for the

Family

for the

Youth

for the

Future

Bulletin 138: Winter 2009/2010

In this issue:

Parents told to stand clear as government seeks to impose its new morality on children

Norman Wells reflects on the government’s plans to make sex and relationships education a compulsory part of the curriculum and to limit the right of parents to withdraw their children.

The Children, Schools and Families Bill, currently before Parliament, marks a new phase in the government’s relentless quest to undermine parents and to impose a new morality upon our children. In the face of strong public opposition, the government is pressing ahead with its plan to impose sex and relationships education (SRE) on all maintained schools from primary school entry and to remove from parents the right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons once they reach the age of 15.

The finer details will not be published until after the Bill has completed its parliamentary passage, but Ed Balls has already made it clear that all maintained schools, including faith schools, would be required to tell pupils under the age of consent where they can obtain contraception and to teach the acceptability of homosexual relationships.

Undermining marriage

Under current legislation, secretaries of state are required to issue guidance aimed at ensuring that sex education lessons teach ‘the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children’.1 However, the Children, Schools and Families Bill threatens to add an extra clause that puts same-sex civil partnership on a par with marriage. In the words of the Bill, future guidance on sex education will set out to ensure that children also ‘learn the nature of civil partnership and the importance of strong and stable relationships’. The government’s determination to undermine marriage and promote a diversity of family forms could hardly be clearer.

In a further ominous sign of things to come, the Bill is also proposing to remove from legislation any reference to protecting children from ‘teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned’.

The government’s proposals are music to the ears of groups such as the fpa and Brook, who have long campaigned for compulsory sex education as a means of advancing their agenda to break down traditional moral standards, redefine the family, promote relativism, celebrate homosexuality, and encourage sexual experimentation. But there is widespread disquiet among parents who are deeply concerned about any moves to reduce their influence over what is taught in such a sensitive subject area.

In spite of a concerted campaign from the sex education lobby, over two-thirds (68 per cent) of respondents to the government’s own public consultation exercise disagreed with making Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PSHEe) a statutory subject, and 79 per cent agreed that parents, carers and guardians should retain the right to withdraw their children from the SRE element of PSHEe.2

However, undeterred by such a strong response to a consultation which had attracted as many as 6,433 submissions, the government quietly commissioned a survey of 1,791 adults and 1,661 parents and asked some leading questions aimed at securing a semblance of public support, not only for making PSHEe statutory, but also for limiting the right of parents to withdraw their children from SRE lessons.

The right of withdrawal

The government has admitted that there is no evidence that 15- and 16-year-old pupils whose parents have hitherto withdrawn them from sex education classes are at any greater risk of teenage pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections than other pupils. Its plan to remove from parents the right of parental withdrawal once their children reach the age of 15 rests entirely on a spurious appeal to children’s rights.

The explanatory notes to the Bill state that giving all pupils a guarantee of sex education lessons ‘at the very least in the last year of compulsory education’ will ensure that their ‘right to a private life’ under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is not infringed. However, Article 8 does not provide any basis for regarding 15- and 16-year-olds as autonomous individuals, to be treated independently of their parents. Rather, the Convention refers to ‘the right to respect for…private and family life’. Not for the first time, the government has chosen to write the family out of the script.

Equally unconvincing is the government’s appeal to Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which refers to the right of children to freely express their own views and to have their views given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity. The fact that there is no provision in the Bill for granting pupils the right to withdraw themselves from sex education classes after their 15th birthday shows that this has got nothing to do with the rights of the child and everything to do with the assumed right of the state to determine what 15- and 16-year-olds will learn about sex and relationships – whether they or their parents like it or not.

When Evan Harris MP employed children’s rights arguments against the right of parents to withdraw their children from collective worship and Religious Education lessons last year, he received a firm rebuff. The children’s minister, Baroness Morgan, vigorously defended the parental right of withdrawal on the basis that ‘parents bring up children in this country, not the government and not schools’.3

It is a mantra that the government frequently repeats, and yet increasingly parents find themselves sidelined and effectively told they must bring up their children by government diktat. It is time for parents to stand up to the encroachments of an overbearing state and say ‘enough is enough’. Parents, and not the state, are responsible for the education of their children until the summer of the academic year in which they turn 16. The government must not allow children’s rights ideology to blind it to this fact and needs to start translating its rhetoric about parental responsibility into reality.

Notes
1. Education Act 1996, s403, as amended by Learning and Skills Act 2000, s148.
2. QCDA, Personal, social, health and economic education: Curriculum reform consultation report to the DCSF, September 2009.
3. Joint Committee on Human Rights, Children’s Rights, HL Paper 157, HC 318, Ev 19-20.

^ Back to the top ^

Teaching homosexuality in schools – making it up as they go along

Officials in the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) are having to explore the process for amending a written reply to a Parliamentary Question after Family Education Trust queried a statement made by the Minister for Schools and Learners about the teaching of homosexuality in schools.

