Schools told to make sex education ‘stage appropriate' as age limit plans axed
The Labour Government has recommended that primary schools teach sex education in Year 5 or Year 6, in line with what pupils learn about conception and birth, but it is not compulsory.
Primary school teachers may decide to discuss the sharing of naked images or online sexual content if it is affecting their pupils and they know that children have seen pornography, according to the final statutory Government guidance on relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) in schools.
Proposals to impose strict age limits on topics in the RSHE curriculum, proposed by the previous Conservative government, will not go ahead.
Draft guidance, published in May last year under the Conservatives, had suggested sex education should be taught no earlier than Year 5.
It had proposed for issues like sexual harassment, revenge porn, upskirting and sexual exploitation and abuse to not be taught before Year 7 (age 11), and for explicit discussion of sexual violence, including rape and sexual assault, to not take place before Year 9 (age 13).
The draft guidance also said schools should not teach pupils about the concept of 'gender identity'.
The final guidance on RSHE, which has been published a year after a consultation over the draft Conservative guidance closed, has not assigned specific ages to certain RSHE topics.
Instead, it said schools should develop the RSHE curriculum to be 'relevant, age and stage appropriate and accessible to pupils in their area'.
The Government guidance, published on Tuesday, said pupils should be taught the facts and the law about biological sex and gender reassignment.
But on the debate around biological sex and gender reassignment, it told schools to be 'careful not to endorse any particular view or teach it as fact'.
It said schools should avoid materials that use cartoons or diagrams that 'oversimplify' the topic, or which 'encourage pupils to question their gender'.
The Department for Education (DfE) has said revised guidance for schools and colleges on gender questioning children is due to be published this summer.
In her foreword to the updated RSHE guidance, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said: 'The depth and breadth of views is clear, and there are understandable and legitimate areas of contention.
'Our guiding principles have been that all of the compulsory subject content must be age appropriate and developmentally appropriate.
'It must be taught sensitively and inclusively, with respect to the backgrounds and beliefs of pupils and parents while always with the aim of providing pupils with the knowledge they need of the law.'
The guidance said pupils should be given the opportunity to discuss the sexual norms endorsed by so-called 'involuntary celibates' (incels) or online influencers by the end of secondary school.
It added that secondary school pupils should be taught about the prevalence of 'deepfakes' and how pornography can portray 'misogynistic' attitudes.
The guidance has also advised secondary schools to work closely with mental health professionals to discuss suicide prevention in an age-appropriate way.
It added that schools should continue to share RSHE curriculum materials with parents on request.
Since September 2020, relationships and sex education has been compulsory in secondary schools in England, while relationships education has been compulsory in primary schools.
In March 2023, then-prime minister Rishi Sunak brought forward a review of RSHE guidance for schools after hearing concerns that children were being exposed to 'inappropriate' content.
Schools in England will have to follow the statutory RSHE guidance from September 2026.
Paul Whiteman, general secretary at school leaders' union NAHT, said: 'We are pleased to see that there are no age 'limits' included in this new guidance.
'Schools already work hard to ensure that teaching is age-appropriate and this approach gives them the vital flexibility to respond to their own community and the needs of pupils in their schools.'
But he added: 'NAHT has particular concerns that the inclusion of suicide prevention content has not been accompanied by a commitment from the Government to provide funded training for all teachers to give them both the knowledge and the confidence they need to discuss suicide prevention and self-harm with young people.
'The provision of training is vital before this content becomes statutory and it is unacceptable that the guidance simply says that schools should work with mental health professionals to discuss how this sensitive content should be tackled in the classroom.'
Margaret Mulholland, Send and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: 'We welcome the clarity over biological sex and gender reassignment in the guidance.
'There are strongly held and sometimes polarised views over these issues and it is important to have a clear set of national guidelines to follow.
'We hope soon to see specific guidance on supporting gender questioning children – something for which we have been calling for several years.'
She added: 'We also welcome the focus on suicide prevention and pay tribute to campaigners for their work on highlighting this issue and the risks to young people.
