Sex education to be compulsory in schools

[Dave Roberts]

The move follows the end of Alasdair Macdonald's review into PSHE, which is calling for the subject to be part of the national curriculum for both primary and secondary schools. In his response to the review children, schools and families secretary Ed Balls backed the recommendation as long as governing bodies can tailor lessons to local need and parents retain the right to exclude children from sex and relationship aspects.

Read More

[Ruth Thomas]

I'm not convinced Rob. In theory all education should be the responsibility of the parent -- indeeed legally it is, but if the parent chooses to send their child to a registered school they are held legally to have discharged that duty. So a lot of parents, maybe most, won't do anything further in the education of their child, in any area, other than perhaps help with homework the school has set. They simply assume that the school will teach their children everything they need to know, including in such areas as sex and relationships. Against that background, any school that doesn't teach something about this area is failing in its duty. At minimum, the biological facts will be taught -- so putting that into some kind of context of relationships seems a better idea than simply telling kids how to do it and letting them find out the rest by themselves. Of course it can be taught well or badly, too early or too late -- but I do feel it needs to be taught.

[Peter Shields]

I'd encourage everyone to take an active interest in what the school's "Sex & Relationship" curriculum consists of though. I'm attending the "Speak Easy" course being held at my children's school. It's been helpful on lots of levels - but in particular in revealing the agenda of the FPA (the people who produce the course material). Here's a quote from the Family Education Trust which I think sums them up nicely, "The FPA seem to think that by doing the same thing with younger and younger children they are going to get a different result. Actually they are going to reap the whirlwind. There is a constant emphasis on biological knowledge and an absence of understanding that feelings can be hurt and sex outside a loving relationship leads to damage and retreat.” We were told on the introduction to the course that the more info they had and the earlier they had it, the less likely they are to engage in early sexual behaviour (... which I'm glad to say that the experience of just about everyone on the course seemed to contradict) seems to be at odds with this interesting piece of research just released

I for one would like to see children's innocence valued & protected for as long as possible. And whilst I realise we are fighting a bit of a rearguard action against the media onslaught, I see absolutely no benefit in them knowing the biological names of both sexes genitalia when they are 6 years old.

[Ruth Thomas]

Peter, I'm entirely with you on not breaking children's innocence just for the sake of it. But it's a difficult balance between that and leaving information too late, after they've already heard half a story from a friend or a soap opera and got thoroughly confused or upset by what they have heard. And whilst I see no benefit in them knowing the biological names of genitalia at age 6, I can't see a lot of harm in it either -- they are only words, and they are words rarely used (even by adults) other than in the context of a conversation with a doctor. It's the gutter words for the same organs that I'd rather my 5-year-old didn't pick up yet, and I can't see those being taught in infant school lessons.

[Peter Shields]

Hi Ruth. I agree with you by and large. I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with children knowing biological info from quite an early age. Like you say, better than them using sexual slang.

What does concern me is the underlying agenda & motivation behind the drive for increasingly explicit 'sexual health' education to be introduced at increasingly younger ages. I'm not convinced that the groups most actively involved in pushing the agenda (FPA, Terrence Higgins Trust, Stonewall) have the children's best interests at heart as much as social indoctrination. And the quote from the FET somes it up very nicely for me. The 'education' [...though it would be called brain washing if it were taught by a religious organisation] is very much a valueless, 'harm reduction', and li

Like I said, we are always going to be fighting a rearguard action against the media onslaught and am definitely not in favour of a head-in-the-sand response. Soaps, films & music probably do more to shape & misinform children's thinking and rob them of their innocence. The writers & producers are no doubt storing up for themselves a Mt 18:6 judgement. The sad conclusions of the report I linked to in my last post are hardly surprising. What is surprising is the amount of homes - even Christian homes - who don't seem to monitor or regulate the visual & aural diets of their children, making the arguments the FPA et al make for the necessity of early 'education' seem justifiable.

It is ironic how parents go ape if their child's innocence regarding Santa is taken away form them, yet they let them watch eastenders!

