Standing up for young people's reproductive rights!

Today is the International Day of Action for Women's Health and to mark this, the Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights issued this call to action:

“Full Recognition of Young People’s Sexual and Reproductive Rights! Recognise Reproductive Rights! Mobilise for Reproductive Justice!”

This means:

• The right of young people to decide on all matters related to their sexuality
• Access to sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion where legal, that respect confidentiality and do not discriminate
• The right of youth to comprehensive sexuality education
• Protection and promotion of young people’s right to control their sexuality free from violence, discrimination, and coercion 

Have a look at the full report here. 

We thought we'd let an actual young person tell you why they support this call to action. Here's what Jacob, friend of EFC and founder of S4SRE (Students for Sex and Relationships Education) had to say:


"These issues are important to me because a world of people more comfortable with their sexualities is a place I want to be. I think we need to invite young people to ask directly what sort of help they'd like from sex education, and to be more trusted as the major source of support we are for each other... these questions need not be some sort of public spectacle, like TV 'health entertainment' shows. Access to the services and resources that make sure sex can be safe and supportive is another factor that means youth sexuality stops being a punishable reality, and instead a healthier part of growing up."

Well said Jacob!
If you're a young person with an interest in these issues you might want to submit an essay or opinion piece to the Reproductive Health Matters journal which is currently looking for submissions on 'Young people, sex and relationships'.

 

"I didn’t know there was such a thing as an implant": Sixth Formers tell us about their sex education lessons

I recently visited a school in Essex to deliver EFC’s Talk About Choice presentation to the Sixth Form there. I was lucky enough to be able to speak to a few of the students afterwards to get their thoughts on the presentation and what they’d learnt.

I was surprised when the students told me that a lot of the information on contraceptive methods had been new for them:

‘The contraception methods I didn’t know about’

‘I didn’t know there was such a thing as an implant’

 ‘I didn’t know you could get injections’

‘We know the usual stuff like pills and condoms but we didn’t know the sort of more unconventional stuff’

As years 12 and 13 I had expected them to have covered basic sexual health topics such as STIs and contraception in earlier years but it seems that had been limited and worryingly, for most of them, had taken place in R.E lessons as a purely abstract discussion of religious views:

 ‘They did talk about some types of contraception but it was more about what religions thought’

‘It was sort of like, if you were Christian what would you think about abortion’

Sex education outside of R.E lessons had only been experienced by some of the students:

 ‘A good 60 people a year group don’t have that lesson so all they have is the RE side’

‘If you did triple science you don’t do it’

These students were articulate about what was missing from their sex and relationships education. Sadly, their clear need and desire for sexual health education was not being met thanks to patchy delivery. With little knowledge of their own rights and responsibilities, or practical information about local services the students recognised that they were less able to practice safer sex. As two pupils remarked on their lack of condom education:  ‘if you don’t use it properly then you’re gonna be at a higher risk’ and ‘if you don’t know how to do it then obviously you’re gonna worry when you do it and also then you might be more embarrassed and then you don’t use it’.

The students also gave an extremely mature and thoughtful take on what abortion education should look like. They appreciated having a talk about contraception and abortion which was not attempting to push a moral agenda but rather gave factual information:

‘(you)made it less daunting, like saying, don’t be scared to talk to who you need to talk to rather than saying like, I dunno, you’ll be punished and shamed’

 ‘I think when approaching the subject of abortion...you can’t be biased, like ‘abortion is completely wrong’ or ‘abortion is fun, it’s really good’ you have to be neutral, it’s neutral territory when it comes to approaching teenagers I think’

‘It’s good when you’re not really presented with ‘a viewpoint’, because a lot of the time you already have some form of viewpoint and if you just give the statistics, ...then it’s more like making up your own mind’

They were also concerned about the effect a strongly anti-abortion speaker might have on a young audience. When I asked how they would feel if a speaker used images in their talk, one young man said:

‘Doesn’t matter as long as they’re not being biased, like if they’re using it to influence...then it’s a bit unfair. Cos if there was a girl in that room for example who was pregnant she might look at that and feel awful’

It was refreshing and heartening to hear them speak so enthusiastically and sensibly about the need for a non-biased approach to abortion education, but it’s disappointing that a school which clearly had good intentions had so clearly failed to provide the students with what they needed. I’d like to think this is a blip, but all the evidence from surveys, questionnaires and anecdotes suggests it’s pretty typical.

