Blog

The new RSHE guidance from the Department for Education (DfE) waters down key safeguards in the previous government’s draft guidance and it starts off on the wrong foot by identifying ‘engagement with pupils’ as the first guiding principle for a school’s RSHE curriculum. Listening to children and seeking their views can be useful as part of a school’s planning but it should not be the first principle. It is the adults’ responsibility to ensure an appropriate sex education curriculum; this is not a subject that should be child-led.

The new guidance takes away age limits that the draft guidance included to protect children from age-inappropriate material (of which there is plenty of evidence). It puts the ‘LGBT’ back together and frames it as a rights & equalities issue. This is the wrong framework to use for children.

The section begins with: “Pupils should also be taught the facts and the law about biological sex and gender reassignment.” Children don’t need to be taught this subject in terms of the protected characteristics. Children are not duty-bearers under the Equality Act and this has nothing to do with sex education.

We don’t teach children about the harms of porn by teaching them about the Digital Economy Act. The safeguarding aspects of children accessing misleading information about sex/gender can be addressed under Online Safety, but teaching facts about biological sex and keeping safe is not done through teaching children about the Equality Act.

It continues: “schools should be mindful that beyond the facts and the law about biological sex and gender reassignment there is significant debate, and they should be careful not to endorse any particular view or teach it as fact.” But children must be taught the facts about biological sex. The attempt to be neutral and ‘both sides’ this issue suggests that facts about biological sex (the so-called gender-critical view) and the belief in gender identity carry equal weight.

This is not an issue that should be taught in terms of the adult debate going on in society, as an exercise in helping children pick a side. The subject is sex education, not politics, and some people’s ideas about subjective ‘gender identities’ have no place in this curriculum area. The guidance should be unequivocal on this.

The previous government draft guidance simply said clearly: “Schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity” and “If asked about the topic of gender identity, schools should teach the facts about biological sex.” This is appropriate guidance for sex education. This part of the draft guidance was a key safeguard against ideological content and removing it weakens protections against anti-reality resources with a political agenda.

Although the new RSHE guidance does say “For example, they should not teach as fact that all people have a gender identity” this is ambiguous. Does it mean it is alright to teach that some people do have a ‘gender identity’, that these people are ‘trans’ and we must be kind? The wording creates a loophole that is open to exploitation by activist teachers and organisations.

On external resources, the previous draft guidance said schools should “not use any materials that present contested views as fact, including the view that gender is a spectrum. Material suggesting that someone’s gender is determined by their interests or clothing choices should not be used as it risks leading pupils who do not comply with sex stereotypes to question their gender when they might not have done so otherwise.”

The new RSHE guidance says that schools “should avoid materials that use cartoons or diagrams that oversimplify this topic, that could be interpreted as being aimed at younger children, or that perpetuate stereotypes or encourage pupils to question their gender.” The word ‘encourage’ is open to interpretation. Trans lobby groups would deny that their resources are encouragement, although it is obvious that simply introducing the idea that being a boy or a girl is something you can question will influence susceptible children to start wondering if they should.

The new guidance seems to be an attempt to please both sides. When one view is based on reality and the other is ideology, that leads to meaningless statements such as this:

Schools should be mindful to avoid any suggestion that social transition is a simple solution to feelings of distress or discomfort.

Schools should simply not be misleading children that they can change their sex at all, and certainly not facilitating it.

Although we appreciated being included as a stakeholder group in the Department for Education’s consultations, the guidance should not be based on the opposing views of advocacy groups but on clear safeguarding principles, child development, facts and age-appropriateness. Stakeholder groups who produce ‘trans’ guidance and resources for schools and therefore have an invested financial interest, should not be consulted.

DfE schools guidance is normally prescriptive; it gives a clear framework within which schools must operate. It does not mean that schools can never go outside the guidelines if necessary, there is always leeway for schools if there is legitimate justification for decisions that go outside of DfE guidance.

In the case of RSHE guidance there needed to be a clear directive to schools to stop teaching ideological concepts and using age-inappropriate resources. The guidance itself should not be open to interpretation; it should be a clear, unambiguous framework to free schools from the pressure from activists (in some cases parents or teachers) to include inappropriate subjects and resources. There is surely enough evidence by now of the harms of gender identity ideology and associated extreme sex education resources for the DfE to act decisively to protect children.

Although we welcome the guidance on parents’ full access to all RSHE resources, it should not be down to individual parents to do the job of the DfE. Watering down the previous, clearer draft guidance has resulted in RSHE guidance that is ambiguous, leaving the responsibility with individual schools and vigilant parents, and continuing to put children at risk.