Parents’ rights, marriage, and free speech protections ‘notably absent’ from draft SPHE curriculum,’ says Christian group

A Christian charity has identified significant improvements that need to be made to the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment’s (NCCA) draft specification for Senior Cycle SPHE.

The Christian Institute, which was behind the famous legal victory for the Northern Ireland-based Ashers Baking Co. known as the ‘gay cake’ case, identified poor recognition of parental rights, free speech gaps, and the absence of any reference to marriage as three major problems to address.

Summarising the group’s concerns, its Deputy Director Ciarán Kelly said:

“Parents and teachers of all faiths and none are concerned at some of the language that has – and has not – been used in this draft curriculum, despite the sensitivities of the issues involved.

“The Constitution and the European Convention recognise the primacy of parents in the education of their children. Sadly, no such status is afforded to them by this drafting, which doesn’t even see fit to highlight the need to consult parents set out in education law.

“Marriage is understood the world over to be the best context for bringing up children. The evidence consistently demonstrates that children do best when brought up by a mother and father who are married to one another. But again, you wouldn’t know it from this draft which studiously avoids all mention of marriage.

“By contrast, it has plenty to say in support of contested gender ideology, thereby risking marginalising those who uphold the reality of biological sex. It needs to balance this by including a clear commitment to free speech for students who do not accept transgender ideology, or who cannot affirm sexual practices which run contrary to their religious beliefs.”

Parental rights

In its written response to the NCCA consultation which closed last month, the Institute called for the updated curriculum to better reflect the Education Act 1998’s requirement for a school to consult parents. It wrote:

“It is important schools are not misdirected into pre-determining their approach before consulting with parents, or they risk breaching this requirement of the Act. The NCCA should not therefore be presenting aims and learning outcomes to schools without qualification as if they are predetermined.”

And it highlighted the responsibility the Act places on the Education Minister not to:

“require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent of the student or in the case of a student who has reached the age of 18 years, the student”.

Marriage

Addressing how the draft wording ignores marriage, the Christian group said:

“Marriage is notable by its absence from these learning objectives, despite being the prime exemplar of a sexual relationship in Irish culture and in almost every culture around the world. There is substantial evidence that children brought up by their married parents achieve more educationally, are healthier and more economically productive. Where the parents of a child are married, the evidence demonstrates they are far more likely to remain together throughout their children’s childhood, and beyond. That remains the case when adjusted for other factors, such as family income.” [Family Structure Still Matters, Centre for Social Justice, August 2020]

It added:

“While there is a need for sensitivity, young people must not be denied objective, factual information which will inform some of the most important decisions they will make in their lives. An understanding of the nature and distinctive characteristics of marriage and its significance for the upbringing of children and for society should be a learning objective in its own right.”

Gender ideology and free speech

The Institute also raised concerns over the draft’s use of contested terminology, notably in the area of transgender ideology, warning that it left schools at risk of being “misdirected into adopting an [unlawful] one-sided approach”.

Highlighting widespread opposition to the “theory of gender identity” as well as the Christian belief “that the desire to engage in sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage should be resisted” it added: “The curriculum must not marginalise those holding these beliefs, or promote a view with which parents holding these beliefs would disagree” because this would also breach the school’s legal duties.

It later repeated this warning as it called for “a clear commitment to free expression for students who do not accept transgender ideology, or who cannot affirm sexual practices which are contrary to their religious beliefs”.

“The UK Supreme Court found that the right of free speech in the European Convention includes the right not to be compelled to express a view. This judgment was subsequently cited in a June 2023 ruling by the US Supreme Court.

“It must be clear that there is no requirement for students to hold or express a particular view, and no disadvantage to them because of their religious beliefs. The objectives of the curriculum must be impartial, and must be drafted in such a way as to help ensure schools are impartial in their delivery, in order to abide by their legal duties.”

 Notes for Editors:

• • “The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.” The Irish Constitution Article 41 1.1
• • “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.” The Irish Constitution Article 42
• • “A recognised school shall… use its available resources to… promote the moral, spiritual, social and personal development of students and provide health education for them, in consultation with their parents, having regard to the characteristic spirit of the school”. Education Act 1998, Section 9 (d)
• • In Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others [2018], the UK Supreme Court ruled that “obliging a person to manifest a belief which he does not hold has been held to be a limitation on his article 9(1) rights” [para. 50] and “The freedom not to be obliged to hold or to manifest beliefs that one does not hold is also protected by article 10 of the Convention.” [para. 52]

The Christian Institute’s full response is available from its website at the.ci/sphe23