(Original post by Darth Stewie)
At the employees discretion? Teachers and nurses are not qualified in any way shape or form to diagnose the situation a child might face at home short of the obvious.
Why do they have child protection training and responsibilities then? This is for the majority who are not at risk from abuse or violence and are just involved with sex. The exception is similar to parental-notification abortion laws in much of Europe and the US, which allow the nurse/PP staffer to decide whether to inform parents as usually mandated or invoke the exception if they believe the minor will be harmed as a result of getting pregnant or if the pregnancy is by incest in the first place. They don't have to see the doctor until the actual abortion, and the doctors' training in safeguarding is not much greater in most countries, in fact it may be less
than a teacher/school nurse permanently employed with children for an abortionist mainly working with adults.
As far as I'm aware schools currently do not promote sexual morality or any particular stance on abortion, they may address different viewpoints which allow teenagers to make an informed choice. Are you suggesting that teenagers should only be given information on sexual morality and the concept of abortion by their parents who are probably less informed than them?
Parents, their communities, religious institutions if they attend them- the school should keep out of life issues. They are too sensitive and too easily ruined by one anti-life teacher making their bias very clear in sex ed class. It happened in my school. Also why would our parents be less informed than us when most of them have been on this earth 25-35 years longer than us, and sex/contraception has been a mainstream issue for all of that time? It has not changed much since the 1960s apart from the technical detail of the contraceptives.
So you want to stop teenagers having the ability to practice safe sex in some kind of effort to promote it as immoral? Teenagers are going to bang, they were banging 60 years ago, 600 years ago and 6000 years ago because it is human nature. One lesson we have learned from the past (hence why all these programs were conceived) is that if teenagers don't have a method of having sex safely they are going to do it unsafely and as a result more pregnancy and an increase in the spread of STDs.
Stop them? They can get rubbers at plenty of other places, for free or for money. Anything requiring medical input (IUD, pill etc.) -go to a medical professional. See your GP or family planning clinic. Even some walk-in centres now provide these services... No school needs to get involved. I am very suspicious from my profamily perspective of why most of these sex ed campaigns were conceived
(nice unintended pun btw.)
Discourages pupils who are being abused coming forward, discourages pupils who are at danger from violence at home, discourages pupils who will be demonised by their parents/communities.
Same as above, seriously you seem to think teenagers being discouraged from screwing is more important than kids who potentially could get in serious trouble being protected? Are you a catholic?
Anti-Catholic bigotry red alert
Actually I am not a Catholic. Not even on the mark. But I do appreciate much of their teaching on moral matters.
It does not discourage abuse victims coming forward. Are you serious? I am talking about (de facto) consensual sex here. Abuse comes under the safeguarding policy and I certainly never mentioned getting rid of those. Pupil being abused= s/he can go to anyone s/he feels confident disclosing to, who informs designated child protection officer, who in turn involves SSD and the police. Not being pro-abuse, I don't want that system changed.
BUT- Pupil is taught to preserve purity until marriage by Hindu family. Goes to Birmingham school which prides itself on inclusivity and diversity. Mum thinks she'll be safe. She is having sex with her boyfriend when she isn't even old enough to marry yet. She has emotional difficulties as a result of that. If she tells someone, then let them actually phone the parents so they can know what THEIR daughter (not the schools' daughter!) has been up to.
Parent suspects daughter has been pregnant and aborted first-trimester. She calls up the head of year, knowing that she has a close relationship with her child and is much more liberal/approving. Mother: "Do you know what's up with Julie? I'm concerned. She hasn't been right the last month or so and since last Friday she's been sad around the house. I saw a red star in her diary marked SEE DR and know nothing about why."
Anti-parent, pro-confidentiality head of year (who has been told the details): "I don't know anything about that, sorry,"
That is the sort of lying immorality which is allowed under the present system and should be stopped. It used to be an honourable profession and these teachers smear it with their anti-moral nonsense.
Discouraging pupils who will be demonised? Don't do something that your parents, family and community disapprove of then. If you rebel and do it anyway, then you have issues which you feel need discussing, you have to take the consequences. An important part of social morality is respectability, right? I don't believe in some radical collectivism where everyone expects to know everything about each other's lives. I do think that if a group has moral standards and someone is breaking them it's usually poor form to keep it a secret as well. The issue is over parents feeling safe that their children are at school not being helped to hide things or even corrupted with anti-moral advice.
I have already covered violence. Most parents with stricter sexual morals are the exact opposite of violent: they are strong families and very loving and caring and believe in that due to the same sort of virtuous disposition. The odd situation is what you have that exemption for.
Are you actually going to defend these subversive anti-parent unprofessionals? What is going through your head that people at any level of a school that the parens are supposed to have trust in are entitled to collude with secrets and even lie down the phone? (all the way up to the headteacher & deputy of one place I went to being personally "approachable" and acting as a confidante for sexually active pupils when they should be busy with their management work
Again schools do not hand out "pro" abortion or pre-martial information, they hand out facts and allow kids to make informed decisions. You think charities like FPA hand out bias information? you do realize that bias doesn't mean something that disagrees with whatever religious book you follow?
Anyway the answer is no, this legislation is nothing more than some silly attempt to push whatever religious views you hold on kids and in the process potentially putting some in harms way. If parents need to use schools to spy on their kids then they are simply crap parents, no amount of moronic legislation is going to fix that