Ministers 'force through' compulsory sex education for five-year-olds without asking parents

Originally posted by jakyll
Secondary school is where sex education should begin,not before.

[

I disagree.

As a Den Leader of a Cub Scout group, the very first badge a that a Scout can earn is the Bobcat badge. Admittedly this is to be performed by the parents, but it is mandatory for all scoutns age 1st grade through 5th.

This badge has a lot to do with teaching kids about sex to a degree that they understand that it's not OK for adults to do certain things. And we the course we give parents to teach their kids describes what to do in a situation that is either not comfortable or obviously dangerous.

Now do I think this should be cumpolsory? I believe that all parents should teach their kids these skills at these ages.

Whether or not that should be taught by the state.. .I'm not sure. But if I'm a kid, and a Citizen of a country, and my parents aren't teaching me this for whatever reason... I would want to be taught it.

So I think ulitimately it is a good thing, as it has the kids well being in mind.

I was forced to have the sex talk with my daughter when she was six years old. That was because a four year old at her summer camp was talking about it and my daughter came home with questions. I wasn't ready to have that discussion but I answered her questions at the appropriate level for a six year old. I would have chosen to talk to her a few years later, but that choice was taken from me, as well. When you think about it, you have to start them almost at toddler age- you have to tell them about "good touch" and "bad touch", at least. Knowledge is power in this case.

reply to post by nerbot


"Glad I got out while they let me. you can't even fart in public over there these days without getting a ticket. "

You mean they extended the 'no farting zone' to outside of elevators?

This is getting bad.

Originally posted by TheRedneck


Please, please, please tell me you're in England and not in the USA. Over here, some of us still believe in freedom from tyranny. Do you even realize what a can of worms you are opening?

Some parents won't tell their child about religion, so now the school decides to do it. Some people tell their children too much about religion, so now the schools have to tell them different. Some parents tell their kids they can't go the doctor over that sniffle, so now the schools take them. Some parents don't spank their children, so now the schools have to do it.

Gah, if you're in the USA, at least stay the hades outta Alabama...

And jakyll, I'm tempted to buy you passage on the next ship... nerbot already escaped...

TheRedneck

I AM in the UK, England to be specific, and I am 16. I have just finished mandatory education, I have reached the age of consent, I have a younger brother. I am in the perfect age to speak about this issue in my opinion.

I couldn't care less what the school teaches me about religion (And I am Christian), and if the school thinks a child needs to visit the doctors and the parents wont let them....then power to the school. You would be on of the first to complain if a child became very ill because a school did nothing.

This is a very serious issue, an issue concerning life and death. If we can not rely on parents to do something, the school must. But once more, 5 years old IS too young in my opinion, 10 years old is the right age to start.

reply to post by StevenDye

This is a very serious issue, an issue concerning life and death. If we can not rely on parents to do something, the school must.

But where do we draw this line? Are you aware that many medicines are actually dangerous as they are being prescribed? Ritalin comes to mind, a drug that was once used extensively on children in order to curb unwanted bad behavior. The result was a group of children with learning problems and severe social problems later in life. In quite a few of these cases, it was not a doctor who first mentioned Ritalin; it was a school nurse who suggested it to the parents, who then trustingly went to a doctor and requested the prescription.

The schools often do not have the best interests of the child at stake; they have the best interests of themselves at stake. Sure, there will be cases you can cite where some piece of organic trash didn't care about their child; we are all aware this happens. But I would hazard to guess that for every one of those, there are 100 who would do anything to help their child and 1000 who would never dream of neglecting them. In the vast majority of cases, a parent has the most vested interest in the child's welfare, and thus should have the most voice in how that child is treated and what is and is not appropriate for them. Schools were not designed to teach social behavior, but to teach information that may be beyond the parents' ability to teach.

Placing rules for society based on a couple of 'bad apples' is a kindergarten tactic, not a way to control society. I can remember when in my early school years one kid would do something wrong and the whole class would be punished. That tactic works to some extent, but it also causes problems. The teacher did manage to punish the wrongdoer, but by proxy. The other kids in the class would extract their own form of punishment on the wrong-doer, which was usually much more severe than what the teacher would have been able to do (in a few cases, severe beatings, mob-style), and the teacher also received a lack of respect in the future from the class. No one respects unfair punishment, even at that early age.

The initial use of this tactic was not even the schools, but the military (according to what I understand). It is a common tactic in boot camp, as it increases the amount of punishment an individual receives, provides plausible deniability for the officers in charge, and does promote an aura of camaraderie among the troops (although not toward those who employed the tactic). In the military setting, all of these are considered appropriate outcomes. In society, it fosters resentment toward authority, mob justice, and rebellion.

This is no different. A small percentage of parents are guilty, so we now decide to 'punish' all parents by removing their right to raise their children as they see fit. We thereby damage the bonds between parent and child that have been the basis of all society since time immemorial. We thereby foster an air of distrust between the school, which is designed to educate the child beyond the knowledge level of the average parent, and the parent who is rightly charged with all other aspects of child-rearing. We thereby foment insurrection among those parents who are punished for no good reason, and in a way that I, as a parent, consider completely and absolutely barbarian - the removal of basic human rights in direct opposition to basic human instinct.

Better to focus on those parents who have actually neglected their children to a horrendous degree, while maintaining an initial atmosphere of trust toward the others. No doubt some children will, unfortunately, be forced to suffer for a short time until their conditions are brought to light, but even that is better than to destroy everything our society has built up, and in the process cause everyone to suffer in the end.

TheRedneck

A bad tactic perhaps, but one that is not confined to the military OR schools. You may say it's a kindergarten tactic, but it is also used worldwide.

Most people would not hijack a plane and kill the people on board, but some would...so there are restrictions on what you can take with you...

Most people would not steal something from a shop, but some would...so we all have to deal with being watched by CCTV in and outside of that shop...

I could go on... it is done everywhere, punish the masses for the problems of a few.

And this punishes nobody anyway, if the parents are telling the child all they need to know, then this is just a suppliment. If not, the school is doing something the parent should be doin but isn't, it is a win win situation for the child.


About the ritalin, that is not the fault of the schools, they did not give the child ritalin in your example, the parent went to the doctor and the doctor gave out a prescription. The fault lies with the doctor, but not entirely for they did not know it's effects.

And destroy everything society has built up??? Wow, sex-education has been going on for years, and in England it has been started at the age of 10 for years... Our society hasn't crumbled because of this at all, though it has from other things I have already said I feel 5 is too young, 10 year olds already get this treatment.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by StevenDye]

[edit on 15-11-2008 by StevenDye]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Yeah,i agree.
I've never liked the tactic of punish all because of the actions of one or just a handful.To me thats too much of a cop out.You are punished because you have done something wrong,not because someone else has.The other way is like a pack mentality,one is guilty so the rest of you are too.That does not help a child.

You like it so much you wanna wait a year? And here I was thinking you were pretty smart.

I love my country,i just hate the arse holes who run it.lol.Plus i need to save up more money.So there



[edit on 15-11-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by StevenDye

A bad tactic perhaps, but one that is not confined to the military OR schools. You may say it's a kindergarten tactic, but it is also used worldwide.

I say it's a kindergarten tactic because that's the situation where I first encountered it in my life. I thought it was silly and counterproductive then, and I maintain that belief now.

I could go on... it is done everywhere, punish the masses for the problems of a few.

Just because it exists (and I agree it does, moreso there than here apparently) does not mean it is a good thing, nor does it mean it is something that should be continued. There is a push in society today to both blame inanimate objects for the actions of their users (gun control, for example), or to attempt to control and monitor people in order to correct any actions quickly that might be seen as 'wrong'. The real wrong, IMO, is the idea that people must be carefully monitored and controlled. That is how dictatorships and oppression come into being.

