Compulsory sex education and PSHE? Quite right, Mr Balls

I like to be balanced on this blog, so, after criticising him recently, I  have to say that I'm probably on the side of Ed Balls today. No, don't faint in horror. I make my decisions on issues based on the facts as I see them. When it comes to today's announcement on compulsory PHSE (Personal, Social, Health and Economic education) I think a) it's right that children should learn about their bodies, relationships, careers and sex education, and b) that schools should be given some leeway in how these are taught.

In fact, the only thing that I find slightly scary about today's announcement is that although this is being made compulsory, in both primary and secondary schools, parent will still be able to opt-out (though "only" up to the age of 15). I just worry that it's the parents who would ask for an opt-out whose children really need the information (doesn't this seem like a little bit of a fudge?). At least they will receive a year of it (the opt-out ends at age 15).

Lack of knowledge can be dangerous, and gaps can be filled in from elsewhere. But if schools teach youngsters about the differences between boys and girls, healthy relationships and body image, and different kinds of relationships (hetero and homosexual) then I think they're providing a service. Yes, it's all very easy to say that parents should be given this job, and many of us will do it. So much the better - we'll probably be reinforcing what the school has already explained. But some parents won't have these conversations and the kids will never learn. Aren't schools supposed to be there to educate? This is surely a very valid form of education.

And let's be clear. We are not talking about teaching young children to "have sex". the idea is to give them an idea about relationships, and to develop that as they get older. What is wrong with learning about puberty, parts of the body, and the effects of drugs (though of course this is a different issue, which has been much in the news these past few days)? PHSE will also cover other issues such as dealing with cyber-bullying, managing bank accounts and dealing with gangs. All useful, wouldn’t you say?

My only real problem is whether there are enough good and qualified teachers to teach this subject (a question I have raised before). Let's hope there are - otherwise it will all be rather pointless.

You can see Ed Balls' notice on the announcement here.

Jennifer Howze explains why sex education is so important on Alphamummy

Read School Gate:

The joys of sex - sex education through the years

Why aren't students being told more about sex?

Sex education classes - let's hope there are teachers...

Comments

[James R Hamilton]

Do you not mean, are there enough teachers unconscionable enough to carry out this atrocious task. Will they tell our children in explicit detail what is actually done by some of these practices? Ask yourself the question, why does the media never cover, i.e., Gay Pride Parades, you know, explicit photography in the Newspapers, TV coverage, do you know why? Because it is so gross, so indecent they would not only be prosecuted, the entire nation would be filled with revulsion. No, all they ever talk about is rights, rights, rights, they never get to showing and telling what is actually done nor the damage it causes to both body and soul. They dare not! "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body, but he that comitteth fornication sinneth against his own body" (1Corinthians 6:18). Alas, I suppose that the scientific expert who comes up and out with the real facts concerning some of this behaviour, like the good Professor Nutt, he would be sacked, by this, what must be the most wicked, degenerate government this nation's ever had since the Reformation. The Street Preacher

[bil bailey]

Ed Balls' plan to insist on sexual/social education, removing parental veto, is overdue IMHO.

I'm confident that there are enough competent, community-sensitive schools to do this well. What concerns me is the restrictive age '15'. That requires more subject-matter to be shoe-horned into an already very tight curriculum plan, at the expense of something else important.

It's my view that this material ought best be spread over 2-3 years, and fitted in sensitively and flexibly by the schools' Senior Management Teams when they judge most appropriate and manageable.

If it is to be made a task for schools, then permit the schools to determine how and when best done.

[Adam Atkins]

Ah yes, the first comment was bound to be from someone so incredibly stuck in the past that they had to quote Corinthians (the bible being THE authority on literal, moral truth), and to quote 6:18!? So James, are we to teach children that sex is only to take place within marriage and couldn't possibly take place between two mature adults who love each other and care for each other as much as a married couple might? (Indeed, I can guarantee you that my relationship with my partner involves a lot more love than I see in many marriages!)

