Sex education in schools
The Times’s front page story today says sex education will be made compulsory for all schoolchildren, ending parents right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons after the age of 14.
The Times says “The Government is pressing ahead despite its own research, which shows that the move is heavily opposed, with 79 per cent of the population backing the right of parents to exempt their children.” However, on PM yesterday Ed Balls was claiming the same research showed that 70% of parents thought that parents thought the opt out should only be up to a certain age – suggesting a large majority in support of the policy. Who’s right?
The polling was run by Populus, and the actual figures are here. People were asked to pick the option that came closest to their view, chosing from either a right to withdraw their children whatever their age, no right to withdraw their children at all, or the right to withdraw them up to the ages of 11, 14 or 16.
30% of parents thought that they should be able to withdraw their children from sex education whatever their age. 20% thought there should be no right to withdraw children from sex education at all. In between 33% of parents thought that parents should be able to withdraw children up to the age of 11, 9% up to the age of 14 and 7% up to the age of 16.
So going back to the claims of the Times and Ed Balls, they are both technically correct. However, while 79% of parents do indeed support being able to exempt their children from sex education, the majority of these only support being able to do so up until a certain age. 70% of parents do indeed either support limiting the right to withdraw children up to a certain age, or don’t support any exemptions at all.
What the government have actually proposed is ending the right of parents to withdraw their children from sex education when they reach the age of 15, so 62% of parents would have supported an even further reduction, 37% said they would prefer a higher age limit or no reduction in the right at all. In that sense, the government isn’t “pressing ahead despite its own research, which shows that the move is heavily opposed” – its research definitely shows a large minority oppose the reduction, but a majority are in favour, or would be in favour of going even further.
I received sex education at my primary school in Chesterfield at the age of 10 (this would have been in the late 1980s) and was surprised to discover later in life that this was not necessarily the norm. I would say that the right of parental withdrawal should end at the age of 10. it is far better that children learn about these things well before the emotional and hormonal turmoil that is puberty sets in. I really struggle to understand what parents who exercise their right of withdrawal are afraid will happen to their children should they receive this kind of education.
In principle, I am uncomfortable about compulsory education that may conflict with parents’ religious or moral beliefs.
However, in practice there are serious problems in some areas of Britain with a small number of parents who act grossly against the human rights of teenage girls in particular, in relation to forced marriages and to female circumcision. I can see that compulsory sex education throughout the school years is very important to combat such appalling practices.
Perhaps I should say that a reason I see this point is that some years ago I helped somebody in East London involved in a charity. The person concerned had been a Colonial Officer in Aden, and was working very much on the ground to help disadvantaged people from the Gulf area, e.g. Somalia. I am not making this point purely from middle-class English values.
Given the points I have made in this post, I think the Education Department has legitimate reason for pursuing the policy suggestion indicated in today’s “Times” even if it is electorally unpopular. They are rightly trying to address a serious problem that the majority of electors probably don’t see or think about.
If it was “The Government’s” research, that would be almost certainly be the English govenment. so I needn’t ask what opinion was in Scotland where there is a different religious background, a different party in power and a separate education system.
There is also historicaly a different cultural attitude to expert medical opinion, and a different set of pregnancy, abortion and disease data.
Some people think Scotland would be better off as a seperate country. If it really is beyond the imagination of politicians, the media, pollsters and others to keep two systems separate (with comparisons being potentially enlightening) then I’ll have to reluctantly admit that they are right.
OLDNAT
Tell us what mother-of two Fiona Hyslop is doing. I’ve met her and she is a force to be reckoned with. If she can give failed asylum seeker’s children free tertiary education, without the Sun and the Mail finding out about it, she can handle anything.
Given the appalling record of teenage pregnancy in this country it is good that the govt is actually leading and doing something right.
The problem with opinion polls is what is done with them; to know the public’s view is fine but to then only act following them is dangerous. Govts must lead some times; the issue is when. Good govt is the art of knowing when to go against the will of polls.
Kids who are withdrawn will get a resume of the lesson at the first break between lessons.
16, so long as it remains the age of consent is a threshold with some rationality behind it.
15 is yesterdays out of date target for just-in-time learning. Ante-natal care and child health and nutrition have moved on and It should be 14 or maybe 13 now.
In the world’s fastest growing country, (NL) where hoteliers are raising door lintels and buying longer beds, they think it is 13 or earlier.
But what about the rights of minoritys?
What are the issues that concern those who wish to reserve their right to withdraw their children?
Except in cases of abuse, governments do not have the moral right to impose their wishes on parents. Its a sad reflect of our semi-civilised society that more people do not think so.
Good post Anthony.
