It was always unlikely that this Conservative government would be making PSHE, which includes sex and relationships education, compulsory in all state schools. It is still disappointing, though, to read reports that the Department for Education is killing the idea off for good. Well, at least for the foreseeable future.

It is hard to believe the idea of ensuring children and young people have access to age-appropriate and high quality SRE (or, indeed, any SRE) is even controversial any more. There is plenty of national and international evidence that good SRE works, including by improving outcomes for young people in terms of delaying having sex for the first time; ensuring relationships are safe and consensual; preventing unwanted pregnancies; preventing the spread of sexually transmitted infections; and helping to prevent bullying, unsafe behaviours and abuse. The need for statutory SRE in schools is widely supported by professionals, teachers, parents, young people, women’s rights groups, educational experts and more. Yet the government appears to be going against this near-unanimous support in favour of compulsory SRE from anyone who counts, at both primary and secondary level.

It is disingenuous for the government to claim, as it does, that SRE is compulsory in all maintained secondary schools. In fact, maintained schools do not have to teach any sex education beyond basic information on puberty, anatomy and human reproduction found in the science national curriculum, plus STIs, HIV and Aids. Anything additional to that – the relationships part as well as the sex part – is not compulsory and parents have the right to opt their children out in any case. Looking to the ever-increasing academies and free schools, they do not have to teach any of this – not the basic science bit, nothing. With the numbers of state-funded religious schools expanding including as academies and free schools, it is more of a concern than ever that the government is so weak in its practical support for such a crucial subject.

So why is the government so determined to close its eyes to making these important curriculum reforms? This seems to be another case where the government’s conservative outlook and bias towards appeasing the religious establishment triumphs over evidence and rights. It’s no surprise that those most vociferous in opposing SRE in schools tend to be conservative religious groups. A quick scan through the education select committee’s report on its inquiry from earlier this year Life Lessons: PSHE and SRE shows that lobby opposing teaching balanced, objective and statutory SRE, referencing from SRE Islamic and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children to the Christian Institute and the Association of Catholic Women. In its evidence to the inquiry, the Church of England states, ‘Any statutory framework for SRE must ensure that the existing entitlement for schools with a religious character to teach SRE in the context of the school’s religious foundation is retained. In all schools, we would expect that the Church’s teaching about marriage would be given a substantial place at the heart of the SRE curriculum’. In other words, state-funded faith schools must be able to teach religiously biased, subjective, and limited SRE if they wish. A cynic might say their position is not about the rights and needs of children at all but about the drive to instil religious dogma through education. Interesting to note that the education select committee, which strongly recommended that PSHE and SRE do become compulsory, strongly criticised the government’s ‘feeble’ response to its report.

In a recent move that also seemed to be based on an ideological position rather than educational need or in the interests of pupils, the government actively excluded the teaching of non-religious beliefs such as humanism from the GCSE religious education curriculum in England. This move flew in the face of decades of work and evidence for including non-religious views on the curriculum, strong support from the RE community, and the needs of the tens of millions of non-religious people in the United Kingdom to have their values and beliefs reflected equally in the curriculum. Happily, in this case, the British Humanist Association supported three families to take their case against DfE to the High Court – and they won.

Unfortunately, taking the government to court in the case of SRE is not a likely route for change – it is not even on the curriculum in the same way so cannot be challenged like government decisions on RE have been. But what we can do – in Labour and much wider – is continue to pile the pressure on. The Labour party needs to be clear and unwavering in its support for evidence-based policies and for a rights-based approach to SRE. That means being clear that every child has a right to high quality, comprehensive SRE. This should be provided by all state-funded schools with no opt-outs for parents or academies and not allowing faith schools to teach SRE in ways skewed towards the religion of the schools ie in ways that could be gender-discriminatory, homophobic, inaccurate, or otherwise violate principles of human rights. While the majority Tory government sets about putting its conservative agenda in practice, Labour can mount clear opposition, based on the evidence and fulfilling its values as a political party.

———————————

Naomi Phillips is chair of Labour Humanists. She tweets @nayphillips

———————————

Photo