Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

100 organisations ask Labour to abandon Tory revised guidelines on RSHE

285 replies

IwantToRetire · 12/07/2024 00:56

The Conservative government launched a consultation in May on planned updates to guidance first issued in 2019, following a review of the reforms.

It proposed age limits on “sensitive” topics, ordered schools not to teach about “gender identity” and to share materials with parents.

Ministers were accused at the time of stirring up “culture war” issues in the run-up to the election.

The consultation closes today.

To coincide with its closure, more than 100 organisations including the ASCL and NAHT leaders’ unions, the PSHE Association, Sex Education Forum, Barnardo’s, Refuge and Everyone’s Invited have issued a joint statement calling for a “fresh start” to the review.

“We are calling on the next government to discard the draft guidance and begin this process in due course, focusing on the needs of children and young people and supporting teachers to deliver a high-quality, inclusive curriculum.”

Lucy Emmerson, CEO of the Sex Education Forum, said age restrictions would be a “backward step making children more vulnerable to abuse and harm”.

PSHE association chief executive Jonathan Baggaley, warned he had “deep concerns about the development process and shortcomings of the draft guidance, particularly on critical aspects of children’s safeguarding, wellbeing and inclusion”.

And Lynn Perry, chief executive of Barnardo’s, said introducing age limits to RSHE topics “risks children missing out on crucial teaching about abuse and exploitation”.

Continues at https://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-faces-pressure-to-ditch-tory-rshe-reforms/

Labour faces pressure to ditch Tory RSHE reforms

Dozens of groups warn draft RSHE guidance 'falls short of what is required to help keep children safe'

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-faces-pressure-to-ditch-tory-rshe-reforms

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
IwantToRetire · 12/07/2024 18:36

What's strange is that the 2nd largest group of signatories is women's groups in the VAWG sector.

And even allowing that some are genuinely well qualified to work with and provide support to women who have suffered male violence, not sure how qualified they are to comment on this.

They may have accummulated anecdotal information about how what is happening in schools, but they aren't experts in education.

Added to which I haven't seen any of these groups for instance ever having asked for feedback from service users about what is or is not taught in RSHE being part of the problem of male violence, rather than what is happening in pupils homes and community.

I suppose part of me is worried that they have signed this as much to show support for the teaching of gender identity!

  • The End Violence Against Women Coalition
  • Refuge
  • Women’s Aid Federation of England (Women’s Aid)
  • Rape Crisis England & Wales
  • Everyone’s Invited
  • Action Breaks Silence
  • Advance
  • Birmingham and Solihull Women’s Aid
  • Bold Voices
  • Beyond Equality
  • FORWARD
  • Imkaan
  • IKWRO – Women’s Rights Organisation
  • IRISi
  • Jewish Women’s Aid
  • Juno Women’s Aid
  • Kindling Transformative Interventions
  • Latin American Women’s Aid
  • Latin American Women’s Rights Service (LAWRS)
  • LMK Let Me Know
  • Middle Eastern Women and Society Organisation (MEWSO)
  • Our Streets Now
  • Rights of Women
  • Solace Women’s Aid
  • Surviving Economic Abuse
  • Survivors Of Abuse
  • Tender
  • This Ends Now
  • Violence Against Women and Girls Research Network
  • Woman’s Trust
  • Women’s Budget Group
  • Roj Women’s Association
  • White ribbon UK
  • Agenda Alliance
  • Standing Together
  • Respect
  • Savana
OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 12/07/2024 18:24

eatfigs · 12/07/2024 17:51

My kids aren't at school age yet so I was genuinely looking for info about why they chose these age limits so I can understand and be prepared. Wasn't trying to cause an argument sorry!

Not sure if you thought my comments were aimed at you but they weren't. Just generally often because I too am new / uninformed on a topic and worry they my pulling out paragraphs from a longer article may distort what is being reported.

OP posts:
dougalfromthemagicroundabout · 12/07/2024 18:03

CassieMaddox · 12/07/2024 14:41

Sure
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/implementing-the-online-safety-act-protecting-children/

Latest research[1] shows that the average age at which children first see online pornography is 13 – although nearly a quarter come across it by age 11 (27%), and one in ten as young as 9 (10%).