In response to a question asking what guidance the DCSF had issued to primary and secondary schools on educating pupils about tolerance of homosexuality, Vernon Coaker stated:

‘The Department’s ‘Sex and Relationship Education Guidance’ (2004) issued to all schools makes it clear that schools should teach about all types of relationships that exist within society, including homosexual relationships. Both primary and secondary schools should address the underlying attitudes and values that underpin homophobic bullying as part of a well planned and age-appropriate programme of sex and relationships education (SRE).’1

However, the current sex and relationship education guidance was issued in 2000, not 2004, and it makes no reference at all to the teaching of homosexuality in either primary or secondary schools. In reply to our query, the DCSF confirmed that the date given for the guidance should have been 2000 and went on to state that:

‘[T]he comment included in the reply – about the Government’s advice to schools on teaching about same-sex relationships – is not a direct quote, but an attempt to encapsulate the “spirit” of the Government’s approach. The [official who drafted it] conceded that the statement possibly went further than the wording in the guidance.’2

Enshrining it in law

It is evident from his recent remarks that the Secretary of State is planning to enshrine in law what some of his officials misguidedly believe is already according to the ‘spirit’ of government guidance.

Speaking about the implications of his sex education proposals for faith schools, Ed Balls asserted:

‘You can teach the promotion of marriage, you can teach that you shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, what you can’t do is deny young people information about contraception outside of marriage. The same arises in homosexuality. Some faiths have a view about what in religious terms is right and wrong – what they can’t do though is not teach the importance of tolerance.’3

Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, has gone further and called for faith schools to be placed under a legal obligation to teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless. Family Education Trust director, Norman Wells, commented:

‘Not only is Nick Clegg showing a woeful lack of respect for faith schools, but he is also totally disregarding the deeply-held views of parents. The vast majority of parents do not want their children’s schools to be turned into vehicles to promote positive images of homosexual relationships.

‘It is a fundamental principle of education law that children must be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. That is why the government’s plan to make sex education a compulsory part of the curriculum from the age of five is so dangerous. It threatens to limit the influence of parents and remove from schools the discretion that they have under the current arrangements. It is vital that parents’ views are respected and taken seriously in such a sensitive and controversial area.’4

Notes
1. HC Hansard, 15 Dec 2009, col 1069W.
2. Correspondence with DCSF, 15 Jan 2010.
3. Graeme Paton, ‘Parents lose right over sex education’, Daily Telegraph, 5 Nov 2009.
4. ‘Clegg: Faith schools should teach being gay is normal’, Daily Mail Online, 14 Jan 2010.

^ Back to the top ^

Too Much, Too Soon: The government’s plans for your child’s sex education

by Norman Wells

This 52-page booklet is essential reading for parents wanting to know the background to the government’s proposals in the current Children, Schools and Families Bill. It explains the law as it stands, identifies the aims of the key players, considers the research evidence, and weighs up the case for making sex education compulsory for all pupils from the age of five. It argues that young people do not need to be presented with a menu of sexual options from which they can make ‘informed choices’. Rather, the whole issue needs to be approached with honesty, modesty and within a clear moral framework that shows a proper respect for parents and for marriage.

Prices (inc p&p): single copy – £3.50; 5 copies – £12.50; 10 copies – £22.50; 25 copies – £50.00.

^ Back to the top ^

Home Education: Government proposes ‘excessive powers’ that undermine key parental freedoms

 

‘It has always been the duty of parents, not the state, to educate their children, and they may choose to do so through school or otherwise. That historic settlement will be turned on its head by the Bill, which tears from parents and gives to the state the decision as to how a child is to be educated.’1

In these words, Conservative MP, Graham Stuart, summed up the threat presented by the proposals contained in the Children, Schools and Families Bill to regulate home education in England.

The overwhelming majority of the 5,211 respondents to the government’s public consultation strongly opposed proposals to further regulate and control home educating families. In response to the question, ‘Do you agree that these proposals strike the right balance between the rights of parents to home educate and the rights of children to receive a suitable education?’, 93 per cent of respondents disagreed, with less than five per cent supporting the government’s plans.2

Long before the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) had completed its analysis of consultation responses, the government published its legislative proposals in Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill (see item below).

Opposition on all sides

During the Second Reading debate on 11 January, several MPs from all the main parties expressed serious concern about the proposed legislation. Labour MP, Kate Hoey, stated:

‘People fear local authority bureaucrats, many of whom they would not want to look after their children, coming into their homes and telling them what to do about something they know nothing about… That is very dangerous, because we are now saying that we actually want to interfere in how children are educated at home. If we believe that families have first responsibility for such education, we have to allow them it.’3

Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, David Laws moved an amendment, objecting to the proposals to regulate home education on the basis that they introduced powers which ‘are excessive and risk undermining key freedoms for home educators’.4 His colleague, Sandra Gidley, added:

‘The crux of the matter is that many people feel that this is a licence to interfere and the whole move is representative of a societal attitude that seeks to quantify and standardise everything… During the recess, I met a number of home educated children and I was struck by the breadth and variety of the learning experiences made available to them by committed parents. The concern is that some well-meaning local education authority officer with the bog-standard training will insist on changes so that the national curriculum of the day is more closely adhered to at home.

