Schools told to make sex education ‘stage appropriate' as age limit plans axed
Primary school teachers may decide to discuss the sharing of naked images or online sexual content if it is affecting their pupils and they know that children have seen pornography, according to the final statutory Government guidance on relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) in schools.
Proposals to impose strict age limits on topics in the RSHE curriculum, proposed by the previous Conservative government, will not go ahead.
Draft guidance, published in May last year under the Conservatives, had suggested sex education should be taught no earlier than Year 5.
It had proposed for issues like sexual harassment, revenge porn, upskirting and sexual exploitation and abuse to not be taught before Year 7 (age 11), and for explicit discussion of sexual violence, including rape and sexual assault, to not take place before Year 9 (age 13).
The draft guidance also said schools should not teach pupils about the concept of 'gender identity'.
The final guidance on RSHE, which has been published a year after a consultation over the draft Conservative guidance closed, has not assigned specific ages to certain RSHE topics.
Instead, it said schools should develop the RSHE curriculum to be 'relevant, age and stage appropriate and accessible to pupils in their area'.
The Government guidance, published on Tuesday, said pupils should be taught the facts and the law about biological sex and gender reassignment.
But on the debate around biological sex and gender reassignment, it told schools to be 'careful not to endorse any particular view or teach it as fact'.
It said schools should avoid materials that use cartoons or diagrams that 'oversimplify' the topic, or which 'encourage pupils to question their gender'.
The Department for Education (DfE) has said revised guidance for schools and colleges on gender questioning children is due to be published this summer.
In her foreword to the updated RSHE guidance, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said: 'The depth and breadth of views is clear, and there are understandable and legitimate areas of contention.
'Our guiding principles have been that all of the compulsory subject content must be age appropriate and developmentally appropriate.
'It must be taught sensitively and inclusively, with respect to the backgrounds and beliefs of pupils and parents while always with the aim of providing pupils with the knowledge they need of the law.'
When asked about removing the plans for strict age limits for sex education, Ms Phillipson told the BBC: 'I think what parents want to know is that they'll be able to see what's being taught.
'There sometimes can be occasions where it's necessary to broach a topic a little bit sooner in response to something that might have happened within the school, but parents would be informed and involved on that.'
The guidance said pupils should be given the opportunity to discuss the sexual norms endorsed by so-called 'involuntary celibates' (incels) or online influencers by the end of secondary school.
It added that secondary school pupils should be taught about the prevalence of 'deepfakes' and how pornography can portray 'misogynistic' attitudes and it can present harmful activities as normal.
Students should be taught that strangulation – applying pressure to someone's neck – is a criminal offence regardless of whether it causes injury.
The guidance has also advised secondary schools to work closely with mental health professionals to discuss suicide prevention in an age-appropriate way.
It added that schools should continue to share RSHE curriculum materials with parents on request.
Since September 2020, relationships and sex education has been compulsory in secondary schools in England, while relationships education has been compulsory in primary schools.
In March 2023, then-prime minister Rishi Sunak brought forward a review of RSHE guidance for schools after hearing concerns that children were being exposed to 'inappropriate' content.
Schools in England will have to follow the statutory RSHE guidance from September 2026.
Paul Whiteman, general secretary at school leaders' union NAHT, said: 'We are pleased to see that there are no age 'limits' included in this new guidance.
'Schools already work hard to ensure that teaching is age-appropriate and this approach gives them the vital flexibility to respond to their own community and the needs of pupils in their schools.'
But he added: 'NAHT has particular concerns that the inclusion of suicide prevention content has not been accompanied by a commitment from the Government to provide funded training for all teachers to give them both the knowledge and the confidence they need to discuss suicide prevention and self-harm with young people.
'The provision of training is vital before this content becomes statutory and it is unacceptable that the guidance simply says that schools should work with mental health professionals to discuss how this sensitive content should be tackled in the classroom.'
Margaret Mulholland, Send and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: 'We welcome the clarity over biological sex and gender reassignment in the guidance.
