Is the Government forcing Rainbow Youth onto your school board?
It’s evident to most people that there is a strong push for all schools in New Zealand, including religious integrated schools to be forced to accept, adopt and indoctrinate radical and extreme sexuality and gender ideology (as well as critical theory and climate alarmism) into all aspects of the curriculum and school life.
And without any official announcement – deliberately, in our view – the Government is attempting to change the make-up of school boards by inserting into the proposed bill that “…every [school] board should reflect the genders, sexualities, and sexes of the student body of the school and within the community served by the school…”
The Education and Workforce Committee is calling for submissions on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3).
The Government argues that “The Bill amends the Act to update the provisions relating to school board elections to ensure board elections better meet the needs of their school communities and support increased participation.”
You’ll note in the OLD version of the Schedule, school boards are already encouraged to aim to have a diverse group of people on the board – ethnicity, socio-economic, gender (male/female), and which reflects the character of both the school and the local community. This is democracy and representation at work. Any parent can stand for election to the school board. Sometimes the school may co-opt (bring onto the board) someone who specialises in management because of the obvious and significant challenges around management of both personnel and finances, but the total number of board members co-opted by the board cannot equal or outnumber the total number of parent representatives.
CURRENT VERSION
Criteria for selecting co-opted and appointed board members
(1) For the purposes of subclause (2), it is desirable, as far as is reasonably practicable,—
(a) that every board should reflect—
(i) the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the student body of the school or special institution; and
(ii) the fact that approximately half the population of New Zealand is male and half female; and
(iii) the character of the school or schools, or special institution, it administers; and
(iv) the character of the community (whether geographical or otherwise) served by the school or schools, or special institution, it administers; and
(b) that every board should have available from within its membership expertise and experience in management.
There is also already clear expectations on boards that they have to create a safe place for all.
But now the Government wants to insert an expectation that the board has representation of “genders, sexualities and sexes”.
PROPOSED NEW VERSION
Criteria for selecting co-opted and appointed board members
(1) For the purposes of subclause (2), it is desirable, as far as is reasonably practicable,—
(a) that every board should reflect—
(i) the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the student body of the school or special institution; and
(ii) the fact that approximately half the population of New Zealand is male and half female; and the genders, sexualities, and sexes of the student body of the school and within the community served by the school; and
(iia) the diversity of disabled students at the school and of the school’s disability community; and
(iii) the character of the school or schools, or special institution, it administers; and
(iv) the character of the community (whether geographical or otherwise) served by the school or schools, or special institution, it administers; and
(b) that every board should have available from within its membership expertise and experience in management.
Apparently (!) genders, sexualities, and sexes are all different. They are not even defined in the legislation, but then again as we know, the Prime Minister struggled to define what is a ‘woman’. And given that some schools argue there are 112 genders and 200+ sexualities, which of those groups should be given priority?
The wording “it is desirable, as far as is reasonably practicable” is deliberately vague.
But of course, we all know where this is headed.
That’s why we’re calling it “The Bethlehem Clause”. (If you’re familiar with what Bethlehem College and other christian schools have been facing over the last couple of years, you’ll understand the nickname we’ve given it!)
All schools, including religious schools (especially Christian ones with biblical statements of faith and values in their DNA), will come under increasing pressure to have representatives from activist groups such as RainbowYouth, InsideOut, Family Planning and other LGBTTQIA+++ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Takatāpui, Queer, Intersex, Asexual) organisations on the board.
The Government is obsessed with this issue, and will carry their obsession into your child’s school, as they are already doing via the curriculum.
It’s time for families and community leaders to speak up and demand that their local schools have the freedom to determine the make-up of their board in consultation with their local community – and without activist and governmental pressure
The closing date for submissions is 11.59pm next Monday, 01 May 2023.