Why oh why is it James, that you have such an incredible fear/hatred of people different to you, or those who act differently to you in their own private lives? Or is it that you simply desire to control the private lives of everyone in the country with the fear of hell fire/eternal damnation?

The only thing wrong with this policy is that after teaching young people about the facts of life, some 'faith' schools will get to immediately strike the fear of a tribal fairytale into their hearts should they ever wish to indulge in such practices when they are old enough to do so.

James, please keep your 'Corinthians inspired' prejudices to yourself.

Great blog, sorry for the rant but I cannot stand bigotry.

Adam.

[Malcolm McLean]

The proper place for teaching about the mechanics of sexual reproduction is in biology. Children should learn about different mating types, about gametes, and about gene shuffling and inheritance. They should also learn about the different behavioural strategies used by males and females for getting as many genes as possible into the next generation.

However moral education can be left to the parents. There is no reason why a non-religious school should have or should claim to have any expertise at this. If teachers themselves have failed sexual relationships in their background (either divorces or breakups with boyfriends/girlfriends) then they are mainfestly unsuitable as mentors on this subject to children who will largely be virgins.

[Adam Atkins]

Malcolm,

Replace 'teachers' with 'parents' in your second paragraph and you present yourself with the same conundrum.

Children already learn about Mendelian genetics and evolutionary biology in biology classes. Teaching them about what sex involves and the basics about adult relationships doesn't depend on the teacher's personal views or experience. They have a curriculum to teach (one that is, in my opinion, a little too rigid already) and there's little room for teacher's to reflect on their own experiences whether negative or otherwise.

Adam.

[James R Hamilton]

Yes Adam, rant indeed. But rest assured I have no fear of anyone or hatred for anyone. The past? No I'm thinking of the future, your prescription for sexual behaviour gives the human race no future, none at all, left to you it would be extinct. Government and its derived education system has no right to be teaching morals, sexual or otherwise, that is a God-given parental responsibility, no one elses. But then this government is well known for meddling in affairs beyond its jurisdiction, it is so monstrously and hideously PC, that it has stifled intellectual debate in this country, produced the ethos of fear of which you speak. And would even like to refrain you and I Adam from having what I term a reasonable debate, which we both have every right to. The Street Preacher.

[Adam Atkins]

James,

I concur with your opinion (to a certain extent) that our current government meddles a tad excessively in the private lives of our nation's citizens (though not nearly as much as certain religious individuals would have the church do).

You make a very direct and confident statement that my 'prescription for sexual behaviour' would see the human race extinct. Please explain precisely how leaving people to get on with their own sex lives in private, will be the undoing of the human race. Don't skirt the issue I beg you. I have the feeling that you hold some incredibly naive views about population genetics or you are simply saying something designed to have an effect, with no real knowledge, other than of scripture. If your 'knowledge' is simply from the word of the bible that will lead us to a stale mate, as there is no room for logical debate once the bibles come out.

Adam.

[Jason Mead]

Personally, I think that the more sex education there is, the better - it's shame that they don't make it compulsory for the so-called "parents".

However, if a "parent" is irresponsible enough to leave the education of their children with the state then they are in no position to complain about what it is the state ends up "teaching" their children.

Responsible parents would not dream of bringing a human being into existence without making sure that the child was properly provided for before hand and that includes paying for the education of their children.

Since having children is a personal life style choice then it is utterly immoral and irresponsible to expect others in society (particularly if they're childless) to pay for the children that you have chosen to have via Paternity pay or state schools, etc.

In theory, every school should be a private school and parents could then exercise proper choice over what their children are taught. Those who leave it to the state and expect other tax payers to pick up the bill can simply put up and shut up.

[Jan]

I read somewhere else that this ruling on PSHE is for English schools only.Balls cannot legislate for the rest of the UK.One rule for us,one rule for them.Just think of all those Qangos waiting to be called into English schools to teach PSHE.(Think of the money they can earn)I am sure that they are pushing for this.On the other hand the Government could train all those unemployed 22 year old graduates to do the job.This is absolutely scandalous.We are moving towards a Totalitarian state.

