The Sex Education Forum have spent the last year campaigning for Education Secretary Michael Gove to keep the term “sexual health” in the curriculum, but were sadly “disappointed” in their attempts. In the new programme of study for science, the Department for Education has taken out all references to the term, which may put your children’s sexual wellness at risk in the future.
As it stands, the curriculum states that pupils should ‘consider how knowledge and understanding of science informs personal and collective decisions, including those on substance abuse and sexual health’. The reason why the Forum – which represents organisations and charities including the NCB and Brook – has been battling to keep the term “sexual health” is due to fears that teachers will avoid talking about this subject to children if all references are removed from the curriculum. This puts the wellbeing of children and teenagers at risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unwanted pregnancies, as they won’t be properly educated about contraception and risky sexual behaviour.
Not only does the new programme of study – which will come into effect from 2014 – omit the term “sexual health;” it also discourages teachers from explaining ‘how reproduction occurs’ and from talking about hormones. This latter restraint will certainly be tricky considering that talking about puberty is still expected of teachers, albeit being a subject included within the non-statutory part of the curriculum. Moreover, the new curriculum comes a week after David Cameron has openly backed the Telegraph Wonder Women campaign to bring sex education into the 21st century – it’s no wonder that Forum chair Jane Lees said the Government was sending mixed messages about sex education!
According to Lees, ‘The Sex Education Forum is disappointed that the new National Curriculum presents a confusing picture about sex education that will hinder teaching about this vital subject. While puberty is clearly included in science, teachers are discouraged from explaining “how reproduction occurs” and about hormones. Omitting sexual health from the curriculum fails to prepare children properly for adult life. The Government has missed a perfect opportunity to link up their education policy with their stated commitment to improving the nation’s sexual health, just days after the Prime Minister talked about the need to modernise sex and relationships education to make sure it is relevant to the lives of children today.’
Lees added, ‘We urge both primary and secondary schools to consult pupils about their sex and relationships education (SRE) to make sure that what they provide responds to their needs.’ This assertion has the support of wellness experts, who have argued that the current curriculum is too skewed towards the “mechanics” of reproduction rather than giving due attention to good relationships, sexual health or the sex education that pupils really need – and that’s just the current curriculum! The new curriculum is taking a step backwards, expecting pupils to only learn about ‘reproduction in humans (as an example of a mammal), including the structure and function of the male and female reproductive systems, menstrual cycle (without details of hormones), gametes, fertilisation, gestation and birth, to include the effect of maternal lifestyle on the fetus through the placenta.’
If that sounds a little clinical, wait until you read the addition in the non-statutory guidance section. ‘Pupils should draw a timeline to indicate stages in the growth and development of humans,’ it says. ‘They should learn about the changes experienced in puberty. Pupils could work scientifically by researching the gestation periods of other animals and comparing them with humans; by finding out and recording the length and mass of a baby as it grows.’ Rather than being concerned about safe sex and healthy relationships, I’m sure all parents want their kids to learn about animal gestation and draw a nifty timeline – that will really take care of their sexual health (if I’m allowed to use that term.)
Comments are closed.