Parents lose right of withdrawal of their children from Sex and Relationship Education once they reach 15.

[Thandeka]

Please discuss your reactions to this news as I would be very interested to read them.

Personally I think this is a great thing but then I am biased as I work in young people's sexual health.

P.S "Parental opt out" is a much better word sorry as "withdrawal isn't necessarily a good word to use in relation to sex ed- hehe!

I would love to know how all those people who say that they are the best people to deal with sex ed for their kids would actually approach some of the learning that is covered in PSHE.

I'd also like to know why they don't object to not being allowed to withdraw their kids from science lessons which teach about sex. Why are people so scared of PSHE?

Education is compulsory up to 16. Parents don't generally get a say in what is taught - why should PHSE be any different? I'm really glad that school focus on skills that aren't just academic, and learning to have good healthy relationships to me is a fairly fundamental life skill, and one that is useful to do in the company of your peers. Sex is a part of relationships, so it should be discussed too. Contraceptives/STDs/pregnancy is to me a very small part of the package.

I really don't know why they are saying that it is compulsory-when I was at school we all just went-I doubt whether parents were ever told, certainly no one was withdrawn.

I think it's always been an option to withdraw your child from certain 'contentious' areas of the curriculum, such as RE & the sex ed bit of PSHCE. Sex Ed is now being explicitly excluded from the list of things you can 'opt out' of.

My own feeling is that a line gets crossed when school starts saying things like 'Sex before marriage is awful', or, I suppose, 'Everyone should learn how to give the perfect blowjob'...I don't like the idea of school teaching what to think rather than how to think.

& IME this isn't the case in mainstream secondary schools in this country - these lessons are very focused on respecting everyone's POV, & the important thing being to think through your own feelings about sex - hopefully BEFORE you find yourself making practical decisions on an ad hoc basis as someone you desperately want to impress is trying to get their hands into your undies...

I really, really cannot construct a scenario in which any parent could reasonably take umbrage at the content or ethos of my own school's lessons on this subject. I can think of criticisms one could make as a student (my gobby tutor group are year 11 ) - too little too late, is the main one.

& I appreciate that some parents would rather tackle the subject themselves. Even so. Nothing in our PSHCE lessons that doesn't respect every conceivable parental stance.

What might be more interesting could be to give the kids free choice: 'You can go to PSHCE or you can have a free period to crack on with coursework in the library.' & then to ask the ones who opt out why.

I predict that the responses would tend to be 'I don't need it, I know all the factual stuff from Science & I'm bored with sitting around talking about self-respect - I'll conduct my lovelife how I want, when I want, thanks' rather than 'It makes me uncomfortable' &/or 'It conflicts with what I believe'

Sex education in the UK will continue to be a waste of time unless we move on from the current meme that it is usual for youths to start fornicating when they are in their mid-teens.

Kids are incredibly conformist. I remember from my (not so distant) youth the ridiculous peer pressure to be navigated through until you hit about 20 (then people don't believe you when you say you are a virgin!) You have to be doing it, even school tells you that.

Never mind the crap about "safe-sex", "respect" and "waiting until you are ready". The message is becoming sexually active is an adolescent rite-of-passage, like getting spots or starting to shave.

Teenage sex leads to disease, emotional damage, unwanted pregnancies (which in turn lead to either welfare dependency or infanticide). Successful marriages tend to involve couples who have had one, or very few, sexual partners.

The abstinence message can be put across very cheesily, and is obviously out of fashion with bien pensant thinking. But to the vast majority of children this message is never presented. I certainly never heard it.

Oh, I'd imagine given the choice of lesson or no lesson would pretty much always be no lesson thanks! Even if the lesson was really interesting and well taught/facilitated.

Well the evidence is that where there is really good sex/relationships education (usual suspects the Scandinavians) the age at which children become sexually active is older, and the accounts of first sex are more positive (with concurrent lower rates of teenage pregnancy, abortion and STDs). The abstinence schemes in the States however are not associated with teenagers actually having less sex. Oh, and it is possible for teenagers to have sex without any negative side effects (I personally wouldn't advocate lots of sex to my children when they hit their mid-teens) and of course many of those side effect happen to adults too.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that people with fewer sexual partners have more successful marriages?

But Grumpy, if teenage sex invariably leads to disease, emotional damage and unwanted pregnancies- how come these are so much more of a problem in the UK than in say the Scandinavian countries? Do you imagine that Swedish youngsters practise abstinence until they get married in their twenties or thirties?

