Respond to the RSHE Guidance

The Government is asking for people to respond to a national consultation on the draft Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance.

It is really important that the new Government hears from everyone who is interested in and affected by RSHE in schools, including young people, parents/carers and teachers; and from everyone who works in sexual health, safeguarding or with young people in other ways.

We have developed guidance to support you with completing this consultation, and have provided our own views below. You may agree or disagree with our perspective, but by sharing your experience, whether in a professional capacity or lived experience (as a young person, parent, LGBT+ person), you will help to shape the future of RSHE.

Find out how to respond to the consultation

or go straight to the response page on the GOV.UK website

Quick links

  1. Why is this important?
  2. A summary of Brook’s responses
  3. How to respond to the draft guidance

Why is this important?

RSHE is one of the key ways in which we support children from the earliest ages to recognise and report abuse; to learn about and to have respect for their own and others’ bodies and bodily autonomy; to prepare for the emotional and physical changes that will come with puberty; and to be prepared for safe, consenting, healthy and enjoyable relationships as they transition from adolescence into adulthood.  

The 2019 RSHE guidance was a good enough starting point; designed with input from a wide range of education, health, faith, domestic violence and safeguarding organisations. The revised guidance has been written without this broad range of expert input, and without the input of parents/carers and those most affected by RSHE, children and young people themselves. That is why we are urging as many people as possible to have their say in this consultation.  

A summary of our responses

Age limits

Throughout our submission to the consultation, Brook will be criticising the hard age limits attached to certain topics. The age limits do not represent good teaching practice and will not keep children safe. For every topic there is a good reason to start teaching it as soon as possible using appropriate terminology and concepts that are understandable for each age group. 

Where age limits are used within this guidance they are often hard age-limits, but associated with loose and ill-defined terms. This approach will not help a school to plan or communicate about their curriculum.  

In every case we say that we trust teachers to be able to adapt terminology and material so that it is appropriate for the age of their pupils. In reality, while teachers know and understand their pupils, they also need: 

  • time and support from their school leadership to properly plan their curriculum 
  • resources and guidance from experts and expert organisations 
  • systems within the school to share knowledge of current and emerging risks for their pupils 
  • systems to listen to their pupils about what they need to know 
  • high quality training to plan their curriculum and to select the right resources for their pupils. 

The guidance alone will not deliver high quality RSE without these things.  

LGBT+ inclusivity

We are very concerned that this guidance does not clearly instruct schools (including both primary and secondary) to make their lessons inclusive of LGBT+ experiences.  

We unequivocally condemn the banning of content around gender identity, which we believe contravenes the intent and possibly the letter of equality laws and duties. Bans on information are not appropriate in the education system, and banning information because it is contested sets a dangerous precedent which could impact a range of topics, e.g. faith and belief, and could impact a range of pupils with different protected characteristics. 

How to respond

We have developed an in-depth guide below to support you to complete this consultation.

The deadline for submitting your response is 11 July 2024.

Anyone can join in this consultation process.

Depending on the time you have, and your own expertise, you can: 

  • Just answer the YES/NO questions (5-10 minutes) 
  • Answer the YES/NO questions and respond to a couple of key questions or question 51 with general comments (15 minutes) 
  • Provide detailed answers to any questions where you would like to share your experience and expertise (30-60 mins). You might wish to include: 
  1. Examples from your professional experience (as a teacher, health care or safeguarding professional) or lived experience (as a young person, parent, LGBT+ person)  
  2. References to any research evidence to support your response.  

You do not need to answer every question. Feel free to only answer the ones you feel strongly about, or have most knowledge about. 

We will provide our Brook view on each question. You may agree or disagree with our perspective.

Don’t copy and paste

Even if you agree, we STRONGLY ADVISE you to write in your own words, using your own examples and expertise and DO NOT COPY AND PASTE from Brook or other organisations’ commentary. The analysis of the responses will be looking for diverse and individual views and may discount any text perceived as mass copy and paste responses.  

Many of our answers are currently longer than the 250 word limit required by the consultation. 

Open the link below to respond to the consultation, keep this tab open and refer back to our answers for each question for support.

Respond to the consultation (opens in new tab)

Brook’s guide to responding – question by question

About you and the guidance

These questions cover information about who you are and whether you are responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation (both are fine). 

You can opt to keep your response confidential or not. Most individuals will opt to keep their response confidential, but people responding on behalf of organisations may be happy to share their response.

Recommended answer NO 

The Brook view 

  • We support a regular review of the guidance.  
  • We are keen to avoid a three yearly review shaped by politicians which can become an opportunity for politicisation of RSE 
  • Complete revision of the guidance every few years is very disruptive for schools.  
  • Our priority is that RSE is properly monitored and that guidance reviews build on progress and drive improvement. 
  • This might be best achieved by some kind of standing committee of key stakeholders 
  • These could meet routinely with the Department for Education to keep the guidance under regular review and avoid generating significant and unexpected changes after 3 years. 