Regardless of the policy debate over the age of consent; age limit on sex education, this is an excellent example of how statistics can be amssged to suit you point of view.
Editorially, it is revealing that The Times is taking a rather innocuous story and using it to portray the Government as out of touch and obstinate. This indicates how much the narrative against the Labour administration has hardened in the press.
The idea that talking freely about these issues is a wonderful thing is only one point of view which a lot of people don’t share. I believe it’s not right to force people to adopt that point of view against their will. Primary school children certainly shouldn’t be discussing such issues INHO.
Andy, my view is that it’s about providing children with the tools to make informed choices before they get to an age where they are confronted with the emotional stresses associated with the growing up process.
Philip JW, it is naive to assume that all parents have the best interests of their children at heart. The state should ensure that children enter the adult world fully equipped with the knowledge necessary to deal with that transition, irrespective of the wishes of parents. I would suggest that any attempt on the part of parents to deprive their child of knowledge in this sphere is every bit as potentially damaging as attempting to deprive them of an education in English, Maths, Science etc.
I have to say I have doubts about the usefulness of a poll which gives one ‘no opt-out’ option and four ‘opt out options’.
After all, a poll which asked, “Do you think Gordon Brown should resign (i) now, (ii) before the election, (iii) shortly after the election, (iv) a little after the election, (v) a long time after the election or (vi) never” would probably show that the overwhelming majority of people thought Brown should resign, whereas a poll which said ‘should Brown resign, yes or no’ would probably…
… actually, bad example.
This is obviously a proxy debate… the really question here is:
Do we belong to government; or does government belong to us?
@Kieren,
“better” is a moral concept… better for whom? better in what way? better in what context? “better” and “worse” depend entirely and inplicitly on your definition of “good” and “bad”, which are invariably subjective. If an objective definition could be agreed (e.g.: a Darwinian one), then we could make meaningful generalised statements like that; alas, part of the innate contradiction of the Darwinian system, is that humans construct systems of governance called religion, and they are no less legitimate than science (because the scientific method is a circular argument).
The reason why people struggle with this is because of the following reasons:
1. They don’t trust the state to do the job better than they can – and why would you? private is usually better than public… name anything the guvment has run exceptionally well? Children are raised by their parents; not the state – our children are ours not “staff” to fulfil the state’s latest 5-yr tractor driver plan.
2. They have a different moral system which is in direct conflict with the pervasive one of this regime… that includes both muslims, christians, and rational “bigots” like me(!)
3. Children do not come as standardised prepackaged bio-units into which data may be downloaded… they are diverse (in the genuine sense of the word, rather than the regime’s sense), and this issue is more complex than simply the impartation of information… there are emotional: familial, cultural, and peer pressure issues…
4. Children are not adults… the idea that the state delivers education to its citizenry is part of the “social contract”, but the social contract is between adults and the state; not children. Children’s rights are represented by adults – invariably parents (despite the best efforts of the regime). Essentially, they are tinkering around the edge the fundamental problem that there are half a dozen ages of consent/majority for various things – we need one. I vote for age 20… because that’s when you cease to add the suffix “-teen” after your age (plus I can’t tell the difference between most 20-year-olds and most 15-year-olds… they’re not much more mature).
Kieran seems to want to treat children as adults – they are not adults; they should not have as many rights as adults. The balance between children and adults rights is so obviously out of kilter and so many bad outcomes are resulting from it, this attitude must be challenged and crushed out of our society – it’s the road to hell.
As Fred S. alludes to, this is mainly a Muslim immigrant v state issue… a culture clash… a “when in Rome…” issue. Are we going to force them to be like us if they insist on staying here; or are we going to tiptoe around them, lest they wage jihad on the streets, etc…]]
@Jack
How on earth is sex education going to stop teenage pregnancies? If anything, the evidence is that increased exposure to sex and sexualisation of youth is exactly the problem. Single-sex schools and prescriptive ignorance have proven statistical effects on teenage pregnancy.
This is rather highlighted with JBD’s low age of consent and high pop growth rate correlation. Please can we lock the free love routine in a box and bury it now?
I am a school governor, and I want children to be children, and enjoy their childhood and their naivety. I abhor the attempts of some to impose their notions of normality on children, and the attempts to sexualise children and expose them to sex and violence, and attempts to lower the age of consent, which I find deeply disturbing.
I think this government is frantically and aggressively trying to push through it’s revolting “social” agenda of attempting to normalise the abnormal.
…as Scooby says though… a prime case of poll-trolling by the troll-papers.
It’s probably best to teach this around 11,
although there’s no easy answer to what you do when there are objections to teaching it atall.
I’m not sure it’s the end of the world if you don’t – they surely find out – although even a small number of cases where that doesn’t happen is a serious concern, and needs more thought.
