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!

Because collective worship is not facts. It is belief - and participation in that act implies you share that belief.

whereas RE - although I am no fan of it - presents facts about the religious practices and beliefs of others. You are then at liberty to agree, disagree, or even ignore those facts. But at least you have been exposed to them.

Sex ed is clearly much more like RE than it is like collective worship. Now if the school started organising orgies in the main hall, that would be something else ...

In theory, yes.

I bet you in practice there is a lot of red-faced mumbling.

Also, that typically covers only reproduction. It doesn't cover myths (you can't get pregnant if you're standing up); what defines consent; or even all the non-penetrative things a girl (or boy) can get pressured into by a slightly older person he or she is attracted to.

Unlike animals, human beings have sexual interaction for all sorts of reasons, and often, reproduction, far from being the goal, is an accidental spin-off.

Children NEED to know these things. whether they do them or not is then down to them and becomes genuinely their choice.

"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."

Nothing to do with making a better job and everything to do with withholding canonical views (i.e. not leftfield theories but, for want of a better word, facts that explain fully and satisfactorily the everyday life of millions) on the dubious grounds that you don't subscribe to them.

You obviously believe that SRE for everyone is the way to go MIFLAW. I'll admit I don't even really know what SRE entails but I've never felt the need to give it anthing more than a cursory look and see no need at this point to withdraw my children. However, I am concerned that something that was previously available as a choice for parents to let their children participate in has now become something that is to be made compulsory, so taking the decision away from parents about their children. Once again reinforcing that the state knows better than parents when it comes to their children. It seems to be be a constant chipping away at parental influence and responsibilities.
Why was it okay for parents to opt their children out in the past and now it's not a good idea?

And as Scarletlily pointed out the SRE schemes might not be as effective as those in favour would wish them to be.

"Why was it okay for parents to opt their children out in the past and now it's not a good idea?"

Well, it wasn't. And now they've put that right.

"It seems to be be a constant chipping away at parental influence and responsibilities." Only if you let it. Ultimately, whatever the school teaches your child, it is your job to check that you are happy with it and to add anything you think is missing. If your children respect you and if you appear to be speaking from a position of authority, they will listen to you (even if they pretend not to!)

I think that the home message is always more important than the school message,and it is the one that they pay attention to even ,as MIFLAW says, they pretend not to. For example my DS2 is the first to say if someone wants a day off work 'throw a sickie', I don't take him up on it because he has never in his life 'thrown a sickie' either at school or work-this is because we don't do it in our family.
I'm not sure at 15yrs that DCs should be withdrawn because of the beliefs of the parent. I find it very strange that if my mother is a Catholic I am going to be one, or if my mother is an atheist I am going to be one. I am NOT my mother-I see no reason at 15yrs that it should be assumed I am going to think the same.

Well what would those parents' beliefs be Juuule, that enabled them to have a valid reason for not allowing children what is their right? It's one thing to object to your child worshipping a god that you don't believe in (Muslim children attending Christian assemblies for example), it is another to deny a child the right to a basic education. You are assuming that teachers teach that sex before marriage is right, that homosexuality is wrong, that you should always use contraception, to list just a small number of 'beliefs' that objectors might have.

This from the Family Education Trust makes interesting reading. It does show where some people have concerns about SRE.

The government's own research has shown that most people are against the move to remove the current right of parents to withdraw their children from sex education. That is why I said they have no mandate for this move and that it is highly undemocratic.

"The Government is pressing ahead despite its own research, which shows that the move is heavily opposed, with 79 per cent of the population backing the right of parents to exempt their children. One in three people in the survey of more than 6,000 said that this right should not be restricted by the child?s age. "

Here.

From same feature:
"Under current rules, schoolchildren must be taught the biological facts of reproduction, usually during science classes. Every school has a sex education policy, but at present there is no statutory requirement for teaching about relationships or the social and emotional side of sexual behaviour."

So let's be clear - the new rules are not about simply teaching the basic "facts of life" - such lessons are already statutory in all state schools.

I oppose this move on principal, because I see no justification in this case for the government removing one of existing rights of its citizens. And to those of you who think the state should have more power... I would just say, be careful what you wish for.

Wiki definition of a totalitarianism:

"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single party or faction, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible....."

Scarlet

That isn't what you said AT ALL>

You said

"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?"

implying that the CONTENT of the curriculum is unpopular - whereas, when you produce the quote, "79 per cent of the population backing the right of parents to exempt their children" - in other words, this is based on the principle, not the content, and also it is clear that the question has been couched in terms of what these people are for, not what they are against.

Also, the "Family education Trust" don't sound like a neutral group to me ...

And you've never answered my question. Should this right to opt out be extended to all subjects at all ages? What would be an acceptable basis and how would a parent prove he or she qualified? And how would the wishes of the child - the one who will be relying on whatever information is passed to him or her - be taken into account?

FWIW I don't think the government should have more power.

I think religious pressure groups and their individual sympathisers should have less.

'And how would the wishes of the child - the one who will be relying on whatever information is passed to him or her - be taken into account?'

That is the really important part-how would the DC with a very forceful, domineering parent be able to have a voice?

"'And how would the wishes of the child - the one who will be relying on whatever information is passed to him or her - be taken into account?"

That's a good point. How are the wishes of the child currently taken into account when the state rules that they must take compulsory subjects or even that they are not prepared to offer certain subjects that the child might be interested in.
Is it okay for the state to have ultimate say in what education a child receives but not okay with parents of the child having a say?

How does that square with the ECHR Protocol 1, Article 2
which provides for the right not to be denied an education and the right for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious and other views.

Perhaps if it's up to the child, then once they get to ks4 they can opt out of whatever subject they want to. If we are saying that they are old enough to make decisions of their own then why not?

I don't think they should opt out of any. I think that you should remember that they are 15yrs old and so by that point they are doing core subjects and options. They have managed to drop subjects that they don't want to do e.g. history, geography, DT. Therefore it might be a good time to make the sex education into modules and they choose which ones they want to attend.

I don't think there is an ideal solution. I don't like the idea of having state control, but neither do I like the idea of the parent telling their DC what they have to think and I'm not too sure that the DC having the choice is a good thing.

I think it was much better when I was at school-they just got on and did it-I don't think there was even an awareness that you could opt out!

I would not withdraw my own children from sex education classes, certainly not at 15. However I'm not happy at the way the subject seems to be taught in my children's school. The emphasis is so heavily on defining your own moral standards that they seem to lose track of some standards actually being more useful to society.

So I would like my children given factual information about e.g things like the rate of relationship breakdown. Teenage pregnancy may not always be a bad thing but it is more likely to create problems than deferring pregnancy a bit.

I don't agree with forcing a particular set of moral values on children. The literature on the FPA website does push a particular moral stance. Unless there is also discussion about different moral views and why some people might hold them then I think parents should be able to withdraw their children from lessons based on that sort of literature.

"Perhaps if it's up to the child, then once they get to ks4 they can opt out of whatever subject they want to. If we are saying that they are old enough to make decisions of their own then why not?"

Indeed, why not? If there's one thing this country's desperately short of, it's illiterate, innumerate, emotionally immature young people. Let's have more of them, I say!

"I don't agree with forcing a particular set of moral values on children."

So you are also, presumably, against the compulsory Christian-based worship element - OUTSIDE lesson time - in State schools?

Refreshing to find someone who agrees so heartily with what I believe - thank you!

Oh dear, MIFLAW, what a depressing view you have of young people.

My father left school at 14y and was neither illiterate or innumerate. Whether he was emotionally immature I have no idea, but he worked for 4years before doing his national service, after which he met his wife, married after 2y and had a family. He seemed to do quite well despite not having the 'advantage' of SRE education at 15y.

You are right.

Educational standards in this country were never higher than when the majority of working class children left school at 14 and went straight to work.

It would be especially suited to the services-based economy we now have.

Let's bring it back.

Let's not forget, too, our "gold standard" treatment of pregnant teenagers at that time or the thriving microeconomy of cottage industries such as unprescribed pharmaceuticals, amateur abortionists and small-time prostitution that those glory days spawned.

AND you could leave your back door open.

Yes at one time 14y could leave school and go into work because there was actually work there for them to do. Maybe if todays 14yo could find employment that was worth something and made them feel like a useful part of society some of them might not be so tempted into illegal activities in order to earn money.

And you know, MIFLAW, regarding educational standards, I do wonder when I see a handwritten application for a job from my father when he was 14 that would put to shame a lot of 14yo that I know at present.

I agree that there have been improvements but I think some things are possibly a step too far. And how do you reconcile compulsory SRE against a parents wishes with the ECHR article mentioned earlier.

"Yes at one time 14y could leave school and go into work because there was actually work there for them to do. Maybe if todays 14yo could find employment that was worth something and made them feel like a useful part of society some of them might not be so tempted into illegal activities in order to earn money."

I am slowly coimng to the conclusion that you are not sane.

What work, exactly, do you imagine them doing? Do you think we should go back to a primary and secondary industry based economy, with all the sacrifices that that entails, just to keep 14 year olds off the street?

And how do you square the apparent conundrum of a 14 year old - ie a child - being old enough to fill an adult job of work but not old enough to learn fact-based information about adult relationships?

I am pleased that your father had excellent handwriting.

The sad truth is that a lot of children left school either not fully literate and numerate, or else being literate and numerate at the expense of everything else (other languages, for example, or an understanding of history). This is no longer a sustainable model for modern society.

And it squares perfectly with the ECHR article because you do have that right - as long as you pay for it or else do it yourself. The protocol does not guarantee state provision of your needs, only your right to have them recognised.