Hello all
We’ve been contacted by Brook, whose volunteers are leading a debate to discuss whether sex and relationships education should have statutory status.
This debate is supported by ‘DO…’ (a project funded by Durex) and the volunteers have gathered extensive evidence and used their own experiences to make their case.
The debate will take place on Thursday 10th November 2016 from 5-7pm at Google's Headquarters in Central London.The event will be co-hosted by Brook and the FPA. They currently have around 10 people confirmed, including a representative from the National Union of Teachers, a journalist, a professor of reproductive medicine, and hopefully an MP.
They would also like to invite a parent to join the discussion who is perhaps against mandatory SRE, or against SRE from a young age.
The format would be that each participant would speak for a couple of minutes just to introduce themselves and give an overview of their opinions, and then the chair and co-chair will moderate the debate itself.
They would happily cover train expenses within Greater London. If you’d be interested in the discussion, please add your name to this thread.
If you have any questions, do let us know and we’ll do our best to get answers for you.
Thanks
MNHQ
MNHQ have commented on this thread
Site stuff
MNHQ here: contribute to a debate on SRE
BojanaMumsnet · 27/10/2016 09:51
100% support statutory age appropriate quality comprehensive SRE from primary upwards, with appropriate training and support for those providing it. (and can I recommend people to the work of Education for Choice also as part of that, for older kids.)
Successive Lab and Con govts have failed to implement statutory school SRE despite years of lobbying, which I think is pathetic. (Too scared of the objections/perceived electoral backlash to implement it. probably because they tend to get scared and stop listening as soon as they see the word 'sex' and 'school' in the same sentence, and so fail to understand the huge issues that come under 'relationships'. Or they DO understand the safeguarding benefits of school SRE for children, but are just politically more concerned about their own electability ..
Getting back to this debate though, IME the parents who are opposed to SRE in schools, in general tend to hold views on SRE (or on the issues which the act of doing any kind of SRE with their child, would force the parent to address with the DC..) meaning that those are exactly the parents who DON'T provide a reasonable alternative to school SRE to their child at home.
That ultimately disbenefits their child and it can leave individual children very vulnerable. This is why school SRE must be statutory- and that status could help support its quality and uniformity across schools.
As such I don't think those 'opposing' parents' views should in general, be weighted equally to those who understand the evidence around the importance of informing children appropriately about relationships and their own bodies and autonomy etc. If Brook's event is being had from a perspective of 'what we know would actually help children and young people', that is.
If instead, the aim of Brook's discussion is about 'how to get parents who reject the premise of school SRE to engage', then you'd need more than one such parent on the panel to make it informative or constructive?
This objection can come from different parental viewpoints and obviously not all are the same, so there would need to be genuine and deeper engagement to find ways of bridging this divide. So probably not something you could achieve via a 'debate' format.
Otherwise this debate seems a bit like its preaching to the converted but including one token figure who resists the orthodoxy of 'school SRE is good'..?
Sorry if any of that sounds negative. I know that Brook do absolutely excellent work and I may have misunderstood the purpose of the debate.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.