Brook survey shows almost half of secondary school students felt that their SRE was unsatisfactory

Contraceptive implants for 13 year olds a Four for One mythbust

As the groundwork is laid for an attack on young people’s access to contraceptive advice, we offer this myth-busting Monday special - busting four of the many myths that have been asserted following publication of this article last week.


13 year olds are all running around having contraceptive implants


In fact most younger teenagers are not having sex at all. When Dorries raised the issue of 13 year old girls being given secret implants she chose an eye catching, but relatively rare example to get press attention – it worked!


The under 16 conception rate for England is 7.5 per thousand (7,100 13-15 year olds got pregnant in 2009). Of these, the vast majority are conceptions to 15 year olds and relatively few to younger girls. This statistic has fallen over the 10 years of the teenage pregnancy strategy which means either that the strategy and its emphasis on good Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) which encourages thoughtful decision-making about sexual activity (including delaying sex) has paid off and resulted in less sex OR that young teenagers are having as much sex as the media sometimes claims, but being pretty successful in using contraception to prevent pregnancy, or maybe both. Either way the fact that this rate has fallen (not by enough, but still fallen) should not be ignored. Analysing the statistics more carefully you can see that some of the more dramatic reductions have taken place in the areas that originally had the highest teenage pregnancy rates. This is significant because these are often the areas that invested the most in SRE and tailor-made sexual health services for young people. 


Parents are always the best people to make decisions about their children’s health choices


We would love to think that parents are all able to have supportive, constructive conversations with their teenagers about all aspects of health and lifestyle, but we know that parenting and adolescence don’t always work this way. Some of the most loving, caring and competent parents struggle to communicate with their teenagers effectively, but there are also the parents who don’t attempt to communicate with, care for, or nurture their children. Then there are young people in the care system where the local authority has taken over parental responsibility because there parents simply can't or won't keep them safe.


Parents are not a homogenous group of caring, loving, competent, infallible, sexual health experts. At their best they provide love, nurture and a values framework that they hope their children will follow, but often they cannot provide objectivity or expertise, something that young people need and value when making important decisions about their health and lifestyle. 


Providing contraception encourages/increases under-age sexual activity


This assertion does not reflect sexual health practice at all. Although sexual health providers would probably prefer under-16s not to have sex at all, the fact is that many of them are choosing to. A conversation about contraception with young teenagers is an opportunity health workers use to find out more about their lifestyle, sexual behaviour and relationships; to check for coercion, pressure or abuse within their relationships; to explore sexual decision-making with them; to signpost them to services that will help address additional needs young people often present with; and to establish whether they are currently having, or imminently going to have, sex. While many people - parents and professionals - may feel conflicted about providing contraception to a young teenager, what we know is that NOT providing contraception will NOT prevent young people having sex, because the presence of one or more of adolescent sexual desire, love, adrenalin, alcohol, and culture are often irresistible even in the face of the law, and the risk of pregnancy and STIs.


The law says that 16 is the age of consent so surely giving contraception to under-16s is breaking the law. 


The law is intended to protect young people and is implemented in this spirit. It is unlikely that similarly-aged adolescents who have both consented to sex would be prosecuted even if one is underage, but a sexual relationship entailing a large age gap or a very young person would be subject to safeguarding procedures and further investigation.
Alongside the age of consent, The Fraser Guidelines which govern sexual health advice for under-16s  allow nurses and doctors to have a confidential consultation with a young person of any age and to provide them with contraception or abortion. In this situation their legal duty is:


• to decide whether there are any safeguarding issues and whether information about this young person must be shared with other professionals in order to protect him/her/other young people;
• to assess the competency (or ability) of a young person to understand the risks and benefits of any treatment they ask for; 
• to assess on balance of risk whether providing contraception will be beneficial (for example what is the likelihood of the young person becoming sexually active whether or not they are provided with contraception); 
• to encourage the young person to consider talking to a parent or carer and to help them assess the risks and benefits of doing so.

More on this:

Lisa's Comment is Free piece

Simon Blake in HuffPo

The Telegraph

Teaching about marriage

Current Sex and Relationships Guidance asks schools to teach about the nature and importance of marriage and of stable relationships for family life and bringing up children. This wording recognises a range of different family structures and acknowledges that a child brought up in a variety of contexts can be fine if some basic pre-conditions are met.


It now transpires that conditions for funding for Free Schools and Academies obliges them to teach about the superiority of marriage and its importance in bringing up children, but apparently not other kinds of relationships or families. This new SRE formulation seems to have dropped the term ‘stable relationships’.


