Heads will be forced to list children as young as five on school ‘hate registers’ over everyday playground insults.
Even minor incidents must be recorded as examples of serious bullying and details kept on a database until the pupil leaves secondary school.
Teachers are to be told that even if a primary school child uses homophobic or racist words without knowing their meaning, simply teaching them such words are hurtful and inappropriate is not enough.
Instead the incident has to be recorded and his or her behaviour monitored for future signs of ‘hate’ bullying.
The accusations will also be recorded in databases held by councils and made available to Whitehall and ministers to help them devise future anti-bullying campaigns.
[…]Many schools nationwide have already followed advice that they should record incidents of alleged racist, homophobic or anti-disability bullying.
One report last year by the Manifesto Club civil liberties think-tank said that 40,000 children each year are having racist charges added to their school records.
But ministers aim to make reporting of supposed ‘hate taunting’ a legal requirement for every school, primary as well as secondary, and every local authority across the country from the beginning of the new school year in September.
Incidents considered serious will have to be reported to local authorities. Children’s Secretary Ed Balls is set to introduce rules that, officials said, ‘will mean that schools will have to record and report serious or recurring incidents of bullying to their local authority.
I don’t think that it’s the government’s job to monitor and regulate playground interactions.
The Ministry [of Education] put out its new Health and Physical Education curriculum for grades 1 to 8 in January, and a spokesperson has confirmed to LifeSiteNews (LSN) that the new curriculum will be mandatory for all schools, Catholic and public, in September 2010. The high school curriculum will be released this spring, and will be mandatory as of September 2011. At this point, it is unclear, however, whether Catholic schools are to be forced into teaching elements that violate Catholic teaching.
The new curriculum, replacing a previous version from 1998, aligns with the Ministry’s campaign to promote “equity and inclusive education” in Ontario’s schools, which includes the advancement of homosexualism and transgenderism. A notable aspect of the curriculum’s revision is the attempt to instil a sense that homosexuality and transgenderism are perfectly normal.
[…]Students begin to explore “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in grade 3, as part of an expectation to appreciate “invisible differences” in others. A desired response has the eight-year-old student recognizing that “some [families] have two mothers or two fathers.”
In grade 5, a student is expected to recognize that “things I cannot control include … personal characteristics such as … my gender identity [and] sexual orientation.”
Grade 7s are expected to be taught about “using condoms consistently if and when a person becomes sexually active.”
One of main reasons why I want to get married is so that I can raise children to have a relationship with God and to make a difference in the world for him. I have had that view since I started working in my teens, often working multiple jobs at the same time – and I mean white collar jobs in the private and public sectors, right through undergraduate university. And all this so that I could buy my wife and children everything that would help them to serve God as much as they wanted to, e.g. – if my wife wanted to be a stay-at-home mom and to homeschool, no problem.
Now suppose a law like that is passed here in the United States and applies to public and private schools. How would I then look on the viability of marriage and child-raising then? My children, (all children, really), would be taught anti-Christian views of sex for a good deal of their academic life before going to college where drunken hook-up sex abounds. And this indoctrination would be at my expense, since public school teachers are paid out of taxes I have to pay. And early sexual activity would predispose my children away from Christian faith.
Do you think that news stories like this affect my plans to marry? They certainly do. I think liberal voters need to get serious about asking themselves exactly what makes men interested in marriage and parenting in the first place. Speaking for myself, I want to raise children who share my values and worldview and who serve God effectively when I am gone. When government forces its anti-Christian views on impressionable young children, that’s a disincentive for responsible men to marry.
By the way, Jennifer Roback Morse recently had a scary post about even worse laws governing schools in Quebec.
The news from Quebec is not encouraging for those who love liberty. In their new Quebec Policy Against Homophobia: Moving Together toward social equality, Provincial government of Quebec just gave itself permission to take all necessary steps to wipe out, not just “homophobia,” but also “heterosexism.”
In response to a case filed with the Human Rights Tribunal in 1999 by gay couple Murray and Peter Corren, the BC government decided last year to introduce new curricula from Kindergarten to Grade 12 that would be “inclusive” and homosexual-friendly. The pro-gay courses may become mandatory with provisions for barring parents from opting out or opting for an alternative course (see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/06060101.html).
Today, the BC Ministry of Education released the draft overview for the new Grade 12 Social Justice pilot course, which is the first course to come out of the agreement with Murray and Peter Corren.
Comments will be strictly moderated. You know why.
