Stop sex-education radicals infiltrating schools
Poorly worded guidance has encouraged teachers to use ‘resources’ produced by ideological groups
Imagine you attend a training course at work. Your manager stands up and begins a Powerpoint presentation. He proceeds to show you and your colleagues a series of explicit images and graphic descriptions of sex acts that you might like to try. You are then asked to tell the group what you feel about masturbation.
Most adults would find this horrifying. If compelled to take part in this “training”, you may be able to sue your employer for sexual harassment. Yet this is a situation experienced by children in British schools in Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) lessons. And while some adults might be brave enough to object, children can’t walk out of the classroom or take their school to a tribunal for exposing them to distressing content.
Last week, I published a report into the nature and extent of inappropriate RSE, which includes examples of children being asked to draw explicit images, told that pornography is an important part of sexual experience, and that they will be celebrated if they change gender. Although I have been investigating this for some time, I’m still regularly shocked by the stories emailed to me and how difficult it is for parents to find out what schools teach.
It is welcome news that the Government has now announced a review but many will now be asking: how on earth did we get here?
In 2019, the Department for Education (DFE) introduced a compulsory RSE framework with the aim of helping children “manage the challenges and opportunities of modern Britain”. Whatever the intent behind the changes, sex education has now become an unregulated Wild West where contested ideas are taught as fact and kids are told that healthy relationships can include sadomasochism and “sex in a school toilet”.
The DFE guidance is loosely worded and inconsistent, leaving teachers to decide what is “age appropriate”. It includes instructions to “teach the law and facts” about gender identity – even though gender identity does not appear in law and, since it’s a political theory, there are no “facts”. It instructs schools not to use materials produced by organisations that “promote extreme political positions” but simultaneously recommends Stonewall-type resources for primary schools.
Given these inconsistencies, it is hardly surprising that schools have turned to external providers for help. However, such providers are unregulated, and many are involved in political campaigning. For example, one major player actively opposes the right of parents to withdraw children from sex education, and others campaign for gender self-identification. Many take extreme positions, arguing that children need to know about – and accept – a whole smorgasbord of niche sexual activities and gender identities.
The safeguarding implications of this should be obvious. Exposing young children to graphic sexual material is traumatic. Expecting children to discuss sexual desires with adults in public spaces breaks down important boundaries that keep children safe from those who mean them harm. Pretending that all forms of sexual activity are equal makes it much harder for girls to resist the pressure to consent to painful and dangerous acts.
And teaching that “consent is all that matters” is both misleading – children cannot consent to sex – and degrading, with one resource telling teachers that it is “best to leave feelings until last”.
Of course, children need to know the biological facts about sex, how to stay safe and what the law says. However, it’s the role of parents – not the state, and certainly not political activists – to teach about relationships and values.
This is not some traditionalist conservative mantra, it’s the first rule of safeguarding. Parents have the greatest interest in keeping children from harm. They are best placed to protect children from exploitation. And it’s parents who best understand when a child is ready to learn about sexual relationships.
Some parents are afraid to challenge the teaching, fearing they will be labelled as bigots or transphobes. As a society, our preoccupation with equality and diversity has blurred the distinction between barriers and boundaries. Yet there has scarcely been a better case for strong boundaries: we must protect children from sexualisation and indoctrination.