Explicit Sex Ed material for 5 years olds!!!

[vintageteacups]

sex ed for 5 years olds

I think this is extremely wrong on so many levels. Would you seriously like your 5 yr olds to be told about sex like this???

Well - I can trust myself to teach my children too - but I can't say I'd trust myself enough to be able to cover everything included in the curriculmn - it's pretty vast, and some of the stuff discuss just isn't relevant to my life, and so highly unlikely to come up in a general conversation. My children would have a limited view point if they relied solely on me.

Is that not the point of school though? We could teach them to write, do basic maths, some geography, some history, etc but the point is that there are so many topics, we trust the teachers with the education of our children.

I have now been to the parents' workshop providing the background to the changes in Glasgow's approach and allowing us to see all the material that will be used, by school year. (Interestingly, they said that they couldn't put it out a Parents' Evening, because, despite being requested not to, some parents bring kids with them and they couldn't guarentee that those kids wouldn't then see age inappropriate material). Any parent who is interested can go to the school and be shown the full programme - they are not trying to hide anything.

As they explained, one of the reasons for developing this new programme was that research had shown that there were large variations in waht was being taught: from nothing in some schools, to outdated stuff in others, to "just to the girls" in some and to quite good stuff in a few (our school was an example of "quite good stuff" :)).

The pilot studies have all been extremely positive with parents saying that it allowed them to disucss things in a bonding way with their kids ('cos at P6 and P7 there are a couple of non-compulsory worksheets to do at home). What the kids liked was the emphasis it placed on self-respect and relationships - and that it helped them understand some of the emotional changes they were going through, boys as well as girls.

Looking at the Lesson plans for each year (4 per year, 5 in P7) there is nothing that any reasonable person could object to:

For example, P1, Lesson 1: Me, I am unique. Aim - children wll be able to name body parts and recognise their indivuality (that is the only "shocking" part: at the same time as learning the word for "head", "leg", "foot", they will also learn "penis", "nipple" and "vulva" - but no emphasis is put on this.

P1, Lesson 4: My life, my special people. Aim: Children will be able to recognise the psecial relationships that they have in their lives and name the people who are specail to them

P6: Lesson 1, Friendships, what makes them work?. Aim - Children should be able to discuss the compnents that make up healthy frriendships and consider what makes friendships work and what elements can change the ffectivenss of tihs

P6: Lesson 3, Boy stuff, girl stuff, what's it all about?. Aim - to develop children's understadning of the issues surrounding gender inequality anf how the mdeai and society contribute to and affect these issues.

P6: Lesson 4, Growing up, what's happening to me. Aim, children will be able to have a clear undesratinding of the physical and emotional changes that they will go through during puberty and disucss any issues or concerns that they have relating to puberty.

I genuinely don't see what there is to "fear" in this? In fact, I think, on the contrary, it is to be commended. At the same time as teaching the kids about "Sexual Health and Relationships" ( not the same as "Sex Education") they are also challenging our society's current over sexualisation of things (look at Mumsnet's campaignon children's clothing or the highly sexualised music videos aimed at children) and at least giving the children some awareness with which to challenge that.

What prettybird said.

I could teach dcs French and history and I am certainly able to read and write, but I am not about to start a petition to have reading and French and history abolished in schools.

Yes, they are my children and my responsibility, but I am still letting another adult teach them to read and write and do maths- or to be exact, I am letting another adult be involved in teaching them these very fundamental things. Of course I have a part too: I live with them, I talk to them, they are going to be learning some of these things from me. It is not as if the presence of a school curriculum means I can never give them my own take on the Battle of Hastings. And I can get my take on sex education in too. I find it bizarre to imagine that noone must ever be told anything that the parents (=some parents) could equally tell them.

Though to be perfectly honest, I am not sure I am all that well equipped to give my teen dd her sex education: I've led rather a sheltered life and the things I have needed to know about have been fairly limited. I find Mumsnet very educational

prettybird - what your school is doing is great, however not all schools are taking that reasonable approach, as you said it differs and some schools are using and showing stuff that is far more explicit than what you have explained.

"some schools are using and showing stuff that is far more explicit than what you have explained"

Can you give any examples?

As KS1 leader, I have never ever seen any guidelines for explicit sex lessons for 5 year olds I don't know where this story comes from. Probably the same place as:

The brain defects that prevent yobs 'feeling for their victims'
Men with a pot belly are 'more likely to go blind'
Doing a bit of forward planning, Kate? Princess-in-waiting eyes up baby clothes

and other such crass articles. (And that's just three from the website today!)