‘The problem with the education system, which I have been following for many years, is that it suffers from fads… Over the years opinions have changed as to the best way to teach children to read, but the reality is that although there may be an overall “best way”, some children learn in different ways. A good teacher will adapt to that, and home educating parents are doing exactly the same, by adapting to what their children need.’5

Conservative MP, Mark Field, stated:

‘Increased intervention makes little financial sense and has the potential to divert resources from truly vulnerable children. It also further infringes the rights of parents to make what they believe are the right decisions for their children. Current legislation is perfectly adequate but all too often poorly understood.’6

From the Conservative front bench, Michael Gove commented:

‘I am deeply concerned about the additional bureaucratic burden that will now potentially be placed on thousands of our fellow citizens whose only crime is to want to devote themselves as fully as possible to their children’s education… it undermines the right of a family who have broken no laws and placed no child in danger to decide what is in the interests of their child…

‘One of my specific concerns is that this legislation means the state will take it upon itself to regulate what may or may not be taught in the home… [T]his is not about safeguarding or even about child protection; this is about the Secretary of State being able to say that an individual home educating parent is not providing an education that he deems appropriate and therefore they should not have the right to educate that child at home.’7

The Children, Schools and Families Bill is set to complete its Commons stages before the end of February, after which it will proceed to the House of Lords.

Notes
1. HC Hansard, 11 January 2009, col 507.
2. DCSF, Public Consultation Response: Home Education – registration and monitoring proposals.
3. HC Hansard, op. cit., cols 436,472.
4. ibid., col 462.
5. ibid., col 494.
6. ibid., cols 500-501.
7. ibid., cols 456-457.

^ Back to the top ^

Home Education: the government’s plans in brief

Licensing

· Parents would no longer have a simple choice between sending their children to school or educating them ‘otherwise’. They would be expected to seek permission from the local authority to home educate on an annual basis.

· Although it would not be a legal requirement for parents to apply for a licence to home educate, if the local authority discovered a home educated child who did not appear on the register, it would be empowered to issue a school attendance order and strictly forbidden to take into account any education provided to the child by his or her parents.

Educational statement

· As part of their application to home educate, parents would be required to submit their plans to the local authority for approval. Once approved, parents would have to adhere to the agreed plan and not deviate from it, irrespective of the evolving needs and interests of their child.

Monitoring

· When considering an application for a licence to home educate, local authorities would be obliged to ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings, notwithstanding the fact that there is no similar obligation to ask children in school how they feel about the educational choices their parents have made for them.

· Local authorities would be required to hold at least one meeting per year, both with the child and with a parent of the child in ‘at least one of the places’ where education is provided.

· Subject to the agreement of the child and the parent, the proposed legislation empowers local authority officials to meet the child alone. However, the Bill goes on to state that if the parent or the child raises an objection to any such meeting, the family runs the risk of having their licence to home educate refused or revoked due to a failure to co-operate.

^ Back to the top ^

Home education review: ‘slapdash’ ‘panic riven’, and ‘unfortunate’

The home education review and its aftermath does not reflect at all well on the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). Graham Badman conducted no less than three surveys of local authorities (LAs), yet still the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee found that his evidence base was ‘less than robust’. According to Professor James Conroy, Dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of Glasgow and a member of Graham Badman’s expert reference group:

‘The final report was somewhat rushed and there was little enough time to digest or reflect on either the report or the recommendations… In my 30 odd years of professional life in education I have rarely encountered a process, the entirety of which was so slapdash, panic riven, and nakedly and naively populist.’

The fact that measures relating to home education were included in the government’s draft legislative programme 16 weeks before the closing date for the public consultation strongly suggests that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. The Children, Schools and Families Bill was published well before there had been time to digest the 5,211 responses, and over seven weeks before the government’s response appeared.

When Harriet Harman published the government’s response to the consultation on the Draft Legislative Programme, she indicated that while the consultation responses and any report from the Children, Schools and Families Parliamentary Select Committee would be used to ‘help set out the detail of regulations and statutory guidance’, they would not be used to inform the primary legislation. So much for repeated assurances that the government would ‘take into account the responses to the consultation and any report arising from the Select Committee Inquiry into the review of home education when deciding how to proceed’.

