Sex and Relationship education for 5-10 year olds.

[webquack]

Hi everyone. I'm looking for mums who are as angry as I am about the current government proposals to introduce compulsory sex and relationship education (SRE)for 5-10 year olds. I am also unashamedly asking for more signatures on the No. 10 website which is asking Gordon Brown to conduct a 12 week public consultation on these proposals so that parents and others can have their say. Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, and this inspite of decades of sex education in secondary schools. SRE hasn't worked. So what does the government do? They introduce the more SRE! Do you want your five-year-old to be naming body parts, being informed about intimacy and what is and isn't appropriate touching? Do you want your child sexualised at an early age and to lose their innocence any earlier than necessary? If not please join the growing chorus of concerned parents by going to: petitions.number10.gov.uk/Parentchoice

OK, even if it is true that there has been sex education in this country for 30 years (although I can only remember getting about an hour of it) and there has been no change to the teenage pregnancy rate, and it is also true that Italy has very little sex education and a low pregnancy rate, that's not the same as saying there shouldn't be sex education in schools is it? As has also been pointed out, Holland has a low pregnancy rate and lots of sex education.

So, the problem appears to be with our lack of family and community structures and it is this we need to be looking at. And I agree with LadyMuck that it is the very fact that we have these loose family ties and lack of role models for children that we need to provide them with comprehensive education. I think we have been here before in saying that there should be investment in children, parents, families and communities which is either not happening, or not hitting the right targets. But imo this should happen in tandem with sex and relationship edcution in schools.

Before you start Webquack, I think religion is only one of the forms of social control which has lost its power in recent times and by no means the most important. Atheists are perfectly capable of having supportive family ties, tight morals and strong values.

My boys are not in school and even if they were it would be irrelevant to consider what SRE they currently do as the proposals are still under discussion. I am in any case considering home schooling - encouraged by these proposals as well as low standards in schools.
Concerning the proposals they are still under review which is why we are still in the dark about the actual content of SRE. I have 'heard' that it will include naming sexual body parts and what constitutes appropriate touching/intimacy and preparing children for puberty. Doodle2u also mentioned there was content on sexual molestation - must be connected to teh 'touching' part (page back - she only added a couple of posts so should be easy to find). From what she said this is partly what caused her school to toss the proposals out.
A government report is due out in March which will be based on the outcome of a commission led by practitioners involved in the planning and delivery of SRE, 'experts' in young people's health, reps. of faith groups and young people. The aim is to standardise SRE across schools - which will presumably lead to schools having less influence over what is actually delivered.
An independent review is also being carried out by Sir Alasdair MacDonald of how the principle of statutory PSHE can be translated into a practicable way forward. Part of the consideration of the statutory status of PSHE is that the DCSF should consider the impact of retaining the existing right of parental withdrawal from the non-statutory aspects of SRE.

To me that sounds like parental rights being removed, does it not?

Rasps, you said:

So, the problem appears to be with our lack of family and community structures and it is this we need to be looking at........ I think we have been here before in saying that there should be investment in children, parents, families and communities which is either not happening, or not hitting the right targets.

at least you agree with me on SOMEthing!

Hmm, well an atheist joined in with this discussion earlier and she had the same mind as me - that it is the parents' responsibility - so what?

I would beg to differ on your assumption that 'religion' has lost its grip - Islam is on the rise and the increase in immigration from eastern europe and africa has probably put catholicism and other denom. of Christianity back on the map.

Webquack - where have you 'heard' this? I'm wondering why you know so much about this particular issue if you don't even have children in school. Do you mind me asking if you are a member of a political organisation? Or is it through a religious group that you've decided to campaign on this? I apologise if you've already answered this question, I have read the thread but it's long and I've forgotten. Of course, you don't have to answer me at all if you don't want to...

What is already being done in schools is obviously fairly relevant I would have thought, otherwise how do you assess whether these proposals change the status quo? But I assume from your answer that you don't know what currently happens.

So age 5 your children will learn at school that they have a penis and testicles and that it is wrong for other people to touch them in most circumstances. Would you really not have told your children about that by 5? Wouldn't the school be reinforcing what you have already told them?

So what is your answer to changing some of these structural issues in society - other than lambasting the government and other for trying to do so? How should the church be loud and strident on the issue? What are your positive proposals?

