Tanya Carter from SSA live on Radio4 at noon today #RSEdebate

Such an interesting programme - and what a good speaker Tanya is

Sad that Sophie had no insight into how the dynamics of a peer can influence how children receive information. She's unable to imagine the potential bullying opportunities that could happen from the playdough exercise in a class with poor peer relationships where bullying thrives, girls are sexually harassed or homophobic abuse is rife. As an outsider she's unlikely to spot the pointed comment or question designed to humiliate another.

More worryingly in her quest to delve more deeply into children's views, Sophie seems unaware of the need to structure questions to ensure the issues are age appropriate rather than allow a free for all. Sophie will not be there to pick up the pieces from a child who outs themselves in a myriad of ways from an innocent question and is subsequently ridiculed or bullied. Some questions will be age inappropriate and skilled sex educators have a range of techniques to ensure that discussions with children remain boundaried.

I only caught a bit on the radio whilst driving, I can't find the programme on BBC sounds. Anyone got the link?

You make some excellent points here Goodweather
Ones I hadn't registered, but really strike me now you point them out. Especially about the prudery set up and assuming that all 16 year olds (or younger from discussion- 13/14?) are watching porn and are sexually active.
**
**
**
**

I thought it was interesting that they included the history of teaching about “the birds & the bees”. A device to show the ‘moral uptightness’ of the past and to imply the new and all-encompassing ‘sexuality’ now being taught in schools was progress away from that prudery and withholding of knowledge.

It also meant that there wasn’t enough time for the ‘political’ topic which Tanya mentioned, and we all know that was the even more contentious Gender Identity Theory!

It’s unfortunate that the lesson content is predicated on the assumption that because some under 16s are having sex, the whole class must be taught as if they are, too. This is with regard to the ‘nuts and bolts’ of it all. I mean, imagine not having sex before 16 or not having watched porn!

The major issue in my opinion, is actually the easy access to online pornography. I suppose the content of some of these RSE lessons would seem quite tame compared to what you could watch online while getting your homework done! And that has therefore meant that RSE has had to delve in to subjects that seem very extreme, in order to mitigate the messages which easily available, unsafe and VIOLENT porn are giving to children and teenagers.

Just catching up on all this, having also listened to the programme.

Firstly, thank you to Tanya, not easy circumstances to have been live on air.

I thought the bbc interviewer was biased towards Sophie but equally I think many parents (and general public) will have been shocked to hear about the dice game and modelling genitalia out of playdoh going on in schools. Also the point about external providers being unregulated.

I’m glad the profile is being raised on this subject. Well done SSAUK.

Quite, Arabella.

You mean ... mothers? If you're in education and you see mothers as the enemy, something has gone badly wrong in your brain.

Agree. This is the rub - 'children are not mini-adults', Sophie Whitehead kept referring to 'people' in her discussion, rather than children. It's a linguistic sleight of hand that shifts the specificity in what is being discussed.

Would have loved double the length of show and some real probe into teaching consent and how that interacts and interplays with children (not having) consented to graphic lessons.

God help these well-meaning, dangerous idiots when they become parents or another event brings them face-to-face with the realities of the vital necessity of safeguarding. It's going to be a bump back to earth.

Safe Schools Alliance are exactly what these groups fear, the type of women with children in school who post on FWR and care about child safeguarding.

The school where the parent wasn’t able to view the materials now doesn’t use School of Sexuality, I don’t know if that was mentioned.

Agree Tanya came across really well.

Oh bloody hell !
Thanks nauticant (erm.... Maybe not thanks exactly)
I won't listen right now. Will undo the good feeling I got from listening to this one. Need to savour that and have a break from feeling the rage!

(I'll wait til I need to get galvanised to deep clean something)

Thanks

By the way it really boils my piss that these dodgy safeguarding destroying orgs are so well funded whereas SSA are a bunch of mums who care about safeguarding and fitting this in around eleventy billion other jobs.

Thank you SSA and I will donate at my next paycheck.

Also KCSIE clearly says that Safeguarding is a priority over GDPR. IF safeguarding is a priority over GDPR then it is also over copyright. I'm not sure if this is in KCSIE explicitly but I thought DfE had clarified that? Copyright is not an excuse for safeguarding failures which is what this is.

Well done SSA - you are amazing.

Why are outside providers not subject to training on KCSIE and safeguarding every year as school staff are? They should also all have extended DBS checks like school staff. Some of this stuff is quite clearly against what is said in KCSIE - it's anti-safeguarding.

The idea a child can just leave a classroom is anti-safeguarding - many adults wouldn't feel comfortable doing that and children will not go against the authority of responsible adults, we know this this is WHY we HAVE safeguarding in part - JFC! Paedophiles have been seeking positions of authority over children forever - again, why we have safeguarding. Children are not mini-adults hence the need for safeguarding!

I think many parents would be horrified to learn that parents are not allowed to freely see the content of such lessons, unless they go into the school and sit with someone whilst they go through it. What other subject would this be allowed?

Im glad the programme was done, these “outside” resource companies know we are onto them and that now, even the BBC will talk about them.

Oh @2fallsfromSSA I wasn't at all criticising you. You/Tanya/SSA were and are amazing and thanyou so much.

I meant more the bias in programming/the way it was put together.

I am just so pleased that this is finally being discussed - we've come such a long way!

Well done Tanya!

Yes absolutely all that is fantastic you're right. And yes it's so good it's getting air time now.

After all the issues with mermaids and stonewall etc. it should be more in people's consciousness the dangers of buying in teaching on these issues.

The way teaching is going though it's increasingly common to buy in bits of Curriculum

That was in an earlier epsidoe of this programme:

A spate of protests outside libraries has focused attention on the idea of drag queen story hours - drag queens reading stories to young children in libraries and other public spaces. For some, it’s the perfect way to build acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities, plus it’s fun and fabulous for the children. For others, it risks exposing young minds to adult entertainment and complex themes of sex and gender.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0019rrf

Beware, listening could give you the rage:

I think Tanya did well at highlighting, and reiterating several times this point:
The managing of the children's access to porn crisis, and safeguarding, need to be a whole school, culture wide, inclusive of parents approach (as in the 'safeguarding is everyone's business' understanding). As opposed to it being held in the purview of individual, outside, non- material sharing, and unregulated training groups- from the 'wild west' of RSE training.

That's what I took away, and hopefully others listening who hadn't thought of it this way might do.

I was just so pleased to hear this discussed and debated so openly at last on radio 4 - it could get people thinking for themselves outside of their bubbles and see that any pushback they might not initially agree with has at least valid points to consider.
DSQT could do with similar discussions I think.

And yes. It seems harmless as its playdough...

But it really isn't appropiate and invites criticism from others "hahaha does your vulva look like that irl etc.."

I would have died if I had been asked to model a vulva or penis out of play dough in a classroom as a child. Also it’s so much easier to model a penis.

Yes, in a BBC context, if something is set up as progressive vs reactionary, progressive is almost guaranteed an easy ride and plausibility.