The Select Committee later commented:

‘The way in which the Department has handled the Badman review has been unfortunate—from the way in which it framed the review, through to its drafting of legislation prior to publication of the related consultation findings. We trust that the Department will learn from this episode as it takes forward other such reviews in future.’

^ Back to the top ^

Open letter to The Guardian

Family Education Trust director, Norman Wells, joined parliamentarians, academics, teachers, medical practitioners and over 1,000 parents in signing a letter expressing concern regarding the government’s plans to regulate home education. Published in the Guardian on 11 January to coincide with the Second Reading of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, signatories included Lord Lucas, Graham Stuart MP, Professor Roger Scruton, Kidscape founder Michelle Elliott and author of Toxic Childhood, Sue Palmer. The letter stated:

‘We believe that schedule 1 of the children, Schools and Families Bill represents an unacceptable imposition of state control over families. Although it is aimed at children educated outside the school system, it has implications for all families.

‘Most parents would not make home-based education their first choice; but any family might need it if school seriously failed their child. Currently, this choice is lawfully available to all parents. If enacted, the bill would – for the first time – transfer responsibility for a child’s education from the parents to the state. We believe this is a matter which should be of great concern to everyone 

‘A change in the law is unnecessary. Parents are already required by law to provide an education suitable to the age, aptitude and ability of their children, and to any special educational needs they may have. Local authorities already have the power to take action if parents do not do this.

‘Evidence indicates that home education is highly effective. Many home educating families use child-led educational methods which lie outside the prevailing educational paradigm. Diversity in education is precious in a democracy, and we need the law to protect it, and to protect the best interests of each individual child. 

‘The interests of children are strikingly absent from schedule 1, which is concerned mainly with setting up a bureaucratic system administered by local authorities. They would be given the power to deny parents permission to home educate, at any time, unless parents adapt their educational approach to fit in with the requirements of the system. The resulting insecurity would be damaging to many children, especially those with special educational needs. 

‘Schedule 1 contravenes two principles of the government’s own children’s plan: that families bring up children, not governments; and that services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and families, not designed around professional boundaries. Given the controversy surrounding this section of the bill, and the serious criticisms made of it by the children, schools and families select committee, we call on the government to withdraw schedule 1 of the bill, and the accompanying clauses.’

^ Back to the top ^

Home Education Review – what happened when

January-May 2009 Having been invited to undertake a review of home education in England, Graham Badman meets with LAs, groups of home educators and other organisations, including Family Education Trust. His first LA questionnaire attracts 90 responses, with 25 of them sending further data in response to a second survey in May.

11 June 2009 Publication of Badman Report, recommending a statutory licensing and monitoring scheme. The government accepts all the report’s recommendations and launches a public consultation.

29 June 2009 The Draft Legislative Programme states that a new education bill will include measures to ‘improve monitoring arrangements for children educated at home’.

22 July 2009 The Children, Schools and Families Select Committee launches its inquiry into the home education review.

17 September 2009 Third survey of LAs ‘to strengthen [Graham Badman’s] statistical evidence in advance of the Select Committee hearing so that it is more extensive and statistically robust’ (74 responded).

9 October 2009 The government publishes its full response to Graham Badman’s recommendations

19 October 2009 Closing date for responses to public consultation.

19 November 2009 Publication of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, including proposals for a licensing and monitoring scheme.

8 December 2009 A record 74 MPs from all the major parties present petitions on behalf of 120 constituencies in opposition to the Badman recommendations.

16 December 2009 Publication of Select Committee report.

6 January 2010 First meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Home Education, addressed by the minister, Diana Johnson MP. The government announces it will prepare a revised impact assessment because of shortcomings in the statistics included in the first document.

11 January 2010 The government releases its response to the public consultation as the Second Reading of the Children, Schools and Families Bill gets underway in the House of Commons.

19 January 2010 The government releases a revised impact assessment and policy statement, as the Bill Committee receives oral evidence on home education, allowing witnesses and members of the committee no time to digest the contents prior to the meeting.

^ Back to the top ^

Weighed and found wanting

Why local authority statistics provide no sound basis for state interference in home educating families

Prior to his appearance before the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee in mid-October 2009, Graham Badman wrote to every local authority (LA) in England to gather additional evidence to support his case for a licensing and monitoring scheme for home educating families in England. Having received further statistics from 74 LAs, Graham Badman claimed that home educated children were twice as likely to have a child protection plan (CPP) as children in school and four times more likely to become NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training). His figures also suggested that a high proportion of ‘missing children (runaways)’ in some LAs had been home educated prior to their disappearance.

The point has been repeatedly made that Graham Badman’s claim that the proportion of electively home educated children (EHE) with a CPP is approximately double that found in the population of children as a whole is unsupportable since the total number of EHE children is unknown. If there are 40,000 EHE children (the lower end of Graham Badman’s own estimate), using his own data, the proportion of EHE children with a CPP would be the same as in the general population, whereas if there are 70,000 (Ed Balls’ estimate), the proportion would be substantially lower than for children in school.

