I’d clarified my earlier post, but I’m still seeing links to it passed round as an example of “evil Tory scum”, presumably because the headline is most of what people are seeing. So, to clarify this wasn’t down to Gove. A posted on Liberal Conspiracy traced the clause back to the very first academy funding agreements, such as this 2001 example of the first academy to be set up in the UK. (Large PDF: 6.54MB – it appears at number 26)
Yes, it’s still not a good clause but attacking Gove and the Tories for something they didn’t do is not going to make them change it any quicker. (Quite the opposite, I suspect.)
i’m confused by the whole affair. The educatin bill has a line in which says
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2010-2012/0067/amend/ml067-vii.htm
“The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that where sex and relationships education is given to registered pupils at schools in England to which this section applies they learn about the nature of marriage, civil partnership, and other strong and stable relationships and their importance for family life and the bringing up of children.”
This is all inclusive and very much different to the telegraph’s headline even though it may be referring to something different in the education rules/legislation. Basically it’s not consistent and I find the inconsistency hard to believe.
The bit you quote was a proposed amendment in the Lords – it did not make it in to the final version. (For whatever reason, it was never even considered – it is amendment number 90 and it’s noted on Hansard simply as “not moved”.)
But the text that’s appeared as Clause 26/28/29 (Depending on revision) is a funding agreement between the Department for Education and the academies. It is a document the Secretary of State has some leeway with and is not directly related to the Education Act.
Thanks Zoe, I think they should use the proposed amendment wording (which wasn’t moved) in all their documentations/legislations etc….
perhaps the amendment 90 wasn’t moved becuase of this controversy
http://www.secularism.org.uk/peers-attack-christian-institute.html
“Two peers have condemned a “cruel†and “vicious†campaign against them by the Christian Institute which claimed they wanted to make personal, social and health education (PSHE) compulsory for five-year-olds. This includes education about sex and relationships”
I take your point about this being a phrase from a particular funding agreement but the phrase is used generally in education documents and CP s are never part of the phrase. The whole line/idea needs to be updated and carried forward to everything.