I grew up in Scandinavia and still have very close ties. Even 30 years ago, abstinence was not the norm (or at least not the only norm) for teenagers. But I don't remember my friends as emotionally damaged (I remained a virgin until I had left home). An awful lot of them have gone on to have successful and happy marriages or longterm relationships. And the only teen pregnancy I every heard of was that of the Baptist pastor's daughter.

Looking at the younger generation of nieces and nephews and their friends, again they seem to be coping rather well with life- though I doubt that they are all virgins

I think the British problem with sexually risky behaviour has to be due to other factors.

Actually, I'll present the abstinence message to my own dc, male & female, without any hesitation.

I do believe that crap teenage sex is a bad idea - for all the reasons you cite GYF (although I agree with nooka that your claim about successful marriages is highly dubious).

Having said that, at 16 (grammar school educated, university bound, generally quite level headed & not particularly overwhelmed with lust for anyone) I was really quite desperate to get the whole 'losing my virginity' thing out of the way. So I had rubbish sex with a rubbish boyfriend, just to tick that particular box.

& because I'd had decent sex education at school, I got him to wear a condom & the worst thing that happened was that I was rather put off sex.

It's easy as an adult to say 'Well, it's obviously best to wait until you meet the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with'.

Lots of teenagers think they have met that person (some of them are right). Lots of others think, like me, in terms of 'getting it over with'. You have to accept that & educate for the practicalities.

How stupid do you have to be to not take some steps to avoid unwanted pregnancies/VD?

Even I, as an innocent and still pre-pubescent 12 year old knew:

a) Where babies come from,
b) That there were steps one can take to prevent babies
c) That one person sticking body parts into another might lead to an embarrassing trip to a special clinic

Those whose thinking is stuck in the mainstream don't get it*. It's like when the Catholic church explain that condoms don't prevent the spread AIDS. Because they don't. What prevents AIDS is a change in behaviour.

The only safe sex is no sex.

We all know what a johnny is, but in a culture of promiscuity they are forgotten in the heat of the moment. (particularly by the less bright or those who simply don't care)

*Neither did I as a teenager

I wonder of they are forgotten in the heat of the moment? I think they aren't used for a number of reasons. I'm always astonished at the reluctance of men generally to use condoms. And of women to be understanding of this.

So right too. Not all 15 year olds are having sex but a lot are. If they cannot speak to parents about contraception and sexual health then there should be somewhere else they can get practical advice.

I was a teen in the 70's in love at 15 and having sex without the availability of contraception advice. Suppose it goes without saying I went through the inevitable worse case scenerious. Would hate to think that my DD suffered that through embarrasement or lack of resources.

As it happens she knows she can tell me anything but that is more because of my experience, there are still parents of her peers that are ignoring the blaringly obvious.

Condoms do lessen the spread of AIDS. It's stupid to say that they don't - there are plenty of studies that demonstrate easy access to condoms makes a difference to disease spread. Of course not having sex at all would reduce the spread of AIDS even more. But people do have sex (it is after all a biological urge/imperative), so giving practical advice on lowering risk is much more effective than effectively sticking your head in the sand.

Plenty of intelligent people have pregnancy scares (a high proportion of children born are the result of accidents) and visit VD clinics. Many (indeed I think its actually most) of them are adults. It's foolish to think that only the stupid/feckless get into trouble. And even if it is, it's still worth attempting to reduce their numbers, because of the wider impact on society if nothing else. Education is one way to do that.

I agree that as a society we are a bit sex obsessed. But then we are also prudish and judgmental too. Not a healthy mix. I don't think that is why individuals (young or old) choose to have sex. I am going to give my children all that "crap about "safe-sex", "respect" and "waiting until you are ready"". Because I think it is a) true, and b) way more effective at discouraging early unhealthy sex than saying they must never have sex, or never talking about it, or pretending that it's not pleasurable or something they might feel pressured into, or indeed something they might feel like doing.

That was pretty much the mainstream message when I was a teenager, and it wasn't terribly effective except as a good way to make sure that teenagers never told their parents what was going on in their personal lives.

Well, I don't think I was particularly stupid - probably more gormless when it came to sex than I was with Latin or Sisters of Mercy lyrics, admittedly, but not actually thick.

Of course I knew about condoms. What good sex ed gave me was the confidence to insist on them. & I'd argue that the best sex education works from '...probably best not to have sex in your teens...' through to '...but if you choose to do so, here's how to reduce your risk of unwanted pregnancy or STD'.

