Sexual education in schools: parents are always the best guide for what's appropriate for children

Sex education has long had a place in schools. But the principal guides for children on this subject, and on relationships in general, should be parents, not teachers. The Government’s decision to make such classes compulsory in all schools has been taken with the best motives. After all, sex and relationship education for children aged 11 and over is sensible and many parents are relieved that the responsibility is removed from them.

However, this is not a universally-held view and many more will resent compulsion, not least those with strong religious views. At present, independent and religious schools are not forced to provide sex education. Only local authority-controlled secondary schools are required to teach children about sex in biology classes, not academies or free schools. 

There has been a long campaign by teachers’ unions, sex education groups and Labour MPs to end these exemptions, but it has been resisted by successive governments.

The strongest argument for change and more up-to-date teaching is that that children are now exposed to sexual images in a way they never used to be on the internet and through texting. This is undoubtedly true; but whether it is sufficient to override all parental objections to their children being taught about these matters is by no means convincing.

The real problem is not equipping children with knowledge that will prepare them for adolescence and beyond. That is a good thing. What is at issue here is the way this subject will be taught. Will there be any moral or judgmental component to such teaching? Almost certainly not; and yet many parents feel unable any longer to propound a view on what constitutes a “safe and healthy” relationship. Opinions that a few years ago would have been considered uncontentious are now seen as borderline criminal. Teachers know that saying anything that fails to conform to the prevailing sexual orthodoxies (as determined by campaigners and activists) could result in the sack or worse. 

There will even be a requirement to teach children as young as four about “modern relationships”. What does that mean? This decision will doubtless be greeted with approbation by MPs; but they also need to understand the limits to the statutory intrusion of the state into every aspect of our lives.