Calls for an overhaul re sex education in schools

Considering that we are just now coming up to 2018, what do you think should now be included in sex education lessons in schools? This seems to be a hot topic on the radio at the moment. (Listening to "Today" programme this morning.)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-to-teach-21st-century-relationships-and-sex-education

 

I heard he discussion too, but I'm against any parental (or 'faith' school) opt outs.

 

A non-exhaustive list:

1. The facts of biological sex, from chromosomes on up.
2. That sexual acts are far more significant experiences than their descriptions might suggest.
3. Frack all "transgender" except to correct misconceptions about biological sex as they arise.

 

I would think that as well as sex education, an important issue to teach is relationships and perhaps kindness and understanding. Sex without these things is just a physical act which even animals perform. When I read on TES of how teachers, even, are shown no respect and kindness, surely this needs to be changed. I come from a generation where sex was not taught at all at school. I have been married happily for almost 50 years, and a lasting, happy marriage is surely very important also - - - but perhaps some people may think I'm wrong.

 

Thank goodness I've never had to drink from the poisoned chalice and teach sex education. These days I'm sure the students could teach me a thing or two.

 

Ha ha ha - Shedman, I've probably missed out on so much. I'll have to consider coming back to this earth for a new life, but just for the moment I'm glad I never had to teach this subject. Sunday school probably taught us more, ha ha

 

Animals perform all the other natural functions that humans perform, eat, sleep, defecate and so on. Our sexual desires are built in and some people choose to express these without developing any meaningful relationship with their sexual partner and I see nothing wrong with this as long as both parties are fully consenting. Others may see sexual intimacy as something special that is reserved for expression with a loving partner; again nothing wrong with this. Perhaps we should be teaching students to understand their own sexual feelings and encouraging them to act responsibly when they embark on casual sex or sex as a part of a loving relationship.

 

How to say "NO"

 

It would be fairly easy to plan a decent SRE curriculum if only the media didn't focus on minor elements of the programme and sensationaise them, drawing ill-infomed from 'Disgusted of Blah-blah-blah'.

And although parents should be informed, i'm not sure about the need for them to be consulted, any more than they are over any other part of the curriculum. The problem with parents is that some can be incredibly over-protective and think their child isn't 'old' enough for such things, and they don't understand how such teaching is cyclic & progressive, building on what has already been taught.

As an ex- PHSCE coordinator in primary, it could be hard to get parents to understand that the best way to protect their children was to give them information. This was especially the case when it came to discuss the changes which puberty brought, and the fact that, for girls in particular, the age at which puberty begins has become lower and lower over the last century - for girls, the average age to begin puberty was below 10 in 2010 (6 years lower than a century ago) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1286253/More-girls-starting-puberty-age-nine.html
Given this, there is little point in leaving the teaching about puberty until Y6, which is often what happens.

Teaching age-appropriate material little and often, from early primary through secondary, stops it being a big deal ("We're doing SEX today!") and ensures key messages can be reinforced and discussed. And yes, relationships are far more important than the biology - the biology is the easy part to teach.

 

Those blasted parents, always getting in the way of how the state wants to raise its children. Who do they they think are.

 

When you think about it, raising a child is one of the few things where the views of the inexperienced and untrained are given preference over the trained & experienced.
You could argue education is the same.

 

Relative to teachers? Don't make me laugh. You're hard pressed to find an NQT with children never mind anything approaching a qualification in child psychology.

 

Are you referring to educating a child or raising it?
The two are separate - at least in my mind.
Given the number of mature NQTs joining the profession I would expect some to have children of their own.
Why is a degree in child psychology necessary to teach? Surely subject knowledge and the ability to teach it are more important.

 

You conflated the two via your reference to "the trained & experienced". The role of parents is very different to that of the formal teacher and far more important to the development of children.

Not borne out in my experience. Money is tight all round and career-change is a big gamble for people with families.

You referred to "the trained & experienced" so I fairly assumed you were referring to people with knowledge of children's development i.e. people who came to their ITT provider with a qualification in psychology because frack knows they won't get it during their ITT.

 

Mr Ulam:

1. I didn't conflate anything. You have assumed a conflation where none is present. There are trained and experienced teachers, trained and experienced doctors, trained and experienced car mechanics and very few trained and experienced first-time parents.

2. Wasn't aware the ITT requirements now included child psychology qualifications. I certainly didn't need any to qualify for ITT. A qualification in my subject, however, was required .

3. Can't speak for your experience of NQTs.

4. If the role of parents is so important (more so than the teacher - according to you) why is it left to untrained and unqualified parents and not given to professional "child-raisers".

 

http://en.protothema.gr/sick-of-your-gender-identity/

 

Then this was pointless:

They don't, which is another reason why this was pointless:

The idea of "professional 'child-raisers'" is hideous and, while I have great respect for people who foster and who work in children's residential homes, by and large the state's attempts to raise children is disastrous. Recent studies have found that something like 1% of children in England & Wales are in local authority care, of that number only around 2-4% are there because of their own socially unacceptable behaviour including criminal offending. Meanwhile, around 33% of boys and 60% of girls in custody have been in the care system. The state does not know how best to raise children. Parents know best.

 

How to accept it when someone says no to you.

 

How to say 'no' and without feeling any shame for having said it and knowing that there should be no recriminations for having said "no". Also, not knowingly led the other person to the idea that sex was what you really wanted, when it wasn't. This is important to know.

 

Seriously??

All of them??

Maybe you haven't met some of the the children / parents I've come across. Lucky you.

Most children in the care system are there because of inadequate parenting.

By your figures around 2/3 of boys and almost half of girls in custody have not been in the care system. Perhaps you could share your constructive proposals to remedy the situation for those who have been in care.