Why does that matter?
 I think we can all think of examples of children being brought up by single or non-married parents who are happy and healthy and some who are damaged and vulnerable. We all know marriages that are destructive and that provide a bewildering and distressing context for family life as well as those that are safe and lovely. However, I will leave it for others to discuss the pros and cons of marriage itself and whether it is the societal panacea it is believed to be by some.


As an educator I am most concerned about classroom practice 
When you work in a classroom you become very sensitive to the variety of backgrounds and experiences that make up the student group. You think carefully about the words you use and how they will impact on the feelings and future choices of the young people who are sitting in front of you. If I was teaching about different kinds of relationships and different models of family life, I would be acutely aware of the fact that the young people in my class could be being brought up by married biological parents; could be adopted,  fostered or in care; could be being brought up by a single parent (single through choice, through abandonment, through bereavement); could have a gay parent or two gay parents; a trans-parent may have lost their parents; or may simply have two biological parents who co-habit, but never ‘tied the knot’. The last thing I would want to do is to stigmatise them, make them feel I am judging their family or pre-judging their future life based on their current family life. Unfortunately this is exactly what happens when people try to promote marriage above all other models of family life.


Telling these children that they are more likely to fail, because marriage is the only legitimate model for family life, that it confers some unique protection on children, and guarantees them an advantage in life, is hardly a good educational tactic is it? Whatever your moral or political beliefs about the benefits or otherwise of marriage over other kinds of relationships you have to think about whether stigmatising  a student’s life experience is going to reap educational or emotional benefits.


Most parents do their level best to create a family and home in which children feel safe and loved, are motivated and supported to do their best in life and are healthy. Parents hope their children will find a loving partner and create a loving home for their grandchildren too. Talking about how to achieve this: what makes a child feel safe and loved, how to manage the challenges of parenting, how to make decisions about when/if to become a parent, and how to get the support all parents need to make a good go of it, are all vital parts of Sex and Relationships Education. Most people would agree that children thrive with certainty, security, boundaries, and consistency. With this in mind, exploring the concept of ‘stable relationships’  seems a really sensible approach. Telling a large proportion of our children that their families are inferior, failing or illegitimate because their parents/ carers aren’t married -  or that they, as a result are disadvantaged and set up to fail -  is just plain wrong.

Myth-Busting Monday – Teaching children about sex and relationships is child abuse

We really shouldn’t have to be busting this one. Would anyone think that giving young people factual, age-appropriate information about their bodies, relationships with others and sexuality is akin to paedophilia? Unfortunately, it seems the answer is yes. At least if they’re a Daily Mail journalist, ‘family values’ campaigner or member of the BNP.

The Daily Mail published this rambling article about SRE last week, implying that materials being shown as part of primary school education were being used to sexualise children and destroy their childhoods.

The BNP latched onto this and started an attack on a primary school in Sheffield claiming that 'Sex education for 6-year-olds is mental paedophilia’. They wrote to the school, 'We believe that your evil plans to introduce these children to sex at such a young age borders on paedophilia and that it is not acceptable.'

And you may remember us covering the charming views of Lynette Burrows on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live last month. She made the bold statement that: ‘this sort of education (SRE) is so unhelpfully obsessed with destroying childhood innocence, in a way that's reminiscent of paedophilia. To me, anyone who wants to talk dirty to little children is a danger to them.'

A worrying trend seems to be appearing. The notion that anyone who talks to young people about sex and relationships in an educational setting is necessarily ‘a paedophile’ interested only in sexualising young children and encouraging them into early sexual activity. Alice Hoyle (the sex educator who was pitted against Lynette Burrows on the BBC) has written about this vile accusation on her blog Sexedukation. But we thought it might be useful to outline not just the case against SRE being ‘psychological paedophilia’ (as the BNP would have it), but also the importance it has in helping children make informed choices as well as to recognise and report sexual abuse.