It is important that the scope and terms of reference for guidance reviews is properly defined to ensure that any 3 yearly review and interim process facilitates: 

  • simple technical and urgent changes 
  • more significant changes to update with new evidence, emerging risks and challenges and keeping up with changes in young people’s behaviours online and off 
  • monitoring of existing progress and building on what is working well  

Recommended answer NO 

The Brook view 

  • The revised guidance is not easy to understand and follow because it includes ambivalent language, and insufficient detail on many aspects of what teachers are expected to teach.  
  • Teachers have told us that this guidance will make it harder not easier to write their curriculum and will generate significant work in revising a curriculum and lesson plans that have only recently been completed and implemented. 

  

Schools’ relationships and sex education policies

Recommended answer YES 

Please answer in your own words

The Brook view 

  • Our preferred answer would be that there is no need for any additional measures to increase transparency.  
  • We regret that the emphasis of this section is on making it easier for parents to control their children’s learning or withdraw them from aspects of the curriculum.  
  • We would prefer the guidance to emphasise the evidence that RSE keeps children safe and encourages schools to help parents to understand the importance of all the content in the RSHE curriculum; and the way in which the spiral curriculum works to introduce developmentally appropriate concepts and content. 
  • This guidance should emphasise the risks of excluding children from information that they will encounter anyway or seek out from less reliable sources online and off. 
  • It should emphasise children and young people’s right to timely and accurate information about things that affect them. 

Openness with parents

Recommended answer NO 

Please answer in your own words

The Brook view 

  • Brook supports transparency with parents/carers 
  • This proposal and question wrongly suggests that there is a current problem with transparency.  
  • The publicity around this review implied that parents are deliberately being prevented from seeing RSHE materials by schools and/or external providers. 
  • This narrative that pitches schools and parents/carers against each other doesn’t reflect reality. There is no evidence schools or other organisations are trying to conceal information from parents.  
  • Schools rightly already try extremely hard to engage parents/carers in their RSE work, put their policies online and routinely invite parents/carers in to view materials, look at the curriculum plans and learn more about what they are teaching, when and why. 
  • Children and young people want their parents/carers to better understand their world  
  • Schools already play a vital role in helping encourage and facilitate those conversations between schools and families and between parents/carers and children. 
  • Schools often rely on commercial publications, or resources and support from expert organisations to deliver good RSE. Most of these organisations are happy for schools to show previews of materials and lesson plans to parents/carers in person where they can be discussed, and they can be provided with context and additional explanation of how they are used.   
  • It is not always appropriate to provide materials without any context, or any additional explanation on how they will be delivered and how they are adapted to ensure they are appropriate for a particular class or year group: a process that teachers are constantly engaged in.  

Age limits on teaching certain subjects

Recommended answer NO 

Recommended answer YES 

Please use your own words.

The Brook view 

Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  

  • The principle of good RSE practice is prevention – preparing all students for what you can reasonably predict is coming – rather than waiting for a moment of acute risk. 
  • The age recommendations in this guidance are out of line with the evidence of what children are exposed to, experiencing, and asking about at different ages, e.g.: 
  • Age limits imply that there is a single point at which a topic becomes appropriate.  
  • This is a misunderstanding of the spiral curriculum model which creates foundations of basic safeguarding knowledge and understanding; built on year on year to meet the growing understanding and changing needs of children.  
  • It provides children early on with the building blocks – the basic concepts, knowledge, vocabulary, values – to be able to discuss an issue safely with increasing complexity as they get older.  

Flexibility 

  • It is vital that schools have complete flexibility to deliver RSHE lessons at the best time for their pupils and to be able to adapt the curriculum in line with evidence from Designated Safeguarding Leads, local Multi Agency Safeguarding Hubs, and public health teams about issues that are relevant to pupils in the school at any given time.
  • We do not think the flexibility offered by this guidance is sufficient to ensure that pupils are adequately safeguarded because it implies that non-compliance with the age limits recommended is the exception to the rule and can only happen once there is an ‘imminent safeguarding risk’.  
  • It is likely that strict criteria and/or processes for not complying with the stated age limits will have a chilling effect and result in schools erring on the side of caution and leaving lessons until the last possible moment.  
  • This will be a continuation of the harmful convention of providing children with as little as possible as late as possible, rather than what young people consistently say they want and need which is more information sooner.  
  • There is no evidence that providing children with evidence per se is harmful or that schools and teachers have routinely provided inappropriate information to students.  

Sexual orientation and gender reassignment

Recommended answer NO 

Please use your own words

The Brook View 

This guidance is discriminatory and does not align with the spirit or intention of the Equality Act or schools’ public sector equality duty. 