[derek]

They must also be taught that the Disposal of Condoms,spreads disease,through the sewage system and else where.

[James R Hamilton]

Adam, It depends what you mean by church? If you mean the governments political puppet called the State Church, or Rome's megalomaniac pontifications, I don't. The church doesn't seek to interfere in matters of state, it seeks only the freedom to openly honestly declare its message. You down-cried me for mention of the Reformation, it was that Adam that brought freedom of religion, economics and thought to this country. A thing not to be despised, but a thing we are rapidly losing. My only concern is freedom Adam, that this is and remains a free country. The State is going way beyond its jurisdiction here and elsewhere. Moving towards totalitarianism? We're already there. As for the future of the race? I mean simply that two men cannot propagate, therefore without the artificial means of modern genetical engineering the race could not continue, 'naturally' Adam, but that's the Bible's (which you don't like) argument, it's unnatural. However, let it be clear, I wish to impinge on no one's freedom, and wish neither you nor anyone else any harm. But I do want the freedom declare my own views however unpalatable they be to others. Freedom is a very precious commodity, many people have died that we might have it. The Street Preacher.

[Caz]

I, too, share your concern about the lack of specialist teachers in this area. In all the schools I've worked in, bar one, PSHE is taught by form tutors, and I think this sends the wrong message - that the school doesn't think it's that important and so by the time they get past year 8 (if you're lucky), the kids don't either.

I have absolutely no problem addressing these issues with kids - what I object to is the fact that I'm expected to teach the subject with no training or specialist help.

[Jos]

James Hamilton,

In an ideal world, sex education would indeed be left to parents. We can argue about whether or not it is wise to bring hardline Biblical prohibitions into it, but we have freedom of religion in the UK. So given an ideal world, those parents whose world view incorporated the hardline approach would be able to take responsibility for educating their children for life in the real world.
Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. There are too many parents out there who take no responsibility for educating their children, and who set appalling examples. Continuing with the current approach, which denies children vital and indeed life-saving information, is not going to work. Something has to be done. Is Ed Balls' approach it? I don't think it goes far enough, but then I'm from licentious Holland, which has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world, a comprehensive sex education programme and a much higher age for first intercourse than the UK.
Incidentally, nearly all of the 'abandoned baby' stories in Holland have turned out to be about young women from either hardline Muslim families or hardline Protestant families, where prohibition and not education took pride of place. In your world, is there any compassion at all for those who are not perfect? We should also look at the USA and the ambiguous evidence for the effectiveness of abstinence-based programmes of sex education.
This is not to say that there is a quick fox to the terrible rates of underage sex, pregnancy and STDs in the UK. Providing high quality, non-judgemental sex education which addresses social, emotional and relationship aspects of sex (And is given by properly trained teachers - I agree, Caz!)is only a start and a costly one at that. We also need to address the issue of social and economic deprivation and despair that leads young people to value themselves so little and to reduce sex to something you do when you get drunk on a Friday night. Inequality, poverty, alcohol and drugs are all issues that need to be addressed. I do wish that the religious lobby would spend more time on the real evils that exist in our world instead of obsessing about what informed, consenting people do between the sheets.

[Jos]

Quick fix, of course. Not fox. This isn't a debate about hunting.

[James R Hamilton]

Jos, perhaps if many of those children were properly educated in the disciplines that matter, i.e., given the intellectual equipment that would enable them to think and not just fornicate, they would be equipped to live lives that say no to the evils you list. However, the proliferation of disease, abortion, and soon to follow euthanasia is the fruit of Holland's licentiousness and anyone elses. Further, the despair that you speak of that causes people to devalue themselves, is to be seen most markedly in the homosexual community, the suicides, the short levity, believe me I have interacted with many of them and declare they are the most unhappy, and can I say, angry people imaginable. Now for children to be taught such misery is less than compassionate? Compassion? Yes, I have, on poor misguided souls that live in a world that most certainly is far from ideal, but to add sin to sin, is gross cruelty to say the least, to remove further and further from any ideal world if that happens to be your goal. The Street Preacher

[Jos]

James,

There's no reasoning with you. I wish you and your family well as you go your way and I go mine.

[James R Hamilton]

Jos, I too wish you & yours well, it was good to talk with you. The Street Preacher

[Helena]

I don't want my children forced to know things I don't want them to know.

Too much information, too young, destroys childhood.

We live in a monstrously sexualised society, and we urgently, urgently need to desexualise it across ALL fronts - starting with the media, and simultaneously all the way through the law and education until, finally, we achieve what has to be a desirable goal - that people are free to pursue their lives without having sexual images and wordage imposed upon them, and being exposed to malign sexual practices courtesy of our rampaging sex industry.

It would be so, so nice to think that increased sexual openness has lead to incresed social equality, but it hasn't - all that our sexualised society has achieved is to put women, once again, back into the 'Whore' box, there for men to enjoy and exploit and humiliate. Our over-sexualised society panders to the very worst aspects of patriarchalism.

IF sex education in schools, during teenage years, can indeed educate both girls and boys that sex is not about power or commerce or humiliation or control, then that is a good step forward. But the fact that the sex industry is thriving, and growing, and becoming more and yet more intrusive into our lives, shows that both males and females are not yet prepared not to exploit each other through the medium of sex.

[Lee]

I really don't think it's right for parents to decide what facts children know or don't know. Honest, open debate - without hysteria - of the ways that people live their lives can only be a good thing. Children need to know about sex, contraception, sexuality so that they can understand the world they live in and act responsibly.

[Jos]

@Helena,

The new programme isn't proposing to teach five-year-olds about the realities of sex in explicit detail. From what I gather, it's a gradual and very age-appropriate programme incorporating not just sex education but also things like handling peer relationships (i.e. dealing with bullying, playground friendships etc.) and the differences between boys and girls. At age 7 they start on the basics of puberty, and with some girls starting periods at age 9 I really don't think this is too early.
I agree that sex education needs to be much, much broader than just the biology/contraception/sexuality - what we need are the tools to empower young people to manage relationships and that should definitely include equipping them with the skills and the strength to say 'no'. Wouldn't you agree that the current system isn't working, and that change is needed? We seem to live in a culture where for many young people having sex is something you do as part of getting drunk at the weekend - young men and women need to value themselves more than that, and education - as well as addressing social and economic deprivation - has its part to play in that. I'm all in favour of young people actually NOT having sex and leaving it until they are in a serious and committed relationship (though I'm not one of the save-it-for-marriage brigade).

[Helena]

Jos - good post!

I think one of the problems when the media cover this issue is that 'sex education' immediately makes you think five years will be given bananas-and-condoms to play with! It's a bit like that (in)famous Clause l3 or whichever it was, about 'promoting' homosexuality. The word 'promoting' made it sound like schools would be advocating homosexuality a la 'You should be homosexuals, kids, it's great!', rather than simply NOT saying 'homosexuality is evil and deviant' etc.

[Malcolm McLean]

"If sex education in schools, during teenage years, can indeed educate both girls and boys that sex is not about power or commerce or humiliation or control, then that is a good step forward."

The problem is that sex educators preach pious unrealities about mutual respect and relationships. The truth isn't acknowledged.

[mr dumb]

No way!!!

[Becky]

Way overdue - what alot of people here seem to be forgetting is that kids talk. They talk with their friends and pick up stuff at school...however naive you think little Johhny or Janet may be, the chances are they're probably not as clueless as you think!

Remember your own school days? Would you not rather have the correct information being given to your kids by qualified teachers who have been trained for this, rather than them picking it up second hand from their friends - who may not be telling them the right thing to start with. I surely can't be the only person who remembers hearing gems such as "you can't get pregnant if it's the first time you do it/if you do it standing up/if you douche with cola afterwards!?

I knew a girl at school who started her periods at age 11 (just prior to doing the reproductive system in biology at school). She was terrified as she thought she was bleeding to death - her parents hadn't told her anything about puberty so it was left to the science teacher to sit down with her and explain.