The Department for Education acknowledges that ‘young people who have good sex and relationship education at home and at school, start sex later and are less likely to have an unplanned pregnancy or to get a sexually transmitted infection’. In terms of sexual abuse, research actually suggests that having information about sex and relationships may help young people negotiate inappropriate sexual behaviour. This quote from the Australian Institute of Family Studies makes the case clearly:

‘It is important for young children to learn about body parts, healthy relationships and consensual adult expressions of intimacy. Age-appropriate education involves teaching children the correct names for and functions of their body parts and teaching them to care for, respect, and protect their bodies. It means talking with them about “healthy” touch. It does not involve talking about “monsters”, “bad people”,“down there” and “those bits”. Age-appropriate education is clear, accurate, positive and protective. Education and access to resources on self-protection and sexuality can reduce the risk of sexual assault. Research shows that positive messages about sexuality and participation in a comprehensive self-protection program (that is reinforced at home) may protect children from experiencing sexual assault’

The majority of parents and health professionals support SRE being taught in schools, so we think it’s time for that majority to stand up and be heard. Those of us who support accurate, comprehensive SRE need to assert our belief in the importance of giving young people the facts, and also how vital this information can be for their own health and well-being.

• Sign Brook's petition for '21st Century SRE'

• Let your child's school know you support the teaching of age-appropriate SRE

Myth-Busting Monday – Pictures of genitals are ‘dirty’ and ‘corrupting’

This myth-bust was inspired by yesterday’s debate about sex and relationships education on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live. You can watch it on iPlayer here.

On the show Lynette Burrows, ‘family rights campaigner’ claimed that sex education in schools is ‘unhealthily obsessed with destroying childhood innocence in a way that’s reminiscent of paedophilia.’ She accused sex educators of ‘talk(ing) dirty to little children’ and described SRE as ‘a stranger in a classroom showing (children) dirty pictures’.

She was backed up by Nick Seaton from the Campaign for Real Education who claimed that primary school education included ‘explicit details of male and female genitalia’ as well as, outrageously, non-judgmental teaching on heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Although a lot of tosh was spoken on the show, it’s this disgust with telling children the names of their body parts which we want to focus on today.  Presumably the ‘dirty pictures’ Burrows references are things like diagrams of male and female reproductive organs. We’re not talking pornography here but likely illustrations of labelled genitalia showing the vulva, vagina, urethra and so on (and yes, there are still plenty of young men and women who don’t realise that women have more than one ‘hole’).  We would argue that in fact, telling young people what the different parts of their body are called is not about destroying children innocence. In fact it gives them the appropriate language they need to describe their own body parts. Body parts they can see every day just by looking down! Body parts they may well need to talk to a doctor (or yes, a lover) about one day. Such language is particularly important for the recognition and reporting of sexual abuse. Through sensitive and evidence-based SRE children can learn which sort of touching is appropriate in which situations.

Alice Hoyle (who also appeared on the show as an actual sex educator) has written a great blog about this with loads more detail. We suggest you check it out. Another teacher adds her thoughts here. Oh and do visit Scarleteen for more information about (and ‘dirty pictures’ of) male and female gentialia.

Myth Busting Monday: Sex educators don’t tell young people about saying ‘no’ to sex

When Nadine Dorries proposed the motion to teach girls aged 13-16 ‘the benefits of abstinence’ she claimed that young people are ‘taught to have safe sex, but not how to say no’. Is this really the case?

The argument put forward by those who back abstinence-based sex and relationships education is often based on the misconception that SRE in schools is focused purely on teaching young people how to have sex, with no reference whatsoever to delaying or refraining from sexual activity. One member of the new abstinence-heavy SRE Council, Challenge Team UK claims:
‘By giving information about condoms and showing teens how to use them, adults who are the authority figures in teens' lives may be giving them, unintentionally, permission to have sex’.

In fact, good SRE is NOT about encouraging young people to have sex as soon as possible. Good SRE will always acknowledge the importance of having sex only when the time is right for you (and your partner/s). Good SRE will make clear that ‘sex’ isn’t necessarily just about male/female penetration and that there are many other ways (sexual and non-sexual) of showing someone affection and feeling pleasure. Good SRE will note that the legal age of consent for young people is 16, but that the age at which people feel ready for sex, or start to have sexual relationships can be different for everyone. Good SRE will of course stress the importance of only having the kind of sex you want to have at a time which feels right for you. And yes, good SRE will encourage the use of condoms (alongside other contraceptive methods) should this situation arise, as a way to reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancy and STI transmission. Good SRE will cover communication and relationships alongside consent – how to say yes, no, and ‘not now’!

Sex Educators aren’t telling young people about safer sex because they want them all to be having sex as early as possible. But because they live in the real world, where yes, some young people may already be having sex and need to know where they can access accurate information and advice. And because, well, the vast majority of young people they speak to in a school or youth centre will, at some point in their lives have sex. Just as with other aspects of education, we teach young people life skills which may not be relevant to them at this very moment but will almost certainly be relevant for their futures.

