Sex education for children aged just four criticised as 'inappropriate'

Published on Thursday 8 October 2009 21:11

CHILDREN as young as four will be introduced to sexual health education in all Glasgow schools as part of a plan to replace a previously "shambolic" approach to the topic.

It is the first time a comprehensive education scheme covering sex education, across primary and secondary education, has been devised for the city.

Primary one pupils will begin by learning the correct names for body parts, including both male and female genitalia, and in primary two learn about animal reproduction.

Lessons on sexual health and relationships will continue, with primary five pupils learning about puberty.

In S3, teenagers will learn about contraception and safe sex.

The programme concludes in S6 with classes on global issues associated with sexually transmitted infections, especially HIV and Aids.

The new curriculum is being rolled out in non-denominational schools across Glasgow following pilots in the east of the city.

However, the programme will not be taught in any of the city's 56 Catholic schools, which have opted to continue using their own system.

Glasgow City Council said the scheme had received "overwhelming support" from pupils, parents and teachers.

James Coleman, deputy council leader, said stronger bonds between parents and their children would encourage young people to delay becoming sexually active until they are ready.

He said: "Work on the curriculum has been built upon a long-term understanding of what parents and children want to see in sexual health and relationships education.

"Parents and children made it very clear to us they wanted to be closer to one another on this issue and this curriculum allows for that to happen."

However, critics warned it would be too much for children as young as four, just out of nursery to cope with.

Liz Smith, Conservative schools spokeswoman, said: "Just how well can they be expected to cope with understanding even some of the more simple facts in what is a very complex and sensitive issue?"

"Many parents will question whether this is really the most appropriate priority in primary one classes."

But Judith Gillespie, policy development officer for the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, backed the proposals. She said: "In general I don't have a problem with children using the right words.

"If you have a wee boy he knows what he's got, he's going to have a name for it – why not have the right name for it?"

Healthy attitude to our bodies

THE instinct is to baulk at the notion of teaching sex education to four-year-olds. However, Glasgow City Council's distinction that this is not "sex education" but "sexual health education" is worth noting.

Primary one children will not be shown how to use condoms or taught bedroom techniques. They will simply be told the correct names for their bodily parts.

Many would argue it makes sense for youngsters to know what the real names are, rather than discover at 11 that noo-noo is not a biological term.

However, teaching youngsters from as early as P2 how animals will reproduce may leave some parents disconcerted.

They are likely to fear a loss of innocence.

But nature programmes and playground banter often mean children know more than their parents think, and may have a confused idea of what happens. Isn't it better to have accurate information rather than playground rumour?