To the parents that already educate their kids about this kind of stuff - I commend you. But the point is that not enough parents do this - if they did, do you honestly think there would be so many teen parents who are often the product of teen parents themselves. The cycle will keep repeating itself unless we start being more pro-active with educating our children.

[Clare]

Am I the only one surprised, and disappointed, to discover that a number of parents here believe that ignorance is a virtue?

[Mr Teacher]

As a secondary school teacher, I never cease to be amazed by the high number of opposing views that the issue of sex education always provokes. I believe that sex and relationships should be a compulsory part of the curriculum in both primary and secondary, but the content needs to be appropriate and informative and it needs to be done with the co-operation of parents. I go into more detail on this issue on my own blog: http://urbanschoolteacherblog.blogspot.com/

[Mr Teacher]

As a secondary school teacher, I never cease to be amazed by the high number of opposing views that the issue of sex education always provokes. I believe that sex and relationships should be a compulsory part of the curriculum in both primary and secondary, but the content needs to be appropriate and informative and it needs to be done with the co-operation of parents. I go into more detail on this issue on my own blog: http://urbanschoolteacherblog.blogspot.com/

[Adam Atkins]

"Am I the only one surprised, and disappointed, to discover that a number of parents here believe that ignorance is a virtue?

Posted by: Clare | 7 Nov 2009 13:47:11
"

Hi Clare,

You are certainly not the only one who is disappointed.

Personally, I'm not surprised. I just wish that parents could see that they shouldn't hold supreme moral authority over what their children learn - it simply isn't true that a mother or father always knows best. This is one of the ways ignorance thrives; down through the ages from parent to child in a vicious system that poisons free thought and positive develelopment.

The role of the parent is still obviously important; creating a stable, loving environment in which a child can learn and become her own person is clearly a vital role, along with supplementing/supporting what she might be learning at school and providing moral guidance. However, more and more research (which just about nobody wants to believe!) is showing that a parent's role is less important in a child's development than we had previously thought - their peers and various other social stimuli (not to mention genetics) have a massive influence on how a child 'turns out'.

Hopefully, Balls won't mess this up and our teachers will gain faith in the system, helping it to develop so that the next generation grows up free of the ridiculous social handicap that a lot of adults have when it comes to discussing sex and adult relationships.

Adam.

[James C Clark]

My own personal sex education consisted of a mix of my parents copy of the joy of sex, stacks of pornography found in the local wood and intermittent lessons which focussed on disease and contraception.
While this left me with a fairly confused interpretation of the actual act and led to some cringeworthy memories this worked much better than most of my contemporaries experiences.
Most of my primary school friends are on their second children, I still have close friends who don't use condoms as they don't feel as nice and I've regularly witnessed well educated and successful young women swap contraceptive pills and take top ups when they've missed them.
STI are still thought to be avoided by sleeping with respectable and "nice" people and test are avoided because "I'm sure I haven't got anything"
A large number of girls at secondary school would go out with much older men, it was seen as normal for fourteen year olds to see thirty plus adults.
There's a weird dichotomy in english society, where we are exposed to more sexualised imagery, sex shops, pornography, sex advice and encouragement to have sex. Religious advice to wait until you're married seems insane, films are full of the pursuit of the loss of virginity and we view male virgins especially as really weird. We can have safer sex than ever before and yet theres still some vague hangover from a previews age that not in front of the children is acceptable.
Or this myth of the latency period where children aren't interested, and the concept that parents instinctively know everything their child thinks and feels.
That sex is shrouded in adult secrecy, is alluded to in every form of media as the most wonderful thing to be attained makes it more interesting and attractive to children.
It's difficult for parents and teachers to approach the topic with children, though as they are meant to be preparing children for adult life, they should really grow a pair. If the consequences are god awful diseases and teenage pregnancy shouldn't we be far past handwringing about the innocence of children. Innocence after all is just a positive spin on ignorance.