Personal Safety Programme in National School

Kiwi in IE

This struck me as very bizarre. My child is in Senior Infants in a National School and today he came home with a form asking for parents to sign and indicate whether they wanted their children opted in or opted out of a Personal Safety Programme.

According to the form the aim of the programme is to teach children the skills to keep themselves safe in potentially upsetting or dangerous situations. The programme includes, getting lost, bullying, physical abuse and sexual abuse.

Now I think this is great but why is there a form sent home and an option? Should children not have the right to this information? And what sort of parents would opt their children out? I can't think of why any parent would want their child to be ill equipt to deal with such situations. In fact I would feel slightly concerned about the motives of any opting out parents if I were the teacher.

Parents do not need to give permission for their children to be taught Math, English, Science, Irish or any other subject so I am unsure why personal safety should be different, it is as essential a life skill as any other. Permission is not sought for religious indoctrination (the one 'subject' that should require permission) either, yet personal safety must have a seperate permission slip?

eviltwin

Is there sexual content, you know stuff about sexual abuse? Apart from that I can't really understand why you would need a parents permission.

Kiwi in IE

eviltwin wrote: »

Is there sexual content, you know stuff about sexual abuse? Apart from that I can't really understand why you would need a parents permission.

The form states that the programme "teaches children the safety skills necessary to protect themselves from physical or sexual abuse". I assume this is about unwanted touching of private parts and not the ins and outs (no pun intended) of how to have sexual intercourse.

Ruu

Hi, have moved this from After Hours to a more appropriate forum for you.
Please read the current charter here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055793077

Thanks.
Mod.

One eyed Jack

Some parents would prefer to educate their children in these matters themselves.

I wouldn't think that was unusual, but rather commendable in fact that a parent understands it should be their responsibility to educate their children in these matters.

I would urge you to take a look at the curriculum btw, you may be surprised by how ridiculously inadequate it is.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some parents would prefer to educate their children in these matters themselves.

I wouldn't think that was unusual, but rather commendable in fact that a parent understands it should be their responsibility to educate their children in these matters.

I would urge you to take a look at the curriculum btw, you may be surprised by how ridiculously inadequate it is.

I would assume most parents would educate their children on personal safety, but what harm is it to have the school back this up and go over the information again, to the point that a child would be opted out of the programme?

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I would assume most parents would educate their children on personal safety, but what harm is it to have the school back this up and go over the information again, to the point that a child would be opted out of the programme?

Well I don't think they're viewing it from the perspective of whether it's harmful to the child or not, but rather simply that they don't think these matters are the school's responsibility.

heldel00

Some parents just like to deal with, what they may view as sensitive issues themselves. I can't tell you how many parents are hugely uncomfortable with me using the correct terminology for body parts during RSE/SPHE lessons (particularly vagina). No problems with penis though. It's bizarre!

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well I don't think they're viewing it from the perspective of whether it's harmful to the child or not, but rather simply that they don't think these matters are the school's responsibility.

But what of parents who do not give their children this information and don't allow the school to either? Should children not have the right to information on how to keep themselves safe?

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well I don't think they're viewing it from the perspective of whether it's harmful to the child or not, but rather simply that they don't think these matters are the school's responsibility.

Why not though?

Kiwi in IE

The way I see it, my son knows this information already and having the school back up what OH and I have ready told him can only be a positive thing.

Children need to know about personal safety and I think every child should have the right to the information, skills and tools they need to keep themselves and their friends/siblings as safe as possible. What if the parents are the abusers and refuse to allow the child to attend a programme which could give them what they need to allow them open up to a teacher or other adult? It's not unheard of that parents abuse their children!

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But what of parents who do not give their children this information and don't allow the school to either? Should children not have the right to information on how to keep themselves safe?

What of them? Honestly, that is their business. That is their prerogative as the child's parents/guardians.

I'm not arguing that children shouldn't have the right to information on how to keep themselves safe, but it's a parent's right to choose where that information comes from, how it is given to their children, when it is given to their children, and what format that information should take.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why not though?

Because parents/guardians have that right as the child's parents/guardians.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because parents/guardians have that right as the child's parents/guardians.

But what of the rights of the child? Do you not accept that there are some parents who will neither allow the school to provide the information nor educate their children on these matters themselves? Potentially to the child's detriment? Are the rights of the parents really more important in this instance? I personally don't think so!

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The way I see it, my son knows this information already and having the school back up what OH and I have ready told him can only be a positive thing.

Children need to know about personal safety and I think every child should have the right to the information, skills and tools they need to keep themselves and their friends/siblings as safe as possible. What if the parents are the abusers and refuse to allow the child to attend a programme which could give them what they need to allow them open up to a teacher or other adult? It's not unheard of that parents abuse their children!

