Here's an interesting report from LifeSiteNews.com …
"Government guidelines for training school officials instruct teachers not to use the terms "mum and dad" when referring to students' parents, and to treat "even casual" use of terms like "gay" as equal to racism."
GOS: But it doesn't equal racism. Homosexuals aren't an ethnic group, and I imagine they'd be deeply insulted if we suggested they were. Mainly because they seem to be deeply insulted by almost anything.
"The guidance was commissioned by the Labour government directly from the homosexual lobby group Stonewall. The document was launched today at a Stonewall conference by Schools Secretary Ed Balls."
GOS: Why is the government, which is ultimately responsible for the conduct of all state schools in this country, asking a completely independent one-issue pressure group to tell them what to do? Isn't that like asking the Leyton Wing of the Al-Qaeda Youth Movement to tell them what to do about terrorism? Or asking Vacanta Străinătate Bucaresti how to curb illegal immigration?
"Ed Balls said, "Homophobic insults should be viewed as seriously as racism."
"Even casual use of homophobic language in schools can create an atmosphere that isolates young people and can be the forerunner of more serious forms of bullying."
The guidelines say that the word "parents" must replace "mum and dad", and that teachers should educate pupils about civil partnerships and gay adoption rights."
GOS: So exactly when, and why, did "mum" and "dad" become homophobic words? How can Ed Balls stand up in public and in all seriousness expect the nation to accept that two words used by 90% of children for the last fifty years are suddenly "wrong" - just because a bunch of shirt-lifters say they are?
"In Britain's current political climate, even young children have been subject to police interventions on accusations of making "racist" or "homophobic" comments. In October 2006, a 14-year-old school girl was arrested by police and detained in a cell for three hours after she asked to be moved into a group of students who spoke English in class. Stott was denounced to police for "racism" by her teachers. In April 2007, a ten-year-old boy was questioned after the boy sent an email calling another boy "gay".
In the "Frequently Asked Questions" section of the guidelines, in answer to the question, 'We have to respect cultural and religious differences. Does this mean pupils can be homophobic?' the guidelines specifically state that those with religious views regarded by the homosexual movement as "intolerant" must be silent. 'A person can hold whatever views they want but expressing views that denigrate others is unacceptable.'"
GOS: Unless you're gay, of course, in which case discriminating against certain religious groups and restricting their rights of free expression is OK. Because you're gay, so you must be right.
"For Stonewall, youth and sexual innocence is no reason for an exemption. To the objection that primary school students are too young to understand issues of homosexuality, the guidelines respond, 'Primary-school pupils may be too young to understand their own sexual orientation but it is likely that some primary-school pupils will know someone who is gay.'"
GOS: Now wait a minute, Stonewall. Wait just a cotton-picking minute. In the very first paragraph of this report you said that the use of the word "gay" is equally to racism. Now you're using it yourselves. So Stonewall is racist. It's OK for Stonewall to be racist, but little kids in the playground mustn't be.
"Homophobic language is used in primary schools without the pupils necessarily realising what it is that they are saying. Primary schools should respond to homophobic bullying in an age-appropriate way whilst demonstrating that it is not acceptable in school."
GOS: Right, so they don't know what they're saying, but they've got to be treated like homophobic bullies. I guess that's one way of teaching them what "gay" means. "Gay" means you get in trouble.
A gay dog. Can we still say that?
"For parents who object to their children being exposed to instruction on homosexuality, the guidelines say, 'Regardless of their views on gay people or sexual orientation, parents and carers have to understand that schools have a responsibility to keep pupils safe.'"
GOS: So, I'm a parent, and I'm a Catholic, and I don't want my child to be indoctrinated in school about gay practices. What do you mean about keeping pupils safe? Are you saying that my child will be in some kind of danger if he doesn't get this indoctrination? Because frankly, I think he's in danger now. I think he's in grave danger of being taught that men fiddling around with each other's privates is just the same as normal married life.
And it isn't.
Stonewall, perhaps the most successful homosexual activist organization in the world, has been accepted by the Labour government, first under Tony Blair and now by Gordon Brown's leadership, as the leading voice on all issues regarding homosexuality. The guidelines take this a step further in actually allowing the lobby group to author a government document."
Under Tony Blair's "New Labour" government, Section 28 - the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools, was repealed. Since then, homosexual activists have used their influence in Parliament to implement a full roster of training for both teachers and students in "normalizing homosexuality" - which some might say is a contradiction in terms. It's not normal, so how dare they pretend that it is?
To make matters even worse there have even been calls to introduce this kind of indoctrination into nursery schools (remember the old Jesuit saying, "Give me a child before he's seven, and he's mine for life"?) and to the GOS's great shame, because he used to be a teacher himself, the calls are actually coming from the largest teaching union.
Needless to say all this takes its toll among the teachers who are supposed to enforce all this rubbish. To quote a report that appeared recently in "Personnel Today" magazine …
"… according to official government figures, 20% of pupils leave primary school unable to read or write. And going into secondary education unable to understand what they are looking at or listening to is hardly likely to grab the attention of the attention-deficit-disorderly queue lining up to be excluded at the first possible opportunity.
The reason for this abject failure, we are told by the education experts, is that targets and administrative burdens are getting in the way of teaching that class sizes are too big pupils too unruly and wanting to fail facilities sub-standard. Then there's the issue of pay and motivation.
People are not drawn to teaching by the stratospheric salaries, in much the same way that doctors are not lured into their seven-year induction to the world of patient abuse by thoughts of great pay (although it obviously helps). And, like medicine, teaching can be a very rewarding occupation. Trouble is, it can also be totally frustrating, intimidating and virtually impossible to do well. But unlike the medical profession, society sneers at teachers, as though they are somehow getting away with it - big holidays, short days, etc - and somehow seems able to begrudge them a not- unreasonable 2.4% pay rise.
But lurking beneath the public sneers, there is a real concern that seems to be sidelined whenever teaching becomes the latest hot topic of conversation: the quality of teaching.
There are certainly plenty of inspirational individuals within the system who do an amazing job turning uninterested youths on to the concept of learning and driving those with talent to go as far as they can. But for every great teacher, there seems to be at least a couple of out-and-out duds, backed up by a bulk of 'adequate' under-performers.
Of course, this charge could be made about any job in any profession. The difference is that only teaching has the opportunity to shape minds when they're at an impressionable age, apart, that is, from religion - which is one good argument against faith-based schools.
So where is the quality control in the teaching system?
The schools inspectorate, Ofsted, is doing its level best to turn schools into hotbeds of bean-counting, forcing otherwise successful but perhaps slightly shambolic schools to toe the line on the admin front. But Ofsted somehow misinterpreted the government mantra as 'targets, targets, targets' and seems to be more concerned with the performance of the school, rather than the performance of the individuals within it.
And wherever there are targets, there are small-minded individuals trying to get around the criteria, fake a way through the system.
And while the beans are being counted, inspirational teachers are leaving the profession in their thousands (more than 90,000 between 2000 and 2005), driven out by the mad rush for statistical and administrative excellence, and paving the way for administratively gifted but perhaps educationally challenged individuals to rise to the top.
It seems that people who can't teach ... teach.
Bad teachers struggle with class discipline, struggle to get their lessons planned and to hit the targets set by the inspectors. But by working ridiculously long hours, they manage to get their paperwork done. As a result, it looks like they're doing a fine job.
So who's been appointing these poor mis-educators? And who lets them get away with it?
Human Resources must take its share of the blame. And while the profession will no doubt point to a lack of talent among applicants and the fact that families should be demanding more from their children's teachers, parents don't appoint the useless ones.
So it definitely is time to get back to basics: the basic task of employing the right people to do the right job. The nation's children deserve a better service. And the nation will be better served by a properly educated workforce.
It's not rocket science."
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2008 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite