100 organisations ask Labour to abandon Tory revised guidelines on RSHE

[IwantToRetire]

The Conservative government launched a consultation in May on planned updates to guidance first issued in 2019, following a review of the reforms.

It proposed age limits on “sensitive” topics, ordered schools not to teach about “gender identity” and to share materials with parents.

Ministers were accused at the time of stirring up “culture war” issues in the run-up to the election.

The consultation closes today.

To coincide with its closure, more than 100 organisations including the ASCL and NAHT leaders’ unions, the PSHE Association, Sex Education Forum, Barnardo’s, Refuge and Everyone’s Invited have issued a joint statement calling for a “fresh start” to the review.

“We are calling on the next government to discard the draft guidance and begin this process in due course, focusing on the needs of children and young people and supporting teachers to deliver a high-quality, inclusive curriculum.”

Lucy Emmerson, CEO of the Sex Education Forum, said age restrictions would be a “backward step making children more vulnerable to abuse and harm”.

PSHE association chief executive Jonathan Baggaley, warned he had “deep concerns about the development process and shortcomings of the draft guidance, particularly on critical aspects of children’s safeguarding, wellbeing and inclusion”.

And Lynn Perry, chief executive of Barnardo’s, said introducing age limits to RSHE topics “risks children missing out on crucial teaching about abuse and exploitation”.

Continues at https://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-faces-pressure-to-ditch-tory-rshe-reforms/

Isn’t section 28 a bit of a distraction for this conversation?

The Cass report has highlighted the need for a cautious approach to gender questioning children. The schools guidance is in line with that cautious approach, and includes taking a cautious approach to teaching it by not teaching gender identity ideology as fact.

This is to prevent harm to children, because exposing them to a difficult to comprehend idea about changing gender, which could lead to distress for children and perhaps even ultimately irreversible medicalisation is clearly not in their best interests.

When we have a report showing the ultimate risk and lack of benefit of social and medical transition in children, surely it makes sense to use that evidence to formulate safeguarding plans? Equating that to a moral panic or to section 28 seems like an attempt to discredit genuine, evidence based concerns to me.

My experience as a lesbian teacher during Section 28 was that it was unpleasant and that it successfully ispired a range of gay and lesbian protest groups to successfully challenge it. There were 6 gay / lesbian teachers in my secondary school. Some students. Nobody was openly "out" as teachers kept their private lives private but many of us were spotted by young gay students - especially the 2 camp men. And me by amongst others the 6th former who was behind the bar in a gay club I walked into and greeted me with "Hello Miss"!

It was a nasty bit of legislation that's long gone but it's currently being appropriated to try to persuade people that discussing age appropriate SRE for children is somehow regressive, pearl clutching and wrong. So I'm wary of its regular appearance on threads like this.

Crossed with @PepeParapluie.

Both posts are very good, I agree with you

Isn’t section 28 a bit of a distraction for this conversation?

Yes, it’s completely irrelevant. (And my experience at school when it was in force is that it had no effect whatsoever: we were actually, and correctly, taught about how wrong it was.)

The only current issue is whether any instruction about the acceptability or plausibility of trans ideology should be put in front of children. To which the answer is obviously ’no’. Because it’s a load of bullshit.

If we are derailing @FinalCeleryScheme, your user name makes me smile every time I see it 😊

Apologies as I've not read every post but have I got this right?

These 100 organisations presumably had the same opportunity as everyone else to respond to the consultation?

Instead (or maybe in addition?) they chose to bypass the consultation process and appeal directly to the government to ignore it and thereby everyone else's responses?

Is this standard practice?

I kind of hope I've got the wrong end of the stick because it sounds so dodgy I think I'd rather be that idiot who posts without reading the thread properly.

You might be interested in this, Re 'developmentally appropriate guidelines.' p.359 of this paper 19415257.2021.pdf (cardiff.ac.uk) states:
"Following recommendations which draw upon the design of the Scottish curriculum (Donaldson 2015, p. 93), the Welsh Government recently overhauled its national curriculum and proposed significant reforms to Relationships and Sexuality Education. Following two reports from a purposefully established Sex and Relationships Expert Panel, chaired by EJ (Renold and McGeeney 2017a, 2017b), these recommendations unfolded into a proposal for mandatory RSE for all children in Wales aged 3–16. Key changes include the shift from ‘sex’ to the more expansive definition of ‘sexuality’ and the foregrounding of ‘developmentally appropriate’ (rather than ‘age appropriate’) learning around six thematic areas (‘Rights and equity, Relationships, Sex, gender and sexuality, Bodies and body image, Sexual health and well-being and Violence, safety and support’) and across the curriculum, from humanities and the expressive arts to science and technology. Crucially, ‘developmentally appropriate’ is defined in the most recent guidance, not in relation to age categories, as is more commonly observed in RSE curricula, but as practice that ‘will not assume, but attune to and build upon learners’ evolving knowledge and experience’ (Welsh Government 2020a, p. 40). Further, it states that learning should be underpinned by a collective whole-school approach and eight embedding principles (Rights and gender-equity based, Empowering, Creative, Co-produced, Holistic, Inclusive, Protective, and Preventative)."

