Jigsaw mentioning surrogacy to Year 5

[ShoppingWomble]

Hi all, longterm lurker here, in awe of your work!

I’ve asked my kids’ primary school for their RSE resources and been looking through some lesson plans from Jigsaw. On their teacher’s notes for the lesson on conception it says:

“There is an expectation that teachers will mention in this lesson that, whilst sexual intercourse is the way that the sperm fertilises the egg in most cases, there are occasions when this might not be possible e.g. for medical reasons or in same sex relationships. Teachers will need to explain as much as they discern appropriate according to the nature of the situation/questions asked and age/stage of the group, that when sexual intercourse is not a possible means of conception, doctors may help people have a baby by perhaps egg donation, artificial insemination, surrogacy or IVF (in-vitro fertilisation).”

This is for Year 5 (age 9-10) so probably the first time they’ve been taught about sex and conception.

AIBU to think that mentioning surrogacy at this point is a bit much?
Especially when it’s listed before IVF as a means of responding to infertility? And when commercial surrogacy is illegal? No mention of adoption or fostering.

Is this “political”? ie against the new government guidelines?

I haven’t even seen their lessons on gender identity yet (what I was really asking the school for). Don’t know whether to mention the surrogacy thing as well or if it’s a minor issue that takes the focus off the real issues about genderism.

Anyone else read any Jigsaw stuff?

Don’t see the issue, you may well have children in the class who were born by surrogate.

It's listed before IVF not because of a priority order, but because it reads better to have something that needs brackets at the end of the list. Presumably adoption and fostering isn't mentioned because this is about how conception takes place, not how people become families.

I think it's fair to include it in the discussion, and it does also make clear that the teacher takes their cue from the situation at the time so gives leeway for not hammering in appropriate messages.

I absolutely hate surrogacy and wish it was illegal, but the reality is that some children are born that way. I think as long as its mentioned neutrally, as in not "this wonderful selfless vessel gave the greatest gift of joy to the poor infertile/gay couple, yay the kindness of the noble womb haver" which is clearly promoting it as a choice to young girls, then it's OK to mention it. And as much as I hate surrogacy I also wouldn't support the message "this is always an act of exploitation and a half step above child trafficking for the needs of selfish misogynists who don't see women as human" being given out in school. I actually think that's more or less true, but its still a terrible thing for a child born that way to hear. The only thing to do about subjects that are legal and relevent but also highly controversial, political, and entwined with a child's sense of family and identity, is to present the fact of that subjects existence neutrally, until the children are old enough for it to be the subject of a debate class (in my opinion).

Thanks all! I'm probably being a bit naive about the issue. Been trying to find out how many babies are born to surrogate mothers in UK - found this on BBC website:

"In the UK alone, the number of parental orders made following a surrogate birth has tripled from 121 in 2011 to 368 in 2018. The true number of surrogacy arrangements may be even higher, as there is no obligation to seek such an order."

Just surprised that Year 5 are taught about it. I don't know any children born to surrogate mothers but I guess it's a very private thing (I know a lot of adopted children, all parents very open about their adoption).

Repeating the wider question, anyone read any other Jigsaw lesson plans?

There was a thread about jigsaw in general recently, a few weeks ago I think. They're the big provider of RSE in my area so I'm keeping my eye on them as well.

Just surprised that Year 5 are taught about it.

It's not specifically taught, just referenced as one of many options.

ByGrabtharsHammer (love that film!) Yes I saw that thread. Felt like not many people had been able to see actual lesson plans though. Just wondering if any teachers had used it? I need to ask my school for more details.

Mrs Rex You are right, maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill. I guess the idea is just to give information without judgement - difficult for some issues. Glad I'm not a teacher!

Me too, it's such a minefield of a job!!!

I am not convinced that “how babies are made”needs to go beyond the basics at this age.

Really discussion of and information about fertility treatments and surrogacy for creating a family seems like something more for secondary school. Where the ethics and science might be explored in more detail.

It could be confusing and too much information for year 5. Adoption is more relevant and maybe easier to understand/explain again only the basics, no need to go deeply into the reasons why children are adopted. As you say, many children know that they are adopted at this age. I also know of quite a few adopted children in my community as PP mentioned. None from birth, I am in the UK, the youngest at adoption was 6 months, most were toddlers or just a little older than that.

But the different types of families, including adoption and fostering, for example, and single parents, and children living with grandparents, and two mummies etc. will have been talked about much earlier in schol. This isn't about families, it is about how babies are made. Babies are not made by adoption.

Refreshing at least to see same-sex relationships referenced, as opposed to Stonewall same-gender crap. When it comes to biology and procreating, they seem to realise that sex actually matters.

keepwomenssport Yes, v true. They are very clear elsewhere that girls have periods etc. Seems mad that this is a pleasant surprise!

Babies are not made by surrogacy. They are made through sex, artificial insemination or IVF.

Adding surrogacy to the list makes the pregnant woman into a method.

I make no secret of being strongly anti-surrogacy in all forms on here and I'm amazed that this is being 'taught' as I'm another who doesn't think children need to be taught anything beyond the vague mechanics of conception. Are they taught about miscarriage and morning sickness? It's all a bit too detailed for me.

the sperm fertilises the egg in most cases

Not most, all. There is only one way for a human egg to be fertilised, and that's with sperm, whether it's in a petri dish or not. I find this slightly veering toward queer theory and let's face it surrogacy is for straight couples and gay men.

I would ask if they are going to discuss at all they have to put in in terms of it being a humans rights violation (otherwise is it 'extreme' and 'political' and against statutory guidance?) and exploitative and as that is very central to surrogacy, currently and historically,they are 'editing out' those essential parts and taking it out of context. I would argue that by presenting it as a woman helping an infertile couple buy using her own reproductive system rather than framing it as the commodification of women and babies, they will have to provide that context elsewhere in a lesson about human rights. Otherwise it's not balanced and that is another point under DoE guidance.