  • It is unacceptable that the guidance makes LGBT+ inclusivity optional for primary schools saying they ‘have discretion over whether to discuss sexual orientation or families with same-sex parents.’  
  • It is discriminatory not to recognise all the family types that exist within the school and wider community. 
  • The phrase.’ Schools can most commonly refer to families with a mother and a father’ leaves it to individual schools whether children from any other family type will see their family acknowledged or reflected in the education they receive, whether they will be encouraged to talk about their family, or may even be made to feel that their family is less acceptable: whether this is a family with same sex parents, a trans parent, a single parent, foster parents, grandparents as primary carers or any other of the diverse family types which make up a significant proportion of many school communities. 
  • The focus should be on understanding the characteristics of a safe, nurturing family life whatever the family looks like and engendering expectations of kindness; as well as understanding how to recognise when life at home is not safe and how to get help. 
  • It is regressive and discriminatory to prevent discussion of the fact of family diversity in the UK 20 years after the repeal of Section 28 and the introduction of civil partnerships, and 10 years after equal marriage was legalised. 
  • LGBT+ inclusivity must be threaded through all RSE lessons by ensuring that language, images, examples of relationships etc include all types of people and all types of relationships. As LGBT+ children grow up they need to feel acknowledged and celebrated and need to feel that school and RSE lessons are relevant for them. 
  • LGBT+ young people consistently report that their secondary school RSE did not adequately, if ever, acknowledge LGBT+ people and therefore felt irrelevant to them, and deprived them of vital health and sexual health information as they transitioned into adulthood. The guidance must make it clear that this kind of inclusive sexual health information is vital. 
  • The guidance should clarify that at both primary and secondary school LGBT+ inclusive RSE is a clear part of a whole school approach to tackling homophobic and transphobic bullying which often take place before pupils reach secondary school. 

Recommended answer NO 

Please use your own words

The Brook View 

  • It is discriminatory and possibly illegal to ban the teaching of gender identity and will result in the kind of silence created by the 1987 Section 28 ban on information about LGB+ people.
  • This is isolating, stigmatising and excludes trans, non-binary and gender questioning children from vitally important examples of trans and non-binary people thriving and succeeding.  
  • It reinforces stigma, leaving pupils unable to talk to anyone about their feelings; allowing transphobic bullying to thrive and increasing poor mental health which is disproportionately high in this population. 
  • This Section-28 type ban, is based on an ideological belief that someone can be converted to being trans by exposure to the concept of gender identity.  
  • There is no evidence that discussing gender identity results in people becoming trans, but also no reason to believe that being trans is inherently harmful: a discriminatory view which is perpetuated by this guidance. 
  • Children told ‘we can’t talk about gender identity’ will seek information on the internet which is unfiltered/uncurated, and often leads people into spaces where they encounter misinformation and are vulnerable to grooming, bullying and other harms.  
  • It is incoherent to ban teaching about gender identity but recognise gender reassignment. Gender reassignment is not a one-off event and does not happen in a vacuum, it’s entirely and inextricably linked to gender identity. This guidance will create confusion for teachers about what they can and can’t teach.  
  • It is unclear how teachers will practically be able to discuss issues vital to tackling misogyny and discrimination including gender stereotypes, gender expression and gender non-conformity, but drawing a hard line at discussing gender identity. 
  • Many school topics are complex/contested including for example issues of religion and belief, but they are not banned.  
  • We support teachers to teach constructively: e.g. creating a safe classroom space in which teachers can acknowledge a range of views (while tackling prejudice and keeping children with a range of protected characteristics safe, as per their public sector equality duty); using the Government’s own definition from the narrative in the draft guidance as the basis of the discussion ‘a sense a person may have of their own gender, whether male, female or a number of other categories. This may or may not be the same as their biological sex.’ 
  • This section has been revised with reference to the draft guidance for schools and colleges on gender questioning children, but that guidance is non-statutory, still in draft form, has been extensively criticised by the young people and safeguarding sectors, and legal advice indicates that schools who follow it may risk violating equalities law.  

Addressing prejudice, harassment and sexual violence

Recommended answer NO 

Please use your own words

The Brook View 

  • We welcome this issue being addressed, but do not believe that two additional paragraphs are sufficient to support teachers to address an issue that includes ubiquitous sexual harassment and sexual bullying and violence in schools – as demonstrated by the Everyone’s Invited platform – as well as a range of online and offline harmful sexual behaviours; and a profound problem with violence against women and girls at societal level.  
  • It provides a list of things pupils should learn about, but no guidance on how to structure or sequence this teaching, something teachers have specifically requested.  
  • It does not address ways to ensure boys are included and that they are not alienated from essential learning by being characterised communally and inevitably as perpetrators.  
  • Both of these needs were expressed by teachers and students surveyed and interviewed by Brook in detailed and nuanced research commissioned by the DfE, but never published.   
  • There should be no age limit on addressing and preventing sexual harassment. There is evidence that sexual harassment is present in primary schools.  
  • The heading of this section implies a wider range of prejudices may be covered, but there is no advice on tackling racism or racist bullying, homophobia or homophobic bullying, transphobia or transphobic bullying, ableism, prejudice against people on the basis of their belief etc or how these may intersect with sexual bullying and violence.  