'There are strongly held and sometimes polarised views over these issues and it is important to have a clear set of national guidelines to follow.
'We hope soon to see specific guidance on supporting gender questioning children – something for which we have been calling for several years.'
She added: 'We also welcome the focus on suicide prevention and pay tribute to campaigners for their work on highlighting this issue and the risks to young people.
'Schools already have a great deal of experience in supporting the wellbeing of pupils – and many have seen a rising number of young people struggling with their mental health in recent years.
'Unfortunately, there is still not enough external support available and we would like to see more work done to ensure that young people can access specialist services in a timely manner.'
Laura Mackay, chief executive officer of LGBT+ young people's charity Just Like Us, said: 'Some teachers still struggle to discuss LGBT+ topics with their pupils. So it's good to see the new RSHE guidance strongly encouraging primary schools to teach about diverse families, including same-sex parents.
'However, there are aspects of the new guidance that could make teachers feel even more anxious about what they can do or say to support all LGBT+ young people.
'If schools treat gender identity as something that is taboo, trans and gender diverse young people across the UK will feel further alienated and unsafe at school.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Superinjunctions must never be used to shroud mistakes
British forces in Helmand province SUNDAY TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER RICHARD POHLE I n September 2023 a High Court judge granted the British government its first superinjunction. The order by Mr Justice Knowles prevented not only reporting of a terrible data breach but any reference even to the existence of restrictions. The unprecedented measure, extended several times at the request of Conservative and Labour governments, finally lapsed last week, allowing the public to learn that the details of 19,000 Afghans who had worked with the UK before the Taliban retook power had been released on Facebook, putting them and others at risk of torture or death. The mistake by an official in the UK special forces headquarters led the government to launch a secret refugee scheme that relocated to the UK more than 16,000 people compromised by the leak, at a cost of £850 million. The incompetence of the original act, which involved a spreadsheet containing hidden data being shared via email, should not cloud the argument over whether the superinjunction was reasonable. It would have been worse had the individuals affected suffered reprisals from the Taliban. Ben Wallace, then the Tory defence secretary, was undoubtedly terrified of costing lives when he first requested an injunction in August 2023. But as the injunction became a superinjunction, its very existence became a secret. Its lifespan then stretched into two years. Government officials warned the Commons and Lords Speakers not to allow any parliamentary questions hinting at it. The Labour opposition was not informed; nor was the intelligence and security committee or the defence committee. There came an indeterminate point when the interests of the Afghan breach victims faded and the interests of Whitehall officials grew stronger. Mr Justice Chamberlain, who took over the case and ruled in favour of maintaining the restrictions in November 2023, said the superinjunction was 'likely to give rise to the understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. It fell away at midday on Tuesday after a retired deputy chief of defence intelligence, Paul Rimmer, completed a review that concluded the leaked data had not spread as widely as feared and its value to the Taliban, and risk to those named in it, had diminished. Media organisations were allowed to reveal that the resettlement scheme had been hidden even from councils responsible for providing housing at considerable cost to the taxpayer, and that the Ministry of Defence's annual report had been massaged to avoid mentioning that a data incident had been reported to the Information Commissioner's Office. All this is a disgraceful abuse of the original argument over national security and the safety of the Afghans affected. The 2022 breach was a blunder rather than a systemic problem such as the infected blood or Post Office scandal. In those cases elaborate and long-running institutional cover-ups were exposed only thanks to media scrutiny, which eventually forced the government to take responsibility. As Heather Brooke brilliantly argues today, UK officialdom nearly always tends towards obfuscation and non-disclosure. Ministers and civil servants dodge embarrassment wherever they can. We must ensure that the original decision to grant the government a superinjunction is a one-off, not a precedent — and that those who rule us cannot again abuse such a powerful tool.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Heritage Foundation founder Feulner dies at 83
July 19 (Reuters) - Edwin Feulner, founder and longtime president of the influential U.S. conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, has died at age 83, Heritage said in a statement. The Friday statement did not say when Feulner died or the cause. Feulner, a Chicago-born political scientist, founded Heritage in 1973 and became its president in 1977, a position he held until 2013. Republican President Ronald Regan awarded him the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989. Current Heritage president Kevin Roberts and Board of Trustees Chairman Barb Van Andel-Gaby, wrote in a joint statement that Feulner founded Heritage to plant "a flag for truth in a town too often seduced by power." "What started as a small outpost for conservative ideas became - under Ed's tireless leadership - the intellectual arsenal for the Reagan Revolution and the modern conservative movement," they wrote. Heritage continues to deeply impact American conservatism - including being the institution that created Project 2025, widely considered the policy blueprint of President Donald Trump's quick-moving second term. Senator Mitch McConnell, a longtime leader of Congressional Republicans, wrote on social media that Feulner "was a great man" and that "his dedication to promoting peace through strength at the end of the Cold War offers a particularly enduring lesson." Representative Steve Scalise, a Republican and majority leader in the House of Representatives, wrote on social media that Feulner "was one of the architects who built the conservative movement in this country."