Why we're supporting the pro-choice demo 9th July

EFC is happy to promote the Pro-Choice demo happening next Saturday (9th July 2011) in London, to its friends and followers. This blog gives a bit more information on why we think this action is so relevant and important. To register your attendance visit the Facebook page and follow @ProChoice9July #prochoicedemo2011 for up to date information.


Recent months have seen a number of worrying intrusions into our reproductive rights in this country. Including:
• Nadine Dorries’ and Frank Field’s ‘Right to Know’ campaign which posits abortion providers as having a ‘vested interest’ in persuading women to end their pregnancies, and argues for ‘independent’ centres to provide pre-abortion counselling. EFC believes these amendments are based on a false premise – that women aren’t currently getting impartial, evidence-based support with their pregnancies.  Our research into crisis pregnancy centres in England also suggests that a great deal of ‘independent’ centres do not provide impartial accurate information but rather, are driven by an anti-abortion agenda. Read a thorough debunking of this campaign by Darinka from Abortion Rights here.
• Anti-abortion charity Life invited to sit on the government’s Sexual Health Forum.  LIFE is a well funded charity with a large profile and has every right to promote its anti-abortion position. However, as a lobbying group with no commitment to evidence-based clinical practice, or to promoting and providing good quality contraceptive and reproductive health care, it simply has no place on this group, which otherwise consists of sexual health experts, clinicians and service providers.
• Michael Gove commends the new SRE council of abstinence education groups. LIFE and Care (a Christian organisation which opposes abortion) join 5 other abstinence/anti-choice groups on the new SRE council which has been welcomed by the education minister. See our blog for more information on these groups and more information on why abstinence doesn’t work.
• Nadine Dorries’ abstinence education for girls. Worryingly, Tory MP Dorries’ misguided bill to teach girls abstinence passed the first stage vote in parliament. Another reason to keep on our toes and make the case for evidence-based comprehensive sex education.


EFC supports the rights of young people to accurate information and good quality, evidence-based information on abortion; and their right to impartial support with pregnancy decision-making. We believe that current developments will impact most on young people by depriving them of essential information and diverting them away from health professionals who could give them the support they need to access services quickly.


Those of us who believe women should have access to safe, legal abortion and they and their partners and families access to evidence-based information on contraception, pregnancy and abortion need to stand up for these rights before they are eroded.


Join EFC on the demo to make a stand for the pro-choice majority and for young people in this country.

We're not scared of talking about sex. SRE...NOW

With the announcement of the new SRE council, consisting mainly of those opposed to comprehensive sex and relationships education and a new bill being presented to Parliament calling for abstinence education for *girls*, it may be timely to print this transcript of a presentation EFC Director, Lisa Hallgarten made to a health conference in March 2011.


'Education for Choice works primarily to ensure that all young people are enabled to make informed choices about pregnancy prevention, pregnancy options and abortion and we have been delivering sex and relationships education for nearly 20 years now. 


Last week I attended a conference where the Public Health Minister affirmed her support for sex and relationships education and I was really delighted about that as I think everyone at the conference was...but she couldn’t provide any concrete commitments as to funding or policy. One of the things that was said was that making SRE statutory doesn’t in and of itself ensure quality.  I think that’s something we can all agree on. Just getting a school to tick a box saying it does it is not enough; just getting a school to provide a couple drop down days a year is not enough; just getting a form tutor who is overworked, under-skilled and unconfident to deliver a couple tutorial sessions on sex and relationships education is not enough. But actually, after 10 years of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, Healthy Schools, Sex Ed Forum briefings and more, there's been a kind of flourishing of innovative practice all around the country, and we do know what good SRE looks like now.  Nobody is suggesting that when English, Maths and Science aren’t taught well we should pull them from the curriculum. What we say is we need to invest in workforce training to make sure that teaching and learning of these subjects is improved. I would like to argue that we should be investing in workforce training to make sure that the delivery of sex and relationships education is improved. 