Snorbs - yes some schools are using the C4 Living and Growing series to show at age 7 a cartoon couple having sex in several different positions. that was mentioned in the article, so I know there is truth in it, other schools are showing at age 9 exactly how to penetrate a woman in close up detail with equally lovely voice over.

I am a "reasonable parent" as prettybird puts it and no I wouldn't object to what she has outlined above. Having shown the 2 materials I have just said about to secondary school students age 13 to 16 - not one of them had ever seen anything like it in secondary school, were shocked and 100% said they didn't think it was remotely necessary in primary school.
Incidentally the QCDA guidelines for PSHE say puberty only in Key Stage 2 and sexual activity/ contraception in Key Stage 3, and yet that is what is being taught in some schools in the UK in Key Stage 2 all down to the "professional judgement" of the heads of those schools.

Parents are always informed about the teaching of sex and relationships and can pull their children out. This is a non-story and DM hype,

Er, no, the article did not say that any schools were actually using the C4 "Living and Growing" DVD set. It heavily implied that they were, and Sheffield Council said that it thinks it's fine for primary schools, but that a) it's down to the individual schools to decide, and b) they don't know if any primary schools are actually using it. If you think I'm wrong then, please, point out where in the article it actually said that schools were using these materials in primary schools.

But then that same article said that "The pack produced by HIT UK, meanwhile, encourages primary aged children to learn about ?anal intercourse?, ?oral sex? and ?prostitution?." Which is, as previously explained, a gross distortion of the truth. The pack no more encourages children to learn about such things than the Bible encourages children to learn about incest and mass murder or a dictionary encourages children to learn about rape.

But then that's what happens when you read the Daily Mail - you get fed outright lies, heavy innuendo, blatant propaganda and much more than your recommended daily intake of bullshit.

Ok, I can confirm that despite having a whole host of approved material, some of which is NHS produced C4 Living and Growing is the approved and recommended material for the county that I live in and that every school I know of locally is using it, some edit it heavily (if they need to do that in the first place why is it being recommended) and some show it all - it's pot luck really and depending on the attitude of your school which you get.

I can't comment on the other stuff ie: oral sex, prostitution etc because I do not know anything about the HIT UK pack. But if I was concerned about that I wouldn't take someone else's word for it and would go and find out.

By the way I am not generally a Daily Mail reader.

Since writing the OP, I emailed dd's HT and asked how they taught SRE. She said that other than random questions which occur in science lessons, they don't teach any sex ed.

The middle school teach it in yr 5/6 so the cluster primaries leave it completely. The middle school uses the county NHS programme of professionals to come in and speak to the children in a well thought out programme apparently.

Again there, vintageteacups,is a variation, your school uses nhs professionals, ours is taught by the year teacher who has maybe had a 1 day training course. If this is as important as the government seem to think it is and will (supposedly) solve society's problems why are there so many variations from school to school?

Shakira123 - you are missing the point (or maybe I didn't make it clearly enough): what ds' school is doing is not unique . I can't comment on the English system, but what I have been describing is a Glasgow wide programme that all schools are following (or will be soon - it has been rolled out over the last couple of years - in fact our area is one of the last - partly becasue of the high Muslim population).

I had been trying to contrast it with what used to be done - which did vary from school to school.

It is a highly detailed programme for which the teachers are trained to deliver (the only thing our school has done that is different is that all the teachers are trained in the new porgramme, as opposed to one per year). The advantage that ds' school had was that it was already doing 95% of it - 80% of which was delivered by the teachers (the bullying and self-respect stuff) and the "sex education" part in P7 they previously had a peripatetic group of specialist teachers come in.

The materials are common to all schools and the (detailed) lesson plans are specific to each year. Any modifications that a school may make (for which they need to get permission) are only by delaying - not by bringing forward - material. For example, the video of chil dbirth which is supposed to be shown in P4 (Y3) our school will only show in P6 or 7. Although to be fair, having talked to them, they have said that it is a very gentle totally unrealistic version of childbirth, shown from the "head" end with no screaming and a beautiful clean baby emerging from vaguely the (covered) leg area , and is in the context of having talked about seeds to trees, eggs to birds, baby animals and mummy animals and then showing the human context.

When I went in to the school last week to see a demonstration of the work ds' class has been doing (ironically enough, on the human body), I saw a couple of mothers in the reception area looking through the folder with the detailed lesson plans: the same folder that is issued to all schools.

The outline that I posted earlier of the topics covered from P1 to S6 was from the Management Circular issued to all schools and available to the general public via the City Council web site.

