Primary Schools: Government RSHE Consultation Closes on Thursday 11 July – Act Now

Proposed primacy school changes are worse for children, parents and teachers

The proposals:

• Makes RSHE HARDER and more COMPLEX for teachers: The proposed changes remove flexibility, sometimes contradict other guidance and are likely to increase teachers’ workload.

• Present parents and schools as being in opposition, instead of recognising that schools and parents work best as a team and parents are broadly supportive of RSHE.

• Are NOT based on evidence: No evidence has been published in support of the proposed changes and the draft guidance sometimes contradicts existing government guidance.

• Are NOT based on any consultation with children: Unlike the current guidance, which took the views of young people into account, children and young people have not been consulted on the proposed changes.

Please add your voice

We urge you to respond to the consultation or to pass this on to any colleagues with responsibility for RSHE.

Your voice can be really important.

If enough people speak up against the problematic proposals, then it’s more likely that positive, evidence-based changes will be made before any updated guidance is issued.

How to respond

You can read the draft guidance and respond to the consultation here (you don’t have to complete it all in one go – you can save and go back to it).

To help – here are some of FPA’s specific concerns:

• Review timetable

• We are concerned at the proposal to MOVE AWAY from reviewing the RSHE guidance every 3 years. Committing to a specific timeframe for review helps ensure the guidance remains up-to-date and relevant – vital in a fast changing world.

• Structure – the guidance creates confusion and does NOT give teachers the support and clarity needed

• As well as introducing unhelpful, inflexible age restrictions, the guidance frequently refers to “explicit” details without defining what “explicit” means these are. It doesn’t offer the further clarity many teachers have been asking for, such as, for example, what counts as sex education in primary schools, or what a good relationship between schools and parents looks like.

• We agree with Sex Education Forum that:

• “This rigid style will result in increased workloads and does not provide the sort of flexibility needed to respond to the context of each classroom.

• “What would have helped: a framework providing guidance on how to sequence (order) the RSHE curriculum. This would have helped model what age-appropriate teaching involves, with in-built flexibility to adjust to meet the needs of children.”

• Age limits: Proposed age restrictions are likely to make children LESS safe.

• In some cases, the proposed age restrictions are broadly aligned with current practice, BUT in many other cases – for example by limiting teaching about harmful sexual behaviour, sexual harassment and violence, FGM, online gaming and the circulation of nude images – they mean primary-age children may not get information they need to be safe and healthy.

• There is very limited scope for schools to be flexible in meeting children’s needs in an appropriate way.

• The lack of timely information puts children at greater risk of abuse and harm and means they are less likely to ask for help if they need it.

• See the Sex Education Forum guide for much more detail on the evidence around why the proposed age restrictions are unhelpful.

• Age limits: Proposed age limits will PREVENT teachers from answering some of the questions children have in a developmentally appropriate way.

• Rigid age restrictions remove teachers’ flexibility to answer questions and teach a preventative curriculum.

• This makes it more likely that children and young people will not get the information they need to be safe and healthy.

• For example, the guidance proposes that sex education in Primary Schools should be limited to years 5 and 6 and focus on “giving pupils the information they need to understand human reproduction and for their own safety”, yet many children are likely to have questions that go beyond this.

• When teachers can’t answer questions, this can imply a topic is taboo, and contribute to fear and stigma. It means children are more likely to seek information elsewhere from sources that may be unreliable.

• Sexual orientation – the changes are NOT inclusive and do not support LGBT children and families

• Every person deserves dignity, equality and respect.

• However – rather than primary schools being encouraged to teach positively about LGBT families and sexual orientation, it is proposed to leave this to school’s discretion.

• The proposed guidance no longer includes references to, and support for, children who identify as trans or children with trans family members.

• This lack of inclusion could contribute towards isolation, bullying and stigma. The proposed changes would also ban schools from teaching about gender identity. This makes it very difficult for teachers to discuss related issues such as gender stereotypes, gender reassignment and gender-based violence.

We hope you will be able to respond to the consultation and thank you for everything you do to keep children safe, healthy and happy.

Kind regards

Adam

Adam Jepsen
Chief Health and Sex Education Officer
Family Planning Association