Something else that I heard last week from the Minister and that really, really bothers me, is that we are all scared of talking about sex with young people and that’s the real obstacle to progress.  There’s this common wisdom that everyone in Britain is culturally incompetent, that we all go beetroot at the mention of sex and that we are just tongue-tied around the whole issue. This simply isn’t true. There are hundreds of people out there who are brilliant communicators about sex and relationships, who are experts at talking to young people about sex and relationships and whose profession it is to talk to young people about sex.  Personally I am not in the slightest bit coy or anxious about talking about sex with young people or anyone else.  If you put me in front of a class and asked me to talk about the periodic table, I would be in serious trouble, but talking about periods... piece of cake.  If you ask me to talk about international relations to a history group, I would be paralysed with fear, but intimate human relationships... yes please.  If you want me to analyse the text of Romeo and Juliet with an English class I couldn’t do it, but I can talk about teenage romance... I think you get the picture.  There is an expertise, it’s not rocket science, but there is an actual set of skills and knowledge educators can acquire. What we need to do is get the people who want it to do it and  train them and give them the skills, information and confidence to do it.  For example, my organisation is the acknowledged authority on talking to young people about pregnancy decision making and abortion, that’s a subject that lots of people think is just too difficult to tackle, but actually we do it, and we do it every day in schools.  Teachers like it, students love it, and we have trained about 500 nurses and teachers all around the country to do that every year. Really the cost of that is relatively small when you think how many young people those professionals then reach, it’s a very cost effective way of improving the sex and relationships education people get, in fact you could say it’s a no-brainer.  Young people want it, professionals want to do it, professionals want training to do it and there are people out there like Education for Choice and a load of other agencies who can train them to do it. WIN!


Like most people in this room, I’m not really that worried about the small print, I could even accept that SRE isn’t going to be statutory, I don’t care whether it’s called sex and relationships education, or relationships and sex education, what I do care about is that there will be universal provision of good quality sex and relationships education which means evidence-based information, which means supporting young people to access local health services and knowing which professionals they can talk to about what, where, and how? This means that whoever the child is, wherever they are, whether they are in a community comprehensive school, an academy school, a Faith school, a free school, a private school, a public school, or whether they are being educated at their mum’s kitchen table, that they all have access to evidence-based information which, after all,  is an entitlement; which is a need; and which we know contributes to a whole range of wellbeing outcomes, including reduction in unintended teenage pregnancy. 

Myth Busting Monday: '7 year olds are putting condoms on bananas'

So, since this meeting is taking place in London tonight to get together some like-minded opponents of Nadine Dorries’ recent plans to introduce abstinence education in schools and ‘independent’ pre-abortion counselling we thought we’d be topical and touch on one of her oft repeated myths: That children in primary schools are being taught how to put on condoms using bananas.


Here’s Dorries on her own blog claiming that:
“Girls as young as seven are taught about intercourse, safe sex, how to apply a condom on a banana, where to get condoms, how to detect an STI and that they don’t need to tell their parents anything.”

And she’s repeated the banana thing in quite a few of her numerous media appearances. Now we know that Dorries' blog is, by her own admission, 70% fiction but this little nugget of fiction is particularly galling to those of us who actually work in sex education. Yes, thankfully there are some primary schools doing great SRE, but for children below 11 this focuses very heavily on the ‘R’ – relationships. By talking to children about appropriate relationships educators introduce awareness of boundaries and what is and isn’t safe.

Anyone who does work in schools/SRE will tell you that when condom demonstrations are done they a) generally take place from about Year 9 in secondary school when SRE starts to cover topics like contraception and STIs and they b) don’t tend to use fruits and vegetables but rather an appropriately but perhaps boringly named ‘condom demonstrator’ (which generally look something like this).

What’s worrying here is why Dorries chooses to roll out this myth again and again. This post on the Children’s Services Blog suggests an underlying rejection of comprehensive SRE altogether:
‘Dorries sounds alarmist. She sounds Puritan. Her objections to banana-condom practice hint at a disregard for lessons on safe sex altogether’.

So let’s file this one in the ‘70% fiction’ pile. Busted.

Auditing abortion education

Education For Choice has been trying to get hold of teachers in schools across England to find out what they're teaching about abortion, how and what outside visiting speakers they're using to deliver it. Teachers - being busy, seeing PSHE as a low priority, fearing that we are going to publish their good practice and get Daily Mailed, or tell them off for their bad practice - have been poor respondents.

