Saturday, February 02, 2008

UK Government Education Guidelines: Don't use terms "Mom" and "Dad"

One reason why Brit schools are failing to teach basic knowledge and skills: They are too busy inculcating far-Leftist propaganda

Government guidelines for training school officials to be more sensitive to homosexuality, instruct teachers not to use the terms "mum and dad" when referring to students' parents, and to treat "even casual" use of terms like "gay" as equal to racism. The guidedance was commissioned by the Labour government directly from the homosexual lobby group Stonewall. The document was launched today at a Stonewall conference by Schools Secretary Ed Balls.

Ed Balls said, "Homophobic insults should be viewed as seriously as racism." "Even casual use of homophobic language in schools can create an atmosphere that isolates young people and can be the forerunner of more serious forms of bullying."

The guidelines say that the word "parents" must replace "mum and dad", and that teachers should educate pupils about civil partnerships and gay adoption rights.

In Britain's current political climate, even young children have been subject to police interventions on accusations of making "racist" or "homophobic" comments. In October 2006, a 14-year-old school girl was arrested by police and detained in a cell for three hours after she asked to be moved into a group of students who spoke English in class. Stott was denounced to police for "racism" by her teachers. In April 2007, a ten-year-old boy was questioned after the boy sent an email calling another boy "gay".

In the "Frequently Asked Questions" section of the guidelines, in answer to the question, "We have to respect cultural and religious differences. Does this mean pupils can be homophobic?" the guidelines specifically state that those with religious views regarded by the homosexual movement as "intolerant" must be silent. "A person can hold whatever views they want but expressing views that denigrate others is unacceptable."

For Stonewall, youth and sexual innocence is no reason for an exemption. To the objection that primary school students are too young to understand issues of homosexuality, the guidelines respond, "Primary-school pupils may be too young to understand their own sexual orientation but it is likely that some primary-school pupils will know someone who is gay." "Homophobic language is used in primary schools without the pupils necessarily realising what it is that they are saying. Primary schools should respond to homophobic bullying in an age-appropriate way whilst demonstrating that it is not acceptable in school."

For parents who object to their children being exposed to instruction on homosexuality, the guidelines say, "Regardless of their views on gay people or sexual orientation, parents and carers have to understand that schools have a responsibility to keep pupils safe."

Stonewall, perhaps the most successful homosexual activist organization in the world, has been accepted by the Labour government, first under Tony Blair and now by Gordon Brown's leadership, as the leading voice on all issues regarding homosexuality. The guidelines take this a step further in actually allowing the lobby group to author a government document.

Under Tony Blair's "New Labour" government, Section 28 - the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools, was repealed. Since then, homosexual activists have used their influence in Parliament to implement a full roster of training for both teachers and students in normalizing homosexuality.


British maternity services now at breaking point

Your article detailed the Healthcare Commission's first review of mothers' experiences of maternity services, "the most comprehensive assessment of maternity services to be conducted in England" (Mothers-to-be get guide to the best and worst NHS care, January 25). Thirty-one hospital trusts were categorised as "least well-performing", which has become a euphemism for a lack of resources.

You reported "inadequate checks on whether staff intervene effectively to prevent unnecessary caesareans", and that "too many trusts do not adequately support mothers in breastfeeding and too few offer comfortable delivery rooms to encourage natural birth".

I was quoted in response to the prime minister's acknowledgment that "an extra 1,000 midwives were needed". But this number needs putting into a wider context. Ambitious guarantees were made last April in the government's new strategy, Maternity Matters, which aims for England to have a first-class maternity service by the end of 2009. However, the review highlights a shrinking maternity service and an overworked midwifery workforce - without pointing a finger at the maternity funding crisis.

The Royal College of Midwives has calculated that England needs 5,000 more full-time midwives to deliver the government's maternity strategy in the light of the current birth rate, the highest since 1993. In 1997 there were the equivalent of 18,053 full-time midwives in the NHS. The most recent figures, however, saw only a 4.5% rise by 2006. Meanwhile, between 2001 and 2006 the number of births rose by 12.7% - in short, midwives in 2006 coped with 71,935 more babies than five years earlier. The furore this week over the pressures that immigration poses for maternity services rams our point home - not that we are against immigration, but the government has to ensure there are enough midwives to cope.

Your article is correct in pointing out that "hospitals in the north scored particularly well and those in London did badly, with 19 of the capital's 27 trusts relegated to the bottom division". But in the capital the number of births increased by 16.1% over five years.

Moreover, there has been a drop of 16% in student midwife places over the past two years. Health secretary Alan Johnson did acknowledge that "more had to be done to modernise the service". But he needs to do his maths. Our members tell us that the gaps in service are basic. There aren't enough midwives or beds, and they hate that they don't have time to give the care and reassurance they want to provide for expectant mothers. They are reinforcing the review's findings of a "failure to recruit enough midwives for one-to-one care during labour".

We feel that maternity services are now at breaking point. Given the staffing shortfalls, we need real figures underpinned by the demographic changes facing this country - rising birth rates and the retirement of baby-boomer midwives - if the government is to honour its guarantees for maternity care. Otherwise we will be failing mothers, babies and their families.


Britain's $700 million maternity bill for foreign mothers

Britain pays 350 million pounds a year to provide maternity services to mothers born outside the country, according to a BBC analysis. While the birth rate among British-born women has dropped, the number of immigrants giving birth has risen by three quarters The sudden rise has put such pressure on maternity services that many cannot cope and are having to turn women away. Immigrant women are more likely to suffer complications, require emergency caesarean sections and often are not known to health services until they are in labour.

When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, the NHS spent around a billion pounds a year on maternity services, with one baby in eight delivered to a foreign-born mother. Ten years on, spending has risen to 1.6 billion with almost one baby in four delivered to a mother born overseas, according to an analysis by the BBC's Ten O'Clock News.

While the number of babies born to British mothers has fallen by 44,000 a year since the mid-1990s, the figure for babies born to foreign mothers has risen by 64,000. The overall birth rate is at its highest level for 26 years.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics showed in 2006 there were 15,000 more Eastern European babies born here than a decade earlier, 11,000 more babies from the Indian sub-continent and 8,000 extra babies from African-born mothers.

In parts of London, seven out of 10 babies are now delivered to mothers born overseas. London's chief nurse, Trish Morris-Thompson, admitted the NHS had not realised how immigration would affect maternity services. "The timing of the impact is much quicker than we had anticipated", she said.


No comments: