In a statement issued on 4th June, the Department for Education announced that mandatory introduction of the controversial new Regulations governing Relationships and Health Education in primary schools, and Relationships and Sex and Health Education in secondary schools is to be postponed till summer 2021 (https://www.psheassociation.org.uk/sites/default/files/u26918/Communication%20to% 20schools%20on%20the%20implementation%20of%20Relationships%20Education%
20Relationships%20and%20Sex%20Education%20and% 20Health%20Education.pdf). This news is welcome indeed – though given that proper Consultation between parents and schools, as required by law, has been prevented from happening as result of lockdown, it is hard to see what else they could reasonably have done.
As it is, there are already what’s known as 1,500 early adopter schools, with many more well into plans and preparation for introducing the new curriculum. Schools that have met the requirements set out in the statutory Guidance are being encouraged to begin teaching from 1st September this year, or as soon as possible after that date. However, schools that are not ready, as a result of time lost due to closure and their inability to consult with parents, will be allowed to delay implementation till the summer term of next year.
Slightly bizarrely, however, the statement says that subjects remain compulsory from September 2020, by which it means that even though teaching the curriculum may be held up, the new provision governing the parental right of withdrawal will nevertheless apply from that date to current teaching. That is, parents will have an absolute right to withdraw a child from sex education in primary school, but at secondary level this right will be downgraded to a right to request withdrawal, subject to agreement by the Head, while a child will be able to decide for themselves to opt in from age 15. Relationships and Health Education will remain mandatory for all ages, despite protest at the highly sexualised content of some aspects included in these areas.
The postponement to allow time for proper consultation is to be welcomed, giving as it does an opportunity to parents to make their views known. What is not so encouraging, however, is the apparent determination by Government to plough on regardless. For example, in the recently issued briefing from the Local Government Association – compiled with the help of the Sex Education Forum and Stonewall and entitled Engaging with schools and communities to support inclusive teaching of Relationships and Sex Education
(https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Engaging%20with% 20schools%20and%20communities%20to%20deliver%20inclusive%20RSE% 202019%20WEB.pdf), the stated aim is to provide bespoke support to schools
to deliver LGBT-inclusive RSE, while “managing” inconvenient parental protest. All of which means that the policies to promote and normalise gender fluidity and same sex relationships from age 3, accompanied by progressively explicit sexual ‘guidance’ from around age 5, remain robustly in place.
This is not just wrong, but is naked abuse. It is well established medically that children below age 7 lack the emotional and intellectual maturity to understand or process concepts such as gender identity or same-sex relationships. Indeed, left to themselves, most children start to develop any kind of sexual awareness and response towards others only at around adolescence – and even then, for girls at least, it is more the idea of romantic attachment than physical consummation. Providing explicit sexual information from age 5 onwards, however, can only prematurely sexualise them, encouraging experimentation from an increasingly young age.
Small wonder that cases of child-on-child sex abuse – some involving children as young as 5 – and STI rates amongst teenagers and young people are skyrocketing. And little wonder that, despite all the teaching about contraception and ‘choice’, we still have the highest teen pregnancy and abortion rates in Western Europe. Yet these are precisely the things RSE was supposedly designed to prevent! As a policy, therefore, it has clearly failed.
Let us be clear, the prioritisation of LGBT inclusive teaching in Relationships and Sex Education has nothing to do with child protection or safeguarding, but is rather an ideologically driven attempt to embed the nation’s rebranded values – to normalise and promote so-called transgenderism and same-sex relationships to children, who have no means of assessing for themselves what is being taught. Well have ideologues learnt the lesson that, if you can control what children are taught, you can control their attitudes and behaviour and the future direction of society. And that is what all this is about – the battle to control society. But instilling in young minds ideas and attitudes that children have no way of assessing or evaluating for themselves is not, and never can be, education. Rather, it is pure and simple indoctrination. The Frankfurt School – dedicated to the imposition of Communist domination by ideological reprocessing – would have been proud.
Much in the RSE Regulations is good and to be valued – children do need to be prepared for life in modern Britain, and we do need to keep them safe and protect them from exploitation. But it is precisely because of this that the Regulations must not be hijacked in order to slide in inappropriate, sexualising, and abusive elements, which need as a matter of urgency to be removed.
At all costs, child protection must be prioritised over the normalisation of ideological rebranding. And the right of parents, as primary educators, must remain to withdraw their children from teaching that not just demonstrably damages young minds, but violates the boundaries.
Please write to your MP today, commending the Government for postponing implementation of the RSE Regulations in order to allow time for proper consultation, but calling for an urgent review of policy. Above all, stress that child protection and safeguarding must be prioritised over ideologically driven attempts at cultural rebranding.