Will the draft RSHE guidance push young people to look for answers elsewhere?

Eliza Allford, 22, is a volunteer Participation Advisory Group member at Brook. In this blog, Eliza talks about how the draft RSHE guidance published this year could exacerbate problems with misinformation and inappropriate content online.

A month ago the government released a draft version of the new RSE guidance, but how is the updated version different and what does this mean for young people?

Firstly, let’s rewind to 2020 when relationships and sex education (RSE) first became mandatory in all schools.  

The guidance published in 2020 told schools they should incorporate LGBT inclusive content throughout the curriculum, and that schools should ensure all content is age appropriate, although exactly what this looked like was up to schools. This flexibility when it came to ‘age appropriate’ allowed for a spiral curriculum – a teaching method whereby topics are slowly introduced over a number of years in an age appropriate manner. For example, the idea of consent might first be introduced in very simple terms before gradually becoming more complex and nuanced year on year. This method of teaching is crucial to having impactful, positive and age appropriate RSE. Flexibility around ‘age appropriate’ also allowed for schools and teachers to address individual’s needs. For example, if a child started their period earlier than average, teachers could provide invaluable education and reassurance, even if the child was at an age before the menstrual cycle would typically be taught. Young people also agreed that schools needed flexibility to cover topics at the age their students need.  

Although it was in need of improvement, the 2020 guidance was a significant step in the right direction.

In fact, things have improved significantly since then. In a recent poll of 16-17 year olds conducted by the Sex Education Forum, 50% said their sex education was “good” or “very good”, the highest since polling began.  

Perhaps one of the biggest issues with the 2020 guidance was that it was a significant update and would take schools time, money and resources to implement effectively. Indeed, it was estimated that to successfully role out the curriculum and train teachers, it would cost the government £33 million. As of June 2022, the government had only spent £3.2 million. It is no surprise that half of teachers said they did not feel confident to teach the curriculum. When asked what they wanted from the updated guidance, 57% of young people said more teacher training.  

It was also clear that students from the queer community were asking for their RSE to be more relevant and inclusive.

60% of students identifying as LGBT, queer, or questioning said that they didn’t learn enough about LGBT issues, with some saying they didn’t learn anything LGBT related. In a letter to the Education Secretary, a key message was that young people wanted a more inclusive curriculum. They wanted to see representation of different family structures and types of relationships, and learn about different sexualities and genders.  

On the 16th May 2024, the government published new guidance.  

At the moment it is still a ‘draft’ meaning that it isn’t law, and is currently open to public consultation. You can see Brook’s response to the guidance as well as a summary of the key points.

The proposed key changes in the new guidance are:  

• Age ratings. The curriculum now includes strict age limitations, for example periods can’t be taught before year 4, and no explicit discussions of sexual activity before year 9, this includes discussion of sexual assault.  
• Gender identity should no longer be taught. This would mean that non-binary people’s identities, or those questioning their gender, would not be recognised. 
• For more detail and specifics see the new guidance 

These changes are not in line with what young people are saying, or the wealth of research in this area. Crucially, the new guidance takes the perspective that the way to safeguard young people is to limit the content they are exposed to in schools, to rule out the possibility that they are exposed to something inappropriate within a school setting. Underpinning this is the argument that RSE is a place where young people might be exposed to dangerous, inappropriate ideas. I believe this completely ignores that the majority of harmful misinformation and inappropriate content is spread through word of mouth, social media, online sources and pornography.  

It is clear that online spaces are a vital source of information for many young people.

In fact, 30% said their main source of information on sexuality and gender identity was social media, while 21% said the internet is their main source of information about unhealthy relationships. Whilst I undoubtedly think that there are some informative and useful spaces online, I also think that it can be difficult to recognise misinformation and that online spaces might simplify complex and nuanced ideas. Personally, I feel I can use online spaces to access facts and knowledge, for example about how to test for an STI, but I don’t feel that social media is a productive space to have conversations about shame, awkwardness, share personal experiences, or get advice and support, especially around deeply personal issues such as my sexuality or gender identity. I think schools and teachers are an invaluable place to discuss these more complex issues, and also help equip young people with the critical thinking skills needed to recognise misinformation online.

Schools as a place of information and support cannot and should not be replaced by online spaces. 

Young people need RSE to be a space where they can talk about misinformation and inappropriate content, and be given impartial, factual, evidence-based information about sex, sexuality, gender and relationships. I think that putting limits on what is allowed to be taught will only mean more young people turn to the internet for answers, allowing for more misinformation to spread. Taking away a safe space where young people can unpack some of the sexual images they may have seen online, including pornography and especially pornography containing sexual violence or misogyny, will only isolate young people.  

In my opinion, the guidance fails to recognise that the majority of dangerous information comes from outside the classroom. Content from social media and pornography, or ideas and concepts which may have originated in pornography, is publicly available to most, if not all, children. To tackle this safety issue, and ensure that young people are safe, we should be encouraging as much learning as possible to take place within a school setting, rather than withdrawing learning from the curriculum. I hope you take the time to respond to the consultation on the draft guidance, and let the government know that we will protect the right to high-quality RSE for all young people.