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Middle class families could be hit with soaring water bills under Labour's new plan to subside the costs for Britain's poorest households
Middle class families could be hit with soaring water bills under Labour plans to lower the costs for Britain's poorest households. Ministers are being urged to approve a new nationwide scheme that would subsidise bills for low income families. The proposed national social tariff is due to be presented to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in a review of the water industry on Monday. However, there are fears that middle class families could end up bearing the brunt of the charges and see their water bills increase. Shadow housing secretary Kevin Hollinrake told The Telegraph: 'Family homes across middle England face soaring water bills under the Labour Government, thanks to the triple whammy of above-inflation hikes, higher tariffs on multi-person households, and robbing Peter to pay Paul to fund tariffs for those on welfare benefits.' 'We can't just keep increasing taxes and charges – record taxes are already making life too hard for people,' he added. 'The Government should be standing up for the makers, not the takers.' There is currently no nationwide scheme to help poorer customers - with a patchwork of subsidy programmes in place across different suppliers. Consumer groups have suggested that a national social tariff could unify the level of support received and help an extra two million people get money off their bills. However, such a scheme was rejected by the previous Conservative government due to concerns about the impact it would have on wealthier households. On Monday, a landmark review of the water industry led by Sir John Cunliffe is due to be published. He announced his interim findings last month, when he revealed he would bring forward proposals to 'strengthen' the system of social tariffs. Sir John wrote: 'The commission is looking at how to more effectively support customers who are struggling to pay their bills. 'This includes looking at options to strengthen social tariffs and to tailor water bills to better reflect household consumption.' Currently, water firms can only raise money from their own areas and consult their customers on how much they would be willing to pay. However, more and more households are being placed on social tariffs as they struggle to keep up with the soaring costs of living. Statistics from water regulator Ofwat show that across Britain one in ten customers are now receiving support with their bills. But the data varies wildly per region with South West Water having the lowest number of customers on social tariffs. Meanwhile, United Utilities, which covers the North West of England, has the highest at 15 per cent. It comes after it was revealed that household water bills would rise by an average of £123 from April 1, equating to an increase of around £10 a month. The rise, confirmed by industry body Water UK, will take the average water and wastewater bill from £480 to £603 for the next year alone. Water firms are facing huge problems with their drains, reservoirs and sewers, leading to vast amounts of pollution spilling into rivers and waterways. That means firms are needing to spend billions on upgrading their systems. Because they are privatised, they also want to turn a profit so they can keep getting more investment from shareholders. To make matters worse, many face huge debt piles. The 10 biggest water companies have about £60 billion of combined debt. Regulator Ofwat has 'failed' and 'run up the white flag' by announcing rises in household water bills, the chairman of an environmental campaign group said. Charles Watson, from River Action, said: 'The shareholders in these companies are just laughing all the way to the bank.'
