Sorry Robin, I speed-read your comment and thought you had missed out the guidance bit.

if this includes the statutory guidance issued under the L&SA, then there is no difference between free and maintained schools

Quite.

if however it doesn’t, and (as appears to be the case) the SoS has issued no guidance specifically for free schools…

Why would he? Free schools are not a distinct category of school – they are one of a number of ways of opening an academy. Once open, a FS is just another academy.

The whole point of the clause 28 is to put the schools on the same legal footing as the rest.

Wrong. You have only partially quoted the MFA.

Sorry? Reread my quote (copied and pasted from the clause)alongside yours and tell me where they differ. My quote, by the way, is from the model on the DoE website.

I mean does any of this claptrap go beyond frightened adults not having the first clue about how to engage their children on matters of a sexual nature?

Here James Fox embraces the Grovesian approach to teaching ‘the birds & the bees’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fgT-OjrdDM&feature=related

Wrong. You have only partially quoted the MFA.

The wording of c 28 of the model funding agreement is:

28) The Academy Trust shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on sex and relationship education to ensure that children at the Academy are protected from inappropriate teaching materials and they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children.

The relevant provision actually reads:

(1A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools—
(a) they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children, and
(b) they are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned.

(1B) In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance.

which isn’t quite as you suggested. The requirement is on the SoS to issue guidance in relation to sex ed, and on the heads and governing bodies to have regard to it when teaching sex ed.

The guidance issued under that Act read (in relevant part):

This is the first time that schools have had a national framework to support work in this area. As part of sex and relationship education, pupils should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children. But the Government recognises – as in the Home Office, Ministerial Group on the Family consultation document “Supporting Families”- that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage. Therefore pupils should learn the significance of marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks of community and society. Care needs to be taken to ensure that there is no stigmatisation of children based on their home circumstances.

The model free school funding agreement provides that:

The Academy Trust shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on sex and relationship education to ensure that children at the Academy are protected from inappropriate teaching materials and they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children.

So the question is the content of “any guidance issued by the Secretary of State”; if this includes the statutory guidance issued under the L&SA, then there is no difference betewen free and maintained schools; if however it doesn’t, and (as appears to be the case) the SoS has issued no guidance specifically for free schools, then free schools are free to teach largely as they wish in this area.

I haven’t been able to find any free-school guidance on the topic.

You’d have to compare the statistics of children from one parent families to those of children from two parent families where neither parent can stand the sight of each other to have a reasonable comparison.

The proper way to do this is the national curriculum, which has proper input from educators, rather than just from politicians.

The national curriculum is continually interfered with by politicians, helped out by “educators” often with their own political or social agendas.

The safeguard against a “Stalinist” education system is freedom for schools to set their own curricula and and choice for parents in where they send their children. Of course a degree of conformity can be attained by the setting of examinations, but exam boards should, also, not be state controlled.

Government should have no role in promoting the benefits of marriage, or any other social agenda, to children and, as long as you agree their right to set the curriculum, you risk them promoting other things you may like a lot less.

“The law was changed in 2000. (Dunno when you left school).”

2001, I think. Which would explain why I don’t remember this.

“And that’s it……… so what Gove has done this week is merely ensure that academies & free schools are under the same legal requirement as everyone else. Which is nether Stalinist nor some ideologically loaded move. ”

I think it’s the latter (it’s obviously not the former).

“Some commenters above have tried to imply some big difference by comparing the wording of the funding agreement with the wording of the guidance. That’s apples and pears. What’s in the funding agreement should simply conform with what’s on the statute book.”

Apples and pears are quite different. As is the difference between teaching the important of marriage, and teaching the importance of marriage and “other stable relationships”, which according to the Telegraph article is the main change here. Basically Gove seems to have removed the bit that also OKs cohabiting couples and civil partnerships.

OK. What’s the specific rule about teaching kids about marriage? Like I say, this didn’t happen at my schools, so either the rule is fairly recent, or my schools ignored it.

The law was changed in 2000. (Dunno when you left school).

The Learning and Skills Act 2000 requires that:

“young people learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children.”

and that governing bodies “take account of guidance from Sec State on sex and relationship education.

And that’s it……… so what Gove has done this week is merely ensure that academies & free schools are under the same legal requirement as everyone else. Which is nether Stalinist nor some ideologically loaded move.

Some commenters above have tried to imply some big difference by comparing the wording of the funding agreement with the wording of the guidance. That’s apples and pears. What’s in the funding agreement should simply conform with what’s on the statute book.

Now it does.

If Gove had gone beyond the law, then those who claim this is political interference from Whitehall might have a point. But he hasn’t. He’s just kept it to the wording of the 2000 Act. ….. i.e. done the legally required minimum.

Which is why the OP is a load of tosh.

Yes, agreed.

It used to be a straight forward matter to post links to the ONS wesbite to access official publications such as this but not any longer. Try googling on: Social Trends 40

Good luck. I’ve a copy on my HD from times before the ONS website was redeveloped. Old links return the error message: Not found.

“By reports, more than a few “maintained” schools do not conform with the statutory requirement to hold a daily act of worship and weekly RE classes may cover all sorts of subjects, some with ethical or social dimensions or comparative religions to address the interests of ethnically diverse classes.”

I can confirm that first-hand. My primary school had Christian songs in assembly but no prayer, and no talks about God either (except on the occasions when the embarassing evangalist teacher got her way).

My seconday had no worship at all, and RE was essentially a humanities subject with some entry-level moral and philosophical debate. We did have one RE teacher who announed at the start of the term that we wouldn’t be covering Islam like we were meant to because “we hadn’t learned enough about Christianity yet”. She wasn’t invited to return the next year.

I’m guessing that these rules aren’t enforced, at least until some religious parent kicks up a fuss.

OK. What’s the specific rule about teaching kids about marriage? Like I say, this didn’t happen at my schools, so either the rule is fairly recent, or my schools ignored it.

What do you mean by “maintained schools”?

Maintained schools are those funded via the LEA – including community schools, voluntary aided schools (faith schools), voluntary controlled schools etc. but NOT academies (free schools become academies on the day they open).

Maintained schools are subject to the NC and other guidance. Academies have many fewer restrictions/compulsory subjects (PSHE etc) and do not have to follow the NC, but can have some requirements built-in to their funding agreements.

“Maintained schools” is official jargon for the schools funded by the government or local government – which can include those “faith schools” which don’t charge school fees. Schools such as Eton College, Fettes College (alumni include Blair), Leicester Grammar School (alumni include Alastair Cambell), Nottingham High School (Ed Balls is an alumnus), Oundle, Westminster and Winchester are all “non-maintained” schools.

Note that some (usually selective) grammar schools are “non-maintained” while others (like those within walking distance of where I sit) are “maintained”. By reports, Bradford Grammar School is in the process of changing its status from “non-maintained” to “maintained”.

By reports, more than a few “maintained” schools do not conform with the statutory requirement to hold a daily act of worship and weekly RE classes may cover all sorts of subjects, some with ethical or social dimensions or comparative religions to address the interests of ethnically diverse classes.

What do you mean by “maintained schools”? I never got lectures on marriage at my state schools (that said, I think they ignored the religious requirements as well).