Yes, you're very right about Islam and Eastern European Catholicism. I was talking from a Western Eurocentric point of view about the general secularisation of the majority of British society. I just didn't want anyone to think that I was agreeing or suggesting that religion was in any way going to solve our societal problems, or that it was the lack of religious belief that had caused them in the first place. I don't believe in God, you see.

Thinking about it, the dcs school will have already gone beyond this as they've had a discussion on circumcision (necessitated by questions raised when the boys were getting changed for swimming).

No am not a member of a pol organisation nor am i campaigning via a religious group but i do have contact with people who are involved and 'in the know'. In addition I have made contact with the DCSF, my local MP (waste of time) and 3 other MPs who are all opposed to these proposals, three pro-family groups who ARE campaigning and parents, as well as writing letters to other key people involved. Sorry to be evasive about names but I don't want to mention them here. Nothing extraordinary - i am just a concerned parent.

Hey Rasps if you dont believe in God what do yo make of the British Humanist Assoc's atheistic bus campaign and Richard dawkins?

So is your only objection really that it detracts from parental choice? That's it? No positive proposals?

Sorry Webquack, I have a young baby and don't have time to read papers at the moment so I'm not sure what you mean. Will google. Also I'm not a Dawkins type strident Atheist (although I might be if I had more time to think about it) I just don't believe in God.

yeah we 'did' our boys too. circ is a good move.
the answer lady muck is to put power back into parents' hands and to stop treating them like imbeciles, for gov. to change legislation re benefits for teenage preg cases, and to legislate in favour of the family and marriage, (consider working hours being the longest in europe), making divorce less of an easy option and to put an emphasis on parenting skills- possibly via children's centres/churches etc. If the gov had sense they would consult with church leaders to help find lasting solutions - but as we have established the church in the UK(due to the fact that it is compromising, weak and moribund) is not seen by the world as a viable channel for problem solving - which is why I have said the church is largely responsible for the mess the country is in - and judgement starts with the church btw. the church is the first to come under scrutiny and be found wanting. when god decides to move he wants the church to be in a fit state to act on his behalf and until it is in a fit state we will see zero progress.

Hmmm, my initial reaction is what a waste of money. I suppose they're trying to fight fire with fire. Am just laughing at myself for saying I don't have time to read papers when I clearly do have time to be on mumsnet for 2 hours! I'm needing my bed now though.

I like strident atheists - they are so interesting to talk with.
lady muck i said selling out because you expect me to go along with what the schools will be doing on the assumption that i can 'undo' it at home if necessary.
Concerning telling my boys that no one but me should touch their penises, it is the same old argument that is put forth to justify it- that we live in a totally sick society and that paedophiles are round every corner and even child paedophiles are operating in school playgrounds - so to counter that we have to 'equip' our 5 year old (or even younger) chldren with 'knowledge'that will keep them from being molested. well just where do you send your child that he might be subjected to molestation?

Im afraid i cant spend my entire life here in Narnia - interesting as it is. - and so many topics to discuss!! so if you don't mind I must 'return' for now.

What is the policy on benefits that you are proposing/supporting? And what are the proposals on divorce?

And, as you accused me earlier of selling out, I'd still like to know in what way you think that I am?

Ah a cross post.

Please reread my posts. I definitely don't expect you to go along with everything the school does. I would hope that you and your church (assuming that you are a Christian) are fully involved in your schools and community. I hope that by home-edding you don't try to opt out of being part of the solution.

BTW teaching children about respect for their bodies isn't just about fear of molestation. It teaches them about appropriate boundaries in their own behaviour. Children do tend to experiment (though of course if you keep your children away from others, then you can also avoid/minimise that). As I have said previously on this thread, even if teaching all SRE was abolished in schools I would still wish to teach my children earlier rather than later, so that they get a healthy view of adult relationships.

In terms of all children being safe from abuse - how I wish that were the case.

In the majority of cases children are molested by people known to and trusted by the parents- family friends, uncles etc. The danger is much more likely to be in their own/friend's/relative's home than from a dodgy looking man hanging around a playground.

Webquack, I agree with you on the point that the perception of 'stranger danger' is way overblown in our society. But I agree with combustible that abuse tends to happen in or near the home. It causes terrible psychological damage and mental health services are populated by many people who have been sexually abused. You appear to be saying that abuse is somehow not prevalent enough to warrant this education. If even one child is helped by this it's worth it imo.