'We need compulsory sex education to teach young people about sexual consent and respectful relationships'

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

As some of you may have noticed, we're featured on the front page of the Times this morning because we've co-signed a letter supporting the compulsory teaching of SRE in all state-funded schools.

Some aspects of sex ed are part of the national curriculum, but you've told us in the past that you think sex and relationships education needs to be compulsory and cover many more areas than it currently does.

Here's the full text of the letter, for those without a Times log-in:

'Dear Sir/Madam,

Tomorrow [28 January], the House of Lords will consider a vital amendment to the Children & Families Bill which would make it compulsory for all state-funded schools in England to teach sex and relationships education (‘SRE’) including sexual consent and respectful relationships.

We are a group of parents, academics, teachers, lawyers, women’s groups and child safety experts who are calling on Peers across the benches to support this amendment as a critical child protection measure.

It is a sad fact that girls in the UK experience high levels of sexual and other abuse from boyfriends, friends and family members. One in three girls experiences ‘groping’ or other unwanted sexual touching at school and there are ongoing trials of men and boys for ‘grooming’ and sexual exploitation of vulnerable girls in towns and cities across the country. We are still lifting the lid on the scale of abuse of women and girls by Savile and others under Operation Yewtree.

Schools should be places where children feel safe and supported, and where they are helped to develop healthy and respectful attitudes and behaviours. Unfortunately this is not the case at present and we have seen a swathe of reports and cases highlighting how tackling abuse and exploitation is extremely patchy in our schools. This is woefully inadequate in an age of one-click-away violent and degrading pornography online that is becoming the default sex-educator for some young people.

The proposed amendment by Baroness Maggie Jones and Baroness Beverley Hughes would ensure that children are taught about sexual consent, and learn how to develop consensual and respectful relationships. In a sexualised and sexist culture, we are simply storing up problems for the future if we do not give young people this essential information.

There is already cross party consensus on the need to prevent violence against women and girls before it begins but very little action to achieve this. Compulsory sex and relationships education would be a vital first step on this road.

Letter signed by: Justine Roberts, Mumsnet; Polly Neate, Women’s Aid; Holly Dustin, End Violence Against Women Coalition; Professor Liz Kelly, Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit; Marai Larasi, Imkaan; Laura Bates, Everyday Sexism; Lee Eggleston, Rape Crisis England and Wales; Professor Clare McGlynn, University of Durham; Dr Miranda Horvath, Middlesex University; Sandra Horley, Refuge; Carlene Firmin, MsUnderstood; Kristina Massey, Canterbury Christ University; Mia Scally, Middlesex University

Morning everyone - thanks for your input; it's interesting to see the debate.

Just for those who haven't seen, the amendment proposing compulsory SRE fell in the Lords last night.

Surprise, surprise. The codgers strike again.

It's shameful how out of touch theses privileged idiots are.
Why aren't they listening to the people who know and more to the point, care ?
My DD is a form tutor to a year 7 class, some of whom are in very dysfunctional families, once a week she has an anonymous questions session where the children can ask whatever they are concerned about, she'd covered rape, sexual abuse and domestic violence in the first few weeks of term last year . She has already voiced her concerns for 2 children and SS are involved.

Exactly, Bela. It is all very well to say 'teachers shouldn't have to do this'. In a perfect world they wouldn't. But in the real world, they have to, they already do, and I suspect many of them would like the training, the support and I would hope a bit of extra pay too, to do the job better.

But, bela- how would you feel if your own DC, from a reasonable, functional, supportive and involved family had to sit through hours of the teacher anonymously 'helping' the DC who'd posted the questions so as not to stigmatise the poor DC suffering these problems- in place of doing maths and French, say?

Wouldn't it further reduce the life chances of clever DC from supportive families who happened to live in the catchment area of difficult schools in suboptimal environments as such DC have to sit through endless analysis of other DC's problems? When the MC DC in the next catchment could maybe spend half an hour a week 'dealing' with such stuff as, frankly, statistically they'd be less likely to have to suffer such abuses at home? And spending the rest of the time doing maths and Spanish?

Tansie it is one session a week. So not more than an hour-ish.

And it might show these children from happy homes how the other half lives, which is a useful life lesson.

I have two of those 'clever' DC. I would not mind at all if their form tutor ran sessions like this, it would teach them empathy and understanding of those less privileged than they are.

My DD is a Maths teacher, she has an hour a week with her year 7 form to do PSHE, it's not taking anything away from other lessons
Nice empathy you have there Tansie.

Children from "good" homes with "nice" , supportive parents also suffer abuse, in DD's school the Chair of governors child confided in one of DD's colleagues that she and her mother were being violently abused by this fine, upstanding man - it happens in all levels of society.

I teach my DC empathy, thanks; I don't need them to sit through lessons often, with the best will in the world, conducted by young teachers with zero life experience following a script. A Maths teacher doing PSHE?...

The fact I believe my DC and many like them would actually be better served by spending more time doing academia than applied social work in that then they can get better jobs that pay more that in turn allow them to make the choices that are less likely to force them into vulnerability, coercion, poverty and so forth. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule but the bald facts remain that by and large, certain life conditions lend themselves far more certainly to unfortunate outcomes than others.

Just a thought.

Tansie Bela's DD is doing this PHSE work as a form tutor. PHSE is something they do. Also something they have to do so it isn't as if there was a possibility for this session to be spent on extra academia.

I also have huge issues about your earlier post in which you seem to imply that 'clever' children don't come from disadvantaged families. You didn't really mean that, did you? The 'I'm all right Jack' attitude some people have is just disgusting.

But please continue to enjoy life in your bubble, won't you?

That sound's great!

What are we going to take out of the curriculum to make room for it?

complex errr, how about nothing at all? In Holland, this kind of sex education is part of the biology curriculum. You get tested not just on the pure biology of reproduction but also on the rest of it. It's one term in secondary school, 2 hours a week. Job done.

YES, Rowan Mumsnet, I certainly think children need some serious education on sexual practice and relationship morality

Can I just sat to MumofDockGreen that you, as a Police Officer, are not best placed to deliver this curriculum to young people. You know the law but you clearly have no training or you would not be asking here for advice. Police Officers should concentrate on the day job.

We train teachers to teach subjects. Why is this not a subject where a teacher gets a qualification and specialism? One qualified teacher could be peripatetic in a geographical area. It would be possible to find the time if taken seriously. However lots of religious people don't like it.

"We train teachers to teach subjects."

Actually "we" don't, teachers when they go to university are mainly taught the pedagogy of teaching.

The actual subject matter is chosen by the "teacher" themselves. i.e. tech teachers do a BA in Design and technology, Maths teachers a BA in Math etc. (not of course touching on those that choose to train in a new subject area.)

I am not sure that there is too little sex education. I suspect that there is too much emphasis on sex education in the UK. Youngsters seem to be encouraged to do it as early as possible as this is normal behaviour once you get to 13-14. Coupled with this we have rampant sexualisation on TV and in magazines on display in stores.
Controversially I think that 16 is rather too high an age for consent as young people are hitting puberty earlier and earlier these days. In other parts of the world the age of legal consent is lower. We tend in the UK to keep our young people as children for far too long even up to the age of 30 before we call them adults. There is surely nothing wrong with an 18 year old having a baby biologically is there? So teenage pregnancy is probably a misnomer and should rather be called under-age pregnancies. i.e. Under 16 etc.
I do not see why teachers should have to teach this in schools anyway. I have taught various things as part of a PHSCE course but it never seems very satisfactory to me.

I think it's wrong - there is a strong possibility in your average class more than one child will have already suffered abuse, it has a strong possibility of being potentially triggering.

I agree something has to happen - but not throwing it at teachers.

Weekends on the other hand if you talk openly about respectful relationships and how to recognise abuse, it may be that a child who is suffering abuse at home and has been indoctrinated to not talk about it because he/she will not be believed, will find the courage to speak out on learning that abuse is not normal.

law I don't think there is too much sex education, I think it's done badly. It isn't as simple as 'teaching abstinence', but if you look at the Dutch system where sex education is very comprehensive, you'll find that the age of first intercourse is much higher than it is in the UK. You'll also find that the reasons young people give for having sex with someone are about love and committed relationships rather than 'it's what you do when you're pissed on a Friday night'. We need culture change and we need sex education to reinforce and reflect that culture change. I don't believe anyone - especially not teachers - is currently encouraging 13-14 year-olds to go out and have sex, but I do think there is a kind of shoulder-shrugging 'oh well, it's what they do' attitude about it. Just as there is about being drunk in public, come to think of it.

Whilst on a perfect world - I personally know 2 teenagers who have walked out of 6th form never to return, one mid psychology class, one mid law because they couldn't cope with the subject matter

This is a massively sensitive subject which needs to be handled delicately by specialists, not thrown in as a general lot to day today teaching staff, to become another chore.

Because as yo u say sex education here is poor - a knee jerk not thought out and properly implemented policy is not going to make that better

I fully support this. I can't imagine that Gove would though.

I think that it is important that the schools support the parents versions of events. It allows for the inevitable teenage issue of thinking parents don't know what they are talking about, and need to be rebelled against.

I also think that taking it into schools and out of just the family makes it less tantalising, less of a mystery worthy of sniggering, and encourages a mature and thoughtful response.

I don't think that the signatories to the letter were thinking of implementing a knee-jerk, poorly thought out policy though I agree that with Gove this is likely to be what we will get.

offblack you are so right - we need to demystify sex. That is about cultural change though, this is a nation of prudes. I used to fence competitively and the number of girls/women in the changing room who would squirm around under towels so as not to be seen naked was beyond belief. It's a mountain to climb.

I think this is sick.

The government can't keep the roads clean and it's supposed to teach my children about sex?

My husband and I will do that, thank you. We don't need agents of the state to discuss sexual morality with my children.

statesmom you are either in the US or American, yes?
Ask yourself why the UK and the US have such high teen pregnancy rates, and why countries like Sweden and the Netherlands don't. Then compare sex education programmes. That will give you your answer.

Maybe you and your husband will teach your children about sex (though saying 'don't do it until you're married' doesn't classify as 'teaching about sex'). But lots of parents don't. The consequences are not just about unwanted pregnancies but also about exploitative relationships and abuse.

If education saves even a small handful of young people from exploitation, abuse and disease, that's worth it.

pointythings said: "Maybe you and your husband will teach your children about sex (though saying 'don't do it until you're married' doesn't classify as 'teaching about sex'). But lots of parents don't"

So because other people aren't responsible parents that means the state can intervene between me and my children?

And what if I want to say "don't do it until you're married"? Because that's not acceptable to you I have to accept you teaching my 8 year old about condoms?

Do you call that a free society?

No-one is proposing to teach 8 year olds about condoms. Where do you get you information from? At 8 they might start on the basics of puberty. With periods in 9 year olds not unusual these days that is common sense. The rest of your post smacks of I'm all right Jack' - there is such a thing as the common good. What are you afraid of? Is it the 'innocence' argument? Is it homosexuality and premarital sex and the fact that these might not be condemned as 'sinful'? I would be interested to know why you think these proposals are 'sick' - because that is a strong term to use and quite revealing.