It would be more protective to explain it exists in primary school and options for what to do if they see it/are shown it, than ban teaching until y7 and leave kids who do see it unsupported.

So before we even get to whether the research leading to these statistics is valid... you're saying that because 1 in 10 pupils see porn by age 9, the other 90% should be exposed to it too?

I'm pretty sure the 90% of parents ensuring their children aren't in the 10% aren't going to be very keen on this idea.

This sort of statistic means that there will be many classes where none of the children have been exposed. Why introduce it to them?

Teentaxidriver · 12/07/2024 17:59

UpThePankhurst · 12/07/2024 07:46

Captured organisations.

Which is the problem.

Those organisations' income and support relies on emphatically not prioritising the safeguarding and best interests of children, but furthering their own. So it really wouldn't matter if there were 5000 of them.

Pretty please other government, remove the boundaries to us getting into schools, enforcing our politics and agenda, trotting children to mutilation, drugs and lifetime damage, (particularly the ones with Autism and who are gay), and actively discriminating against and silencing diversity of belief/enforcing compelled belief.

Wonder if the Labour govt are grown ups about this, or just going to be lobby puppets without conscience and guts the way the unions used to run Labour in the 70s?

Edited

This x 1,000

MrsOvertonsWindow · 12/07/2024 17:57

I think that posters arguing that primary children should be being taught about porn should provide some sample materials about what they mean by that? Precisely what do you think teachers should tell 8 /9 10 year olds about porn? What language should they use? What practices? What visuals / images would you use?

Because I can tell you that exposing children to age inappropriate information (as I think someone's explained upthread) is abusive in itself. And before we get the usual "this didn't happen, it's a conspiracy theory from right wing bigots" nonsense, this thread details how Warwickshie Council had to backtrack when they allowed a man to create materials for school children that were deeply sexually inappropriate. The council initially defended it - until people exposed precisely the extreme porn that was being "sold" to children as acceptable:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3795892--All-about-me-Sex-Relationships-primary-education

IwantToRetire · 12/07/2024 17:51

This is how Schools Weekly summarised the Tory proposals

1. Age limits on ‘sensitive’ topics

The DfE said it was introducing age limits on certain topics “to ensure that, as content is presented to prepare young people to stay safe and keep others safe, children are not introduced too early to concepts that they may not have the maturity to grasp, or which may be distressing”.

Here’s the full list…

Not before year 3

  • The risks relating to online gaming, video game monetisation, scams, fraud and other financial harms, and that gaming can become addictive
  • Why social media, some apps, computer games and online gaming, including gambling sites, are age restricted
Not before year 4
  • Growth, change and the changing adolescent body. This topic should include the human lifecycle
  • Puberty should be mentioned as a stage in this process, including the key facts about the menstrual cycle, including physical and emotional changes
Not before year 5
  • Sex education topics taught in primary, which should be in line with what pupils learn about conception and birth as part of the national curriculum for science
Not before year 7
  • What constitutes harmful sexual behaviour, including sexual harassment and the concepts and laws relating to it, including revenge porn, upskirting and taking intimate sexual photos without consent, public sexual harassment, and unsolicited sexual language / attention / touching
  • The concepts and laws relating to sexual exploitation and abuse, grooming, stalking, and forced marriage
  • Circulating images and information and how to safely report to trusted adults the non-consensual creation or distribution of an intimate image
  • The risks of inappropriate online content, including pornographic content, without discussing the details of sexual acts
Not before year 9
  • Discussing the details of sexually explicit materials, in the context of learning about the risks of inappropriate online content, including pornographic content
  • Discussing the explicit details of violent abuse, including the detail of topics such as rape, sexual assault, female genital mutilation (FGM), virginity testing and hymenoplasty
  • Discussing the explicit details of violent abuse when discussing the concepts and laws relating to domestic abuse including coercive control, emotional, sexual, economic or physical abuse, and violent or threatening behaviour
  • Explicit discussion of the details of sexual acts, in the context of teaching about intimate and sexual relationships, including in relation to contraception and STIs

2. Primary sex ed should draw on science

The consultation states that where primary schools teach sex education, its “purpose is not to prepare pupils for sexual activity in later life, but to focus on giving pupils the information they need to understand human reproduction and for their own safety”.
The guidance “continues to recommend that primary schools have a sex education programme, but restricts this to no earlier than years 5 or 6”.