Condoms don't prevent the spread of AIDS? The idea is that they should reduce the transmission of HIV - not quite the same thing. & of course they do -in a given sexual encounter where one partner is HIV positive the virus is less likely to be transmitted if a condom is used.

Why would one be more likely not to bother with a condom in a 'culture of promiscuity' than in one, where, (I'm guessing this is what you're advocating), lifelong monogamy is the norm? I would've expected someone transgressing those values - because they'd been carried away by the 'heat of the moment' - to be less likely to think coolly about practising safe sex.

It's speculative on your part & also on mine, but the evidence from Scandinavian countries does seem to argue in favour of more & clearer sex education.

"Mumsnet, always guaranteed to support "the state" telling everyone to live like people on Mumsnet agree they should.

PMSL at "finally the state sticking up for what it believes is"

Yes, the poor downtrodden state finally fighting back against all those crazy parents who think they know best how to raise their own children.

There is no way I would want a child of mine to be withdrawn from sex ed lessons at any age, never mind 15, but I find the idea of compulsory education in this area quite chilling.

If parents prefer to educate their children in relationships and sexuality themselves, then I can't really see that it is the place of government to interfere with that."

Skidoodle, either you are missing the point or just ignoring it.

Of COURSE it is up to parents to educate their children as best they see fit.

Just not on state money.

If you want a state education, then you accept what the state defines as the curriculum.

Do you go on package holidays and say, "actually, I don't like the look of the breakfast bar, can you scramble me a couple of quails' egggs with some smoked salmon"?

"If adolescents of 15 are old enough to decide this matter for themselves (and I think they are), then sure they have the option of withdrawing themselves if they'd prefer not to take part in the lesson?" Do you extend this logic to maths, too - if a 15-y-o doesn't fancy doing trigonometry, they should be able to bunk off?

Feel strongly? Home ed. Or even let your child truant, it's probably over and done with in a couple of lessons.

But don't expect the state to work round you.

'Kids are incredibly conformist. I remember from my (not so distant) youth the ridiculous peer pressure to be navigated through until you hit about 20 (then people don't believe you when you say you are a virgin!) You have to be doing it, even school tells you that.

This is why I think that the main message to give my DCs is that you don't have to conform to have friends. Lots of them are not having sex, even some that say they are. I think that it is important to have the information. When I was at school I remember that it was often the girls from very strict families who got into trouble, there was denial that 'their sweet little girl' could possibly have an interest in boys and I expect they would have been the ones to withdraw from the lessons-a big mistake IMO.

Absolutely Raven - the key is confidence and assertiveness. Many many girls would know that having sex without using a condom could lead to all kinds of things, pregnancy included, but given a persuasive partner (or worse), a lack of confidence and or self-esteem and pressure, they won't ask the boy to use one.

'How stupid do you have to be to not take some steps to avoid unwanted pregnancies/VD?'
Unfortunately GYF, it's not always a matter of stupidity. And part of the problem is, quite simply, lack of education.

Still doesn't explain why most of my friends in college managed to spend years sticking body parts into one another and still noone ended up pregnant, Grumpy. The main difference I seem to remember was that sex, unless you were stupidly young or in an unequal relationship, was viewed as something positive by adults and teens alike. Not as something you had to do (I never did, until I was at uni), but as something pleasant and enjoyable and natural. And yet that almost complete absence of teen single mums on benefits. Strange

Agree with Skidoodle.

"If you want a state education, then you accept what the state defines as the curriculum."

Even when what "the State" defines as being the curriculum is in clear opposition to the wishes of a majority of parents? Where is the mandate for that?

What about religious education? Should the right of parents to remove children from R.E lessons and collective worship also be removed?

Would you still feel so happy if the State decided to make some new statutory change to the curriculum, teaching something to which you, personally, were strongly opposed?

We are talking here about the removal of a right which, up to now, has been available to parents. Will the next step be making the withdrawal age lower - say 12? Then removing the right altogether?

If the State is serious about encouraging parents to take more, and not less, responsibility for their children, then it needs to take care not to undermine perents by assuming a parental role.

Personally, I have yet to be convinced that the answer to the high levels of teenage pregnancy and STDs in the UK is more sex education. Evidence suggests I may be correct.

"A review of RCTs that tested for an impact of SRE schemes concluded that none were effective in reducing teenage pregnancy rates (DiCenso et al, 2002). Wilkinson et al (2006) also found no association across local authorities in England between the quality of SRE provision and reductions in the under-18 conception rate.

