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

Proposed secondary 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• Are NOT based on evidence: No evidence has been published in support of the proposed changes and the draft guidance sometimes contradicts existing government guidance.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You can read the draft guidance and respond to the consultation here (you don’t have to complete it all in one go – you can save and go back to it).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. It doesn’t offer the further clarity many teachers have been asking for, such as how to sequence the RSHE curriculum, 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 restrictions: Proposed age restrictions are likely to make children LESS safe.

• The proposed age restrictions are often out of step with young people’s actual experience.

• Limiting the teaching of topics such as violent behaviour, emotional abuse, domestic abuse, harmful online content and FGM means young people may not get the information they need to be safe and healthy and fails to recognise that these topics can be introduced in an age appropriate way much earlier.

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

• The changes ask teachers to perform a near impossible job – for example to discuss harmful online content but without being able to explain and contextualise particular sexual acts young people may have seen.

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

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

• Brook also has a detailed question by question guide.

• Age limits: Proposed age limits will PREVENT teachers from answering some of the questions children and young people 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.

• The guidance creates confusion around the teaching of many fundamental sexual health topics, for example by proposing that “explicit discussion of the details of sexual acts should only take place in so far as it is necessary to teach these topics and should not be taught before year 9.” Yet there is no guidance on what is meant by “explicit” or “details of sexual acts”.

• Many children and young people will have questions that can be answered in an age-appropriate way much earlier than the age limits suggest.

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

• Sexual orientation and gender identity: proposed changes are NOT inclusive or supportive and set a dangerous precedent of banning information

• Every person deserves dignity, equality and respect.

• The proposed guidance is less inclusive of LGBT young people and families. The proposed changes mean the guidance no longer includes references to, and support for, young people who identify as trans or have trans family members.

• This lack of inclusion and support could contribute towards isolation, bullying and stigma and goes against evidence about the benefits of inclusive teaching.

• The proposed changes would ban schools from teaching about gender identity. As well as setting the dangerous precedent of banning information from being taught, this makes it confusing and almost impossible for teachers to discuss related issues such as gender stereotypes, gender reassignment and gender-based violence.

• For more details on this, see Brook’s guide to the consultation.

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