It is also “clear that if a primary school teaches sex education, it should draw on the knowledge pupils are developing about the human life cycle, as set out in the national curriculum for science”.

3. Schools have some ‘flexibility’

Despite the large number of age restrictions, the DfE said it had still allowed schools a “degree of flexibility”.

This will allow schools to “respond promptly to issues which pose an imminent safeguarding risk to their pupils”.

“This means that in certain circumstances, schools may decide to teach age-limited topics earlier, provided it is necessary to do so in order to safeguard pupils and provided that teaching is limited to the essential facts, without going into unnecessary details.”

For example, if a primary school finds out pupils are sharing porn, it would be allowed to “address this appropriately with younger pupils without going into details of the sexual acts viewed”.

4. ‘Do not teach about gender identity’

The guidance states that pupils should be “taught the law” about gender re-assignment, and “be clear” that individuals must be 18 “before they can legally reassign their gender”.
Schools “should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity”, which the DfE said was “a highly contested and complex subject”.

The guidance described gender identity as “a sense a person may have of their own gender, whether male, female or a number of other categories”.

“This may or may not be the same as their biological sex. Many people do not consider that they or others have a separate gender identity.”

5. ‘Teach the facts about biological sex’

If asked about the topic of gender identity, schools should “teach the facts about biological sex and not use any materials that present contested views as fact, including the view that gender is a spectrum”.

Material suggesting that someone’s gender is determined by their interests or clothing choices “should not be used as it risks leading pupils who do not comply with sex stereotypes to question their gender when they might not have done so otherwise”.

Where schools decide to use external resources, “they should avoid materials that use cartoons or diagrams that oversimplify this complex concept or that could be interpreted as being aimed at younger children”.

Schools should also “consult parents on the content of external resources on this topic in advance and make all materials available to them on request”.

6. Share materials with parents

The consultation states that the draft guidance is “clear” there is a “strong public interest in parents being able to see all materials used to teach RSHE, if they would like to”.

Schools “should not agree to contractual restrictions which prevent this”, and existing clauses are “void”, given the “public interest” in parents being able to see material.

But schools must comply with copyright law when sharing materials. It is “best practice to share materials via a ‘parent portal’ or, if this is not possible, through a presentation”.

7. New content on sexual harassment…

The government has added a new section to the guidance on “addressing prejudice, harassment and sexual violence and harmful sexual behaviours”.

This is in light of evidence of the “prevalence of sexual harassment in some schools”.

New content addresses “harmful behaviours that pupils may be exposed to, including online, which may normalise harmful or violent sexual behaviours – for example, by giving pupils the opportunity to identify positive male role models”.

There is also new content about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including about fixated and obsessive behaviours, such as stalking.

8. …and on suicide prevention

The government has also added a section on suicide prevention, which explains that “in teaching about mental health and wellbeing within the RSHE curriculum, schools may wish to talk to young people about the prevention of suicide, including how to identify warning signs and where and how to seek help”.

“The guidance says that if addressing suicide directly, teaching should focus on equipping pupils to recognise when they, or someone they know, needs support and where they can seek help if they have concerns.”

Given the sensitivity and complexity of content on suicide prevention, “direct references to suicide should not be made before year 8”.

9. A ‘number of additional’ topics

The DfE has also added a number of “additional” topics that schools will have to teach about in the RSHE curriculum. These include..,

  • Loneliness
  • New content on gambling
  • Prevalence of ‘deepfakes’
  • Antimicrobial resistance
  • Healthy behaviours during pregnancy
  • Illegal online behaviours including drug and knife supply
  • Personal safety, including road, railway and water safety
  • Vaping,
  • Menstrual and gynaecological health including endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), heavy menstrual bleeding
  • Parenting and early years brain development
  • Virginity testing and hymenoplasty
  • Bereavement
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/new-sex-education-guidance-proposals-what-schools-need-to-know/

Sex education guidance changes: What schools need to know

Age limits on 'sensitive' topics and a ban on teaching about gender identity set out in DfE consultation

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/new-sex-education-guidance-proposals-what-schools-need-to-know

OP posts:
eatfigs · 12/07/2024 17:51

My kids aren't at school age yet so I was genuinely looking for info about why they chose these age limits so I can understand and be prepared. Wasn't trying to cause an argument sorry!