No, I think they responded but used the day it closed (and the change in government) to send the letter.

If you read the letter it seems sensible.

Here is a previous response from End Violence Against Women

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/government-rshe-proposals-would-harm-children-by-limiting-vital-education/

Eh? So you're telling me everything I experienced at school was false?

S28 was still in operation under Blair's government and we had 3rd parties come in to do various part of sex education.

I think that is the issue which is why I thought it should be made more public.

If they are so convinced there opinions are right why have they just given it to an obscure education publication.

Wouldn't they want everyone to know?

I dont suppose many other organisation or individuals would even start to think every thing I contributed is going to go in the bin because 100 groups said it shouldn't be used!

I've been kept awake thinking about this and I know it's not always a good idea to post when I've been so obviously triggered, but maybe it will help to share from my perspective what is so misguided about what that paper reports was done with girls in high school class rooms.
I've had a fair amount to do with peer support groups for survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and there are some really important ground rules for making them beneficial and not retraumatising. (Following list is by no means exhaustive).
~ It must be really clear that the group is an environment where people will be talking about CSA and everyone attending must have freely chosen to be there with that understanding (not the case for a school class that students attend routinely, not of their own choosing).
~ You never prompt an attendee to share.
~ You never prompt and attendee for more information. Asking "how old was he?" or "what exactly was in the video?" is inappropriate in a group setting. Asking someone who has just disclosed to a group they were a victim of CSA, "What do you think motivated him to do it?" is so off the scale re-abusive I struggle to understand how this was allowed to happen.
Best case scenario, Sexplain do not consider a 14 year old girl being sent a photo of a penis or a video of a male person masturbating to be an incident of CSA. They're treating it like the rough and tumble of dating in the twenty first century, and these children like adults.

Worst case scenario, I think questions like, "What was their motivation in sending it" suggest that the person running the group got kicks from making girls re-experience their abuse.
Either way, they're dangerous, and STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM KIDS.

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/government-rshe-proposals-would-harm-children-by-limiting-vital-education/

• A failure to take a preventative approach. RSHE is the cornerstone of work to prevent violence against women and girls. The government’s proposed age restrictions come with a caveat: teachers can address ‘prohibited’ subjects with younger students if an incident has taken place. Waiting until after the harm is done violates children’s rights to a safe childhood free from abuse.

This is so far from where we're at in Australia, I'm confused about what's going on here.
https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2023/final-1ap-fact-sheet.pdf
Here's a fairly breif fact sheet about our National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children (if you follow the link in the PDF there's lots and lots more detail online).
The education system gets one mention in the fact sheet: "All parties under Safe and Supported will also collaborate with a broad range of policy and programs areas (e.g. health, education) to achieve outcomes that cross over with these areas, including the following 10-Year Outcome."
Australia is usually pretty close to the UK on social policy. Why the enormous discrepancy here?
Are EVAW just being hyperbolic? Irresponsible, but understandable if they really believe the new guidelines are bad.
I don't understand the strange claims that keep coming up again and again in Mumsnet discussions of SRE in schools, that education is the number one tool (magic bullet, even) in protecting kids from abuse. And now a big, respectable organisation is making the same claim? My opinion is there's next to nothing that can be done in a school classroom to prevent child abuse that's happening outside that classroom (Lots can be done to prevent abuse happening in the classroom, which the National Framework is really good on, but school education of any kind is not really a tool for preventing or responding to other instances of child abuse).
What am I missing?

Thanks for this post. You have articulated well and sensitively why this is re traumatising

I’m surprised at the lack of consideration in a few of the posts over content so it’s good to see it explained.

I don't think you're missing anything. There's a massive amount of ignorance from those who've never taught whole classes of children sex ed. Many of these organisations who pride themselves on "working with young people" are in fact working with often self selecting groups or maybe referred by other agencies and often teenagers .
A class of children of any age (maybe 30 of them) will have a range of social, emotional, learning and other needs. They'll be at varying levels of maturity with different knowledge, beliefs and experience. Teaching them about our bodies, differences, peer relationships, consent etc is (relatively) straightforward. Once you start introducing intimate sexual relationships (by law reserved for adults), abuse, porn etc then all these factors and many more come into play. Children receive and interpret the same information differently and it's ignorant in the extreme for activists of any type to assume that school classrooms are the place for discussions of challenging adult sexual issues (remembering that these people are objecting to guidance on what is age appropriate).

