decision, the ICO backed the school's choice to keep the lesson and teacher's identity secret from parents, prioritising the commercial interest of a third party education provider over the public interest of parents to know what their children are taught. They have also prioritised the privacy of the teacher over safeguarding concerns."

14 comments

While heteronormativity is certainly a thing, I wouldn’t think it’s something that belongs in sex ed, is it?

[–] Rial_Ity 8 points Edited

We do live in a heteronormative society though. I know it's been co-opted by the queer theory loonies, but heterosexuality it still seen as what is normal and correct. To the detriment of gays and lesbians.

Doesn't change the fact that parents have the right to know what their children are being taught

I don't disagree with that but we need to balance greater acceptance of gays and lesbians with all women feeling that the most important thing in sex is their boundaries and their right to defend them. That's includes boundaries for gay men and lesbians too. No-one should be pressured into sex that makes them uncomfortable, young men and women should not take porn as a template for a healthy sex life, and no lesbian should be pressured into 'widening her dating pool' to include transwomen if that's not her thing.

But none of those things are affected by simply accepting that society is homophobic. Which this person seems to be against as well as the other things.

I think it is the loaded nature of the word that the mother is objecting too - because it comes with all the woke baggage and seems to imply that there is something wrong with being heterosexual - it suggests you're square and therefore who are you to say no to changes in culture (like whether or not self-id is ok) or changes in your boundaries. I think the word has also damaged the lives of gay men and lesbians who are exclusively same sex attracted by making being a 'spicy straight -morphing into-queer/gender fluid' (or whatever) is better to be than a dull heterosexual, because to be that dull person is to be bad so hey girl drop your boundaries and get with it. Paraphrasing badly but I hope you can see what I mean!

The key point is that parents should see what their kids are taught - with holding that info is just frankly creepy. And if you are lesbian parents who feel that the sex education is homophobic then you can see it and complain. It is better for everyone.

[–] SecondSkin 5 points Edited

I don’t see anything other than that her daughter told her she was taught that society was ‘heteronormative’ and she should be ‘sex positive’, then mum was refused the right to see the lesson plan or know which outside organisation taught it-which is illegal (SB says it breaches the education act) and against the DfE guidance here. As well as anti safeguarding-it’s a sliver away from teaching children to keep secrets with their teachers and adults from this organisation.

*oh and actually even if she is homophobic, it still stands that this case matters because of the principle of being secretive over resources is anti safeguarding and a breach of DfE guidance and the education act.

Same way free speech applies to all free speech. Protecting the right of dickweedy little wankbadgers to claim women have girly brains is protecting our right to argue against them with logic and fact.

I don’t think it reads like she is objecting to the term itself, but that the term is a red flag for gender ideology. Given she’s not been allowed to view the material I can understand that. If I heard the term and then saw lesson plans that followed the DfE guidance about age appropriate teaching on sexual orientation with regards to our laws and positive representation of same sex relationships throughout the curriculum, then i’d be happy. Maybe she would be also, I see nothing to suggest that’s not the case here. But without being able to view the material then it looks like a red flag imho, given how we know gender ideology intentionally (literally, looking at dentons advice on forced teaming) piggybacking on lgb rights and teaching.

Yea but teaching politics in a public school is using the school as a podium for ideology. Whether the ideology is right or wrong education should be descriptive not proscriptive. Ie: it should describe facts not ascribe "shoulds". The term "heteronormative" carries a heavy implication that it shouldn't be heteronormative and even though I might agree with the teacher, shoulds don't belong in a classroom imo.

It is a fact that society is heteronormative. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. From the most conservative homophobe to the looniest liberal, straight is considered normal.

I agree with you, but this language sets of my queer loony radar.

IMO, that no one cares about, I don’t get what all the big song and dance is about and why everyone’s got to fluff sex Ed up with so much nonsence. There needs to be plenty of talk around consent and what is or isn’t consent, when something might be breaking the law (sharing images online, having sex with someone who is under the influence, what abuse is etc). You teach them if they’re having male-female, male-male or female-female sex what STDs, STIs and other risks there are associated with it, you explain that what they see in pornography is a produced film and not at all what actual human relationships are like.

The way to teach kids that same sex relationships are normal is to teach it as no big deal just like hetro relationships. When you start making a fuss (either way, wether it’s getting upset someone is gay or… whatever those wierd performative POV reactions to someone comming out are on tiktok) that’s the moment it’s not normal.

[–] SecondSkin 0 points Edited

The way to teach it is through representation, two mummies in the story book, two dads in the colour in pic, lots of lgb representation like sports figures or lgb writers, age appropriate covering the history of pride when older etc, which is already place in our schools (or it should be given the DfE guidance that covers this stuff).