IwantToRetire · 12/07/2024 17:47

I'm going to sound a bit peevish in saying this, but if there is a link in an OP saying full or more information, it is probably worth following the link to know all the details. So just a reminder this is the full statement made by the groups:

The full statement

Relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) helps to protect children and young people from harm, keep them healthy and prepare them for life’s challenges and opportunities.

The current statutory guidance for RSHE in England – in force since 2020 – is based on robust evidence, informed by a rigorous engagement process and a twelve-week consultation.

It had support and input from safeguarding bodies, national children’s charities, specialist violence against women and girls organisations, faith and belief groups, parents and carers, teachers, teaching and leadership unions and young people, and votes of support from 538 MPs from across the political spectrum.

The current guidance provides the foundation on which schools have improved teaching of high quality, age-appropriate RSHE since 2020, despite Covid disruption.

Any review of RSHE must build on this progress and focus on responding to the needs and experiences of those the guidance will support: children and young people, teachers and schools.

‘Falls short’

We are concerned that the draft new RSHE guidance out for consultation until 11 July falls short of what is required to help keep children safe, healthy and prepared for modern life.

Age restrictions and topic bans pose a threat to the preventative role of RSHE, limiting the prevention of harm in relation to issues including sexual health, violence against women and girls (VAWG), mental health, safeguarding from sexual abuse, inclusion and tackling current and emerging threats like online misogyny.

The limited scope and structure of the review, and reduced eight-week consultation, is also problematic, as is the general election falling during this consultation period (thereby removing the opportunity for planned Department for Education stakeholder engagement).

A fresh start and a new review is needed. We are calling on the next government to discard the draft guidance and begin this process in due course, focusing on the needs of children and young people and supporting teachers to deliver a high-quality, inclusive curriculum.

‘Future updates to RSHE must be…’

Evidence based: using the best available evidence of what works in preventative education and the needs and experiences of all children and young people, so that it is effective, relevant, up-to-date and age and developmentally-appropriate.

Transparent: any evidence and recommendations that inform new proposals should be published, as should any evaluations of RSHE under current guidance.

Representative: there should be ongoing engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, including parents and carers, children and young people, teachers and teaching and leadership unions, national safeguarding bodies, children’s charities and specialist VAWG organisations, academics and experts.

OP posts:
CassieMaddox · 12/07/2024 17:42

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 12/07/2024 17:31

Possibly slightly off topic, but I find it really distasteful to use laughing emojis when discussing CSA and safeguarding.

Makes the writer look like they think this is all just a game in which to score points.

I find it more than slightly distasteful to have this kind of misrepresentation of me made.
It's really weird to boast about how you've tried to remove safeguarding measures from children.

I'll stop using laughing emojis when posters stop smearing me with offensive nonsense like this.

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 12/07/2024 17:31

Possibly slightly off topic, but I find it really distasteful to use laughing emojis when discussing CSA and safeguarding.

Makes the writer look like they think this is all just a game in which to score points.

UpThePankhurst · 12/07/2024 15:26

I'm beginning to think that the phrases 'right wing' and 'culture wars' really mean a desire to abandon child safeguarding.

It is a hideous, hideous document, but worth being aware of the Pedophile Manifesto. Like the Denton Document it's a carefully planned laid out way of enabling men to enjoy abusing kids without any inconvenient boundaries, by selling a bloody stupid gullible public a lot of queer agenda crap and faux intellectual burble, rebranding it, and scolding and shaming everyone with a brain.

We're quite a long way down the path it set out, it's been thoroughly disheartening to see so many agencies who really want the best interests of a man's penis to be centred in matters regarding women and children.

UpThePankhurst · 12/07/2024 15:21

If you want to kill three more years without having to do anything, just have another consultation.

And then lose the results. And not do anything for another year or two. And then when it gets to be a problem, guess what....? Have another consultation!