Another problem for me is the age of these children with this subject. We are not talking about teenagers who can argue whether it's right or not, and put it into a moral framework. 9-10 is still really quite young to be presenting moral dilemmas and they aren't doing that, it is being done as a fluffy kind of alternative to making a family without the real truth.

Interestingly they don't mention they adoption and fostering which is far more likely to be the case for families of the children in the class/school. Do they cover egg and sperm donation too?

I would have a real problem with this and it is absolutely in connection with gender identity and same-sex (yes thankfully not same-gender) attracted acceptance teaching.

@Stripesnomore

Babies are not made by surrogacy. They are made through sex, artificial insemination or IVF.

Adding surrogacy to the list makes the pregnant woman into a method.

Yes .... that's why it doesn't really belong. The actual method of conception is via the various other means. Surrogacy might belong alongside adoption as one of the ways families could be formed.

It actually reminds me of how I was taught the ‘facts of life.’

When two people love each other very much, they get married and then...

Marriage and surrogacy describe the legal status of the people involved and what rights they have. Very different to the mechanics of how a woman gets pregnant.

the sperm fertilises the egg in most cases

Not most, all. There is only one way for a human egg to be fertilised, and that's with sperm, whether it's in a petri dish or not. I find this slightly veering toward queer theory and let's face it surrogacy is for straight couples and gay men.

You’ve cut the quote off weirdly though - what it says is “ whilst sexual intercourse is the way that the sperm fertilises the egg in most cases, ”.

So the sperm always fertilises the egg but it’s not always by way of sexual intercourse . That’s not queer theory, it’s fact.

I tend to feel this is too young due to the ethical considerations. Start with the basics of reproduction first. Too much information is as bad as too little.

I'm with you OP. Given the very small numbers conceived this way, there's absolutely no need to discuss surrogacy with young children - unlike, say IVF, which may well be germane to children in the class. We all know why it is mentioned - it's to shore up the 'reproductive equality' argument. I would be very sceptical of RSE resources that considers - in the very limited time available to cover the subject - surrogacy to be a priority topic.

I agree that a reminder that babies are conceived via sperm fertilizing an egg. In most cases this is done through sexual intercourse. In some cases, it is done by inserting sperm into the woman's womb and sometimes conception takes place in a Petri dish and then the fertilized egg is inserted into the woman's womb. Done. I don't think a legal discussion of adoption or who is the legal parent change those facts.

E.G. My BIL's sperm was "washed" and inserted into my sister's womb in an office visit and another time they used IVF using her eggs and BIL sperm, and she carried both her babies. This type of assisted reproduction is common enough that kids are born this way, but this is very different than surrogacy or gamete donation, despite the fertilization methods being the same.

I'm personally against egg donation and surrogacy and waver on sperm donation. If it's highly regulated sperm donation that includes the interest of the child and is not anonymous.

I'm with you. Sadly, I no longer assume benign intent when what should cover only the basics expands to include something that does not logically belong.

In this case, we know that there is a concerted attempt to normalise surrogacy as an uncontroversial option ("a valid way to start a family" as the UK Law Commission put it) by the very same organisations alsp pushing transgender ideology into lesson plans

So I think it is inappropriate to include surrogacy (as it is methodologically speaking no more than a subset of IVF) and I would actually say it is also inappropriate to cover IVF and artificial insemination as a mandatory part of the lesson at this age.

These are nine and yen year olds formally learning about conception for the first time. In my view it's enough to cover only the basics as the lesson, but prepare an answer to questions like

Does anything ever go wrong? How do twins happen? Can I get pregnant? Is every baby made like this? Etc

To the last question, I would simply answer, no, sometimes a doctor needs to help. How? She helps the sperm get to the egg/get inside the egg.

And high school biology can go into IVF, artificial insemination, ICSI, and by all means surrogacy, because you can at this age also include the ethical issues around all of these.

I think 9-10 is about right to learn there's more than one way to skin a cat. The main thing I'd want them to get from the lesson is reproduction requires sperm+ovum but it wouldn't be inappropriate to say there are different methods of achieving that. I wouldn't go into any scientific detail. Like, I'm not super keen on surrogacy but it is a fact of life.

‘So I think it is inappropriate to include surrogacy (as it is methodologically speaking no more than a subset of IVF)’

No it isn’t. Often surrogate mothers get pregnant through artificial insemination.

@Stripesnomore

‘So I think it is inappropriate to include surrogacy (as it is methodologically speaking no more than a subset of IVF)’

No it isn’t. Often surrogate mothers get pregnant through artificial insemination.

I was thinking of double donation surrogacies, but you are right of course. It's a fertility treatment that is a subset of either artificial insemination or IVF.

You're right @CarlottaValdez I misquoted and read at speed in anger at the scope creep of schools covering this stuff, with young kids, unnecessarily so.

My concern comes from my knowledge on surrogacy and the Law Commission's consultation that @CharlieParley refers to and how I know it is in connection with a growing campaign for "fertility equality". So not directly queer theory but when you look at 'queering the classroom' it relates to teaching things outside of 'heteronormativity' and this queering of sex ed teaching.

I agree with other posters in that it's fair to say the egg and sperm meet and that makes a baby, sometimes that happens with the helps from a doctor. There is no need, in my view, to go beyond that simple description when teaching 9-10 year olds. If the pupils can't handle the complex discussions around surrogacy and gamete donors then it should wait until they can.

For me, the same applies to sex education and trans ideology. If you can't discuss the reality, morals or ethics then you're 'audience' isn't ready. There is no benefit to children being taught or encouraged to discuss surrogacy.