Is that what you meant earlier with this -

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

In fact I would feel slightly concerned about the motives of any opting out parents if I were the teacher.

I think you're being just a tad dramatic tbh.

qt3.14

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What of them? Honestly, that is their business. That is their prerogative as the child's parents/guardians.

I'm not arguing that children shouldn't have the right to information on how to keep themselves safe, but it's a parent's right to choose where that information comes from, how it is given to their children, when it is given to their children, and what format that information should take.

Because parents/guardians have that right as the child's parents/guardians.

haveto disagree. If patents wanted to opt the child out of maths class because they wanted to choose how, when and in what format it was taught there would be serious questions asked. Arguably life skills like what's in the progranm are just as important.

Kiwi in IE

I don't have the right as a parent to say 'I don't like math and don't want my child taught it'. So why should personal safety be any different?

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is that what you meant earlier with this -





I think you're being just a tad dramatic tbh.

Have you never heard of a child who has been abused by a parent? Ever? Doesn't happen? Not possible? Such a parent might not want their child being given information on how to recognise abuse and where to turn. I realise that would not be the motive for the vast majority of opt outers (although I'm not sure what the motive would be) but it's not impossible either. The rights of the child to receive information on how to keep themselves safe from anybody who may cause them harm, should trump the rights of the parent to not want them to receive it in my opinion!

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But what of the rights of the child? Do you not accept that there are some parents who will neither allow the school to provide the information nor educate their children on these matters themselves? Potentially to the child's detriment? Are the rights of the parents really more important in this instance? I personally don't think so!

Of course there are parents who will neither allow the school to provide the information nor educate their children on these matters themselves, but they may be of the opinion that such matters are their responsibility, and not the responsibility of the school. If the parents choose not to educate their children on these matters, that is their prerogative.

The child doesn't actually have any right to this information, so there's no point in arguing whether a right you'd like children to have supercedes a right that the parent's already have.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course there are parents who will neither allow the school to provide the information nor educate their children on these matters themselves, but they may be of the opinion that such matters are their responsibility, and not the responsibility of the school. If the parents choose not to educate their children on these matters, that is their prerogative.

The child doesn't actually have any right to this information, so there's no point in arguing whether a right you'd like children to have supercedes a right that the parent's already have.

But do you not see why this is a problem? Never mind who currently does have the right. I am talking about who should. Discussion about these things does have a point because that's how legislation that is wrong gets changed!

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Have you never heard of a child who has been abused by a parent? Ever? Doesn't happen? Not possible?

I didn't say that? Of course that happens, and I'm not sure an education in keeping themselves safe, etc would make all that much of a difference in that situation tbh.

Such a parent might not want their child being given information on how to recognise abuse and where to turn. I realise that would not be the motive for the vast majority of opt outers (although I'm not sure what the motive would be) but it's not impossible either.

I've only explained it about five times already.

The rights of the child to receive information on how to keep themselves safe from anybody who may cause them harm, should trump the rights of the parent to not want them to receive it in my opinion!

Ideally speaking, that'd be lovely, but realistically speaking, it's never going to happen.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The child doesn't actually have any right to this information, so there's no point in arguing whether a right you'd like children to have supercedes a right that the parent's already have.

Actually what is this right parents have that you speak of? Does it only apply to personal safety? Can I as a parent take issue with both Math and English and use this right, whatever it is, to insist that my child not be taught either?

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But do you not see why this is a problem? Never mind who currently does have the right. I am talking about who should. Discussion about these things does have a point because that's how legislation that is wrong gets changed!

Of course I see why that could be a problem, but I wouldn't want the State to take that decision away from parents as to when or how they decide or not to educate their children in matters concerning their personal safety and sexuality and so on. That should always be a parent's prerogative IMO.

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Actually what is this right parents have that you speak of? Does it only apply to personal safety? Can I as a parent take issue with both Math and English and use this right, whatever it is, to insist that my child not be taught either?

Article 42 of the Irish Constitution -


42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.


And yes, you can.

heldel00

It may be a case that some parents feel that their children are not "ready" for this education just yet. There can be a huge variation in classrooms in terms of maturity and parents may be of the opinion that they might understand information given a few months later than peers

dambarude

I don't think parents should have an option, though that seems to the practice in nearly every school.

Had a child whose parents wouldn't give consent to this this year. Child had to sit in another room while I was teaching the programme.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Article 42 of the Irish Constitution -


42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.


And yes, you can.

OK so why are permission slips not sent out for every subject/topic?

qt3.14

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Article 42 of the Irish Constitution -


42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.


And yes, you can.

How are you missing that that gives the state plenty of leeway to *require* this stuff be taught?

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

OK so why are permission slips not sent out for every subject/topic?