With a bit of care the Labour gvt can sit on their hands, not implement anything at all and say they're 'waiting for the consultation' and make sure they don't have to actually make a decision or do anything until after the next election.

PepeParapluie · 12/07/2024 15:05

happybluefern · 12/07/2024 15:00

I certainly hope someone would be looking at the responses for sure. Didn’t read the full article so didn’t realise the idea might be to chuck away all the responses. Shouldn’t really have waded in when I’m supposed to be working as can’t give it full attention but I strongly remember my overall impression of reading the guidance being that I felt it opened up a lot of problem areas for teachers, especially in secondary.

To be fair I might be misunderstanding - they’re calling for the guidance to be scrapped and say this consultation was not done well given its timing during the election period. They are calling for a new review. I read that as this consultation effectively being scrapped but that isn’t what it necessarily means. If you decide to scrap the guidance wholesale and start again, then I guess you can still review these responses and let that feed in to your new plans (which would be sensible in my view).

happybluefern · 12/07/2024 15:00

PepeParapluie · 12/07/2024 14:47

I guess this is exactly why it’d be good for labour to see the results of the consultation - if we just scrap it all now, then any kind of reasoned response would be lost. There is likely to be a whole range of reasons behind different groups supporting/ opposing this and the whole purpose of consultation is surely to dig into that.

Feedback that says ‘some good ideas, but this implementation won’t work’ is a world away from ‘we shouldn’t restrict RSHE at all’ type responses.

I certainly hope someone would be looking at the responses for sure. Didn’t read the full article so didn’t realise the idea might be to chuck away all the responses. Shouldn’t really have waded in when I’m supposed to be working as can’t give it full attention but I strongly remember my overall impression of reading the guidance being that I felt it opened up a lot of problem areas for teachers, especially in secondary.

MotherFeministWoman · 12/07/2024 14:56

dougalfromthemagicroundabout · 12/07/2024 11:21

I work and volunteer with hundreds of children and I know only one who was exposed to inappropriate violent material in year 6. Anyone who says otherwise needs to provide evidence.

And even if there are some, that does not justify talking about these issues with all the children who ARE NOT exposed, thereby harming them.

In my area, most children do not have phones or their own computers until year 7. So there is no way they could see this content in year 6 unless it's their parents allowing it, in which case it should be an individual case of working with social services. Not a whole class discussion.

My child is five. At least half of her class have unrestricted phone or tablet access

PepeParapluie · 12/07/2024 14:47

happybluefern · 12/07/2024 14:34

I read the guidance in details and with a lot of experience in schools I just didn’t think it was clear enough to be useful. It was oddly vague in crucial areas and arbitrarily specific in others. I am firmly on the fence over a lot of the content I just don’t think it was fit for purpose and I suspect the NEU will be representing concerns that it sets teachers up to fail, which was my impression. It’s not necessarily ‘pedos’ who want it changed it will also be organisations who found it to be as clear as mud.

I guess this is exactly why it’d be good for labour to see the results of the consultation - if we just scrap it all now, then any kind of reasoned response would be lost. There is likely to be a whole range of reasons behind different groups supporting/ opposing this and the whole purpose of consultation is surely to dig into that.

Feedback that says ‘some good ideas, but this implementation won’t work’ is a world away from ‘we shouldn’t restrict RSHE at all’ type responses.

CassieMaddox · 12/07/2024 14:47

dougalfromthemagicroundabout · 12/07/2024 14:00

I'm beginning to think that the phrases 'right wing' and 'culture wars' really mean a desire to abandon child safeguarding. It's DARVO - THEY'RE the ones creating the culture wars, the Tories are the one who've put time into thinking about the detail and what's best for child wellbeing. Which anyone who's actually read the document would see. It contains nuance, flexibility for different situations.

Any organisation in good faith would be discussing the detail and not just denouncing the document outright.

I can only think of one group of people who removing all boundaries from teaching sexual content to children in school benefits.