Statistical shortcomings notwithstanding, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has gladly embraced Graham Badman’s new figures and, after adding its own spin, has attempted to press them into service to support the government’s proposals. While Graham Badman’s own summary shows that responding LAs considered that 5.3 per cent of home educated children in their areas were not receiving a suitable and/or full-time education, the DCSF confidently and repeatedly asserts in its impact assessment that ‘around 20 per cent of electively home educated children known to local authorities may be receiving an inadequate education’. In order to obtain this inflated figure, the DCSF has added into the equation all the children where the LA has made no assessment of the education provision and made the unwarranted assumption that all of them are not receiving a suitable education.

Given its penchant for manipulating the statistics on this issue, it is perhaps unsurprising that the department has refused to release the LA statistics on which these claims are based. However, as a result of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests made by home educators, most of the data has been obtained, with much of it placed in the public domain on the website www.whatdotheyknow.com

An analysis of LA responses reveals that ‘elective home education’ is not defined in the same way in every authority, some LAs took more care over ensuring that their figures were accurate than others, and the survey questions were interpreted in such varied ways that the figures obtained are rendered meaningless.

The problem of definition

There is a tendency in some LAs to count as ‘electively home educated’ children who are not in school for all manner of reasons, quite apart from those whose parents have made the deliberate and conscientious decision to educate their children at home.

So, for example, Darlington Borough Council told Graham Badman, ‘our “EHE” cohort includes those excluded from school, appealing for a school place or temporarily out of school before moving to another area. Some of the cohort has been withdrawn from school because of bullying or other problems. Roughly two-thirds of the EHE cohort is from traveller families who have a base in Darlington.’

The inclusion of all these categories under the umbrella term of ‘elective home education’ will inevitably affect the CPP and NEET figures. But that is not the only problem.

Unreliable statistics

The figures provided by some LAs quite literally simply do not add up. Take Plymouth City Council for example. Having made the unlikely suggestion that out of an estimated 135 home educated children in the city, all 135 were receiving ‘some education but not a full-time education’, the LA went on to state that an additional 15 were ‘receiving a full time but not ‘suitable’ education’, and a further 49 had not been assessed for one reason or another.

When Family Education Trust pressed Plymouth Council on its figures, an official in the Department for Children’s Services conceded that ‘Plymouth LA Home Education Visitors don’t make an assessment of whether full time education is being provided.’ She added, ‘It is impossible to give an answer about full time education because we do not monitor how many hours each child receives and over how many weeks, also home educators do not need to apply the same hours etc of education as a state maintained school.’ However, that little technicality did not prevent the Council from advising Graham Badman that the parents of all 135 home educated children in Plymouth were failing to fulfil their legal duty.

NEETs

As several LAs acknowledged in their submissions, accurate NEET figures are not available, since only a minority of home educated young people are registered with Connexions who produce the statistics. In some authorities NEET status was accorded to home educated young people by default. Bolton Borough Council, for example, reported that five out of its 17 home educated leavers were NEETs, but then added the comment, ‘May not be NEET – destination unknown’. Similarly, Newcastle upon Tyne City Council suggested that seven of its eight home educated leavers last summer were NEET. However, when Family Education Trust asked for further clarification, we were advised that one of Newcastle’s seven ‘NEETs’ ‘had relocated to Spain with family and [we] could not locate him’ and that of the six remaining ‘NEETs’, ‘some were considering college placements’.

Runaways

To take another example, Dorset County Council reported that all 11 of the county’s ‘missing children (runaways)’ were electively home educated prior to their disappearance. However, when we queried this with the county’s Children Out of School Service, we were advised that the figure supplied ‘does not relate to the total number of missing children in Dorset’ and that the term ‘missing’ had been taken to refer to children and families with whom the LA had ‘lost contact i.e. they have moved house’. Other LAs had interpreted the question in the same way, and some had made that explicit in their response.

In his submission to the select committee, Graham Badman claimed that his figures had been ‘quality assured by a DCSF statistician’. However, a subsequent FOI request revealed that this ‘quality assurance’ amounted to no more than a quick email advising DCSF officials that the presentation of the figures was ‘clear and informative’ and concluded with the words, ‘Thanks very much and good luck.’ So much for quality assurance – and for the idea that Graham Badman was undertaking an ‘independent’ review!

^ Back to the top ^

A Mother’s Work: How feminism, the market and policy shape family life

Neil Gilbert, Yale University Press, 2008, xi + 228pp, £20.00
ISBN978-0300119671

Prior to the 1960s, it was customary for mothers not to work outside the home, but due largely to the contraceptive revolution, the past half-century has seen a marked change in the structure of the labour market and a corresponding decline in the pursuit of motherhood as defined by child-bearing, childrearing and household production. In this title, Neil Gilbert, Professor of Social Welfare and Social Services at the University of California, explores the modern struggle to combine employment and family life, and examines how the choices women make are influenced by the culture of capitalism, feminist expectations and the social policies of the welfare state.

