Sex Education

At long last the government has decided to update sex education in schools and make it compulsory. However they are still going to let parents withdraw their children from sex education thus not actually making it compulsory. You have to wonder about why people would not want their children to attend sex education classes.

Here are a couple of quotes from the BBC site:

The organisation Christian Concern said it was not for the state to prescribe what was taught in this area.

Chief executive Andrea Williams told the BBC: "Children need to be protected, and certainly when they're [still at primary school], we need to be guarding their innocence.

"We need to be protecting them from things, working with parents to ensure that what they might need to know - which will be different for every child child, different in every context across the country - is properly looked at.

"But this is something that should be individualised, not something that the state can deliver wholesale."

Safe at School Campaign, run by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, described the announcement as a "tragedy".

National co-ordinator Antonia Tully said: "Parents will be absolutely powerless to protect their children from presentations of sexual activity, which we know is part of many sex education teaching resources for primary school children.

"The state simply cannot safeguard children in the same way that parents can. This proposal is sending a huge message to parents that they are unfit to teach their own children about sex."

xmiles wrote:At long last the government has decided to update sex education in schools and make it compulsory. However they are still going to let parents withdraw their children from sex education thus not actually making it compulsory. You have to wonder about why people would not want their children to attend sex education classes.

Here are a couple of quotes from the BBC site:

The organisation Christian Concern said it was not for the state to prescribe what was taught in this area.

Chief executive Andrea Williams told the BBC: "Children need to be protected, and certainly when they're [still at primary school], we need to be guarding their innocence.

"We need to be protecting them from things, working with parents to ensure that what they might need to know - which will be different for every child child, different in every context across the country - is properly looked at.

"But this is something that should be individualised, not something that the state can deliver wholesale."

Safe at School Campaign, run by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, described the announcement as a "tragedy".

National co-ordinator Antonia Tully said: "Parents will be absolutely powerless to protect their children from presentations of sexual activity, which we know is part of many sex education teaching resources for primary school children.

"The state simply cannot safeguard children in the same way that parents can. This proposal is sending a huge message to parents that they are unfit to teach their own children about sex."  

I think most religions - not just Christian Concern - will have an issue with this measure and I can imagine certain schools running the course with an empty classroom.

Something needs to be done to prevent sexual bullying of teenage girls and awareness of the dangers of sexting etc but I'm not sure this is the answer as you can only get the message across if the audience is listening.

Yes it helps if the audience is listening but the first step is getting the audience to stay in the room. That's why I have a problem with letting parents take their kids out of these classes. We don't let religious fundamentalists take their kids out of history or biology lessons so why let them take them out of sex education classes?

I'm ambivalent about this- we need to understand the purpose behind it. If its to stop silly teenage girls getting themselves pregnant then we're using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Any education to solve that problem should be left until much later when kids themselves are much more aware of how you get pregnant and sexual arousal is present.
If its to stop sexting then I think it should happen at an earlier age. But what worries me is whether teachers are skilled enough to tackle an issue such as this (and whether they actually feel confident about doing it). Its not like the three Rs or stuff like crossing the road properly- its got a much higher emotional and moral content, and with all due respect to teachers( my wife was one) sometimes their skills are limited and are subject to their own moral standards and belief systems. Some might be positively dangerous as their moral compass might not be what we would expect it to be.
Most of us grew up finding out about sex in different ways (Henry Simmons told me at school!!) and the vast majority of us grew up with a normal and healthy sex drive. I imagine that many of you with kids also saw your kinds grow up, inquisitive,perhaps experimenting a little , but essentially healthy.
I can see the argument that sex education too early might lead to experimentation too early if its done badly- and so I think I'm on the side of parents who want to handle this themselves ,embarrassing though it might be. I'm not sure I would be willing to let teachers handle anything apart from the biological aspects when kids are approaching puberty

The problem is not so much the kids that are brought up in well balanced healthy households but all those that aren't. Plus many parents are not comfortable talking about sex with their kids and may even have some serious misconceptions (no pun intended) themselves.

There is plenty of evidence that early properly conducted sex education does not lead to inappropriate experimentation - look at Holland for example.

Here is one link listing some of the benefits:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiZkIW13rfSAhUKC8AKHXrGBN0QFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.verywell.com%2Fsupport-comprehensive-education-schools-3133083&usg=AFQjCNF_ERi3FYrAlOioRqWb1o6eK9teEg&sig2=uteCJIoSBxRHiQBramJXCA

Surely, if parents had managed this issue in the past, we wouldn't need the latest changes introducing. The ones who haven't managed it, possibly haven't been able to, for one reason or the other, so these new measures will be filling the gap.

The Primary School is not the place to teach children about sex education because the children are far too young. Let's allow them their innocence and leave this nanny state approach for secondary schools instead.

Sorry RT that's a very naive view of life. Leaving all sex education until children are 11 is a recipe for disaster.

i thought from what i read that this wouldn't happen until Secondary School?

It is vital that they get some proper information on sex education, not the mechanics of it but information about things like grooming and sexting and people preying on kids online.

I do already talk to my 9 year old about him being online and not speaking to anyone and to let me know if anyone asks them anything that makes him feel uncomfortable. I've also drummed into him what to do if someone tries to grab him off the street (not that he is ever out on his own)

I see it as my job to make them both aware of what can happen but Schools backing it up as well is a good idea

My 8 year old got an iPod off her mum for Xmas so I had the chat with her to be aware of messages from strangers etc. She said that school had already covered this and she knew all about it. I'm not sure if they came at it from a sex ed point of view but I was pleased nonetheless.

I heard the proposal is to have basic sex ed in primaries and a more detailed run through - and with additional stuff about selfies and social media at secondary school.

Although I'm hoping sex ed has improved....

wanderlust wrote:
Although I'm hoping sex ed has improved....

Seems quite practical though.

Reebok Trotter wrote:The Primary School is not the place to teach children about sex education because the children are far too young. Let's allow them their innocence and leave this nanny state approach for secondary schools instead.

I go along with this view much too early, i'm glad i did'nt know what my parents were up to when i was in the infants awkward all round i should think.

I thought that sex education was already compulsory?

I got this in the first year of Secondary School  (there was no option to opt out) and I am with RT on this that I feel that children are far too young at Primary School to understand about it all fully.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that infants should be given the same sex education as teenagers but they do need to have some basic information. As for waiting until secondary school you old fashioned types do realise that some girls start to menstruate at 10 or even earlier don't you?

Sex education is presently not compulsory. As the law stands state schools are obligated to cover sex education from a biological aspect. But no British schools are required to teach pupils about the social or emotional aspects of sex or make classes LGBT inclusive. And of course religious types and paedophiles can take their children out of these classes.

xmiles wrote:And of course religious types and paedophiles can take their children out of these classes.

Fuck off, seriously fuck off. That is an absolutely fucking terrible comment, lumping religious people in with peedos.

He's doing it to get a reaction, Tash. I don't have kids but when I do I would hope it wont want to experiment to discover if what the teacher says is true. I can't help thinking it isn't going to end well in a lot of cases.