If being labelled as right wing is the price I have to pay for protecting children, I'm ok with that.

the Tories are the one who've put time into thinking about the detail and what's best for child wellbeing
Yes. That's why the average height of children has decreased under the Tory government 😂
#sarcasm

CassieMaddox · 12/07/2024 14:45

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 12/07/2024 13:07

It's really weird to boast about how you've tried to remove safeguarding measures from children.

You should reflect on that.

😂👍

I think not teaching children about porn and sex until an age where we know a large proportion of them have already been exposed to it is a safeguarding risk. Surprised to see you boasting about that 😂

CassieMaddox · 12/07/2024 14:43

dougalfromthemagicroundabout · 12/07/2024 11:32

Also, a more rational response to children in YEAR 6 being exposed to inappropriate content would be to ban smartphones for children under 16 and make it criminal to buy one.

Not to normalise the abuse, throw up our hands and give up!

All these organisations could be getting behind a smartphone ban. But they're not. Tells you all you need to know.

Edited

Actually a more rational response would be banning streaming porn, which is harmful to everyone. But men don't want to.

happybluefern · 12/07/2024 14:42

Above to @ResisterOfTwaddleRex. that would be one aspect that I would point to.

happybluefern · 12/07/2024 14:42

Not right now cos I’m taking a break from work and would have to read it all again and quote bits I cba tbh cos I know no one is going to be interested in my take on this forum 🤷🏻‍♀️ teh domestic violence but I do remember as really standing out to me. You can’t teach about ‘specific injury detail’ or some such working until year 9 but can teach about the topic generally. What does that mean? It is both specific in prohibiting the mention of a specific feature of domestic violence and vague in describing what that actually is and also how you would avoid it or what the rationale is.

CassieMaddox · 12/07/2024 14:41

dougalfromthemagicroundabout · 12/07/2024 11:21

I work and volunteer with hundreds of children and I know only one who was exposed to inappropriate violent material in year 6. Anyone who says otherwise needs to provide evidence.

And even if there are some, that does not justify talking about these issues with all the children who ARE NOT exposed, thereby harming them.

In my area, most children do not have phones or their own computers until year 7. So there is no way they could see this content in year 6 unless it's their parents allowing it, in which case it should be an individual case of working with social services. Not a whole class discussion.

Sure
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/implementing-the-online-safety-act-protecting-children/

Latest research[1] shows that the average age at which children first see online pornography is 13 – although nearly a quarter come across it by age 11 (27%), and one in ten as young as 9 (10%).

It would be more protective to explain it exists in primary school and options for what to do if they see it/are shown it, than ban teaching until y7 and leave kids who do see it unsupported.

A padlock and key sitting on a laptop keyboard

Implementing the Online Safety Act: Protecting children from online pornography

Children are set to be protected from accessing online pornography under new age-check guidance proposed by Ofcom today to help services to comply with online safety laws.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/implementing-the-online-safety-act-protecting-children

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 12/07/2024 14:37

It was oddly vague in crucial areas and arbitrarily specific in others

Where, can you point to these in the draft guidance?

happybluefern · 12/07/2024 14:37

dougalfromthemagicroundabout · 12/07/2024 14:00

I'm beginning to think that the phrases 'right wing' and 'culture wars' really mean a desire to abandon child safeguarding. It's DARVO - THEY'RE the ones creating the culture wars, the Tories are the one who've put time into thinking about the detail and what's best for child wellbeing. Which anyone who's actually read the document would see. It contains nuance, flexibility for different situations.

Any organisation in good faith would be discussing the detail and not just denouncing the document outright.

I can only think of one group of people who removing all boundaries from teaching sexual content to children in school benefits.

If being labelled as right wing is the price I have to pay for protecting children, I'm ok with that.

cannot disagree more over the evidence of nuance JJ the document and it was written by civil servants not ‘the tories’.

happybluefern · 12/07/2024 14:34

I read the guidance in details and with a lot of experience in schools I just didn’t think it was clear enough to be useful. It was oddly vague in crucial areas and arbitrarily specific in others. I am firmly on the fence over a lot of the content I just don’t think it was fit for purpose and I suspect the NEU will be representing concerns that it sets teachers up to fail, which was my impression. It’s not necessarily ‘pedos’ who want it changed it will also be organisations who found it to be as clear as mud.

Swipe left for the next trending thread