I'm only speculating here, but I imagine it's because there's no need to do so. I do know of parents however that have asked that their children be excluded from Irish and religion classes, and because the Stay Safe programme includes material that parents may want to teach children themselves, that's why permission slips are sent home.

qt3.14 wrote: »

How are you missing that that gives the state plenty of leeway to *require* this stuff be taught?

Because I'm not missing the fact that it doesn't? That's not being smart or anything, but it isn't actually a requirement of a minimum standard of education. That's why parents can also opt out of religion and Irish classes without there being any requirement for them to be taken. There used to be, but not any more.

heldel00

(You can't just opt out of irish btw. Psychological reports etc required. It's actually very difficult to get an exemption.)

lazygal

heldel00 wrote: »

(You can't just opt out of irish btw. Psychological reports etc required. It's actually very difficult to get an exemption.)

Not around our way. I know several parents who shelled out €200 or whatever for the psych report so their children (who were aiming for high points courses) would be able to opt out of LC Irish. It seems to be a very easy thing to do. I'd have no problem doing the same for mine if required.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

Not around our way. I know several parents who shelled out €200 or whatever for the psych report so their children (who were aiming for high points courses) would be able to opt out of LC Irish. It seems to be a very easy thing to do. I'd have no problem doing the same for mine if required.

Yeah but heldel is referring to Irish at Primary School level. It was my fault for using the words "opt out" as they rightly point out that it isn't as easy as parents simply choosing that their child opt out of being taught Irish.

The same child I was thinking of actually has undergone a psych eval for an unrelated issue where he has a propensity for disrupting the class, at one time even passing a remark referring to the teacher's genitalia.

This is the problem a lot of people, including myself have with a "one size fits all" token effort sex education.

lazygal

I don't think telling children the correct names for their body parts is sex education. My two year old knows she has a vulva, her brother has a penis, she uses them as normal words. Which is how it should be. I cringe when I hear people refer to a 'vagina' when its obvious they mean vulva, or call a penis by a nickname.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

I don't think telling children the correct names for their body parts is sex education. My two year old knows she has a vulva, her brother has a penis, she uses them as normal words. Which is how it should be. I cringe when I hear people refer to a 'vagina' when its obvious they mean vulva, or call a penis by a nickname.

I agree with you, which is why I believe it is a parent's responsibility to determine what information is appropriate and when it is appropriate, for their own children. Some children are developmentally way ahead of the curve than their peers, and some are way behind, but the "one size fits all" approach takes no account of this.

This is why it's more important that parents get the right information moreso than the children, so that parents aren't coming out with ill informed ideas like being suspicious of parents who choose not to have their children participate in the programme, that there must be something to be suspicious about, and then linking that to child abuse?

And that's coming from an adult's imagination. Imagine how a child would process that information - stranger danger taken to new heights, trust nobody, etc. That sort of exaggerated paranoia isn't very useful to a child.

heldel00

lazygal wrote: »

Not around our way. I know several parents who shelled out €200 or whatever for the psych report so their children (who were aiming for high points courses) would be able to opt out of LC Irish. It seems to be a very easy thing to do. I'd have no problem doing the same for mine if required.

:eek: absurd

lazygal

heldel00 wrote: »

:eek: absurd

Absolutely not. For an 18 year old going for 500+ points it's eminently sensible to avoid studying stuff that you're not good at and don't need to have for third level courses. I liked Irish, but if my children didn't need it and weren't counting on it I'd be doing the same. It's a pragmatic decision.

heldel00

I repeat, absurd.

lazygal

heldel00 wrote: »

I repeat, absurd.

I repeat, pragmatic. I'd hate to see my child miss out on a course because they had to waste his or her time studying a useless language.

coolperson05

"Useless language"

Surely very subjective? There's many who would consider art and music 'useless subjects' however they have a very high reputation for achieving high leaving certificate points, and thus parents "encourage" them to pick them to climb the points ladder. I have friends of mine working in TG4 and in Brussels doing financially very well from Gaeilge.

I would blame the exam system and not the subject.

On the original subject, I've 2/3 children in my class who are exempt from Stay Safe, RSE, Photographs been taken, etc. Parents today have the choice to pick and choose their child's education. Whether this is a good/bad thing is unknown, but the choice is there.

byhookorbycrook

lazygal wrote: »

Not around our way. I know several parents who shelled out €200 or whatever for the psych report so their children (who were aiming for high points courses) would be able to opt out of LC Irish. It seems to be a very easy thing to do. I'd have no problem doing the same for mine if required.

A very silly thing for an ed. psychologist to sign, if the child is not entitled to an exemption-and the criteria are quite specific.
An ed. psychological report costs at least €500.

D4RK ONION

As per the request of AH mods, I've moved this back to AH. Have fun!