That's why we're asking people to let us know what they can about what's being taught in UK schools.
Here are some quotes left on our A Word blog about people's experiences of how school handles the topic. I don't think these experiences are out of the ordinary:

Like my sons 'community' school which is run by a headmistress and head of governers who both attend the same local church and give voice to every fundamentalist roadshow and preacher that passes by. My objection is people like this who use their own private personally held beliefs to inform school policy. The no opt out is really the only way you will get anything like this past people in control who have a religious axe to grind.
Comment on 'A Word' Blog

I finished secondary school a couple of years ago. Quite a lot of girls were pregnant whilst at school, and everyone knew at least one person who had an abortion, so they knew the 'reality'. We never had people come in to the school to talk to us about abortion and it didn't come up until year 11. That was only because we needed to know religious views on abortion for our RE exam! It was nothing to do with giving us information that may affect us in life - and I think this is one of the issues - schools have become focused on exams and not the emotional/other sides of life.
Comment on 'A Word' blog

Everyone out there has an experience of abortion education we want to hear about. It will probably fall into about five broad categories:

1. We were taught nothing about pregnancy decision-making and abortion
2. We were only taught about it in RE and in terms of different religious perspectives, but with no practical content about relationships, decision-making, contraception etc
3. We were taught about it in RE/PSHE by having outside speakers come in from anti-abortion organisations, giving us questionable information/complete misinformation and/or showing us gory images and film footage
4. We were taught about it in a debate style where we had a speaker from 'one side' and then from the 'other side' to talk about the moral issues
5. We were taught about it by our SRE/PSHE teacher and we looked at it in the context of relationships, decision-making, risk taking, contraception

You could send us your experiences as a student, teacher or parent about what is happening in your/your child's school.

If you are happy to let us know your school's name and borough that would be great. Just so we know that all our feedback isn't from the same school!

This kind of feedback however anecdotal is important - especially in the absence of a more comprehensive study of what's happening out there.

It would be great if you could send this email out far and wide to get as many responses as possible

If you want your comment to be anonymous you could leave it as a comment on this blog. If you are happy for us to be in touch or want your feedback to be less public please email us with your story

A Lie is not the 'other side of the argument' it is just a lie

Here is the main substance of a presentation given by Lisa to the Westminster Health Forum on Teenage Pregnancy 16th March 2010

There has been a lot of discussion about issues around faith and SRE in the last few weeks as a result of the SRE passage through Parliament and I really wanted to make the case here that ethics and evidence are not two separate things, they have to be addressed in parallel and that means that people addressing factual information have to think about the context for it and people addressing faith issues have to, HAVE TO be giving evidence-based information.

We don’t believe that anyone should appoint themselves as a filter or a censor of evidence-based information around sex and relationships education. We believe that all young people should be able to access absolutely accurate information. They expect the professionals and adults in their lives to provide that and we should all be committed to doing that. I think there is sometimes an idea that in certain aspects of SRE, certainly the aspects Education For Choice addresses i.e. pregnancy decision-making and abortion, that it's all so controversial and political that there isn't evidence-based information, it’s all just a matter of opinion. But that's nonsense - the fact is that there are good quality and peer reviewed studies from all around the world that provide us with accurate information.

In terms of faith and values, I don’t really need to say much. Lots of people feel it’s a really important part of what they do, and who they are, but it’s also really fascinating. Young people are really interested in all these kinds of questions. They want to know what other people think and where they get their views from. They want the opportunity to explore those - to compare views, to ask themselves – where do my ideas come from? From me? Are they my personal opinions, or from my family, my community, my peers? How do those views impact on me and my ability to make decisions about my life? Those are things that everyone is really interested in and I don’t think that health professionals who go into schools should be shy and kind of try and veer away from those kind of discussions, because they are really interesting and really useful.

I am not going to talk in any length about the barriers to quality education, but clearly there are problems. There are teachers who have lack of time, lack of skills or confidence who sometimes resort to using outside speakers who aren’t suitable, who aren’t bringing evidence-based information and who are there to promote a very particular perspective, that’s not helpful for young people. There is sometimes a lack of clarity about the need for evidence-based information or where they can access that. We find that there is a lack of understanding of the term balance and that is something I will talk a little bit about because in the DFES guidance on SRE in the year 2000 which was actually very good guidance, it was recommended that schools do not approach topics within SRE like abortion in a really polarising way in which you give two sides of a very extreme argument, that is not helpful for young people’s health and it is not something that makes young people feel safe within a classroom situation.

There is another aspect to this discussion about balance, and this is a bit brutal but I hope you will forgive me. This is a quote from my favourite television series of the 21st century (The Wire) and I think it really sums it up – ‘a lie is not the other side of an argument, it’s just a lie’. We cannot give people misinformation and say, well that’s just my point of view. We can say 'this is my point of view and these are the facts associated with it', but we have to be clear what the difference is between the two and I think we can do that in a really simple way.

