The Welsh Government are seeking information to inform the development of proposals for requiring certain out-of-school education settings to register and be subject to risk-based inspections. The consultation ends on 5 April 2016.
BTM Have submitted thier response to the consultation, which is outlined below. This consultation is very similar to the one undertaken by Ofsted. Register your objection here http://www.citizengo.org/en/pc/33469-welsh-government-prohibit-undesirable-teaching
Question 1 ‒ Characteristics (see paragraphs 6.1–6.3 of the consultation document)
We would like to know more about the full range of settings and their characteristics: the number of settings in each local authority; hours of operation per week; hours each student attends per week; number of staff/volunteers; number of students; the types of premises they operate from; subjects taught; and the positive benefits of accessing such provision.
I would like to restrict my response to local Church based informal teaching activities of children at Sunday school or youth meetings within a Church building or in a house church. They would usually fall below the 6 hour teaching time threshold, but could potentially be in conflict with section ‘9 Prohibited activities’.
The scope of the ‘Out-of-school education settings’ proposals do not exclude such below teaching exposure settings if the teaching content is defined as undesirable.
We are keen to understand more about what advice and assistance is available to settings to provide support where needed, and what additional support would be welcome.
Section 6.2 states: “However, if a person is providing education in a home setting to children other than those for which they have parental responsibility we do propose that such arrangements could fall within this scheme.”
This strongly suggests that Sunday Schools within a home based setting could fall within this scheme as a Sunday School teacher is often teaching children from more than one family from members and friends of the church.
This is an invasion of privacy into regular, but informal teachings settings of children within a home context and opens the opportunity for abuse and informants to cause mischief or harm to the Sunday School teacher should doctrinal statements contradict the politically correct values of the state.
Question 3 ‒ Thresholds (see paragraphs 7.1–7.5 of the consultation document)
We welcome views on defining a threshold for settings to fall within scope of this proposal with reference to the number of hours which children attend, regardless of the number of hours the setting operates.
Christian educational settings within homes, local churches and youth centres that teach Christian doctrine and Judaeo-Christian biblical values should be explicitly excluded from the scope of the proposal and the legislation.
There is sufficient other legislation to cover the health and safety of such activities, the premises and persons delivering the activities or teaching.
The proposals should not be aimed at controlling content for teaching Christian doctrine and Judaeo-Christian biblical values which only encourage ethical, moral and healthy behaviour in children.
Question 4 ‒ Thresholds (see paragraphs 7.1–7.5 of the consultation document)
We welcome views on whether it would be appropriate to exclude any providers from the proposed additional oversight and regulation based on any of the other defining characteristics of the setting (e.g. the learning offer, location, number or age of children attending, etc.), and opinions on how to ensure settings do not simply amend their provision to evade regulation.
Simple: The proposals should not be aimed at controlling content for teaching Christian doctrine and Judaeo-Christian biblical values which only encourage ethical, moral and healthy behaviour in accordance with Biblical principles.
Question 5 ‒ Registration and inspection (see paragraphs 8.1–8.8 of the consultation document)
We are interested in views about how the registration requirement will operate in practice and the implications for providers and local authorities.
Home Church groups, Local Churches and other Christian based groups and activity based centre should be explicitly excluded from the scope of this proposed legislation. Those who are not Christians have no idea what Christian teaching is about, or its meanings.
Question 6 ‒ Registration and inspection (see paragraphs 8.1–8.8 of the consultation document)
We would be keen to hear views on our proposed system to inspect and investigate concerns in out-of-school settings.
The only reason inspections would be carried out for house church, local church and Christian teachings settings would be to censor the content, and that is state control of religion. Is this the real aim of the legislation?
We have published our views on the very similar proposals being made by Ofsted:
Question 7 ‒ Registration and inspection (see paragraph 8.6 of the consultation document)
We welcome views on which body is best placed to undertake the investigation function for out-of-school settings.
A non-government body of parents, without links to main stream government lobbying organisations like Stonewall, or political parties or movements.
A health and safety professional from the private sector could also be included for physical risk assessment of premises and activities but not of the content.
Question 8 ‒ Prohibited activities (see paragraphs 9.1–9.3 of the consultation document)
We welcome views on whether the proposed prohibited activities appropriately capture the range of concerns that could arise and that should be reported and investigated in settings providing intensive education.
Section 9 is the most contentious part of the proposals as this is where the government are using the extended scope of the Prevent Strategy to control content and capture politically incorrect views or Christian doctrines that opposes the state’s legislation on such matters as Same Sex Marriage, Homosexuality, Transsexuality, Gender transience, Sex at Birth, the nature of the natural family, parenting, marriage, abortion, other religions, sin, etc.
Christian Doctrine teaches obedience to the laws of the state as long as they do not conflict with God’s laws. This includes living peaceably with all men as far as is possible.
However, Judaeo-Christian values do not accept what the state wants to promote, when it is in complete contradiction to God’s word and Biblical teaching as outlined above.
Christianity by definition is an exclusive religion, you are either saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ or not.
There can be no tolerance for the idolatrous beliefs or faith of others in the mind, heart or actions of Christian believers. Yet at the same time we must as far as we are able still live peaceably with all men.
In other words, these proposals violate the principles of free-speech and thought, because as has been reportedly widely in mainstream media, applying the Prevent Strategies definition of extremism is so wide it is a catchall to control anyone who disagrees with existing law even if that law denies reality and biological facts, which are commonly observable, to achieve a social objective e.g. to promote LGBT values. Or, to put it another way, the proposals point to meddling by government so as to push a homosexual, pro-Islam perspective, by law and not by consent.
Question 9 ‒ Sanctions (see paragraphs 10.1–10.3 of the consultation document)
We welcome views on the most appropriate sanctions and which body/bodies should have powers to act.
This is where Stonewall et al can use this new legislation to enforce their perverted view of sexuality and silence the final bastion of opposition to their destructive ideology, the Christian church and all levels of it from the house church upwards. Christian doctrine should be excluded from the scope of the proposed legislation. This would be a healthy counter-balance to laws written and maintained by pressure groups, especially Stonewall.
Question 10 ‒ Sanctions (see paragraph 10.3 of the consultation document)
We would be keen to hear views on whether any existing ‘levers and powers’ should be strengthened.
Freedom of speech and freedom to practice the Christian religion without interference from the state should be strengthened.
Question 11 ‒ We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them.
- What are the perceived risks in the delivery of Christian doctrine in out of school settings?
- Why are Judaeo-Christian values not excluded from the scope of the Prevent Strategy and its definition of extremism?