Esther McVey and Alphabet Soup

by Les May

IN a former life I was responsible for the science programme taught in the first two years of secondary school.   At the end of the first year, when the children were already or almost twelve years old, there was a module on sexual reproduction which dealt with plants, fish, frogs, birds and mammals, which of course included humans.  In other words it was ‘sex education’ and not ‘relationship education’, or as some might prefer to say, about procreation not recreation.

More than 3000 youngsters followed this programme and to the best of my knowledge there were no complaints from parents. At least some of the parents were of a religious persuasion, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, URC and Anglican.   I cannot be sure of course, but I think the reason was that the topic was considered entirely appropriate for children of that age.

Esther McVey, who sees herself as Tory Prime Minister material, has suggested that parents should have full control to determine what is ‘age appropriate’ and be allowed to remove children from relationship and sex education classes until they are 16 years old.   This is against a background of months of protest by parents at a Birmingham primary school which teaches what it calls LGBT-inclusive relationship lessons. Predictably McVey has been accused of being ‘homophobic’. This is just another example of the ‘alphabet soup’ tail trying to wag the dog.  What McVey is suggesting would apply equally well to lessons about heterosexual activities.

Words like transphobic and homophobic are thrown around with the same gay abandon as the words racist, fascist and nazi. In both cases it is a form of intellectual laziness used by those determined to avoid having to engage in rational discussion.

Are relationship lessons, LGBT-inclusive or not, age appropriate for primary school children?  Discuss!