'Schools already have a great deal of experience in supporting the wellbeing of pupils – and many have seen a rising number of young people struggling with their mental health in recent years.
'Unfortunately, there is still not enough external support available and we would like to see more work done to ensure that young people can access specialist services in a timely manner.'
Laura Mackay, chief executive officer of LGBT+ young people's charity Just Like Us, said: 'Some teachers still struggle to discuss LGBT+ topics with their pupils. So it's good to see the new RSHE guidance strongly encouraging primary schools to teach about diverse families, including same-sex parents.
'However, there are aspects of the new guidance that could make teachers feel even more anxious about what they can do or say to support all LGBT+ young people.
'If schools treat gender identity as something that is taboo, trans and gender diverse young people across the UK will feel further alienated and unsafe at school.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
44 minutes ago
- Sky News
Retreat from Afghanistan began as a farce, then it was a scandal, now it's a cover-up
The retreat from Afghanistan during the Taliban takeover in 2021 began as a farce, then it was a scandal and now it's a shoddy cover-up. The farce was when the then foreign secretary Dominic Raab remained on his holiday sunbed in Crete rather than return to work during the height of the evacuation crisis. It was a scandal because around 200 people were killed in the chaos, with distressing pictures of terrified Afghans clinging to the wings of moving aeroplanes at Kabul airport. And now we learn that in a massive cover-up, the Tory government of Rishi Sunak took out a superinjunction to gag the media from reporting a data breach that put 20,000 Afghans in danger. Over the years, superinjunctions granted by UK courts have been condemned for enabling celebrities and sports stars to cover-up extra-marital affairs, drug-taking and other secrets. The superinjunction granted to the government in 2023 to conceal a secret scheme to relocate Afghan nationals was obviously entirely different and no doubt sought for honourable motives. But it was a cover-up nonetheless and not so honourable because it hid a data blunder exposing names and contact details of 18,000 people who had applied for asylum in the UK under a resettlement scheme. The scheme had been set up by the government in 2021 to provide asylum for people who had worked with the UK armed forces and could be at risk of Taliban reprisals for working with western forces. In the Commons, the current defence secretary, John Healey, said it was "deeply uncomfortable" to be prevented from reporting the data breach blunder to MPs until now. 1:59 The ministers involved in seeking the gagging order were the former defence secretary Ben Wallace and the then armed forces minister James Heappey, he said. But while most MPs welcomed Mr Healey's apology, it's probably fair to say that if it hadn't been for tenacious campaigning by media organisations the superinjunction might not have been lifted by the High Court. One Tory MP, Mark Pritchard, accused the defence secretary of "wriggling" and said: "The fact is that he is justifying this superinjunction and not telling parliament, the press, the public and, unbelievably, the Afghans who were potentially in harm's way." And, among a number of individual cases highlighted by MPs, Lib Dem Calum Miller told MPs that "in the chaos of withdrawal" a constituent who left Afghanistan was promised by British officials that his pregnant wife could follow him. "Two years later, we have still not kept that promise," said Mr Miller. "My constituent's wife and child continue to move around in Afghanistan to evade the Taliban and my constituent is so desperate that he is talking about returning to Afghanistan - despite the risk to him - to be reunited with them." Reform UK's Zia Yusuf hit out at the Tory government's asylum policy, writing on X: "24k Afghans secretly granted asylum, costing British taxpayers up to £7bn. "The government covered it up. Who was in government? Home secretary: Suella Braverman. Immigration minister: Robert Jenrick." Later, Mr Healey was asked on LBC's News Agents podcast if the official responsible for the data breach is still employed by the government. "They are no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief," he replied. Hmm. That suggests the person hasn't been fired, which will alarm those MPs who remain extremely concerned about this whole fiasco. Asked whether he would have taken out the superinjunction if he had been defence secretary in 2023, he replied: "Very, very unlikely." But when he was asked if he could rule out the use of superinjunctions by the Ministry of Defence in the future, Mr Healey said: "Well, you can never say never." So while Mr Healey will obviously be determined to avoid a farce in future, it appears that the threat of another Ministry of Defence cover-up in future hasn't gone away.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Yet another fiscal 'black hole'? Here's why this one matters
