My hunch is that you cannot link (small) curriculum changes to immediate classroom changes. Why? (We) teachers don’t teach exactly or only what is in the curriculum. It been totally has not been prescribed content-wise for many subjects. If something currently taught is not actively proscribed, it will probably just still be taught. And (we) certainly don’t or cannot or will not adjust lessons and units quickly and seamlessly. The materials used don’t just disappear. For some subjects, there is an initial reliance on outside providers for materials. They might just still be used even if there was a small curriculum change. Nor do (our) headspaces around what to do or teach change so quickly. Think, also, of the classroom as a whole ”black box”. In reality, no-one really knows what’s going on most of the time in most classrooms.
Yes, no-one knows exactly what is said in classrooms except for the teacher and students. That’s why trust is so important and teachers ought to be very careful not to breach it by introducing ideology. Do you think having a standardised RSE workbook would discourage teachers from going off script?
That’s an interesting question. I guess if you view the materials supplied to schools (be it in the form of purchased texts from publishers, or those supplied by groups such as InsideOut or, more likely, Family Planning) as scripts, then the answer would be yes. Teachers, like everyone else, also have trust in materials and develop content knowledge as we go ~ so new materials might not quickly change a viewpoint, if they manage to do so at all. An interesting twist here is that AI may produce ideologically driven resources! Or, it might refuse to produce specific resources.
You are correct about AI and about how teachers build their own capacity and resources. So, are you saying that the only way to stop gender ideology being taught in our schools is to convince teachers it is wrong? Do you think that teachers who are true believers will carry on teaching GI even if the government were to proscribe it?
If proscribed and if we had resources covering “personality” rather than “identity expression”, maybe teachers would change slowly. However, perhaps for a time, yes, people would just do what they do. We all teach as we see right. Perhaps more so in this case, as it is so ideologically cemented in worldviews. You probably notice my circumspection and careful language. Unless proscribed, voices such as mine (even when being circumspect) risk being ostracised, cancelled, etc etc.
I can see how proscribing GI would help teachers to be open about their opposition but I imagine it would be a step too far for any government, especially now we have seen the concerted outrage over the puberty blocker ban.
I'm interested to find out, Ian, how InsideOut and Family Planning resources came to be at your school? Were they a result of a presentation to teaching staff by these groups, or did they come via Ministry of Ed? And how were they distributed to teachers? At a staff meeting with background info given or left in a pile to pick up? Also I'd like to know how you saw them received by teachers? With a sigh of relief, ie, our thinking work has been done, and we can simply
photocopy sheets off for the kids? Do you see a lot of photocopying of worksheets done in schools? Thanks but sorry for the extra homework!
You can just buy them online. With regard to InsideOut, I think they most likely send them to schools and they just end up with the teacher who delivers the materials. They won’t be vetted. And yes, it will be received with a sigh of relief if they align with your ideas. I think a lot of materials in the form of pamphlets get sent to all schools.
I strongly believe that the requirement to consult parents on Relationship and Sexuality Education must be retained. Parents must be given the ability to veto and influence schools' teaching about relationship and sexuality of their children and local communities.
I know of numerous instances where parents seeking to parent their children according to their own values in this area have been treated with disdain or uncooperatively by schools. Yet they have exercised an important protective function over their children. The 2020 guidelines for Relationship and Sexuality recommended teaching learners about puberty blockers - medicine that has now been halted for new prescriptions in New Zealand. Parents exercise a crucial and positive protective function over their children and provide an essential check and balance on the power of state schools that must be upheld and retained for better decision making for the wellbeing of children.
Parents must be given meaningful and full information to be able to form an opinion and this should be made clear to schools. It is crucial that they be given the right to withdraw their children if they wish.
Yours sincerely
Katherine Chua
My/our recommendations:
That the right of parents to withdraw children from relationship and sexuality education be retained.
That schools be required to make available all necessary information regarding relationship and sexuality classes so that parents can exercise meaningful oversight over their children's education.
That schools be prohibited from hiding any such relevant information from parents.
That formal recognition is given to parents as the primary guardians and decision makers regarding the content of their child's education.
The other thing "that hinges entirely on whether or not the content of the new curriculum is controversial" is defining what is meant by "controversial". For those choosing to live in the GI cult world, it is considered "controversial" to state that mammalian reproduction relies on a binarily sexed strategy which means there are only two sexes. Not to mention the wide gulf between those who believe or don't believe that some children are "trans" in the first place.
Thanks for the laugh about who is violent here. The image of a bunch of little old grannies beating the crap out of hulking men was so off the wall it sounded like a Monty Python sketch!
Excuse the typos in my comment!
