Memorandum submitted by Family Education
Trust (Family & Youth Concern)
INTRODUCTION
For almost 40 years, Family Education Trust
has conducted research on a range of issues with a view to promoting
stable family life and the welfare of children. The Trust has
always taken a particular interest in sex and relationships education
and has actively participated in the process leading up to the
present Children, Schools and Families Bill.
In addition to making written submissions to
the DCSF review of sex education delivery in schools, to Sir Alasdair
Macdonald's independent review of Personal Social, Health and
Economic education (PSHEe), and to the QCDA Curriculum Reform
Consultation in relation to PSHEe, representatives of the Trust
met with Sir Alasdair Macdonald in February 2009.
1. The proposal to make sex and relationships
education a statutory part of the national curriculum from primary
school entry
1.1 We are concerned that this proposal
involves a potential conflict with Articles 8, 9 and Article
2 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR).
1.2 In spite of a concerted campaign from
the sex education lobby, acknowledged in the QCDA report, over
two-thirds (68%) of respondents to the government's own public
consultation exercise disagreed with making Personal, Social,
Health and Economic education (PSHEe) a statutory part of the
National Curriculum, with 64% "disagreeing strongly".[124]
1.3 The government's proposal would inevitably
reduce the influence of parents over what is taught in their children's
schools. Schools are currently required to consult with parents
with regard to their sex education policies and to be responsive
to their wishes.[125]
However, making sex and relationships education part of the national
curriculum would make schools less accountable to parents in what
is a particularly sensitive and controversial subject area which,
for many, engages strong religious convictions.
1.4 Making sex and relationships education
statutory would limit the discretion of individual schools, including
faith schools. At the moment, schools are free to develop their
own policies on sex education in line with their own ethos. However,
one of the government's key objectives in making sex education
statutory is to ensure consistency. The Secretary of State has
already confirmed that all maintained schools, including faith
schools, would be required to teach pupils under the age of consent
about contraception and the acceptability of homosexual relationships.[126]
Allowing schools flexibility to teach sex education in line with
their ethical and moral values is incompatible with the goal of
consistency.
1.5 Primary schools would be deprived of
any choice as to whether or not they provide sex and relationships
education. While primary schools are currently required to have
a policy on sex education, they are under no obligation to teach
anything beyond the requirements of national curriculum science.
However, making sex and relationships education statutory from
primary school entry would remove discretion from the governing
bodies and headteachers of primary schools.
1.6 The government argues that statutory
sex and relationships education is "vital for the healthy
development of every child and young person" and will reduce
teenage pregnancy rates. However, it should be noted that very
little research has been conducted to evaluate the success of
sex education programmes. As the government's own review group
noted in its report:
"[T]here is a dearth of good quality international
evidence on SRE [sex and relationships education]. A literature
review of the international evidence that does exist confirms
that it is difficult to be precise about the impact of SRE, for
a number of reasons. Firstly, there is not always clarity about
what the objectives of SRE are… Second, there is such significant
variation in the delivery of SRE that it makes comparisons between
programmes difficult."[127]
1.7 Clause 13(4)(c) of the Children, Schools
and Families Bill proposes to delete from the present law a clause
aimed at protecting children from "teaching and materials
which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious
and cultural background of the pupils concerned". This does
not sit comfortably with Article 9 or with Article 2 Protocol
1 of the ECHR.
2. The proposal to remove from parents the
right to withdraw their children from sex and relationship lessons
once the child reaches the age of 15.
2.1 We are concerned that this proposal
also involves a potential conflict with Articles 8, 9 and
Article 2 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR).
2.2 The explanatory notes to the Bill state
that giving all pupils a guarantee of sex education lessons "at
the very least in the last year of compulsory education"
will ensure that their "right to a private life" under
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is not
infringed. However, Article 8 does not provide any basis
for regarding 15- and 16-year-olds as autonomous individuals,
to be treated independently of their parents. Rather, the Convention
refers to "the right to respect for… private and family
life". The government's proposal does not take account of
the whole family dimension.
2.3 The principle enshrined in Article 2 Protocol
1 that "the State shall respect the right of parents
to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their
own religions and philosophical convictions" applies throughout
the years of compulsory schooling and does not cease at some arbitrary
point determined by the government. We would therefore question
the government's contention that "it is acceptable and consistent
with human rights principles to limit the parental right of withdrawal
by reference to a child's age".[128]
2.4 The logical extension of the government's
argument would be to transfer the statutory duty to ensure that
children of compulsory school age receive a suitable and efficient
education from parents to the children themselves once they reach
the age of 15. However, we do not see any support for such a fundamental
change in education law. We further note that 79% of respondents
to the government's public consultation agreed that parents, carers
and guardians should retain their current right to withdraw their
children from the SRE element of PSHEe.[129]
2.5 We are not at all persuaded by the government's
appeal to Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child as a justification for its proposal. The
fact that there is no provision in the Bill for granting pupils
the right to withdraw themselves from sex education classes from
their 15th birthday demonstrates that this proposal has nothing
to do with the rights of the child. The effect of the proposed
measure would be to limit the influence of parents over what their
children are taught, while allowing the state to determine what
15- and 16-year-olds will learn about sex and relationships, irrespective
of the views of parents or the young people themselves.
2.6 The government has admitted that there
is no evidence that 15- and 16-year-old pupils whose parents have
hitherto withdrawn them from sex education classes are at any
greater risk of teenage pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections
than other pupils. The interference with the right to a private
and family life cannot therefore be justified on the basis that
it would protect health and morals.
15 January 2010
124 QCDA, Personal, social, health and economic education:
Curriculum reform consultation report to the DCSF, September 2009. Back
125
DfEE, Sex and Relationship Education Guidance, DfEE 0116/2000,
July 2000. Back
126
Paton G, "Parents lose right over sex education", Daily
Telegraph, 5 November 2009. Back
127
Review of Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) in Schools: A report
by the External Steering Group, October 2008, para 22. Back
128
Children, Schools and Families Bill, Explanatory Notes, para 209. Back
129
QCDA, op. cit. Back
| 
