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Draft guidance, published in May last year under the Conservatives, had suggested sex education should be taught no earlier than Year 5.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The draft guidance also said schools should not teach pupils about the concept of 'gender identity'.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
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's delusional if he thinks his morally bankrupt plan to let 16-year-olds vote will help him out. They'll NEVER vote for him
It goes without saying that the Government's move to hand the vote to 16-year-olds is intellectually and morally bankrupt. You can determine the legal speed limit. But you aren't actually deemed mature enough to get behind the wheel yourself. You can endorse sending British troops off to fight in a foreign war. But you're not perceived to have sufficient discipline or self-control to join them. You can't be trusted to buy alcohol, get married or own a credit card. But you can help determine the political direction of Britain for half a decade. To be fair, nobody ever seriously pretended there was some great civic imperative behind the change. Angela Rayner made a half-decent fist of it when she claimed: 'For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline. We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
I'm against votes at 16, but this is how I could be persuaded
If I were making the case for votes at 16, I would say that taking part in democracy is so important that people should be encouraged to do it early. I would say that voting is different from other things that people do, and that taking part can help to prepare young people for the responsibilities of citizenship. Instead, we tend to get a lot of false arguments about the other things that 16-year-olds can do and a rhetorical question: why shouldn't they be allowed to vote too? Thus on Thursday, when Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, published the government's plan to reduce the voting age, she said that '16- and 17-year-olds can work, pay tax and serve in the military'. Each of those actually undermines her case. They can work, but 14-year-olds can work part-time and it is government policy that 16- and 17-year-olds should be in education or training. You can pay income tax at any age. And though you can join the armed forces, you may not serve in a combat role. In an article in The Times, Rayner went further and said that you can be married at 16. Like most people, she was unaware that the law in England and Wales was changed two years ago, raising the age to 18. The article was quietly corrected. That mistake is the problem in a nutshell. At a time when age thresholds are generally being raised, advocates of votes at 16 have to explain why voting is different from most other things, not why it is the same. In recent years, the age at which young people can get a tattoo or buy superglue, fireworks or cigarettes has been raised to 18. The question is: why should voting be in the smaller category of things you can do at 16 rather than in the larger category of things that adults are allowed to do? I think that voting should be part of adulthood, but I don't feel strongly about it, and I could be persuaded that a special case should be made for a lower age, as it is for sex, medical treatment and driving. But the advocates of child voting really need to up their game. To be fair, Rayner did also make the better argument on Thursday: 'By engaging voters early, when they are young, and allowing them to have a say in shaping their future, we will build the foundations for their lifelong participation in our electoral processes.' There is some evidence for this. A Scottish study found that after the voting age was reduced for everything except UK parliament elections, that cohort 'continued to turn out in higher numbers, even into their twenties, than young people who attained the right to vote later, at age 18'. There are other ways of raising turnout. I am opposed to compulsory voting in principle – part of the point of voting is that it is a voluntary act – but I think that a small cash incentive for first-time voters is a good idea. Other studies have shown that 'voting in one election substantially increases the likelihood of voting in the future'. And if a lower voting age does have a lasting effect in increasing engagement then there is no harm in doing that too. My other objection to votes at 16, however, is the suspicion that it is being done for party advantage. That was plainly the case in Scotland, where David Cameron foolishly allowed Alex Salmond to expand the franchise in order to boost the separatist vote in the 2014 referendum. Cameron's strategy seemed plausible: let the Scottish National Party choose the franchise, the date and the question, and then there could be no argument about the result. Like as if. Equally, Rayner's high-sounding arguments of principle are undermined by the knowledge that there are votes in it for her. The effects of the change are likely to be small. One poll this month, by Focaldata, suggested Labour and the Greens would gain 0.2 percentage points each, at the expense of Reform, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. But it still stinks. Yes, it was in Labour's manifesto last year, which even used the good argument rather than the bad: 'We will increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy, by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections.' That is the correct procedure in a parliamentary democracy: you put it in the manifesto, get elected and enact it in law. But there is an argument that constitutional questions should be treated differently: that is why we had a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011. And Labour ought to worry that in one list of manifesto policies polled it was the only one that more people opposed than supported. That is the clincher for me. I am persuaded that it is good for young people to be engaged in politics. I could accept that Labour is entitled to act in its self-interest, having won a mandate for that explicit policy in the general election, if there was overwhelming support for it. But there is not, not even among 16- and 17-year-olds. So, I realise that it is going to happen, and that it won't be reversed once it has happened, but I wish Labour would drop the nonsense about serving in the military and make a better case of democratic principle.
