To anyone who has read the Safe Schools ‘All of Us’ unit guide, it’s clear that there was a sinister socialistic agenda behind it. The lack of parental engagement and transparency was particularly worrying.
Anyone still unsure need look no further than this disturbing report from The Australian:
Safe Schools operatives have been coaching educators to dismiss parental concerns over the contentious sex and gender-diversity program, asserting that parents are powerless to shut it down.
A Safe Schools national symposium was told by the program’s Victorian co-ordinator, Roz Ward, that schools could ignore concerns raised about the agenda.
“When people do complain then school leadership can very calmly and graciously say, ‘You know what? We’re doing it anyway, tough luck’!” she told more than 300 attendees.
“(It’s) not about celebrating diversity; not about stopping bullying,” Ms Ward said.
“(It’s) about gender and sexual diversity. About same-sex attractive, about being transgender, about being lesbian, gay, bisexual — say the words — transgender, intersex. Not just, ‘Be nice to everyone; everyone’s great’.”
Safe Schools project manager Joel Radcliffe, a fellow academic at La Trobe University, which spawned the program, told the audience that the issue of parental concern came up a lot when schools were considering whether to join the program.
“Parents … seem to have a lot of power (in) schools,” he said. “Parents don’t have the power to shut this down.”
People in Victoria should keep this in mind as Daniel Andrews threatens to keep the program unchanged. Of particular concern was this comment he made on Q&A last night:
“This notion that you can only participate in the program if your parents have said you can… It is very difficult for some young people to talk to their parents about these sorts of issues and…according to the Federal Government, you’ve got to come out to your classmates with no support, you’ve got to come out to Mum and Dad with no backing, no proper support in order to be part of this program. Why would you tamper with something that actually saving lives?” he asked to applause.
This comment is a classic example of the totalitarianism that appeals so much to the left – turning children against their own parents and towards the ‘comforting’ arms of the State.
Also take note how neither Andrews nor anyone else on the panel of the same political ilk (i.e. everyone except Josh Frydenberg) actually talk about the substance of the program or the reasonableness of the changes announced to it. It’s just more of the same slurs, slogans and smears, with absolutely no substance behind it.
11 thoughts on “More Evidence on the Safe Schools Agenda”
The whole issue (especially in Adelaide) is chillingly reminiscent of Mao’s Red Guards, and Adolf’s Brown Shirts.
The Comintern successfully infiltrated the education system very early in the long march through the institutions.
While history is full of evidence that “Socialism in general has a record of failure so bad that only an intellectual could Ignore or evade it” (Thomas Sowell), and most folks accept that the public sector cannot produce automobiles or refrigerators, they insist that the provision of education and health services is the province of government.
“Much of the social history of the Western World in the last three decades has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good”………more Thomas Sowell.
I’ve never heard of Thomas Sowell before, but I already like his style. The problem is that, every time one of these things gets uncovered, many more spring up elsewhere. There was even a primary school that banned the use of the word ‘Easter’ in the annual hat parade. The Bondi primary school principal tried it 5 years earlier and it was a disaster for him due to parent complaints when he sent the notice letter out. So, this time around, he just forced it through without any consultation. It’s really strange that the parents are too scared to speak out on it – why is that?
One of the twentieth century’s most noteworthy conservative philosophers. Here is some more.
The public sector can produce automobiles, just perhaps not the best, and this also applies to health and education. Access to a ‘good’ car or refrigerator also does not have much bearing on a free and fair society, whereas ensuring everyone has access to a reasonable level of health and education absolutely does.
Nigelr says “ensuring everyone has access to a reasonable level of health and education absolutely does”. Nigel does not provide anything to support his opinion.
In the Age of Entitlement, this sounds very much like “people have a RIGHT to education and healthcare. How was this right obtained? Has it always been thus?
The provision of goods and services in a free market generally result in greater efficiency, more productivity, better products, and lower costs. This is clearly not the case when the government has a monopoly on the service. One need look no further than Cuba and Venezuela for verification. The magic sauce that makes this so is competition.
Education costs are on the rise. The cost of education has almost doubled the rate of inflation over the last 20 years. According to 2009 figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, education costs rose at 5.6 percent compared to the overall inflation rate of 1.3 percent.
Yet, a new report comparing Australian high school students with 65 other countries shows the nation is slipping further behind in maths and reading skills. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-03/australian-students-slipping-behind-in-maths-reading/5132526
Health expenditure has also grown faster than the broader economy. The ratio of health expenditure to gross domestic product (GDP) has increased from 6.8% in 1986-87 to 9.5% in 2011-12 (Figure 2.2). Total health expenditure has grown in real terms at an average rate of 5.4% per year over the last decade, while GDP has grown at a slower rate of 3.1% per year. Why are there continual complaints about health services?
Why do costs continue to escalate while the value added decreases? Because there is no competition.
In NSW, the annual report of the Department of Education and Training shows some interesting information.
The Department receives approximately $12b in funding from the NSW Treasury. As others may say, that’s 12,000 million or $33 million every single day (weekends, public and school holidays included).
There are approximately 765,000 enrollments in NSW public schools. If the entire system were closed down and the current $12b budget appropriation was distributed evenly per student, every single one of these students could get a $15,700 voucher to spend on education – per annum.
The Department has approximately 99,000 staff of which approximately 27,000 are not teachers. That’s over one quarter or 1 in 4. It could be more because I suspect head masters and other senior non-teaching teachers are probably counted as teachers.
Draw your own conclusions about how well the your Commonwealth taxes are employed.
Given Australia’s PISA scores have been steadily declining since at least 2000, can someone please advise how the Commonwealth Government is currently helping. What with them not teaching 1 student or employing 1 teacher. Is this what you call educataion? Does Communist indoctrination work well in Australia?
Religions, Communism and Socialism realized long ago that the best way to adopt youngsters to their way of life was through the education system.
Indeed, get them while they’re young, vulnerable and impressionable and call it the Junior Spies or Anti-Sex League.