Primary sex education

Recommended answer NO 

Please use your own words

The Brook view 

  • This guidance fails to address the problem teachers have with the current guidance about the lack of definition of sex education. Without clearer definition schools will struggle to make sense of this guidance or to plan and describe their curricula to parents.  
  • It is unclear what is even meant by sex education in year 5 and 6, given the limits on giving sexually ‘explicit’ information to year 9+. i.e. what is sex education that is not actually about sex? These terms are not explained. 
  • We are concerned that schools will interpret this as:  
    • a limit on accurate teaching about anatomy including external genitalia which must be taught earlier than year 5 given that accurate naming of body parts is essential for reporting accurately on FGM and child sexual abuse 
    • a limit on teaching about physical aspects of puberty and the fertility cycle which should be taught earlier than year 5 to be prepared for puberty in advance of the onset of physical and emotional changes.  
  • Many children will have been exposed to positive and negative ideas about sex by this age, either through pornography, mainstream media or asking questions at home e.g. about pregnancy in the family etc.  
  • They will have many questions and it would be more constructive to support teachers with a framework for addressing these honestly in ways which emphasise that sex is something that adults may choose to engage in both for having babies and because it is a normal part of a loving adult relationship, but must always be based on the agreement of both people (consent); and it should feel safe and nice for both people. 
  • In general age limits are not helpful as they will limit the responsiveness of schools to different children’s needs which will vary from school to school.  

Secondary topics: Online media, respectful relationships, including friendships and Being SAFE

Question: “What constitutes harmful sexual behaviour and why, and that such behaviour is unacceptable, emphasising that it is never the fault of the person experiencing it. This should not be taught before year 7. Do you agree with this age limit?“

Recommended answer NO 

The Brook view 

  • Where age limits are used within this guidance they are often hard age-limits, but associated with loose and ill-defined terms. It is not clear how this approach will help a school to plan or communicate about their curriculum.  
  • We know that harmful sexual behaviours between peers – including inappropriate verbal and physical behaviours – are reported in primary school.  
  • It does not make sense to limit the ability to teach about these preventively or responsively in primary school. Teaching from early years should include addressing appropriate and inappropriate touch (using age-appropriate resources from safeguarding organisations such as NSPCC), permission-seeking and permission giving and consent, kindness, safety, listening etc  
  • A teacher in primary school teaching about inappropriate touching – especially of the genital or other areas (breasts and bottom) will not describe this as harmful sexual behaviour, but should understand it as such and see teaching about it as prevention. 
  • Schools should be mindful of what pupils are watching whether it is pornography in their phones or dramas and soap operas on television, which may include behaviours which are risky, unacceptable or illegal. The age limit on discussing harmful sexual behaviour does not match with the reality of what children are already exposed to/watching.  

Question: “We have placed an age limit on the following content in the secondary Respectful Relationships, including Friendships topic: That some types of behaviour, including within relationships, are criminal, including violent behaviour and emotional abuse, such as controlling or coercive behaviour. Schools should not, however, teach about the details of violent abuse before year 9 as it is important that pupils are not introduced to distressing concepts when they are too young to understand them. Do you agree with this age limit?“

Recommended answer NO

The Brook view 

  • By year 9 many pupils will already have observed or played violent video games and, due to the prevalence of domestic violence, they may have witnessed violence within their own homes from an early age.  
  • Addressing violence, coercion, sexual bullying, sexual violence and all forms of violence must take place on a continuum from early years talking about being safe, learning to ask permission right though primary and secondary school adding in more complex ideas and concepts and more complicated information and vocabulary as pupils make their way through school.  
  • There is no perfect moment when a child or young person is suddenly ready for a topic there has been no preparation for.  
  • This age limit does not reflect good pedagogy, or the reality of young people’s lives. 

Question: “We have placed an age limit on the following content in the secondary Online and Media topic: About circulating images and information and how to safely report to trusted adults the non-consensual creation or distribution of an intimate image. Pupils should understand that making, keeping or sending naked or sexual images of someone under 18 is a crime, even if the photo is of themselves or of someone who has consented, and even if the image was created by the child and/or using AI generated imagery. Pupils should understand the potentially serious consequences of asking for naked, semi-naked or sexual images, including the potential for criminal charges and severe penalties including imprisonment. This topic should not be taught before year 7. Do you agree with this age limit?“

Recommended answer NO

The Brook view 

Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  

  • The principles underpinning the law on sharing nudes: safety, consent etc can be taught in general ways from an early age. 
  • Specific information on internet safety e.g. when it is and isn’t safe to share personal information or post a photo, also needs to be taught as early as possible.  
  • This is vital because of the high incidence and known risks of sharing images; and particularly pertinent in the light of emerging evidence about sextortion from the National Crime Agency. 
  • From an early age children need to be told how to respond if they are approached by someone online who asks for an image or claims to have images of them. They need to know who to tell and that if they make a mistake, it is never their fault, and they should report it as soon as possible.   

