Children as young as five could face compulsory sex education lessons.
Ministers believe the subject should be included in the primary school curriculum because teaching is currently too 'patchy'.
Although they want the lessons to be compulsory, they have agreed to hold a public consultation on whether parents or schools should have the chance to opt out.
The youngest children will be taught basic ideas about relationships and learn the names of body parts before being introduced to more explicit material as they move through school.
Schools Minister Jim Knight, who will unveil the plans next week, insisted that sex and relationships education 'before puberty' helped bring down teenage pregnancy rates.
But his claim was disputed by family campaigners who accused him of 'seriously undermining parents' and caving into a sex education lobby which wants such lessons to start much earlier.
A sex education pamphlet for six-year-olds, launched last month by fpa, formerly known as the Family Planning Association, caused a storm of protest after it emerged that pupils would be asked to name genitalia.
A review of sex education ordered by Mr Knight last year, which included submissions from the fpa and sex advice charity Brook, suggested that earlier sex education would encourage youngsters to delay experimenting.
Mr Knight told MPs this week he had received many 'strong representations' in favour of making sex education mandatory in primary and secondary schools.
But he admitted it must be done without 'sexualising young people' too soon
'The international evidence suggests that teaching aspects of sex and relationship education before puberty has a positive effect on such things as teenage pregnancy rates,' he said.
'Clearly, that has to be done with a high degree of sensitivity and... the involvement of parents, with children reaching puberty at different ages.'
He added: 'It is important that we as a society allow better sex and relationship education in both primary and secondary schools without sexualising young people too early.'
Currently, primary heads and governors decide whether or not to provide sex education and what it should involve beyond the compulsory science requirements laid down by the national curriculum.
They must have a policy on whether or not they provide and if they do, usually in personal, social and health education classes, parents have the right to withdraw their children.
Under the proposals, sex and relationships education would be a compulsory subject in the same way as maths and English.
Secondary schools already have a legal responsibility to provide a sex and relationships programme.
Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said: 'The law stresses that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. It is therefore vital that schools should remain accountable to parents in such a sensitive and controversial area as sex and relationship education.
'To make sex education a statutory part of the national curriculum would seriously undermine parents and remove discretion from schools about how they approach the subject.
'It would have the effect of taking parents out of the driving seat and putting the state in their place.' continues here
Ministers believe the subject should be included in the primary school curriculum because teaching is currently too 'patchy'.
Although they want the lessons to be compulsory, they have agreed to hold a public consultation on whether parents or schools should have the chance to opt out.
The youngest children will be taught basic ideas about relationships and learn the names of body parts before being introduced to more explicit material as they move through school.
Schools Minister Jim Knight, who will unveil the plans next week, insisted that sex and relationships education 'before puberty' helped bring down teenage pregnancy rates.
But his claim was disputed by family campaigners who accused him of 'seriously undermining parents' and caving into a sex education lobby which wants such lessons to start much earlier.
A sex education pamphlet for six-year-olds, launched last month by fpa, formerly known as the Family Planning Association, caused a storm of protest after it emerged that pupils would be asked to name genitalia.
A review of sex education ordered by Mr Knight last year, which included submissions from the fpa and sex advice charity Brook, suggested that earlier sex education would encourage youngsters to delay experimenting.
Mr Knight told MPs this week he had received many 'strong representations' in favour of making sex education mandatory in primary and secondary schools.
But he admitted it must be done without 'sexualising young people' too soon
'The international evidence suggests that teaching aspects of sex and relationship education before puberty has a positive effect on such things as teenage pregnancy rates,' he said.
'Clearly, that has to be done with a high degree of sensitivity and... the involvement of parents, with children reaching puberty at different ages.'
He added: 'It is important that we as a society allow better sex and relationship education in both primary and secondary schools without sexualising young people too early.'
Currently, primary heads and governors decide whether or not to provide sex education and what it should involve beyond the compulsory science requirements laid down by the national curriculum.
They must have a policy on whether or not they provide and if they do, usually in personal, social and health education classes, parents have the right to withdraw their children.
Under the proposals, sex and relationships education would be a compulsory subject in the same way as maths and English.
Secondary schools already have a legal responsibility to provide a sex and relationships programme.
Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said: 'The law stresses that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. It is therefore vital that schools should remain accountable to parents in such a sensitive and controversial area as sex and relationship education.
'To make sex education a statutory part of the national curriculum would seriously undermine parents and remove discretion from schools about how they approach the subject.
'It would have the effect of taking parents out of the driving seat and putting the state in their place.' continues here
![Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War](http://patbuchananbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/bk-pjb-chuw165.jpg "Churchill_Hitler_the_Unnecessary_War\")
Post a comment on AAWR
0 Responses to "Compulsory sex education for pupils as young as five could become law"Post a Comment
We welcome contributions from all sides of the debate, at AAWR comment is free, AAWR may edit and/or delete your comments if abusive, threatening, illegal or libellous according to our understanding of, no emails will be published. Your comments may be published on other nationalist media sites worldwide.