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Chaos and fear as Afghans exposed in huge data breach left in limbo by UK
When the email from the Ministry of Defence dropped into his inbox, Qargha's heart leapt. After an agonising four-year wait, he hoped that this would finally be confirmation that he could escape the threat of the Taliban and be brought to safety in the UK. Instead, it was news that the government had exposed his personal information – and kept him in the dark about it for nearly two years. Already in fear for his life, he will now take extra precautions even when going for a walk or shopping. He is one of around 18,700 Afghans whose names and contact details were exposed in the catastrophic data leak, which happened when an MoD official emailed a secret database to trusted contacts in February 2022. The blunder, which has resulted in some 16,000 Afghans affected by the breach being relocated to Britain as part of a covert operation, was discovered after someone posted parts of the database online in August 2023. News of the breach prompted the government to use an unprecedented superinjunction to keep the breach a secret in an attempt to block further spread of the information, meaning that even those affected could not be told. Ministers had argued that 100,000 people's lives were at risk of Taliban reprisals if news of the data breach got out, but a government-commissioned review later concluded that being identified on the dataset was unlikely to constitute sole grounds for targeting. Just before the gagging order was finally lifted on Tuesday, the MoD scrambled to email tens of thousands of Afghans, warning them their data was compromised. Desperate for news that MoD caseworkers had finally made a decision on his case, Qargha, a former member of the Afghan security forces who is still in Afghanistan, thought the email would finally confirm his eligibility approval. But he was shocked when he discovered the truth. He told The Independent: ' I am very concerned about the leak of my personal information and I understood more about it from Afghan International TV as well. They said this leak will put many lives at risk. 'My day-to-day life will be harder now. I am living in a safe house and I know that today or tomorrow, if I need to go to the hospital or seek help for anything, I will have to be more cautious now. I am putting restrictions on myself – being more cautious about going shopping, going for a walk, going to the park or going for a haircut'. The former soldier applied for sanctuary in the UK in 2021, but he was rejected along with many members of former Afghan specialist units in the summer of 2023. During that time, one UK special forces liaison officer oversaw the blanket rejection of 1,585 such applications. Qargha is waiting on a review of that decision, and the years of limbo are taking their toll as his agonising wait continues. 'My old home has already been raided twice. It is impacting me mentally, having to wait for so long. Everyone knows us and the work we did against the Taliban before the takeover, so my life is hard, stress level is up, everything is up,' he said. One former member of the Afghan special forces unit, ATF444, who served alongside the British yet left behind after the withdrawal, is also still waiting for a review of his application for help. Akthar said that after he received the two alert emails from the MoD, he had 'a lot of questions'. 'I don't understand, this is not a third-world country. This is the UK, where access to technology is high. How have they managed to leak this information?', he told The Independent. 'We are already at risk and they have put us at more risk. There are lots of questions but what can we do about it - nothing. 'Whatever caution we were taking before, we should triple that caution. At this moment, the fear is like hell. 'My moving around has become restricted a lot. Before, if I was taking 50 per cent precaution for my safety, I need to make sure I'm doing it 100 per cent,' he added. Last week, Taliban members began doing door-to-door raids of the district he was in, so he jumped in a car with a friend and drove for 12 hours to a different province, he said. He also needs to try to work to get money to support members of his family. 'It's making me desperate,' he said, adding: 'My family has not done anything to anybody and they don't deserve to die'. Another former member of the Afghan security forces said his 'stress changed to depression' on receiving the bright red warning message, alerting him that his information had been breached. 'My stress level is very high, all I can do is wait for my application to be processed,' he said. The Independent revealed on Wednesday that hundreds of Afghan special forces soldiers had had their details leaked in the MoD breach. Some 18,500 people affected by the leak have been brought to the UK or are on their way, while 5,400 have received approval letters but still need to be evacuated. Ministers have said that, while the MoD's resettlement scheme (Arap) has been closed to new applicants, existing cases will still be processed. But no time frame for the evacuations has been given, leaving those affected in limbo. An MoD spokesperson said: 'We will not comment on individual cases. 'This Government is fully committed to delivering on the pledge made by Parliament to those in Afghanistan who are eligible to relocate and resettle. 'We aim to see through our commitment to those eligible under the ARP to its completion by the end of the parliament. Eligible Afghans and their families will continue to arrive in the UK for the foreseeable future.'
