If asylum-seekers from the former Eastern Bloc were warned that their children's social and personal education would be carried out by the State, how many of them would darken our shores? Such a warning is not ridiculous when you consider the rash of new programmes in our schools, none of which support or promote the right of parents to be the primary educators of their children.

The level of parental consultation for these programmes can be equated with a county council building a road, opening it and only then entering into consultation with the general public.

These programmes - RSE, SPHE etc. - were all constructed and in use before parents were "consulted". The Exploring Masculinities programme, which defends itself by saying it introduces fatherhood and parental responsibilities, did absolutely nothing to include parents in its inception. It was to some extent a "virgin birth", but not quite the miracle that was hoped for.

This programme, in particular, has raised deep concerns in our organisation. The reinforcement of negative stereotypes of males throughout all aspects of this programme is totally unacceptable. The predominant stereotyping affords our young men three options: they can be chain-smoking drunken louts, homosexual or the "new" male, prepared to adopt more "acceptable" values. It fails to explore the right of a man to be quiet or shy, studious or thoughtful, a non-supporter of Manchester United, and still be masculine.

When I was a young woman I was told that to be successful I would have to be more like a man. It would seem that with the Exploring Masculinities programme this has come full circle. Our young men are now being told that future success and acceptance by society is dependent on their embracing more feminine qualities. I find it ironic that the message I wanted to hear - "to be successful you have to promote and enhance your feminine qualities" - is now being delivered to our sons.

We need to take a closer look at all the "new" programmes currently being taught in our schools. If society is displaying a problem, the catch-all solution seems to be to develop a module to deliver in schools. Gradually the State, through the education of our children, is assuming more and more responsibility for their socialisation. The State, through personal and social education programmes, is setting the guidelines for each generation.

The idea of using the classroom, without the parents' knowledge, to enquire into and consider intimate and private aspects of home life is unacceptable.

One part of the Masculinities programme looks at seeking a code of good behaviour for family members. How can they do this without discussing existing family relationships? I do hope we can all live up to whatever code is decided for us!

The very nature of these programmes - personal and social education - can lead to private revelations and explorations of an intimate nature. We feel that expecting pupils to disclose their feelings about private and personal matters in public is unnecessary and objectionable. Once something is said it remains in the minds of those who have heard it. The classroom is not a therapy session, the teacher is not a psychiatrist and the pupils have not undergone clinical diagnosis that indicates they need group therapy of any kind.

Family-friendly laws exist in the United States, developed because of the growing concerns of parents. Such laws should be unnecessary here, as the right of the family is more than adequately protected in the Constitution.

We are not attempting to stop this type of education and fully acknowledge that the State has an obligation under the Constitution to provide a "certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social". But the State should also realise that it must protect the rights of parents who do actually want to be the primary educators of their children when it comes to social and personal education.

We would suggest that the State could fulfil both these obligations by making some changes in its delivery of personal education programmes.

In our recent submission to the NCCA, we proposed that parents be informed at least four weeks in advance of the content and delivery of any educational programme. This would give them the opportunity to discuss the various issues in advance with their children.

The programme would then be supporting what has been previously been discussed within the home. If a child receives no input from home then the State has still fulfilled its obligation to the child.

If some changes are not made, will our children presume that all education is the remit of the State? When they become parents will they consider becoming involved in the personal and social education of their children?

Will someone develop a programme to answer these questions?