Quality | 2010.03.03
Sexually confused | Zoe Margolis
By caving in to faith schools, the government is at risk of teaching only shame in the classroom
The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away. After intense lobbying by religious groups, amendments have been made by the government to the children, schools and families bill which is due to come into force in September 2011. This now means that faith schools in Britain have a right to "reflect a school\'s religious character" in their interpretation of the new law. Or in other words: faith schools can continue preaching that contraception, abortion and homosexuality are wrong or sinful, even though sex and relationships education (SRE) – which will be a compulsory part of the curriculum – is supposed to promote equality, diversity and tolerance.
With credit to the government, this bill does show they have realised the affect on young people of a lack of sex and relationship education in schools. But it is imperative that young people are educated about sex as something other than a biological function. And too often, it seems, adults – and parents in particular – dislike talking with young people about sex. This might be due to prudishness, or embarrassment, or even a worry about potentially "corrupting" the younger generation; but sadly this results in misinformation and a lack of knowledge, rather than equipping young people with the skills they need to make healthy decisions about sex.
So it\'s great to see that the government has taken the initiative to make sex and relationship teaching mandatory from a much younger age. Hopefully this new legislation will ensure that schools have to teach children age-appropriate information about relationships including marriage, same sex and civil partnerships, divorce and separation; and in later years, sexual activity, reproduction and contraception. It is fundamentally important that children and young people can obtain this information without prejudice.
So, why, with this progressive new legislation, is there an amendment that means faith schools can adapt it to suit their beliefs? Ed Balls, the schools secretary, says in a letter to the Guardian that "faith schools will not be able to opt out of statutory lessons on sex and relationship education"; but if his argument that the "bottom line is that all young people should receive accurate and balanced information, and discrimination is prevented in all schools", how can teaching that sex outside marriage is wrong, or that contraception is bad, or that homosexuality is a sin, be seen as "balanced" information? Surely that will contradict the guidance provided as part of the sex education curriculum? And how does faith school teaching about sex fit in with the idea of tolerance or equality?
Balls may believe that conceding to the religious lobby was the best way of getting this legislation passed; but it undermines the progress made, and gives support to prejudiced misinterpretations of sex education.
Brook, the young people\'s sexual health charity, is more optimistic about this amendment. Spokeswoman Jules Hillier says: "We\'re hopeful that the ethos of the bill, which stresses diversity and equal opportunities, will mean that all schools will need to take a balanced approach to the teaching of SRE."
It is arguable, I suppose, that without this amendment, and with pressure from the religious lobby, this bill might not get passed – which would be a great shame, because it will impact young people in many positive ways for years to come. It\'s an enlightened government that dares to remove the right of parents to opt their children over the age of 15 out of sex education and enforce mandatory lessons in the subject in the majority of schools in the UK. So overall, it\'s a move in the right direction, albeit not quite far enough.
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/[...]ed-sex-education-faith-schools
