No sex please, we’re Tories

In recent months controversy surrounding sex education has rarely been out of the news — the Leeds nurse who talked about oral sex in a primary school, the withdrawal of the Health Education Authority’s booklet Your Pocket Guide to Sex, debates around video violence and the government’s ‘Back to Basics’ campaign.

For health professionals and educationalists the debates have been ongoing for some years. But sex education is under threat in schools now more so than ever and a response to this needs to be made. This issue of healthmatters concentrates on sex education in schools. But it is important to say that it does not matter where sex education takes place — what is important is that the skills and attitudes that inform our sexual choices and behaviour are taught and this is in a range of different settings through many varied resources. Young people (and adults) need the information to develop caring relationships in which there is self respect, in a context which recognises and acknowledges that circumstances are not always 100% conducive to this, and access to services which enable them to act on their choices.

Health education in schools developed rapidly in the 1980s. Concern about HIV and AIDS in the late 1980s influenced advances in sex education. Schools went through a period of great change and upheaval with the passing of the 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA) and the introduction of the National Curriculum. Health education has a limited role in the national curriculum and the ERA dictated that governing bodies decide whether schools should teach sex education and, if they decide it should be taught, what the content should be. While The Health of the Nation, England’s first health strategy, made sexual health one of five key areas and reduction in teenage pregnancies a target, the Department for Education withdrew funding for local education authority health education co-ordinators.

What this issue sets out to do is to take a step back to try to untangle some of the current issues. A range of different perspectives are represented — both from young people and those who work directly with young people.

One issue with which all the contributors are implicitly concerned is the issue of ‘morality’, that we should not shy away from this word which has been appropriated by the ‘conservative’ viewpoint and implies that there is only one morality.

The debate seems to be a division between a reactionary view and an opposing view that sex education has to be more than just teaching about safe sex but also about the promotion of caring relationships. Sex education has to acknowledge that issues such as sexual intercourse at an early age, HIV/AIDS and single parenthood must be included to help young people make realistic and healthy sexual choices.

There is confusion about where sexual health information is to come from. The mothers interviewed are clear that parents should be providing sex education. They see it as their responsibility but most would like school to provide it as well. Teachers are quite clear that sex education is essential but feel they are teaching in a climate where what they have to teach is neither representative of their own lifestyles nor of the young people they teach.

A family planning doctor and a nurse provide a ‘crisis management’ perspective. Sex education cannot be separated from the relevant services available to or needed by young people. But both acknowledge that they are working with a minorty of young people — those who have both the information and the bravery to actually turn up to a clinic.

These articles do not provide answers. But they do draw together some of the issues for debate. They all show the need for action now. We end with a list of possible further contacts in the hope that all those involved with sex education for young people will take these debates forward.