Recent RCTs (Stephenson et al, 2008; Henderson et al, 2007) have reported a similar lack of impact on unwanted pregnancy rates. One exception is Cabezon et al (2005), who found evidence that an abstinence-based programme had a statistically significant impact in reducing both early sexual activity and pregnancy rates." From Nursing Times

RCT: Random Controlled Trial
SRE: Sex and Relationship Education

Many people like to cite the Netherlands as an example of a country where early sex education, combined with a more relaxed and open atitude to discussing sexual matters has led to a low teenage pregnancy rate. Yet they ignore other factors which may account for thie low pregnancy rate, compared to the UK - such as the stronger family units, the stronger influence of the Church and the general stigma attached to teenage pregnancy (teenage mothers are expected to remain with their parents until they are 18).

Scarlet

My views point by point.

""If you want a state education, then you accept what the state defines as the curriculum."

"Even when what "the State" defines as being the curriculum is in clear opposition to the wishes of a majority of parents? Where is the mandate for that?"

The mandate for that is in the fact that they are a government elected by universal suffrage. But, more to the point, in the case we're actually discussing, it is NOT in clear opposition to the wishes of a majority of parents. The fact that a minority is vocal does not make it a majority.

"What about religious education? Should the right of parents to remove children from R.E lessons and collective worship also be removed?"

In my opinion, neither of these are properly part of an education. But, again, you are confounding two things.

RE is part of the curriculum and is supposedly taught as an academic subject. As such, yes, the right of parents to withdraw pupils should be removed.

Collective worship is a part of the school day rather than a lesson and participation implies a belief in the worship. As such, the parent (or the child) should have the option to opt out.

"Would you still feel so happy if the State decided to make some new statutory change to the curriculum, teaching something to which you, personally, were strongly opposed?"

No, I wouldn't. If they did, I would have to consider WHY I was so strongly opposed and what my child's best interests were. If I was still unhappy, I may take steps to lobby the government not to impose it. If I found out I was in a minority or if this action failed, my decision would then have to be whether to withdraw my child from the system altogether; or whether to condone truancy on those days. It is NOT for a minority, even me ( ... ) to start saying what can and cannot be taught. To do so is, ultimately, a far more dangerous precedent, as it assails the intellectual and academic freedom of the teaching corpus.

"We are talking here about the removal of a right which, up to now, has been available to parents. Will the next step be making the withdrawal age lower - say 12? Then removing the right altogether?"

Yes, remove the right altogether, I fully endorse that - on condition that the teaching is in keeping with an agreed curriculum.

"If the State is serious about encouraging parents to take more, and not less, responsibility for their children, then it needs to take care not to undermine perents by assuming a parental role."

It is clearly not an either/or. You are free to teach your children whatever you want them to know. Take all the responsibility you can for what your children learn, by filling in the gaps a school education will inevitably leave - but I would argue that creating MORE gaps is not the way to go.

"Personally, I have yet to be convinced that the answer to the high levels of teenage pregnancy and STDs in the UK is more sex education. Evidence suggests I may be correct." In many ways that is a red herring. A person's dignity depends upon a full and unbiased awareness of who and what (s)he is and how (s)he "works", physically and mentally. Why would you deny those facts to your loved ones?

MIFLAW - to refer to your package holiday analogy:
The present situation is that if you don't like items on offer on the menu then while you can't request something different, you don't have to eat what's on offer.

I think Scarletlilybug's approach is much more sensible than MIFLAW's dictatorial one.

If that is the case, Juule, then how do YOU feel about rolling this "sensible" approach out to English and maths? If I don't like the fact that my child's English teacher says "haitch" instead of "aitch" - or if I object to Euclidean geometry being taught in the light of relativity - should i be able to withdraw my child from those lessons?

Or does that right only extend to the teaching of biological facts?

The vaunted approach has many qualities, but I cannot see that being "sensible" is among them.

Hmmm, I don't think I'd have an objection to that. If the parents thought they could make a better job of those particular subjects then maybe that would be better for their child/ren. You might be on to something there, MIFLAW.

I don't think it's a case of whether the teacher pronounces words correctly, it's the whole subject that is questionable.

And if you deem collective worship opt outable due to parent's beliefs then why not sex-ed on the grounds of parent's belief? And why only cover religious belief and not other philosophical beliefs?

Aren't the biological facts taught in science?