Professor Gilbert notes that women’s choices since the 1960s have been made in a social context heavily stacked against motherhood. He speaks of ‘a revolt against motherhood’ in which women are increasingly having fewer children, with a growing proportion choosing not to have any children at all, and those who have children less inclined to make caring for their children their primary occupation.

While an intellectual elite of well-paid professional women seeks to impose its own expectations about self-fulfilment and the joys of work outside the home, the added value of a second income for working and middle class families in more average jobs is often marginal and, ‘When stress is factored into the equation, it is hard to imagine that the second income lends much of a boost to the overall quality of family life.’

Four categories

Four categories of women are identified: (a) Traditional women who have three or more children and tend to spend a substantial period of their lives as full-time mothers; (b) Neo-traditional women who have two children and are interested in paid work, but place their family before a careerand are more likely to opt for part-time work; (c) Modern women who have one child and tend to put their career before their family; and (d) Postmodern women who choose to remain childless and find their fulfilment in extraordinary personal achievement or success in their professional lives. Professor Gilbert asserts that:

  • The culture of capitalism undervalues the economic worth of childrearing activities and domestic production;
  • Prevailing feminist expectations overestimate the social and emotional benefits of labour-force participation;
  • The family-friendly policies of the welfare state create incentives that reinforce the norms and values of capitalism and feminism.

He does not shy away from raising provocative questions and devotes an entire chapter to asking, ‘How family friendly are family-friendly policies?’ Penetrating observations and comments abound. For example, he writes, ‘Feminism, like all modern ideological movements, is at war with human nature.’ He notes that there has been ‘a shift from voluntarily caring for children and elderly kin out of a sense of devotion and commitment to performing caring services for strangers for pay. As mothers have entered the labour force, families have become more dependent on the state and market to supply the care work once performed for free – and throughout the industrialised world most of this paid care work is still carried out by women.’

And on daycare, he concludes, ‘Given the uncertain impact on children, all that can be said for extended daycare as a family-friendly policy is that it is most friendly to mothers who want or are required by dire necessity to work long hours outside the home.’

Since the ideals articulated by women in response to public opinion polls do not always coincide with their experience, it is difficult to ascertain to what extent women’s choices reflect a pattern of deep-seated preferences, whether influenced primarily by the market, feminist ideology, or so-called family-friendly policies. However, a small but significant reduction in female labour force participation over recent years leads Professor Gilbert to detect a ‘slight breeze in the air’, though he concedes that it is too soon to say whether a substantial shift in social attitudes is beginning to take place.

^ Back to the top ^

What Women Want… and how they can get it

Christina Odone, Centre for Policy Studies, 2009, 59pp, £10.00
ISBN 978-1906996093

In this report, based on two YouGov polls of a total of 4,690 adults, Christina Odone questions the unspoken assumption that women achieve self-realisation and fulfilment through their careers as opposed to through their families. She argues that, ‘Most women don’t aspire to the kind of lives their supposed champions are busily engineering for them.’

According to the YouGov figures, only 12 per cent of mothers wanted to work full-time and 31 per cent did not want to work at all. And while only one per cent of mothers with children under five thought that a mother should work full-time in a family with two children under five where the father worked, 49 per cent thought she should not work at all.

If there were no financial constraints, only one in five women said they would continue working full-time, while only six per cent of part-time female workers expressed a desire to move into full-time work.

Christina Odone concludes, ‘Those who influence and design public policy claim to represent women, but choose to ignore their preferences. Their aim is to get more women into full employment, and ease their burden once they get there. Yet this policy satisfies only one in five women – and ignores the wishes of 99 per cent of mothers with young children.’ She questions expensive government initiatives such as the extended schools programme and the national childcare strategy, and objects to gender quotas and to an income tax system that penalises single-earner couples with children.

Hard-hitting

Written in a direct and forthright style, this hard-hitting pamphlet contains many memorable soundbites. Christina Odone writes of a ‘vocal, visible and influential minority’ which is ‘moulding our culture’ and attempting to ‘impose masculine aspirations on everyone’. ‘The state is subsidising bad mothering and penalising good; it is subsidising individualism and punishing inter-dependency.’ ‘Today’s establishment refuses to countenance other women’s choices when they are not in line with their own.’ The liberal commentariat ‘has turned their own lifestyle choice into a cultural imperative’.