I've often said that sex ed in schools should be "conservative" with a small c for this very reason - sometimes we can inadvertently traumatise children who are not emotionally ready for information about sexually abusive behaviour. There's a reason one of the categories in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence for a person to intentionally cause or incite a child under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity.

Parents and teachers must be allowed to discuss age boundaries for SRE and it's disappointing to see these organisations displaying such ignorance at the behest of adults and organisations who openly campaign to remove safeguarding boundaries for children.

I was reflecting on a conversation I'd had with a colleague about Cass. This person is very far from stupid, but brushed Cass off as something "anti-trans" only done by the Tories who had ulterior motives. The specifics of the conversation were about the 3month temp PB ban. I pointed out the evidence issues and so on. He could see this but wouldn't budge. It was a polite conversation but frustrating because I could see he understood it but was choosing not to.

Anyway, I think this letter is like that. Some of these organisations' opposition can only really be explained by an irrational opposition to anything the Tories did. I can't believe that EVAW, Rape Crisis, Refuge, the IWF, White Ribbon, NSPCC, Barnardo's (the list is too, too long) don't think this approach is wrong. They think they have to posture. This is where child safeguarding has broken down and must be fixed. They're all putting children's needs at different stages of development last, before their own "needs" to puff up their chests and have a go at something which will help keep children safe.

Defund the lot of them.

Yes, I can see this isn't the direction the thread has taken, but what leapt out at me was the sight of 100 organisations - some of whom, I imagine, have a vested interest in the outcome - attempting to go over the heads of everyone who had contributed.

I've always regarded these kinds of consultations as an opportunity for 'ordinary' people on all sides of the argument to have their say. I didn't respond to this one because I don't have anything to do schools any more and didn't think I knew enough. But I've completed them in the past and know how much time and effort they take. If I had gone to all that trouble and then seen these organisations attempt use their leverage to override my contribution, I'd have been furious.

But as you say, I'd have quite possibly never found out.

It sounds dodgy as hell.

(Edited for typos)

Such a good point. Of course the NSPCC doesn't believe that adults should be talking to young children about porn, anal sex etc. They know the law only too well yet are influenced by powerful lobby groups who started with the bullying mantra #nodebate and have continued using those tactics.

That's why it's frustrating at the lack of enquiry by the media in exposing who these people are leading the demands to remove age boundaries, remove safeguarding from children. Just as close scrutiny of Mermaids exposed not only serious data breaches but it exposed the presence of adults with sexual interests that made them completely unsuitable to work with children. We need this to happen with some of the other organisations / individuals campaigning to remove safeguarding. The information is out there (despite the attempts to scrub it from google).

If charities / organisations are incapable of stepping away from the influence of the trans / porn lobby to the extent that children's needs come second, then they're also unfit for purpose.

I agree @MrsOvertonsWindow. And the added danger of organisations like the NSPCC being led astray by powerful lobbies and not asking too many questions, is that they in turn are trusted by the wider public and other organisations. If the NSPCC is saying XYZ is okay, or ABC is bad, then there are plenty of people will take their word for it - after all, they should know best right?

Then the people who have delved deeper or who have resisted or challenged the lobby groups start to sound like conspiracy theorists and it’s harder for them to make their voices heard. Until we have something like Cass which comes along, having done a deep dive, and tells us all the truth. But by that point, children have been harmed.

It’s all very depressing. Hopefully the government sticks with this consultation and doesn’t make any rash decisions about this. Caution should be front and centre here.

The NSPCC?

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-barrister-forces-charity-commission-probe-nspcc-over-workplace-porn-shoot

Was going to say. The fish rots from the head.

I know 😓
But I'm basing my comments on having worked extensively with the NSPCC & their social workers in their statutory safeguarding role.

And remembering that they did eventually come to their senses and dismiss that creep.

I'm sorry you've been triggered by it

If you read the paper, they are talking about the fact that 75% of 14 year old girls have been sent these kinds of images/video's () And how to educate in that context.

I totally agree with what you are saying but don't know what the right approach would be in today's world. If it is not mentioned, any sex education will seem irrelevant and out of touch. If it is, there is a risk of retraumatising.

Some of these organisations' opposition can only really be explained by an irrational opposition to anything the Tories did
Hilarious. Not everything is about politics.

I think its actually because the current RHSE approach was only implemented in 2020 and the new proposals are not evidence led but are a set of edicts from central government.

The conversation about what girls get sent online is helpful. What is your suggestion to support the large number of girls sent pictures of erections? Ban smart phones until they are 16 then expect them to deal with it?

For context it's impossible to get mental health support for children unless they are actively suicidal via the NHS.