Look at this. If I was a politics teacher I would be very happy for the students in my class to leave the room all agreeing that Gordon Brown is a very handsome man. We might all disagree with that, or we might all agree with that, or we might have different opinions, there is no factual framework, there is no criteria for handsome against which we can judge that. It really is just a matter of opinion. But if my politics students leave the room believing that Gordon Brown is the King of England, I have failed as an educator, they are wrong. There’s actual facts and evidence that tell me that he isn't the King he’s the Prime Minister (or was at the time this was written).

So how does this relate to SRE. I will give you an example. If a student leaves my classroom believing that abortion is wrong, that is completely fine. There is no objective criteria by which I can say to that student abortion is right or abortion is wrong, it’s clearly a matter of personal opinion and values. However, if a student of mine leaves the classroom believing that abortion will make her infertile, that is misinformation and I have failed as an educator.

Doing exercises like this with a class of young people in SRE is a really good way to help them untangle the difference between something that is based on opinion or values, and something that is based on fact and it is a really, really important thing that we need to do.

I am just going to finish by saying, don’t be shy of exploring values if you are a health educator and please, please do not fall short of giving accurate evidence-based information if you are a faith educator.

Consent - YES PLEASE!

In the lead up to the election, and since, there has been discussion about the role of consent in teenage sexual behaviour and sexual health outcomes. A recent research report was published suggesting a strong association between sexual coercion and teenage pregnancy. Meanwhile the Government seems committed to addressing consent issues:

'To help stop sexual violence before it occurs, we will ensure that the school curriculum includes teaching young people about sexual consent' – Conservative party election manifesto 2010

'...working with schools to teach young people about sexual consent and respect in relationships' – Theresa May at Womens Aid conference in 2010.

I welcome any educational initiatives that reinforce mutual respect and consent as the basis of sexual relationships. However, in case anyone thinks it is an opportunity to promote conservative messages about adolescent sexuality I would sound a cautionary note. Convenient as it would be to believe that sex amongst teenagers was just happening because of peer pressure, coercion and at worst violence, the fact is it isn’t. Sex is happening because it’s natural, it feels good physically and emotionally, because it is fun, because it is exciting and adventurous, because young people fall in love and for a whole load of other positive reasons as well as all the scary negative stuff. It is important that we acknowledge that as our starting point.

It is also vital that we consider what consent means in its broadest sense and once we have defined consent, what the implications of that are for educators and service providers.

We can probably take it for granted that everyone agrees both parties should ‘consent’ to sex, but I bet we’d find a very wide range of views of what constitutes consent amongst both policy makers, lawyers and sexually active people of all ages.

I think that these two things are essential pre-requisites of consent:

i) An absence of coercion: the real possibility of saying no if you want to, or saying yes to some things/activities and no to others, or yes now and no later...

ii) The capacity, education and skills to make an informed choice: to understand the risks (physical, emotional) that you are taking, to be able to predict a range of positive and negative outcomes and to be able to balance these and make a choice

Here are just some of the things that need to be in place in order to meet those pre-requisites so that consent is the norm in sexual relations amongst people of all ages:

• An understanding that coercion is a spectrum of behaviour from persuasion to persistence, to incentives to insistence, to threats, to force and even more shades of behaviour in between and that true informed consent is not possible in any of these scenarios

• An opportunity to explore the association between gender, age, wealth, power and sexual coercion

• An ability to recognise and decipher information presented on the internet and in the mainstream media in order to understand and critically evaluate messages, conventions and representations of sexual relationships

• An opportunity to consider the role of pornography in influencing people’s expectations of their own and their sexual partners desire, physique and performance

• A full understanding of all the possible consequences of having sex including the risks of contracting STIs with all the immediate and long-term health implications

• A full understanding of the risk of pregnancy, a consideration of all the decisions that can lead to and result from an unintended pregnancy and an understanding of all pregnancy options

• A full understanding of the positive reasons that people have sex, including the emotional and physical pleasure it can bring

• A full understanding of the range of sexualities and sexual preferences that exist and understanding that people of different sexualities have the same right to personal safety and bodily integrity

• An understanding that the onus is on the coercer to listen to and hear their partner and not just on the coercee to be assertive and confident enough to keep saying no

There’s a lot more, but this would be a start. Even with this brief list it looks pretty much like a comprehensive sex and relationships curriculum!

I am glad the Government is looking at consent issues. I hope they’ve learned the lessons of the past and they know that it’s not enough to teach us ‘just say no’.