In nine short chapters, the booklet surveys current government policy, examines public opinion polls, considers the disproportionate influence of a small and unrepresentative circle of feminist opinion-formers, and evaluates the impact of daycare on children. Four case studies from the Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships illustrate how women can suffer when they are forced into a role not of their choosing and their need for inter-dependency is ignored or treated with contempt. Christina Odone writes:

‘The government could do much: it could stop pumping billions into institutionalised childcare, allowing women instead to choose how to bring up their children. It could change the tax and benefit system to stop privileging lone parents while penalising stay-at-home mothers. It could cut bureaucracy to make part-time work more attractive. The government should also invest in couple support services such as pre-marriage preparation courses and couple therapy; and make clear to women entering cohabitation their perilous legal status.

‘But beyond policy, a profound cultural shift is needed. The establishment should stop forcing women into a mould, and allow them instead to realise their ambitions. This means accepting and supporting a value system that is family-centred, not work-centred; and rehabilitating free emotional services, from cooking family meals to volunteering at the school fair.’

^ Back to the top ^

The Spoilt Generation: Why restoring authority will make our children and society happier

Aric Sigman, Piatkus, 2009, xi + 196pp, £12.99
ISBN 978-0749941482

This book is a breath of fresh air, smashing many of the sacred cows of 21st century pedagogy. Aric Sigman writes out of the firm conviction that by removing boundaries and retreating from authority, adults have failed children and robbed them of their basic supporting structures.

A ‘spoilt child’ is defined as ‘a child with a sense of entitlement…, a child with less empathy and sympathy, more interested in himself than others’ – a child with ‘the increasing expectation of instant gratification’. Children in the modern Western world are not only spoilt in terms of material wealth; they have also been given legislation, rights, opportunities and experiences that previous generations would not have dreamed of, and yet it has not made them any happier.

While we are encouraged to revere the young as never before, the media is driving and reinforcing a growing lack of respect for older people. Yet children and young people need authority figures, boundaries, discipline and order – they want and need parents who are in control.

Dr Sigman strongly opposes moves to legislate against the physical chastisement of children. He writes, ‘Publicly redefining and limiting parents so clinically in matters that are… intimate, intuitive and private, has served to undermine our authority and status as parents… Such caring legislation has paradoxically helped to deprive children further of strong authority figures and the protection and reinforcement of boundaries that they badly need.’

He calls for a proper sense of proportion in the smacking debate. A lack of words can hurt a child far more than physical correction and preventing children from seeing their father, for example, is far more harmful to a child’s development than a smack on the wrist.

Family breakdown has played a part in the weakening of parental authority as parents have attempted to compensate for ‘time poverty’, divorce and separation by indulging their children and showing greater levels of tolerance towards their unacceptable behaviour.

In a chapter on ‘PC Parenting’, Dr Sigman rejects the modern notion of ‘progressive parenting’ in which parents are genderless and interchangeable, and stresses that children need mothers and fathers who relate to them in different ways. He also notes how the daycare debate is concerned with the feelings of mothers rather than with the welfare of the child and asks, ‘If we are so concerned about sexism and being sensitive to women’s feelings about their choices, why must the negative feelings – the guilt – of some working mothers take precedence over boosting the feelings of stay-at-home mothers?’

He reflects on how the truth about the damaging effects of daycare is being stifled and comments: ‘To claim seriously that babies or toddlers placed in daycare centres for a significant proportion of their developmental years will have just as warm and intimate a relationship with their mothers as those who are not is, quite frankly, insulting to one’s intelligence.’ The term ‘family-friendly’ has been hi-jacked and distorted and needs to be reclaimed.

The selfish vocabulary of the self

The book contains a welcome recognition of the indispensable importance of fathers within the family and a strong rejection of the establishment view that all family structures are of equal value. Dr Sigman also issues a salutary warning about the dangers of the electronic media in a chapter aptly entitled, ‘The Three-parent Family’, and raises searching questions about the current obsession with self-esteem, which, he observes, has ‘given birth to a selfish vocabulary of the self’. He writes: ‘When our culture fell in love with the idea of raising self-esteem, we forgot to consider exactly what kind of self we were trying to raise the esteem of. The religion of enhancing self-esteem is devoted to expressing feelings and emotions without, at the same time, demanding self-discipline and self-control.’

In his introduction, Dr Sigman expresses the hope that this book will help to halt the retreat from authoritative parenting and reverse what he describes as ‘a modern-day form of abandonment’. We hope so, too.

^ Back to the top ^

You’re Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child

Miriam Grossman, Regnery Publishing, 2009, 246pp, US$24.95
ISBN 978-1596985544

Dr Grossman is an American psychiatrist and mother who takes a no-nonsense, politically incorrect approach to sex education. She notes that offensive material is being foisted on children under the pretence of safeguarding their health and wellbeing, while in reality the sex education agenda is concerned with promoting radical social ideologies, not preventing disease. To the mainstream sex educator, ‘a “sexually healthy” individual is one who has been “desensitised”, who is without any sense of embarrassment or shame (what some might consider “modesty”), whose sexuality is always “positive” and “open”, who respects and accepts “diverse” lifestyles, and who practices “safer sex” with every “partner”. This is not about health… This is about indoctrination.’