The Obama administration is stonewalling serious inquiries about sexual filth propagated by a senior presidential appointee who is responsible for promoting and implementing federal education policy. Democrats clearly are terrified of ruffling the feathers of their activist homosexual supporters, who are an influential part of the Democratic party’s base. This scandal, however, is not merely about homosexual behavior; it is about promoting sex between children and adults – and it’s time for President Obama to make clear that abetting such illegal perversion has no place in his administration.
It is curious why White House officials and Education Secretary Arne Duncan believe it’s worth it politically to continue taking arrows for defending Kevin Jennings, who is Mr. Obama’s controversial “safe schools czar.” The evidence suggesting he is unfit to serve as a senior presidential appointee is startling and plentiful. It was revealed this week that Mr. Jennings was involved in promoting a reading list for children 13 years old or older that made the most explicit sex between children and adults seem normal and acceptable. This brought up anew Mr. Jennings’ past controversies, such as his seeming encouragement of sex between one of his high school students and a much older man as well as his praise for Harry Hay, a notorious supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association.
But there is more. There are shocking new revelations this week of tape recordings from a youth conference involving 14-year-old students. The conference, billed as a forum to encourage tolerance of homosexuality, was sponsored by Mr. Jennings’ organization and was held at Tufts University in March 2000. Mr. Jennings was executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) from its founding in 1995 until August 2008. The conference sessions appear to have had less to do with promoting tolerance and more to do with teaching children how to engage in sex.
American Federation of Teachers
Cisco Systems, Inc.
David Bohnett Foundation
Ernst & Young
Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
David Geffen Foundation
George Gund Foundation
Heckscher Foundation for Children
Human Civil Rights Organizations of America: A CFC
International Association of Gay and Lesbian Country Western Dance Clubs
Johnson Family Foundation
Metropolitan Tennis Group, Inc.
National Education Association
New York Community Trust
The Overbrook Foundation
Peter and Carmen Lucia Buck Foundation
Ted Snowdon Foundation
The Streisand Foundation
W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation
Pepsi sponsors all of the major gay activism groups and has been targeted for a boycott by the American Family Association. And you can also see both of the major teacher unions are sponsors of GLSEN.
Comments to this post will be strictly monitored to respect the Democrat “hate crimes” bill signed into law by President Barack Obama.
Here is an article from Trayce Hansen, Ph.D. She summarizes the evidence on homosexuality in response to proposed changes to a California school board’s curriculum that would promote and normalize homosexual behavior.
ENVIRONMENT IS PRIMARY FACTOR IN DEVELOPMENT OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE AND GENDER IDENTITY
Decades of research confirm that sexual orientation and gender identity are not inborn but are primarily shaped by environmental influences during childhood and adolescence. The proposed school curriculum will affect the sexual preference and gender identity formation of some children exposed to it because it teaches that all sexual and gender variations are equally acceptable. Sexual preference and gender identity formation are fragile developmental processes that can be disrupted and altered by environmental influences such as the lessons in the proposed school curriculum.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT INBORN
Many people continue to believe that sexual orientation is inborn, although that is not true. Extensive, worldwide research reveals that homosexuality is predominately influenced by environmental factors. For instance, recent large-scale studies compared rates of homosexual behavior in sets of identical twins. If homosexual behavior were inborn, every time one identical twin was homosexual, the other identical twin would also be homosexual 100% of the time. But this is not what the research revealed. Rather, every time one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10% or 11% of the time. Homosexual behavior is clearly not genetic.
In fact, an accumulation of extensive research utilizing millions of research subjects finds that environment, not genetics, is the main factor in the development of non-heterosexual behavior. (To review these research studies see references 1-4 listed below).
[…]NON-HETEROSEXUAL BEHAVIOR LEADS TO INCREASED RISK OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL DISORDERS
Sadly, the research is also clear that individuals who adopt non-heterosexual lifestyles are more likely to suffer from a host of negative outcomes including psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts, domestic violence and sexual assault, and increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened lifespan. Schools should not affirm and thereby encourage young people to adopt lifestyles more likely to lead to such devastation. (To review these specific studies see references 5-10 below).
GENDER IDENTITY DISORDER IS A PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER THAT SHOULD NOT BE NORMALIZED TO CHILDREN
The proposed school curriculum also teaches that transgendered lifestyles are a healthy and acceptable alternative to the norm. That is not true. Many transgendered individuals suffer from a psychiatric disorder known as Gender Identity Disorder (GID) that is recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder in need of psychological treatment… (For a thorough understanding of Gender Identity Disorder, see reference number 11 below authored by world-renowned GID experts).