There is, of course, a middle ground. I really like the idea that someone cannot bring a loaded Uzi or a live bomb onto a plane. The problem is that it has progressed to the extent that the pocketknife I carry to use as a tool is also illegal on a plane. So is the trusty cigarette lighter. I used a pen torch recently to solder some copper sheeting for a project; a friend was visiting and remarked that I could be arrested for drug paraphernalia if I was caught with that tool. Yet, for what I was building, my soldering iron could not generate enough heat and a full-size propane torch would burn holes in the copper sheeting. So that law that was intended to help stop the spread and use of illegal drugs could be used to also prevent me from creating something that perhaps would be beneficial to mankind. This is a prime example of making sweeping regulations that cover all people in order to curb improper actions by a few.

We have precious few areas that have CCTV cameras mounted watching our actions here. I'm glad of that. It's really no one's business if I was walking down a street at a certain time of day, and it's none of my business if someone else does it.

And this punishes nobody anyway, if the parents are telling the child all they need to know, then this is just a suppliment. If not, the school is doing something the parent should be doin but isn't, it is a win win situation for the child.

In a perfect world, sure, it would be a great idea. But, as you are posting on ATS, you must realize that we do not live in a perfect world. Who decides what each child is supposed to be told, and when? Children are not cattle; they are individuals, and have individual needs and growth curves. A school cannot tailor its curriculum to accommodate and assess a child's mental maturity level on an individual basis, but a parent can. So if you give the school the authority to overrule the parent in any but the most extreme cases, you deny the parent that instinctive, basic human right to raise their child as they see fit, and place the child in a group of mixed children, some who may be ahead of them and some that may be behind them in level of maturity.

As before, there is a middle ground. If a child is showing signs of physical abuse (and I should state here that I do not consider corporal punishment as abuse), then yes, some sort of investigation is indicated and if abuse is found, some amount of intervention is also indicated. But this is the exception, not the rule.

If we decide to legislate based on the exception, we can logically follow that to any number of ridiculous situations. Every day, people die in auto accidents, caused usually by abuse of the automobile (speeding, inattentive driving, disobedience of posted restrictions, drunk driving, etc.). Shall we then ban driving? Or perhaps, at the least, require every driver to install a camera and remote kill switch in their vehicle so they can be monitored and intervention can be used to prevent abusive driving? I think most people would agree this is silly, but it is a logical progression from your viewpoint.

About the ritalin, that is not the fault of the schools, they did not give the child ritalin in your example, the parent went to the doctor and the doctor gave out a prescription. The fault lies with the doctor, but not entirely for they did not know it's effects.

Two points of disagreement on this: the schools more oft than not were the ones who suggested (or in a few cases I have heard of, demanded, with threats of removing children form the custody of their parents for not agreeing to use the drug) using Ritalin. Yes, it was prescribed by a doctor, but at the request of a school nurse, and without the parents being informed of the adverse possible effects.

As to the doctors lack of liability for not understanding the effects of the drug, I totally disagree. That is their job, and negligence is just as abusive as improper action.

And destroy everything society has built up??? Wow, sex-education has been going on for years, and in England it has been started at the age of 10 for years... Our society hasn't crumbled because of this at all, though it has from other things

I speak not of sex education specifically when I say this, but of the larger and more malicious issue of schools taking over authority for the children from the parents.

I realize we are in agreement on the age issue, and I am glad to hear this. 5 years old is indeed far too young to be learning about sex. This is one aspect of a larger issue though, and that issue is who is ultimately the authority for children? The parents who can and usually do devote a lifetime of individualized care to their offspring, or a school that handles children in some sort of cookie-cutter assembly-line fashion based on the current designation of 'average'?

---------------------------
reply to post by jakyll

I love my country,i just hate the arse holes who run it.

heh, sounds like we have something else in common.