Question: “We have placed an age limit on the following content in the secondary Online and Media topic: The impact of viewing harmful content, including pornography, that presents a distorted picture of sexual behaviours, can damage the way people see themselves in relation to others, and can negatively affect how they behave towards sexual partners. This can affect pupils who see pornographic content accidentally as well as those who see it deliberately. The risks of inappropriate online content can be discussed in an age-appropriate way from year 7, however, the details of the sexual acts in question should not be discussed before year 9. Do you agree with this age limit?“

Recommended answer NO

The Brook view 

Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  

  • Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  
  • We know that children in primary school are accessing inappropriate online content including via gaming, social media and in a significant proportion of children (27% of 11 year olds) via porn.  
  • Discussion of inappropriate online content should be taking place throughout primary school with reference to things younger children can understand e.g. people being mean to each other online, or hurting each other.  
  • They can be taught to think critically about what they are seeing and to consider the real consequences of violence and being hurt; and the difference between acting and real life; what to do if you witness horrible behaviour online and off including things that are upsetting or confusing (which realistically may include violence or may include unwanted touching). 
  • Before a child picks up a smartphone or tablet they should understand these generic messages which come under the heading of inappropriate content. 
  • Year 7 is too late to try to embed these generic messages. 
  • It is unclear what constitutes a ‘detail of a sexual act’, and teachers are likely to interpret this in diverse ways including a decision not to talk about things such as sexual assault, domestic violence, abuse, which children need to know about, though the way we talk about them will be tailored to age, developmental stage, comprehension etc.  
  • Year 9 is too late to address some of these issues. Teachers can be trusted to address these issues earlier using language and concepts that are appropriate to the age and developmental stage of their pupils. 

Question: “We have placed an age limit on the following content in the secondary Being Safe topic: The concepts and laws relating to harmful sexual behaviour, including sexual harassment, revenge porn, upskirting and taking/sharing intimate sexual photographs without consent, public sexual harassment, and unsolicited sexual language / attention / touching. This should not be taught before year 7. Do you agree with this age limit?“

Recommended answer NO

The Brook view 

Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  

  • There is evidence that children at primary school are already experiencing and carrying out behaviours that are the pre-cursors to, or are examples of, sexual harassment such as inappropriate touching, inappropriate verbal harassment, pulling up skirts etc.  
  • It may not be appropriate to define this to the children as sexual harassment, but examples of those behaviours must be understood to be wrong, to be harmful, against school policy and even potentially illegal. They must be taken seriously and dealt with consistently within a whole school policy.  
  • The danger of having guidance that says you cannot address sexual harassment in primary school is that acts of sexual harassment will not be recognised as such and will not be taken seriously on the assumption that such a category of behaviour does not take place at primary school. 
  • Teachers can be trusted to discuss these issues in ways that are appropriate to the age and developmental stage of their pupils.  

We have placed an age limit on the following content in the secondary Being Safe topic: The concepts and laws relating to sexual exploitation, grooming, stalking, and forced marriage. This should not be taught before year 7. Do you agree with this age limit?

Recommended answer NO

The Brook view 

Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  

  • An understanding of how to stay safe must take place from early years onwards.  
  • Although the terminology used and the level of detail will be determined by the age and developmental stage of pupils, it is never too early to help children to understand that they can report behaviour from older pupils and adults (whether online or offline, whether known to them or a stranger) to a trusted adult if they are making them feel upset or unsafe, or asking them to do something that does not feel right.  
  • It is ok to teach them from an early age that some things are against the law. 
  • Teachers can be trusted to use the right examples and analogies for their pupils.  

Question: “We have placed an age limit on the following content in the secondary Being Safe topic: The concept and laws relating to sexual violence, including rape and sexual assault. Whilst it’s important for pupils to understand the key principles around sexual offences and violence, for example the importance of understanding what consent means, schools should not teach about this in any sexually explicit way before year 9. Do you agree with this age limit?“

Recommended answer NO

The Brook view 

Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  

  • Year 9 is too late to address these issues. 
  • Consent should be (and already is) taught to children from the earliest years. This includes consent about touching each other, asking permission, giving or withholding permission and managing feelings around rejection. 
  • Teachers can be trusted to do this in a way that is appropriate to a pupil’s age and developmental stage. 
  • By the beginning of secondary school many pupils will have observed non-consenting sexual behaviour e.g. unwanted physical and verbal behaviours. They are likely to have watched content on television and online that includes non-consenting sex or sexual violence. 
  • The use of the ill-defined word sexually ‘explicit’ is problematic and likely to scare teachers from providing preventive education. 
  • It is important to be specific and accurate when defining sexual offences including that many behaviours that fall short of rape can still be a criminal offence.  
  • Pupils need to be equipped with an understanding of the law to protect them from harm and to prevent children themselves from becoming perpetrators of sexual offences. 