Seal Pup’s first point is a very good one – it reaches the heart of the issue – we do not belong to the government, and therefore they have NO right to tell us how to educate our children.
On sex education – it is suitable for secondary school children – but there is absolutely no need for 5 year olds to be taught about puberty, or 7 year olds about same sex marriage. That is the content of primary school sex education in the UK, which is frankly pretty shocking.
Seal Pup,
That’s the nub of it. In terms of peoples’ ethical values, this is a minefield. You either end up with a subject that is extremely contentious, and generates real anger among many parents and pupils, or else, like RE, bland lowest common denominator stuff.
It’s typical of this government to think that every social problem can be fixed by the government.
I would dispute Seal Pup’s assertion that I was proposing that children be treated as adults. What I do believe though is that the transition from childhood to adulthood is a gradual process, rather than some “big bang” at 16, 18, 21 or whatever. It simply does not make any sense to not take any account of the fact that the transition to adulthood begins at the start of puberty, which can be as early as 11 years old. It is in preparation for the beginning of this transition that children should be provided with proper sex education, irrespective of the wishes of their parents.
I notice that no poster who has raised the point that “children belong to their parents, not the state” has addressed my point that not all parents are good parents. It simply is not enough just to say that government should just get out of the way and allow untrammelled “parental choice” to decide the educational outcomes of every child on the country. We already have a situation where parental choice is limited in the sense that all children must be provided with some kind of education which meets certain minimum standards. To me sex education is a key aspect of an education which meets those minimum standards.
Neil, you write that “there is absolutely no need for 5 year olds to be taught about puberty, or 7 year olds about same sex marriage. That is the content of primary school sex education in the UK, which is frankly pretty shocking”. Those ages are too young to be learning about such things. However 10 or 11 is in my view not.
I would guess that many of the parents who have reservations about this would not be opposed to teaching sex in a biology context.That is to say, how it works , what physiological changes result from it , and the development of the resultant baby.
What many people ( I believe) are very wary of is the teaching of this subject -particularly to young children-in the context of “ethics”, “emotions”, “relationships” …..and that much misused word “values”.
These contexts allow far too much scope for the teacher to promote ideas & attitudes which they espouse, but which may not tally with those of the child’s parents.
This is a view in one of the newspapers:-
“Will people like the wretched Balls never learn? Can’t he see that it is his government’s policies that have led to countless poorly-educated young girls thinking that getting pregnant is the quickest way to picking up both a large welfare cheque and a key to their own council flat.
The tragedy is that ministers seem utterly incapable of realising that it is proper education that these girls need to help them escape poverty – not more sex lessons. ”
This viewpoint resonates particularly with me having spent a half-term week week with my chidren & grandchildren.
One of my two teenage grandaughters describes classes in which the teacher doesn’t turn up & children sit waiting; classes in which teachers stand in to take a subject they do not understand, and subjects which are of particular interest to her which are taught at a level she finds simplistic ,boring & patronising.
As a result she is totally cynical about her so called education.
Try joining Facebook -as I have just done-and read your children’s & grandchildren’s exchanges.
Their education is a joke for some of our youngsters.
No wonder we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe-sex must be something interesting to do as a stimulating change from school.
Has the Labour Party consulted its teacher members to see if this is a good idea?
I would be really interested in the background work to support compulsory sex education. Has Ed balls discovered that those children currently withdrawn from such classes are one of the main reasons for the rise in teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and an increase in suicide among the young? If so then this legislation seems a good idea. Also what do the rest of Europe, who appear to be coping so much better, do?
I suspect any opposition to this legislation is due to suspicion about the Government’s motives, which publication of an objective review and analysis (if there is one) might allay.
On reflection, I should have been more general in my previous post on this thread, although I stand by what I said in particular about forced marriages. It is sadly the case that some parents abuse their children, at any age up to (and indeed beyond)16, and that compulsory sex education may afford opportunities to prevent or detect this.
Seal Pup, I never specifically mentioned Muslim families. I referred to problems relating to people from a specific geographical area, but I think these problems arise out of their long-standing culture rather than their religious beliefs.
Seal Pup
My reference to a low age of sex education (not consent) was to growth in Height, not Number of the population and the consequent earlier physical maturity.
Deliberate malnutrition of the Dutch population during the war resulted in birth problems when girls born during that period became mothers. The next generation, better fed and benefiting from modern ante-natal care are growing faster than the Americans (who are getting fatter and shorter).
What am I doing here! This is about another country in which I and my grandchildren do not live. I have fallen into the trap I have warned about many times in these threads.
Sex education appears to begin at 5, the exciting bits don’t come till late primary school or after. It’s all here.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/158295/0042865.pdf