When parents educate their children about sex - the overwhelming majority of responsible parents are likely to aim to help their offspring make the transition from puberty to forming, what is ideally, a life long loving relationship exemplified in many cases by marriage.
However, when the present government takes charge of sex education - its primary aim is altogether different. Announcing that the government will make PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) including sex education compulsory for all children from 5-16, the Children's Minister Baroness Delyth Morgan stated that:
'Ultimately this will help the drive to reduce teenage pregnancies, STIs...'
That, is an altogether different aim from those of most parents. So parents SHOULD be concerned that the government is also considering abolishing the right of parents to withdraw their children from sex education lessons.
The government's argument is based on the report of an 'external' review committee on sex education chaired by School's Minister Jim Knight MP. This claimed that OFSTED have identified the primary/secondary transition (i.e. age 11) as a weak point in school sex education and also criticised schools for concentrating on factual sex education information, rather than on
'helping children and young people to develop the skills and confidence they need to manage real life situations they face in their daily lives, such as ...how to negotiate condom use when they do choose to become sexually active.'
The committee stated that
'Many parents lack the knowledge and confidence to talk to their children about sex and relationships.' (page 25)
So, the argument runs, schools should do it - not just for them - but for all parents.
The implication is that the government want every 11 year old in the country to be taught how to put on a condom. Whilst at the very same time the government is reviewing whether to abolish the right of parents to withdraw their children from school sex education lessons.
Moreover, the reason the government want to subject every child in the country to this form of sex education is not primarily to prepare them for entering and sustaining a life long, loving relationship - but to reduce the UK's teenage pregnancy rate - which is currently the highest in Europe.
Fundamentally, this policy undermines parents. It is based on the ideological assumption of Liberal-Left politicians that the government not parents should be responsible for all of children's education. Although the committee's report talks about a partnership between schools and parents, by this it means a partnership where parents support what the school is teaching about sex, rather than the other way round. It is a partnership which
'encourages parents to reinforce the SRE (Sex and Relationship Education) being delivered in schools, within the home.' (page 9)
The 'hidden curriculum'
However, what successive government ministers have failed to grasp is something that educationalists call the 'hidden curriculum'. Basically, this means that some of the most significant messages children absorb at school are not what is formally taught in the curriculum, but implicit messages they pick up. It is the hidden curriculum messages in the the government's sex education policy that are the most dangerous. If we tell children in the early years of secondary school how to have 'safe sex' - then the very clear hidden curriculum message we are giving them...is that we now regard them as old enough to have sex. This is a message that is unfortunately often reinforced by the closing line of sex education lessons, 'it's your choice!' - as if the child was now a responsible adult free of the need for parental care, guidance and authority.
As a teacher I have seen this happen. For example, a year ago I was teaching in a comprehensive school drawing from a predominately white working class council estate. My class of 12-13 year olds had just had their sex education lesson with the school nurse. Now as a teacher you can fairly easily pick out key children who are potentially likely to be at risk of engaging in underage sex - the way the girls dress and general attitude to the opposite sex, not to mention what they talk about (!). However, in this class, one 13 year old girl, who was very much not an obvious candidate for that category, pulled out her purse to show her friend a condom the nurse had given her - 'just in case the need arose'.
What the government should be doing
What the government should be doing is to focus on the responsibility of parents - rather than seeking to restrict the innate right of parents when and what to teach their children about sex. Many ordinary decent parents would be horrified at the idea that they should teach their 11 year old daughter how to use contraception - it give their child entirely the wrong message. So why should the government expect those very same parents to be happy for the government to make this a compulsory lesson in schools - a lesson from which parents would have no right to withdraw their children? Even common sense should tell that government that parental responsibility needs to be encouraged not undermined. School age children spend only around 1265 hours a year in school - that's less than 15% of their time. The remaining 85% of the time parents are directly responsible for them.
What we need is a radical shift of government policy in sex education. A shift that as in other aspects of education emphasises the roles and responsibilities of parents, instead of the present government's approach of emphasising the 'rights' of legally underage children to make their own choices and the 'right' of government to impose particular forms of education on children in order to 'fix'. social and economic probelms in society.
What would happen if schools were allowed to tell parents very clearly when their children started school that it was the parents' responsibility to teach their children about sex - but it would also be covered in school science lessons at a certain age? Parents could be offerred help and advice as to how to do that - but it would remain their responsibility. That would allow sex education to become focused on what it really should be - helping children to make the transition from puberty to making what is ideally a life long, loving relationship, exemplified in many cases by marriage. Harm reduction strategies, including advice on contraception could still be targeted at children considered to be 'at risk' of engaging in underage sex. However, the school would have to send home a letter first, explaining to parents why their child is considered to be at risk of engaging in underage sex and exactly what the school was intending to teach them about contraception - unless the parents objected. Now of course there would be dozens of upset parents complaining to the school along the lines of 'Why has my child been singled out?' and 'My Tracey's a good girl - she wouldn't do that!'. Well that's exactly the response we need - forcing parents of at risk children to start taking some responsibility for their children.
Tragically, as with a number of the present government's education policies, their new sex education proposals risk harming the life chances of the decent majority of young people in order to focus on the needs of the delinquent minority.
We have to have an alternative - our children deserve better than that.