Question: “We have placed an age limit on the following content in the secondary Being Safe topic: The physical and emotional damage which can be caused by female genital mutilation (FGM), virginity testing and hymenoplasty, where to find support, and the law around these areas. This should include that it is a criminal offence to perform or assist in the performance of FGM, virginity testing or hymenoplasty, or fail to protect a person under 16 for whom someone is responsible from FGM, or to take girls who are UK nationals abroad for FGM, regardless of whether it is lawful in that country. This should not be taught before year 9, except for where schools have identified a greater risk of FGM at an earlier age or have pupils who have been affected by FGM and need support. Do you agree with this age limit?“

Recommended answer NO

The Brook view 

  • Children at primary school may already be at risk of FGM.  
  • It is never too early to learn that nobody has the right to hurt you; and to learn that everybody’s bodies are different, but special.  
  • Children need to know that that there are laws to stop anyone doing something to your body that will hurt it or change it, and how to report it if you or anyone in your family has been taken to a doctor or travelled to have any kind of change made to your body.  
  • These messages can be built on with increasing detail and complexity. 
  • Year 9 is too late for this information to be addressed in ways that are specific and accurate enough to ensure pupils understand them. 
  • While it is unlikely to be appropriate or necessary to address virginity testing and hymenoplasty before year 9, FGM affects younger children and should be prevented through appropriate lessons. 
  • Teachers can be trusted to adapt the language and terminology of lessons on this topic to be appropriate to the age and developmental stage of the pupils.  

Question: “We have placed an age limit on the following content in the secondary Being Safe topic: The concepts and laws relating to domestic abuse including controlling or coercive behaviour, emotional, sexual, economic or physical abuse, and violent or threatening behaviour. Schools should not teach about the details of violent abuse before year 9 as it is important that pupils are not introduced to distressing concepts when they are too young to understand them. Do you agree with this age limit?“

Recommended answer NO

The Brook view 

Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  

  • Year 9 is too late to address violence and abuse within relationships.  
  • The foundational concepts relating to these topics should be taught from the earliest years of school and built on year on year to ensure that children learn about personal rights and safety, about recognising and reporting on abusive behaviour; and that not all harmful behaviours or things that can hurt your feelings and make you feel bad are violent.  
  • The language and detail of different forms of violence and abuse will vary depending on the age and developmental stage of the pupils, but many pupils will have witnessed harmful behaviours in their homes, in other settings, in school and on television etc.  
  • Children are not safe if they are not able to identify that these behaviours are wrong, illegal or that they need to be reported.  
  • Teachers can be trusted to address these issues throughout primary and into secondary school using terminology and concepts that are appropriate to the age of the pupils. 

Please use own words

The Brook view 

Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  

  • We do not support the concept of age-limits in general and think that throughout the guidance age limits need to be replaced with more advice and examples of how to successfully sequence the discussion of a topic through a spiral curriculum model.  
  • Almost every topic begins its evolution in early years with basic understanding of key concepts around consent, safety, mutual respect etc and with the development of skills around communication, sharing, managing and describing feelings of impatience, of rejection etc.  
  • With the right support from experts, with training and with time teachers can be trusted to plan and teach every topic in RSHE through a spiral curriculum model.  
  • The concept of age limits on content was born from a political attack on the current delivery of RSE and not based on evidence of effective teaching. 

Secondary topic: Intimate and sexual relationships, including sexual health

Question: “Explicit discussion of the details of sexual acts should only take place in so far as it is necessary to teach these topics and should not be taught before year 9. Do you agree with the age restriction on the secondary Intimate and sexual relationships, including sexual health topic? “

Recommended answer NO 

Please use own words.

The Brook view 

  • Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  
  • Many of the core concepts in this topic should be taught from the earliest ages including for example about consent, peer pressure and the way drugs and alcohol affect you and can impact good decision-making. 
  • By the end of primary children should have an understanding of human physiology and the fertility cycle and pregnancy so by year 7 it is appropriate to teach them that people have the right to choose whether and when to have children, to know that it is possible to have sex without a resulting pregnancy, and that people have sex for reasons other than reproduction.  
  • This includes discussion of contraception and abortion 
  • Pupils also need to know that like many choices, the choice to have sex may come with emotional risks and physical risks including STIs and unintended pregnancy. 
  • It is not clear what the guidance means by ‘details of sexual acts’, but more detailed discussion of STI prevention and contraception must include an understanding of relative risks related to different sexual activities and safer ways to have sex.  
  • Children with SEND may need very clear, accurate and specific visual aids to understand every aspect of sexual and reproductive health including physiology, menstruation, menstrual products and how to use them, masturbation and the need to do this in a private space, as well as different forms of sex, condoms and more… 
  • Education on this for all young people needs to be specific and accurate. The word explicit implies something pornographic, but accurate understanding of human physiology and function is not pornographic or problematic.  
  • It is necessary to keep people safe and to help people to aspire to healthy and enjoyable relationships.  
  • It is useful to emphasise throughout RSE that the majority of young people (especially under 16) are not having sex and that good decision making about sex is vital to mental health and wellbeing as well as physical health.  
  • However, there is no evidence that talking about sex, including sex as a normal, positive and enjoyable aspect of adult relationships is harmful. Evidence points to RSE resulting in young people having later first sex, safer first sex and reduced age gap with first sexual partner. 
  • Creating a taboo around discussing sex and therefore stigmatising those who are considering or having sex is harmful and may lead to them failing to access the services they need to stay safe.  
  • The guidance should strongly emphasise the need for schools to make connections with, and to signpost to, local sexual health services; and to emphasise young people’s right to confidential services, with all the appropriate safeguarding caveats about information sharing.  

