Sex education plan alarms parents’ group

Press, 2 September 1977, Page 12

Sex education plan alarms parents’ group

DR MARTIN VINEY’, a spokesman for the Concerned Parents’ Association, discusses the future of sex education in schools in the light of the legislation at present before Parliament,

All State primary, intermediate, and secondary schools will be obliged to

; ovide courses in “Human development and relationships.” including sex education, with no element of school or community choice, it the Bill on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion is passed in its present form, although proposed amendments allow for the right of parents to withdraw a child from the courses.

Teacher’- rights have been ignored, the professional judgment of headmasters is by-passed, and there could be widespread teaching on contraception, even in primary schools, from which parents may not necessarily be able to withdraw their children. No provision is mad- in the bill for pilot schemes and their evaluation before proceeding with a nation-wide scheme.

The bill proposes: “Every school shall include in its programme of instruction, in the manner and to the extent prescribed by regulations made under this (Education) Act, such courses and studies in human development and relationships as may be so prescribed.” (Section 56).

This section applies to primary and secondary State schools. It would be the only part of the curriculum actually laid down by Parliament. It is ironical that the Education Act, as such, does not even specify that children shall be taught to read and write

— but Parliament may be about to specify that they should be taught about sex. If this section is passed by Parliament, it is also National Party policy that individual parents shall be given the right to withdraw their children from such courses (Sections 56A and 568). The element of compulsion was rejected by New Zealand parents after the 1973 proposals of the Ross Report, “Human Development and Relationships in the School Curriculum,” and has not appeared in more recent dicussions of the subject. Emphasis has been laid on the need for individual schools and communities to work together and decide for themselves just what they wanted to do.

The implications of the bill are far-reaching. The proposed law removes from local communities the right to decide whether their schools should have “Human development and relationships” courses. Some headmasters have reassured uneasy parents that under no circumstances would these courses be introduced into their schools. . The exercise of professional decision-making by head teachers as to the desirability of running these courses would be overridden. Many headmasters have expressed apprehension over the possibile effects of these courses, not only on parent-school relationships, but on the children. There is no “conscience clause”

enabling individual teachers to choose not to be involved in the courses. One-teacher schools could find this particularly embarrassing.

The Director-General of Education (Mr W. Renwick) told the Royal Commission: “We all know that opting out is an extemely difficult choice for any parent to make. Parents really do not like to have their children appear to be exceptional in the eyes of their peers.” The bill thus proposes a course of action which the Director-General has admitted is undersirable. The only safe arrangement is for courses to be offered as genuine options, by those school communities which decide to run them, so that parents may choose whether to enrol their children in them. Satisfactory alternative education would have to be provided for children not taking the courses, but this is not specified in the proposed legislation. In spite of repeated assurances that parents and teachers jointly would draw up courses, the bill appears to empower the Department of Education to lay down what should be taught. Surely Parliament should decide what it means by the term “Human development and relationships courses” and write it into the law, rather than leave it to non-elected civil servants to decide.

Presumably these courses would include topics such as: Human sexuality at an advanced level, development of the sexual urge, petting and masturbation, social implications of homosexuality, appraising the different attitudes to abortion and studying the factors involved,

various implications of contraception — which were recommended in the Ross Report.

Even though a parent may withdraw his child because he does not approve of the material in the course, he cannot protect this child from the effects of an environment where all the other children are being exposed to sexually explicit material. Classroom sex education in primary schools disrupts the latency period of a child’s development (from age six to puberty), when psychiatrists warn that explicit, adult-type sexual information can be harmful, and result in psychological disturbance and learning difficulties.

The Royal Commission, in making its recommendations, had access to little reliable evidence on the effects of those courses, particularly in primary schools. Yet no provision has been made in the bill for pilot schemes to be conducted, which parents have been assured would oe run and evaluated before courses were introduced everywhere. The use of school time for “Human development and relationships” teaching would leave less time for teaching the basics, at a time when there is growing public dissatisfaction with educational standards. Delegates to the recent National Party conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of less social education in schools. (Human development and relationships courses are social education). Section 3 of the bill would make it legal for parents, guardians, doctors and Family Planning Association

representatives to give contraceptives and contraceptive instruction to children under 16. It appears that it would not be necessary to obtain parental consent before, say, the F.P.A. supplied contraceptives to a child.

The bill allows the teaching of contraception to children under 16 by a person who: “Does so as part of any course on social relationships, or human biology, or human development, approved by the Director-Gen-eral of Education, or the Di-rector-General of Health.” — Section 3 (3) (e). Or “Does so to any pupils of a school with the prior approval of the principal or head teacher of that school.” —Section 3 (3) (f). No lower age limit is specified.

It is not clear whether a parent who withdraws his child from one of the proposed "Human development and relationships” courses can also withdraw the child from receiving contraceptive instruction given under these clauses. Human biology is already an approved course, and there is no indication that any rights of withdrawal will apply in this case.

This is an example of hastily drawn up legislation, whose full implications have not been properly thought through. For instance, as soon as it became law, many social studies courses and English courses would have to be altered because they already contain many elements of the “Human development and relationships” courses. These topics would have to be restricted to the identifiable courses, in order that individual

parents could exercise their right to withdraw. To this end, the Minister of Education (Mr Gandar) has proposed an amendment which would change the phrase “courses and studies in human development and relationships” to “courses and classes ...” It needs to be made clear what legal redress is available to parents if schools fail to comply with the requirements for consultation and do not afford them the opportunity to withdraw their children. Mr Gandar. answering a question in Parliament on August 12 about parental involvement in school textbook selection, stressed "the National Government's policy of devolution of responsibility to the local level.” For Parliament to impose nationwide requirements for experimental human development and relationships courses, without defining their content, is surely contrary to this policy. The least that should be expected is for local communities to be allowed to choose for themselves whether they want their schools to provide human development and relationships programmes, instead of compelling them to by law. Caution and common sense surelv dictate that it would be better to delete Section 56 (1), which prescribes these courses for primary schools, altogether. There are no proven social benefits to be expected from these courses: it is ,to be hoped that our legislators will realise the widespread disruption to schools and their communities that the hasty passage of this bill in its present form could cause.