Skip to main content

Update on myMP opposing compulsory SRE

After getting a brush off answer to start with I'm starting to get better response from my MP about why he does not vote for teaching young people about Consent. 

This is just a short update on my previous post on my MP (Stephen Mosley) voting against Clause 20 which would have made SRE compulsory and explicitly made it clear we need to educate young people about Consent. 


This sentence is at least a genuine answer, he is claiming their was not sufficient evidence and reasons. Now immediately after reading his reply I wanted to push all the evidence I could find at him so he could realise how wrong he was and how right it would have been to vote Yes and if wants more evidence I can direct him to loads. When tweeting about this the Sex education Forum replied offering help.

The Sex education forum even has collected evidence on specifically why making it compulsory is a good idea http://www.sexeducationforum.org.uk/policy-campaigns/hands-up-for-sre.aspx. But instead of flooding him with the vast array of evidence I have chosen to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he has read and understood lots of the evidence. Maybe he thinks the current evidence is lacking? Or maybe the key is in the term "sufficient reasons". So this is my reply. 


Dear Mr Mosley, 
Thank you for our second letter, it is a much clearer response to my question and I was happy to read a plain English answer. You do not believe their was "sufficient evidence and reasons" for Clause 20. Now I'm sure you can tell already from previous comment that I disagree. When I read your letter I was tempted to flood with you with a broad sweep of every drop of evidence I could find.
However, I am hopeful that you have read lots of the evidence put forward by the Sex Education Forum, Brook, National Association of Headteachers (NAHT) and Mumsnet. But you seem to believe this evidence is not sufficient. Therefore, I would like you to tell me what evidence would you require before you would vote yes to making SRE compulsory and give the issue of consent the same level of importance within the statutory curriculum as HIV has been given? What evidence do you need? Do you need more evidence of the damage of non consenting sexual activity? Or do you need more evidence of the effectiveness of school based SRE? Or do you need more evidence of the need to make it compulsory? Please help us to help you find the information you need. On the issue of "sufficient reasons" can you clarify what reasons are you looking for in decisions about what should be included in the national curriculum? 
Kind Regards
Gareth

P.S. I noticed in the letter you switched to the plural "We were therefore unconvinced". Can I ask was the vote of no decided as a group decision before you entered the debate? 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Agree - Disagree Sex and Relationship Statements

Today I shared another resource listing the agree disagree statement I often use in Relationship lessons. I find agree disagree activities as a bit of a two edge sword. Sometimes they are great and sometimes they just seem flat. 


I think agree/disagree activities work well if young people in the group do not all think the same. The true value in agree/disagree activities is the discussion it can stir up. The discussion is the point where young people learn things and develop their attitudes. The statements need to be crafted to try and divide opinion and stir up this discussion. When the statements do not divide group opinion then rarely will I get a good follow up discussion. The problem is that the statements that work well for one group do not work for another group. 

The temptation is to try and pick truly controversial issues but I have had as much success with the historically controversial issues (abortion, porn etc) as the more standard issues (loyalty, respect, condoms, etc). T…

Playing with figures of sexual health

A single research project can be reported on in different ways depending on what you want to do. Take the following two articles both reporting on the same research by the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine. The research shows how many girls in the study thought the HPV vaccine also reduced their risk of catching other STIs.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083260/One-teenage-girls-thinks-HPV-vaccine-cuts-risk-contracting-STDs.html
http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/Some-Girls-Overestimate-HPV-Vaccine-Protection/3hFUdOev1E8wSjg313QPZq/ 

The daily mail report emphasis 1 in 4, I believe this is because they are trying to show how it is a big problem. Where as Health News states "show that a small percentage of girls" I believe this is because they are trying to show it is not a big problem. Both quoting the same study with the same figure of 23.6% of girls having the HPV vaccine believing it will reduce their risk of catching other STIs. 

Now this is a common o…

Review of Channel 4's Sex in Class

Review of Channel 4's Sex in Class from a relationship and sex educator's perspective.In this review I will try and bring my perspective as a relationship and sex educator to look at Channel 4's one off show Sex In Class. The show is about a Belgian sexologist Goedele Liekens testing out her approach to relationship and sex education for 15-16 year olds at a Lancashire school. You can read some great overall reviews from Jules Hillier at Brook and Sam Wollaston at the Guardian  of the show. In this blog I am trying to focus specifically on my my perspective as a relationship and sex educator on Goedele's content and approach. 

The show starts with a pretty unsurprising statistic of "83% of kids have seen porn by the time they are 13" (source not cited) and goes on to show how teachers at this school don't think current RSE is good enough and also gives some quotes from young people involved. Such as "It [porn] doesn't give you a lot of information…