Why you can trust Sky News You're probably tired by now of hearing all about "black holes". It's one of those phrases trotted out by journalists in an effort to make economic policy sound a little more interesting. And in some senses it's a massively misleading image. After all, when people talk about fiscal holes, what they're really talking about is something rather prosaic: the amount of money it would take for the chancellor not to break her fiscal rules. Those fiscal rules are not god-given, after all. They were confected by the chancellor herself. Missing them will not really result in Britain sliding into infinite nothingness. Even so, whatever you choose to call the dilemma she's faced with right now, it's certainly quite a big deal. And understanding this helps provide a little context for the extraordinary events of the past few days, with markets sliding in the wake of Ms Reeves' teary appearance at Prime Minister's Questions. Following that moment, the yield on UK government debt - the rate of interest we're being charged by international investors - suddenly leapt higher. Granted, the jump was nothing like what we saw in the wake of Liz Truss's mini-budget. And those yields dropped down after the prime minister backed the chancellor. Even so, they underline one very important bit of context. The UK has become something of an outlier in global debt markets. For years, the yield on our benchmark government bonds was more or less middle of the industrialised-world pack. But since 2022's drama, it has hovered unnervingly high, above every other G7 nation. That speaks to a broader issue. Britain might not have the biggest deficit in the G7, or for that matter, the highest national debt. Others (most notably France, and to some extent, too, the US) face even more desperate fiscal dilemmas in the coming years. But markets do still seem nervous about Britain. Perhaps that's because of what they (and we) all endured in 2022 - when British gilt markets stepped briefly over the precipice, causing malfunctions all around the financial system (most notably in obscure parts of the pensions investment sector). But it also owes something to the fact that the chancellor's own fiscal plans are sailing worryingly close to the wind. Reeves made f iscal rules matter The main piece of evidence here is the amount of leeway she has left herself against her fiscal rules. As I said at the start, there's nothing gospel about these rules. But having created them and banged on about them for a long time, even those of us who are a little sceptical about fiscal rules would concede that breaking them is, as they say, not a good look. Back in spring, the Office for Budget Responsibility thought the chancellor had about £9.9bn in leeway against these rules. But since then, she has u-turned on both the cuts in winter fuel payments and on personal independence payments. That reduces the £9.9bn down to barely more than £3bn. But the real issue isn't just these U-turns. It's something else. The stronger the economy is, the more tax revenues come in and the more her potential headroom against the fiscal rules would be. By the same token, if the economy grows less rapidly than the OBR expected, that would mean less tax revenues and an even bigger deficit. And if you compare the OBR's latest forecasts with the current average of forecasts among independent forecasters, or for that matter, the Bank of England, they do look decidedly optimistic. If the OBR is right and everyone else is wrong, then the chancellor "only" has to fill in the hole left by those U-turns. But if the OBR is wrong and everyone else is right, things get considerably more grisly. Even a small downgrade in the OBR's expectations for productivity growth - say a 0.1 percentage point drop - would obliterate the remaining headroom and leave the chancellor with a £6bn shortfall against her rule. Anything more than that (and bear in mind, most economists think the OBR is out by more than that) and she could be £10bn or more underwater. Now, there are plenty of very reasonable points one could make about how silly this all is. It's silly that so many people treat fiscal rules as tablets of stone. It's silly that government tax policy from one year to the next seems to hinge on how right or wrong the OBR's economic forecasts are. Yet all this stuff, silly as it might all seem, is taken quite seriously by markets right now. They look at the UK, see an outlier, and tend to focus more than usual on black holes. So I'm afraid we're going to be talking about "black holes" for quite some time to come.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Almost 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach
Almost 7,000 Afghan nationals are being relocated to the UK following a massive data breach by the British military that successive governments tried to keep secret with a superinjunction. The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families - with as many as 100,000 people impacted in total. The UK only informed everyone on Tuesday - three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the relocation costs alone directly linked to the data breach will be around £850m. An internal government document from February this year said the cost could rise to £7bn, but an MoD spokesperson said that this was an outdated figure. However, the total cost to the taxpayer of existing schemes to assist Afghans who are deemed eligible for British support, as well as the additional cost from the breach, will come to at least £6bn. In addition, litigation against the UK arising from the mistake could add additional cost, as well as whatever the government has already spent on the superinjunction. Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted the injunction that had been sought by the government. 2:46 Barings Law, a law firm that is representing around 1,000 of the victims, accused the government of trying to hide the truth from the public following a lengthy legal battle. Defence Secretary John Healey offered a "sincere apology" for the data breach in a statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon. He said he had felt "deeply concerned about the lack of transparency" around the data breach, adding: "No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner." The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 - which can only now be revealed - to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan. Some 6,900 Afghans - comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents - are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme. This comes on top of the many thousands more who are being moved until the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). A lot of these individuals are also caught up in the data breach. The Times, which has been battling the injunction, said a total of 18,500 people have so far been relocated to the UK, including those directly impacted plus their dependents. 👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈 Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind, the newspaper reported. How did the data breach happen? The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details of 18,714 Afghan nationals. They had been trying to apply to a British government scheme to support those who helped or worked with UK forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban between 2001 and 2021. The collapse of the western-backed Afghan government that year saw the Taliban return to power. The new government regards anyone who worked with British or other foreign forces during the previous two decades as a traitor. A source said a small number of people named on the list are known to have subsequently been killed, though it is not clear if this was a direct result of the data breach. It is also not clear whether the Taliban has the list - only that the MoD lost control of the information. Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: "This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public. "It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region. "A total of around 20,000 individuals have been affected, putting them and their loved ones at serious risk of violence from opponents and armed groups." The law firm is working with around 1,000 of those impacted "to pursue potential legal action". It is thought that only a minority of the names on the list - about 10 to 15% - would have been eligible for help under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023. A superinjunction - preventing the reporting of the mistake - was imposed in September of that year. It meant the extraordinary - and costly - plan to transport thousands of Afghans to the UK took place in secret until now. Sir Keir Starmer's government inherited the scandal. What is a superinjunction? In UK law, a superinjunction prevents the publication of certain information. However, unlike a regular injunction, it also prevents the media from reporting on the existence of the injunction itself. Superinjunctions can only be granted by the high court, with applicants required to meet stringent legal tests of necessity, proportionality and the risk of serious harm. They are most commonly used in cases involving breaches of privacy, confidential business information, or where there is a risk of significant reputational damage. Why was superinjunction lifted? An internal review into the affair was launched at the start of this year by Paul Rimmer, a retired civil servant. It played down the risk to those whose data is included in the breached dataset should it fall into the hands of the Taliban. The review said it was "unlikely to substantially change an individual's existing exposure given the volume of data already available". It also concluded that "it appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting" and it is "therefore also unlikely that family members... will be targeted simply because the 'principal' appears... in the dataset". This is why a High Court judge ruled that the superinjunction could be lifted. Mr Malik, however, said that he believes there is still a risk to those named in the breach. He added: "Our claimants continue to live with the fear of reprisal against them and their families, when they should have been met with gratitude and discretion for their service. "We would expect substantial financial payments for each claimant in any future legal action. While this will not fully undo the harm they have been exposed to, it will enable them to move forward and rebuild their lives." Latest MoD data breach While the MoD's data breach is by far the largest involving Afghan nationals, it is not the first. Earlier this month, the MoD said Afghans impacted by a separate mistake could claim up to £4,000 in compensation four years after the incident happened. Human error resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list in September 2021. In December 2023, the UK Information Commissioner fined the MoD £350,000 and said the "egregious" breach could have been life-threatening.