Written as a tool for parents, health care providers and teachers to counter the destructive messages children are receiving, this book faces head-on many of the myths that are prevalent in sex education programmes. It stresses the fundamental differences between males and females, the serious physical and emotional consequences of sexually transmitted infections, the importance of chastity for true sexual health, and the dangers of sexual experimentation. Dr Grossman concludes by offering practical advice to parents who want to protect their children.

^ Back to the top ^

Consultation on new sex and relationships education guidance

The Department for Children, Schools and Families is currently consulting on new sex and relationships education (SRE) guidance which goes far beyond the present guidelines published in July 2000. The 62-page document is intended to prepare schools for the delivery of statutory SRE from September 2011, assuming the proposals contained in the Children, Schools and Families Bill receive parliamentary approval.

While the document pays lip-service to showing ‘sensitivity to faith and cultural perspectives’, it includes a strong emphasis on ‘promoting equality, inclusion and acceptance of diversity’. The draft guidance stresses that ‘SRE should promote awareness, respect and understanding for the wide range of practices and beliefs relating to sex and relationships within our society’ and ‘provide children and young people with information about their right to confidential advice and support on sex and relationships’.

Reference is made to the need to ‘clarify and strengthen [the] values’ of pupils, which is education jargon for teaching them that there is no such thing as objective right and wrong, but that they must decide what is right ‘for them’.

At Key Stage 1 (ages 5-7), the draft guidance envisages that children will cover the questions, ‘What are the differences between girls and boys’ bodies?’, ‘What are the correct words for the external parts of our bodies ?’, ‘Where do babies come from?’ and ‘What is the difference between good touch and bad touch?’

At Key Stage 2 (ages 7-11), the government wants children to be introduced to contraception and homosexuality through questions such as, ‘How does the sperm and egg meet during sexual intercourse and can conception be prevented?’ and ‘What is sexist bullying and homophobic bullying and what skills do I need to do something about it?’

By the time they have reached Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14), pupils will be taught about abortion, told where they can obtain contraception and the morning-after pill, and encouraged to consider questions such as ‘What is sexual attraction and sexual orientation and how does it vary between people?’ and ‘What are the different ways of expressing sexual intimacy, and what are the associated risks of STIs and pregnancy?’

Consultation on Sex and Relationships Education Guidance
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/ Closing date for responses, 19 April.

 

^ Back to the top ^

What does ‘morality’ mean?

Over recent months sex education campaigners have been peppering their public statements with references to ‘morals’ and ‘values’ as part of a strenuous effort to present themselves as the champions of morality. When giving oral evidence to the Children, Schools and Families Bill Committee on 21 January 2010, Gill Frances, chair of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group, referred three times to the importance of ‘a moral framework’ for the delivery of sex and relationships education.

However, during a debate with Family Education Trust spokesman, Trevor Stammers, Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show on 6 November, Gill Frances showed that her understanding of ‘morality’ may be quite different from that of many parents.

When Jeremy Vine asked her whether young people would be taught to value their virginity in sex education classes, his question was met with a stunned silence. Struggling to regain her composure, Gill Frances said she could not answer that, adding that the subject would be taught ‘in a framework of values’, and that sexual activity should take place in ‘mutual relationships – never coercive’, ‘in trust with each other’.

^ Back to the top ^

Annual General Meeting and Conference 2010

The 2010 AGM and Conference of the Family Education Trust will be held on Saturday 26 June 2010 at the Royal Air Force Club, 128 Piccadilly, London W1, when we are looking forward to hearing addresses by The Honourable Mr Justice Coleridge and Dr Aric Sigman.

Sir Paul Coleridge is a senior judge in the Family Division of the High Court, who has argued that promoting marriage as ‘the gold standard’ of family structures is long overdue (see Bulletin 137).

Dr Aric Sigman is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine and Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. He is the author of The Spoilt Generation (see review in this Bulletin).

Further details will accompany the Spring bulletin. Please note the date in your diary now and plan to join with us if you are able.

^ Back to the top ^

Baroness Diana Elles (1921-2009)

We are sorry to report the death of Baroness Elles on 17 October 2009 at the age of 88. A social worker and barrister by profession, Diana Elles was granted a life peerage in 1972 and had a distinguished political career in the European Parliament and the United Nations as well as at Westminster.

A sponsor of Family Education Trust since 1990, Baroness Elles held firmly to the view that sex education was best left to parents and that where it was provided in schools, parents should be fully consulted. She actively fought to protect the unborn child from conception and called on the government to stop making grants to organisations involved in the sale of contraceptives. We are most grateful to her for having the courage and strength of conviction to speak out in support of the family and send our condolences to her relatives and close friends.

^ Back to the top ^

>