Sign In
Sign In
Register for Free
PrimaryHealth & Wellbeing

No, PSHE And RSE In Schools Does Not Mean Teaching 5-Year-Olds About Sexuality, Rape And Abuse

Ian Macdonald writes a rebuttal to unrealistic reservations about RSE and PSHE's place in schools

Ian Macdonald
by Ian Macdonald
Olympic values lesson plan
DOWNLOAD A FREE RESOURCE! Olympic values – KS1/2 PE & PSHE lesson plan
PrimaryHealth & WellbeingPE

This post was written in response to a recent article by Louise Burton highlighting some reservations around not just the change in status for Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) and PSHE, but also the development of ‘life skills’ as part of that process.

The original article was right to assert that statutory status for PSHE has been supported and recommended by four separate Select Committees (including jointly by health and education) – but neglected to highlight the amount of evidence which those committees hear before delivering their reports.

So for these committees to be in agreement on the importance of PSHE is worthy of more than a passing consideration.

However, as someone with 15 years supporting PSHE delivery as part of supporting children and young people’s health and wellbeing, I would challenge many of Louise’s assertions. So in the interests of debate and offering an alternative (and I hope evidence-based) view, I have tried to respond to some of those assertions below:

Point 1

“The phrase ‘safe, healthy, happy and successful’…is also a sinister move, as it is expects teachers to talk to children as young as five about abuse, rape and sexuality” This is an oft-quoted misunderstanding about what RSE entails. There never has, nor should there ever be, an expectation for teachers to be talking directly about these issues at the age of five. Indeed, this is exactly why terminology around the subject has moved from SRE to RSE – namely putting the ‘relationships’ element at the forefront of curriculum content and debate.

Louise gives the impression of Mumsnet and NUS as those pressing for change, and while groups such as these have a voice in democratic debate, this assertion undercooks the work done by the PSHE Association, Sex Education Forum, Stonewall and Brook (among others) in providing an evidence base for effective and inclusive PSHE as part of a broad and balanced curriculum.

Point 2

“The view that children need to be taught how to conduct relationships reveals a lack of confidence in parents to positively influence their children and a refusal to recognise that the majority of young people will learn through experience how to enjoy fulfilling relationships”

I don’t feel this is about a lack of confidence in parents to positively influence their children. Moreover, effective PSHE and wider prevention programmes recognise and encourage a partnership approach between schools and parents. But to leave it just to parental influence immediately misses out those children who do not experience positive relationships and values at home. The capacity for those children to develop positive (I’m trying not to use ‘healthy’ here) relationship skills is therefore limited compared to others.

Additionally, many of these children see school as a place of safety and are therefore more likely to benefit from a life skills curriculum. But even the most supportive of parents is still open to support around these issues, with 90% of parents wanting the subject in the curriculum.

The last part of the quote above is correct, in that a majority of young people will develop skills through experience. I would suggest however, that those skills are also limited by that experience, and effective PSHE should give those young people the opportunity to practice and explore those skills in other contexts.

Any move to statutory status should therefore reflect the fact that many of these life or relationship skills are applicable across a range of health choices and behaviours – that is why the amendment talks about RSE being part of a wider programme of PSHE and not a subject in itself.

Point 3

“Reducing human relationships to a skill that can be learnt is social engineering by any other name”

I would agree the process of forming relationships is a personal one – something which we all do differently and with varying degrees of success. However, it is a big and dangerous jump in my view to suggest that supporting children and young people in this process is a form of ‘social engineering’. Indeed, use of that language will only serve to create more confusion around the subject as a whole.

The term ‘life skills’ is one which has been adopted by the PSHE Association and Public Health England, as well as topic specific advisory bodies including Mentor ADEPIS (the national Alcohol and Drug Education and Prevention Information Service), Sex Education Forum, Young Minds and CEOP to name a few. It isn’t coincidence that these bodies subscribe to a ‘life skills’ approach. An evidence base for positive health outcomes from these approaches is growing (see Unplugged, SHAHRP, Mind and Body, RisKit, Risk-Avert), while an absence of action is what has contributed to the ‘hideous crimes’ referred to.

Point 4

“It is asking teachers to probe children’s feelings and then to train them to be distrustful of their own desires and those of their peers”

This could not be further from the truth. Any element of relationship education is based in respect and tolerance, not distrust and probing. It helps them explore any ‘desires’ they may have in a safe and mutually positive way rather than one which could quickly become abusive.

This process can then support young people to trust their own personality and identity, while respecting that of their peers – but also to challenge those unsafe relationships in safe and healthy ways (I hope that is considered appropriate use of the term).

In my nigh-on 15 years experience supporting schools, local authorities and academy chains in developing PSHE and wider health and wellbeing approaches, those schools who deliver inappropriate PSHE do so as a result of misinformation, lack of CPD for staff, and often knee-jerk reactions to local and national incidents. This is symptomatic of the reactive way in which non-statutory PSHE is supported, respected and delivered.

Well-planned PSHE and RSE contribute to the prevention of these negative incidents and wider health outcomes. This isn’t just the responsibility of ‘the police force and social services’ – any DSL worth their salt recognises this is everyone’s business. If we are to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children and young people, we can’t go back to working in those silos.

Further info

There are many PSHE leads, educators and senior school leaders sharing theirs, and others, examples of good practice in the classroom and beyond. You can see some of them via Twitter here:

Ian Macdonald is a PSHE and health policy specialist who works with organisations such as Charlie Waller Memorial Trust and Mentor UK. You can contact him at ian@ianmac-pshe.co.uk, find him at ianmacpshe.blogspot.com and follow him on Twitter at @IanA_Mac.

You might also be interested in...