My hunch is that you cannot link (small) curriculum changes to immediate classroom changes. Why? (We) teachers don’t teach exactly or only what is in the curriculum. It been totally has not been prescribed content-wise for many subjects. If something currently taught is not actively proscribed, it will probably just still be taught. And (we) certainly don’t or cannot or will not adjust lessons and units quickly and seamlessly. The materials used don’t just disappear. For some subjects, there is an initial reliance on outside providers for materials. They might just still be used even if there was a small curriculum change. Nor do (our) headspaces around what to do or teach change so quickly. Think, also, of the classroom as a whole ”black box”. In reality, no-one really knows what’s going on most of the time in most classrooms.
Yes, no-one knows exactly what is said in classrooms except for the teacher and students. That’s why trust is so important and teachers ought to be very careful not to breach it by introducing ideology. Do you think having a standardised RSE workbook would discourage teachers from going off script?
That’s an interesting question. I guess if you view the materials supplied to schools (be it in the form of purchased texts from publishers, or those supplied by groups such as InsideOut or, more likely, Family Planning) as scripts, then the answer would be yes. Teachers, like everyone else, also have trust in materials and develop content knowledge as we go ~ so new materials might not quickly change a viewpoint, if they manage to do so at all. An interesting twist here is that AI may produce ideologically driven resources! Or, it might refuse to produce specific resources.
You are correct about AI and about how teachers build their own capacity and resources. So, are you saying that the only way to stop gender ideology being taught in our schools is to convince teachers it is wrong? Do you think that teachers who are true believers will carry on teaching GI even if the government were to proscribe it?
If proscribed and if we had resources covering “personality” rather than “identity expression”, maybe teachers would change slowly. However, perhaps for a time, yes, people would just do what they do. We all teach as we see right. Perhaps more so in this case, as it is so ideologically cemented in worldviews. You probably notice my circumspection and careful language. Unless proscribed, voices such as mine (even when being circumspect) risk being ostracised, cancelled, etc etc.
I can see how proscribing GI would help teachers to be open about their opposition but I imagine it would be a step too far for any government, especially now we have seen the concerted outrage over the puberty blocker ban.
I'm interested to find out, Ian, how InsideOut and Family Planning resources came to be at your school? Were they a result of a presentation to teaching staff by these groups, or did they come via Ministry of Ed? And how were they distributed to teachers? At a staff meeting with background info given or left in a pile to pick up? Also I'd like to know how you saw them received by teachers? With a sigh of relief, ie, our thinking work has been done, and we can simply
photocopy sheets off for the kids? Do you see a lot of photocopying of worksheets done in schools? Thanks but sorry for the extra homework!
You can just buy them online. With regard to InsideOut, I think they most likely send them to schools and they just end up with the teacher who delivers the materials. They won’t be vetted. And yes, it will be received with a sigh of relief if they align with your ideas. I think a lot of materials in the form of pamphlets get sent to all schools.
My submission just now:
I strongly believe that the requirement to consult parents on Relationship and Sexuality Education must be retained. Parents must be given the ability to veto and influence schools' teaching about relationship and sexuality of their children and local communities.
I know of numerous instances where parents seeking to parent their children according to their own values in this area have been treated with disdain or uncooperatively by schools. Yet they have exercised an important protective function over their children. The 2020 guidelines for Relationship and Sexuality recommended teaching learners about puberty blockers - medicine that has now been halted for new prescriptions in New Zealand. Parents exercise a crucial and positive protective function over their children and provide an essential check and balance on the power of state schools that must be upheld and retained for better decision making for the wellbeing of children.
Parents must be given meaningful and full information to be able to form an opinion and this should be made clear to schools. It is crucial that they be given the right to withdraw their children if they wish.
Yours sincerely
Katherine Chua
My/our recommendations:
That the right of parents to withdraw children from relationship and sexuality education be retained.
That schools be required to make available all necessary information regarding relationship and sexuality classes so that parents can exercise meaningful oversight over their children's education.
That schools be prohibited from hiding any such relevant information from parents.
That formal recognition is given to parents as the primary guardians and decision makers regarding the content of their child's education.
Thanks for sharing.
The other thing "that hinges entirely on whether or not the content of the new curriculum is controversial" is defining what is meant by "controversial". For those choosing to live in the GI cult world, it is considered "controversial" to state that mammalian reproduction relies on a binarily sexed strategy which means there are only two sexes. Not to mention the wide gulf between those who believe or don't believe that some children are "trans" in the first place.
Thanks for the laugh about who is violent here. The image of a bunch of little old grannies beating the crap out of hulking men was so off the wall it sounded like a Monty Python sketch!
They never let up.do they. Nor do you fellas. Amazing work as usual
Thanks for this, Fern.
Since it covers three issues is it ok if I quote the whole thing on my substack when re-posting?
Dusty
Yes, thanks Dusty.
Have now cross posted 😊
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/its-practically-stamped-on-your-forehead-131
Dusty
Thanks v much, Fern