What I really like about the porgramme is the emphasis it places upon respect , in particular self respect. If anything I think they made a mistake in the name "Sexual Health and Relationships Edcuation(although I understand why they did it - so they wouldn't be accused of teaching by subterfuge). I think that they should have called it "Relationships, incorporating Sexual Health" - but that does sound a bit poncy even if it is more accurate as to the emphasis

prettybird - no I did get the point honestly that it wasnt standardised and now it has been and I am really very interested in what you have described as what is being done in Glasgow. I would be very interested in finding out more if you could post a link to the where i can find this info on the glasgow County Council web site I would be very grateful.

I suppose the point I was trying to make (obviously not very clearly) is that people read its The Daily Mail or the Christian Institute and immediately disregard the whole article as rubbish when despite the sensationalised headlines (come on they are papers - this is what they do) there is a lot of truth in what they are saying, how do I know this ? because A) I have spent a lot of time looking into it personally, B) my county is recommending explicit videos and they are being used C) I have spoken to parents in other parts of the UK that have fought their schools over the Living & Growing series.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255483/Parents-anger-class-seven-year-olds-shown-graphic-sex-cartoon-school.html

www.assistnews.net/Stories/2010/s10060140.htm

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7709996/Parents-describe-sex-education-video-for-primary-schools-as-disturbing.html

These are just some of the few that made it to the papers, how many more parents are against the C4 series that didnt take it that far?

Maybe following Glasgows example would be the way forward.

OK shakira123 - I underatand now. So, some places are not doing enough, while some places are doing too much.

I can't link to the actual materials - the council is planning on offering the prgramme - for a fee - to other councils

I can link to the Management Circular here which outlines the approach. I used to be Chair of the School Board and during that time, I never saw a Management Circular that was 18 pages long - shows how imprtant they felt that the schools were aware of the full context.

This is a link to the Evaluation study: Evalution of the Pilot Study, although as they say, the evaluation is limited in that it is designed to be built on year on year, so you won't be able to evaluate the full effectiveness of that for a few years.

They mentioned at the workshop that they have been back since and talked to some of the teachers and pupils - and one of the things that had been mentioned by the teachers as embarassing: using the "proper" names for in P1 for penis, vuvla and nipple was no longer seen as such a big thing - they were just words like "head" or "foot" (which is the context in which they were "named")

At our school, there will be a change from the Pilot in that the more "anatomical" lesson in P6 and P7 (out of the 4 lessons in P6 and the 5 lessons in P7) will be separated so that the boys and girls are in separate classes. That is partly out of respect to the high Muslim population.

On a more positive note, despite the two (so far) withdrawals at ds' school, one of the (very traditional) Muslim mums made an appointment to see the headteacher to discuss the programme, started the conversation by saying, "I am a good Muslim..........

..... and I see nothing whatoseover wrong in what is being proposed"

She went on to tell the Headteacher that she spoke flunet Punjabi and Urdu and was happy to talk to the mums in the playground in support of it :) ..... which will go some way to combatting the couple of militant Muslim mums who are trying to say it is anti-Islam.

It's hardly snobby to see through the DM's daily litany of scare-tactic journalism. Sometimes, ignorant people get shown up by more clued-up folks. They then oftentimes respond by calling them snobs.

Please DM readers, learn that this paper is rotting your minds with lies. It is utterly obsessed with an imagined attack on the "Middle Class". The following are genuine DM stories for poorly educated aspirational white, racist village-dwellers to tut-tut to each other about:

"Country dwellers believe rural communities should be the preserve of white middle-class families with conservative values, a survey claims."

"Middle-class youngsters barred from applying for internships at Whitehall and in the police... because they are white"

"MIDDLE-CLASS PUPILS OF FIVE 'MORE ARTICULATE THAN POOR ADULTS"

"Why did my middle class brother turn into an Islamic extremist who won't be seen on TV with our mother if she's not wearing a veil?"

"Special investigation: How predatory gangs force middle-class girls into the sex trade"

"Gay vicar, 65, to 'marry' Nigerian male model half his age"

"What about my human rights, asks woman beaten unconscious by asylum-seeker ex-lover freed by immigration judge"

...you couldn't make it up. Except that they did.

Snobear - who is calling anyone a snob ? I certainly haven't.

Vintageteacups on page one of the thread: "Forget it - don't post any more.
MN is sooooooooooooooo snobby sometimes it makes me laugh." I was not having a go at shakira.

In relation to DM haters, I believe.

I wouldn't link to a DM article as any source of factual information, much less opinion.

Okay - why would anyone doubt this for example?

I was implying that just because it's the DM, doesn't always mean it cannot be accurate.

I often pop online (never buy papers) to check what's happening in the world and the DM is one of a few I look at.

Best thing about that story was that atomic clocks lose accuracy thanks to the "Dick Effect". Make of that what you will.

One factual story does not negate all of the rampant lies, distortions, racism and intentional misreadings of statistics that the DM specialises in.