Health and wellbeing

Question: “We have placed an age limit on the following content in the primary Online Safety and Harms topic within health education: why social media, some apps, computer games and online gaming, including gambling sites, are age restricted. This should not be taught before year 3. “

Recommended answer NO 

The Brook view 

  • Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  
  • It is not clear why there needs to be an age limit on explaining that some websites are unsuitable for younger children.  
  • Explaining that some things children see online are confusing, upsetting and not suitable for them may support children to disclose to an adult when they have seen something they don’t like; may give them the confidence to resist peer pressure to watch content they don’t want to; and feels like an essential part of keeping children safe in a context in which many are given unsupervised access to smartphones or tablets at an early age and/or may be exposed to content viewed by older siblings.  

Question “We have placed an age limit on the following content in the primary Online Safety and Harms topic within health education: the risks relating to online gaming, video game monetisation, scams, fraud and other financial harms, and that gaming can become addictive. This should not be taught before year 3.“

Recommended answer NO 

The Brook view 

  • Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe.  
  • It is not clear why there needs to be an age limit on explaining a range of online harms.  
  • Explaining that some websites are not suitable for children and are trying to make money or harm them in other ways is useful to know.  
  • Children must feel able to disclose to an adult if they think someone is trying to bully or exploit them online. This feels like an essential part of keeping children safe in a context in which many are given unsupervised access to smartphones or tablets at an early age and/or may be exposed to content viewed by older siblings. 

Question: “We have placed an age restriction on the whole of the primary Developing Bodies topic within health education. This should not be taught before year 4.  This covers:   growth, change and the changing adolescent body, This topic should include the human lifecycle. Puberty should be mentioned as a stage in this process. The key facts about the menstrual cycle, including physical and emotional changes.“

Recommended answer NO 

The Brook view 

  • Hard age limits – that can only be adapted when it is identified that a child or group of children are already at risk – do not keep children safe. 
  • Although it is unlikely that schools need to address puberty before year 4 they should not leave this topic until the end of Year 4 when some pupils may already be experiencing early signs of puberty and in a small number of cases menstruation. 
  • From the earliest of years pupils can be taught that the body changes: something they will be able to observe from their own growth, from looking at the difference between adults’ bodies and children’s bodies e.g. height, facial hair 

Question “The secondary Health and Wellbeing topic is now clear that, given the sensitivity and complexity of content on suicide prevention, direct references to suicide should not be made before year 8.”

Recommended answer NO

The Brook view 

  • We do not believe that addressing suicide should be optional for schools. Rather all schools should be able to access expert training on how to address this in ways which are safe.  
  • This guidance needs to be supplemented with specific detailed expert guidance on how to talk about suicide proactively as part of a planned curriculum, reactively in relation to a known incident in the school or community, and responsively with an individual seeking urgent support, or disclosing suicidal feelings. This guidance does not provide sufficient detail to support this work.
  • Expert organisations should be consulted on the way in which to sequence discussions around positive mental health and a range of issues such as disordered eating and self harm (which affect a significant number of young people) as well as suicide.
  • Any discussion of suicide should take place in the context of work from early years and through the transition into secondary school about how to support positive mental health, and safe strategies for managing stress and anxiety. 
  • School is a safer source of information than googling on mental health issues and RSHE and whole school policies and practices around mental health should emphasise the importance of talking to a trusted adult. The RSHE curriculum should support teachers to answer questions when they arise to model that you can talk to someone within the school.

See answers to previous questions and use own words

Recommended answer YES 

The Brook view

Schools will require much more detailed guidance and expert support from specialist organisations on issues relating to mental health and wellbeing.

Suicide prevention

Recommended answer NO

See answer to 43 and use own words.

Additional topics

Recommended answer YES 

Please use own words.

The Brook view

  • New topics added to the guidance will be broadly welcomed, though teachers will inevitably be concerned about further demands on the limited time allowed for RSE in their schools.  
  • There will be a need for more detailed guidance and meaningful training for teachers tackling some of these topics especially those relating to mental health. 
  • As the list of topics to be addressed in RSE grows, and as these topics increase in complexity and sensitivity there has never been more need for specialist, synchronous group training to develop teachers skills, increase their knowledge and provide opportunities to share best practice tease apart concerns and troubleshoot difficult scenarios.  

General comments

Please use your own words.

The Brook View

Overall this is not an improvement on the existing statutory guidance. It does not provide clarity for teachers on key issues and does not build on the existing guidance in a constructive way.  

The rights and needs of children are missing 

This draft seems more concerned with the rights of parents to limit the information provided to their children (which does not align with what most parents want) than with the right of children to receive timely, inclusive and relevant education that will support them to live healthy, happy, safe lives in an increasingly complex world.  

RSE should aim to increase the knowledge, autonomy, agency and confidence of young people in line with their evolving capacity. It should reflect the call from young people for more information and understanding, and more inclusive education. 

This approach of limiting/delaying and rationing information will not protect children, but make them more vulnerable.  