TheRedneck

edit to add response to jakyll

[edit on 15-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

Five is too young for sure,eight and up seems right,but there really is an epidemic with teenage births right now.Not all parents are teaching the basics...obviously alot are but that doesnt address those who are not.I fail to see why something as natural as it gets cant be talked about in the context of the childs age obviously and divided from that into other areas such as biology...then again i can see parents saying that it takes away their rights as parents,but then we are still at a dead end with higher and higher teenage birth rates and many parents dont take responsibility for teaching their children about this at a younger age.I think it would also be good to discuss with older children 13 to 15 maybe how media portrays sex,i think that is also a very large contributor to this imo.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by Solomons]

[edit on 15-11-2008 by Solomons]

reply to post by Solomons

maybe how media portrays sex,i think that is also a very large contributor to this imo.

I'd have to agree with you on this. And on more than the media itself, our entire society has become more 'adult'.

Disney Channel now runs a program called "Sister, Sister", which has an inordinate amount of talk about sex from teenage stars. I watched about half of one thirty-minute episode when my daughter was younger and immediately forbade her to watch it (and began to watch less Disney in general due to that). As I watch CNN this morning, the big story is the demonstrations going on about gay marriage. Sop far I haven't seen anyone parading around in their underwear, but the subject is still there for sensitive ears. Even cartoons seem more 'adult-oriented' than the ones I grew up with (Tom and Jerry, Fred Flintstone, Looney Tunes, etc.).

Amid all of this we have sex education at inordinately young ages being presented to our children. We have condoms distributed openly in schools. Even Bill Clinton, who actually made a decent President, was caught ion a sex scandal and that was scattered across screens in living rooms across the country.

Who are the pop heroes of today? Well, it used to be the Lone Ranger, Superman, Batman, and Spiderman. Now it seems to be sports heroes, many of whom are frequently splattered across our TVs with a different girlfriend every week, or rap artists, who regularly spew out lyrics so specific as to be disgusting about what they like to do in the bedroom. We had a bit of that back in the 70s, but not nearly as specific as we hear today.

It is now common for children in the 2nd and 3rd grade here to have boyfriends and girlfriends. Apparently the parents think it's 'cute'. I think it;s disgusting. There's no heavy amount of sex at that age (as I understand it from my kids), but when things do begin to function, the availability is right there.

And amid all of this, some of it designed to try and aviod teenage pregnancy and disease, the pregnancy rates (and I would assume the disease rates) are skyrocketing. Somewhere, someday, should we survive, this generation will doubtless go down in history as the perfect example of just how stupid society can become, due to things like this.

That is assuming, of course, that we don't get stupider. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Jezus
I think it would be smart to ingrain kid with one idea about sex.

Always use a condom...always.

Naa i wouldn't think its a smart idea to ingrain 'how to have sex' into a 5 year old kids brain.A 5 year old has got better things to do than to worry about his/her sexual desires when they haven't got the drive for it at that age.These things should be taught when they hit puberty at around 11-12.

I bet the government's next move will be to lower the legal sex age limit to 5 too....I guess it's not long till UK turns into paedo haven.

Yes, I agree that people will be at different maturities...but at the age of 10, children are becoming biologically able to reproduce. So, perhaps different ways of tackling the issue need to be tried, but I still think the school should do something. Something which parents cannot say no to.

Now yes, one does have to be very careful with how far this power goes, which is where I would say only issues that concern possible life and death for people should be forcibly done. Issues that SHOULD be covered at home.

And aye, 100% agreed that the age of 5 is far far too young.

Why is this different to education about drugs or religion or science etc? It’s just biology at this age, not “now here’s how you give a good rimming”.

And parents will most likely retain the right to pull their kids out of these classes.

Originally posted by jakyllI say 11yrs old and up is when sex education should start.

Based on what? Sounds like you’ve just pulled it out of thin air.

Parental choice is great but the fact that we have one of the highest underage pregnancy rates and IIRC the highest incidence of STDs in Europe would point to the fact that parenting in the UK has failed. And considering we live in a welfare state these problems affect more than just the kids and the parents.