[Bernice Cousins]

You all have made such good and relevant points. I would like to add that I do believe that all children should know the specific names of their genitalia - I have taught my 3 daughters the proper terminology but have also said that in company that they use the "private parts' phrase. The proper terminology to be used with their Doctor. The reason is that I was involved in a court case, where the case was thrown out of court as the little girl kept saying her 'fairy'. The lawyers had a field day with that and another person went home free and not serving time for a crime committed. My 3 daughters are at school and going through the sex education curriculum at their schools, and also as a counsellor to children here in our community, apart from my children's ministry supervisor/pastor job, I hear a lot of what is going on out there. The sex education that is being taught to our children is not Christian based and therefore allows for the morals and values of this world to taint this 'subject'. I have therefore found out each year from my children's teachers as to what it is that is going to be discussed, and I then have chats with my girls bringing the Christian values and morals into being. The lack of morals and principles that are being taught (or not taught) in the sexual education curriculum have unfortunately tainted our children. They believe that oral sex isn't sex as you can't fall pregnant - hence a monstrous surge in rainbow parties. I put this down to too much information at a young age. I agree that this is definitely an area where parents should be the only educator, but unfortunately parents are not doing this for a number of reasons. (Again due to my experiences the majority of parents are not 100% hands on parents). My suggestion to the schools would be to seek either a children's worker from a local church, or a clinic sister from a local clinic to come to the schools and to do the sexual education talks. This would hopefully then be an unbiased teaching into this area as the children would then be taught incorporating morals, principles and of course plain untainted facts. This is a very touchy area (excuse the pun) and there has been a lot of pros and cons spoken of by parents in the car parks. They are all so aware but still allow their children to watch movies that are inappropriate, listen to various secular music that is way too inappropriate but are unable to join the dots. Our children are being sucked into a world which is set out to recruit more victims.

[Ruth Thomas]

I read an article yesterday (at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8046457.stm) that said that some girls are now reaching puberty as early as seven. This suggests quite a strong urgency to make sure that they have some idea of what's going on before that happens!

[Peter Shields]

Suspect you'll find that there have always been children who have reached puberty at an early age.

Now onto week 4 of the "speak easy" course at my children's school. Got to say I'm getting less & less comfortable with the content. Was shown a number of potential text books ... including one for pre-schoolers about "sammy the sperm" and his quest to find the egg! Good, fun & child friendly ... but WHY? And it was revealing to read the section on homosexuality in most of them. One of them had a single paragraph on heterosexuality and then spent several pages explaining how homosexuality was almost revered in the classical Greek era! And the section on masturbation contained an interesting sentence, to the effect of, "some religions consider it a sin, but they are wrong" - I kid you not. There was a Miriam Stoppard book (on answers to difficult questions, not just sex) which seemed OK but it was amusing to read her section on, "Who is God?" ... ever heard a person without any particular religious faith explain who God is!!

Came to my mind that basically this was nothing more than "grooming". Indeed if a male was found telling this information to a child he would instantly be on the register I suspect. However, put him in a classroom and tell it to a whole bunch of children and it's "education".

Conspicuous by it's absence was the idea of love, commitment, self-respect, self-control, marriage, parenthood, emotional consequences etc. It's a bit like teaching children about sharing a meal by explaining about the process of digestion, or talking about marriage by explaining the legal process.

[Ruth Thomas]

I'm sure there have always been children who have reached puberty early. But all the medical evidence I've heard suggests that in the West, the average age has got significantly earlier over the last half-century or so and therefore the earliest onset has also got significantly earlier. It does matter -- menstruation can be worrying for a girl at any age, serious terrifying if you don't know what to expect. And I can't see it being sane to teach the girls about menstruation without relating it to reproduction, or without teaching the boys at the same time.

That is part of the justifcation for my belief that something needs to be taught about sex, even at infant-school age. But it certainly doesn't justify the kind of content it sounds like your children's school is coming up with! It really does sound awful... And I get very frustrated when folks use ancient history to prop up modern approaches to homosexuality (which I've heard done in support of some very divergent views on the subject). The Greek sexual context, which included arranged marriages, female subjugation, male and female deity worship etc etc, was so very unlike the modern situation that it's just not applicable.