The guidance misses reference to skills 

One of the biggest gaps in the existing guidance – continued in this iteration is the lack of reference to skills. The new guidance would have been significantly improved if it had acknowledged the importance of nurturing a range of skills in students from an early age. RSE skills include communication; negotiation; recognising, describing and managing difficult feelings; critical thinking including media/online literacy; resisting peer pressure, help seeking and more. Knowledge alone will not keep children and young people safe. Combining knowledge with skills; alongside articulating and promoting shared values of respect and kindness is the way on which RSE will begin to fulfil its potential. 

Age Limits 

Throughout this document we have opposed the introduction of age limits on information. The age limits will not support teachers to deliver appropriate RSE. They do not represent good pedagogy and may serve to put children and young people at risk by pushing the provision of information to the latest possible point. The age limits are underpinned by a misunderstanding of how RSE is delivered using a spiral curriculum model.  

Stigmatising healthy sexual relationships

The guidance is underpinned by a fundamental belief that human reproduction, sex and sexual relationships are bad/not appropriate to discuss. The word ‘explicit’ is used several times, but not defined. The definition of what does and doesn’t constitute sex education in primary school is unclear. While children are routinely exposed to and accessing increasingly extreme pornography it is not clear why discussion of safe, loving, intimate, pleasurable sexual relationships between consenting adults is treated in this guidance as a taboo, rather than a vital antidote to the often violent, unsafe and unrealistic depictions of sex in the free online content accessed by children and young people. Even after year 9 teachers are warned to discuss sex only where strictly necessary.  

We know that the RSE curriculum and culture around discussing sex in countries which are much more open and honest about sex and see it is a normal and healthy aspect of adult life, do not experience the same levels of pregnancy or STIs amongst young people. The use of age limits in this guidance appears to be about politics and not about evidence. 

The guidance – especially the age limits – contradicts everything young people say they want from RSE which is more information provided to them sooner. It clearly does not reflect the evidence of children’s lives, what they are exposed to, experiencing and the risks they face. Young people were not systematically involved in the revision of the RSHE guidance and this undermines the integrity and credibility of this revised draft. 

Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

Please use your own words.

The Brook View

This guidance is likely to have a negative impact on people with various protected characteristics including:

Pupils with SEND
This guidance fails to recognise the particular and additional safeguarding and information needs of children with SEND, who might be particularly disadvantaged by age limits on information and on the requirement to avoid talking about sex in a way that might be outlawed for being too ‘explicit’.

People with SEND are at higher risk of abuse, and some may experience difficulty understanding sexual boundaries and may find things such as menstruation confusing and distressing. They need clear, accurate and specific information, provided early and often.

Sex
This guidance misses the opportunity to tackle sexual violence and VAWG at its roots by putting an age restriction on content, failing to place it in a continuum of work around respect, consent, tackling gender stereotypes, and clearly defining the different forms of sexual offence at a point where this can be preventative.

The critical need to address gender stereotyping and the right to be gender non-conforming will be undermined by the hard ban on discussing gender identity as a separate, but related, topic.

Sexual Orientation
It is likely that the section on LGBT+ inclusion, which allows primary schools to opt out of making their content LGBT+ inclusive, is discriminatory and potentially unlawful; compounding feelings of isolation, and even shame amongst those with LGBT+ families, friends and siblings, let alone those who may be LGBT+ themselves.

RSE which excludes LGBT+ people increases the risks to their mental health and wellbeing; increases the likelihood of bullying and decreases a school’s ability to deal with it. Compounded by restrictions on information about sex, it also risks denying LGBT+ young people vital sexual and reproductive health messages, increasing health inequality for this group.

Gender reassignment
It is disingenuous to ask schools to address gender reassignment, but not gender identity as the two are intrinsically and inextricably connected.

The ban on discussing gender identity is clearly discriminatory and will result in pupils feeling they cannot turn to a trusted adult in the school to talk about their own identity or the issue as it arises amongst their peers of family members; putting them at risk of accessing information from less reliable sources.

Schools have a duty to keep all their children safe, and it is unclear how you can tackle transphobic bullying unless you acknowledge transphobia – and how you can acknowledge transphobia without discussion of gender identity.

It will put teachers in an invidious position when they want to fulfil their public sector equality duty and create a safe and equal place in school for all pupils; and to be a trusted adult for vulnerable students.

The linking of this guidance to the draft non-statutory guidance for schools on gender-questioning children is problematic as the public consultation on that guidance is not complete. It has been widely criticised for being harmful and unlawful.

Religion
By setting a precedent in which a topic can be banned because it is contested, discussion of religion and potentially the recognition of and respect for diverse religious views and traditions could be challenged.

Thank you!

Thank you for taking the time to fight for high-quality RSHE.

Share this page:

Brook is a trading name of Brook Young People
Limited Company registered in England and Wales, number 2466940. Registered Charity in England and Wales, number 703015. Registered Charity in Scotland, number SC045788. Registered address: Brook, Penhaligon House, Green Street, Truro, TR1 2LH

Privacy policy