Fair enough if you don’t mind those problems, but if you do don’t moan that the government should do something about it.

Originally posted by t0ken
Naa i wouldn't think its a smart idea to ingrain 'how to have sex' into a 5 year old kids brain.A 5 year old has got better things to do than to worry about his/her sexual desires when they haven't got the drive for it at that age.These things should be taught when they hit puberty at around 11-12.

I bet the government's next move will be to lower the legal sex age limit to 5 too....I guess it's not long till UK turns into paedo haven.

11 or 12?

Come on, at puberty it is already far too late.

You people really really underestimate the intelligence and knowledge of children.

A 7 year old kids knows about sex and drugs, that is what kids start talking about amongst themselves at that age and younger. They are interested in the things that they KNOW exist and are significant but no one talks about in front of or with them.

Most kids will get their information on these subjects from older kids and friends LONG before their parents ever bring it up.

Now what I would like to see to compliment this forced education is teaching kids how to properly handle firearms and how to be safe when around them. This way, children will know what a gun is, why is it dangerous, and how they should behave when handling one. This way we can cut down on accidental shootings in the homes of parents who are police or security guards with guns, when the child gets a hold of a gun. Its preventive measures! You cannot just say "No, you can't touch it." That's abstinence. we have to educate the children at a young age how to be safe and responsible around guns and when they decide to pick up a gun in the future!


There we go another problem solved! Its all about educating kids right? So, there we go! We can't just educate children in one thing and practice another form of abstinence on another issue that can be just as vital and important.

(NOTE: this is not an off topic response. Its just a comparison of the "teaching children how to be prepared and 'ready' just in case" method using gun safety ed in place of sex ed safety.)

reply to post by GenRadek


Well perhaps in America, but not in Britain since guns are illegal. (Of course there are exceptions, but you require a license I believe and have to keep the gun locked away. Please correct me if I am wrong.)

reply to post by StevenDye

I do believe we have come to a consensus.

I will still take issue with this:

Something which parents cannot say no to.

simply because I believe that if a parent is that negligent on one thing, they will be too negligent to actively remove a child from such a class.

I am a bit concerned about one thing, after speaking with you, and you are of course under no obligation to even address it. You said you were 16 and finished with the compulsory schooling. I read a bit of resentment toward your parents (reason not necessary). If that is the case, I hope you learn to either understand or at least forgive them. If it's not the case, feel free to just say "shut up, you dumb redneck."

TheRedneck

But that’s not a valid comparison.

A) The UK doesn’t have that kind of gun problem whereas there is a massive problem with teen pregnancies and STDs.

B) It is not inevitable that kids will come into contact with guns whereas they will have to deal with sex and sexuality at some point.


However in the UK we should, and I believe do, teach about the dangers of guns. Of course this doesn’t mean teachers should say “GUNS ARE EVIL THEY SHOULD ALL BE DESTROYED” but rather that in the context of the gangs that are the main source of youth gun crime they are dangerous etc.

Also to draw another comparison, why should we say that parents must have the choice whether children should be taught sex education while at the same time force kids to learn about evolution regardless of whether the parents are creationists or not? Isn’t that the parent’s choice too?

reply to post by TheRedneck


Okay then shut up, you dumb redneck.

No resentment towards them, I'm currently doing further education and they are supporting me 100%.



And now I think about what I said, perhaps yes, something parents can in no way say no to is going too far. You are right in what you say, a negligent parent wouldn't take the child out of the class anyway. You make a very good point.



[edit on 15-11-2008 by StevenDye]

reply to post by StevenDye

I'm very glad to hear they are supporting you. Education is quite probably the single most important thing in this life. I'm also glad to hear you are continuing your education. May all the best life has to offer be yours.

And finally, I'm glad we can agree on this subject.

Okay then shut up, you dumb redneck.

EEP! Redneck shutting up now...

TheRedneck