Sex education in primary schools rejected by Govt.

Press, 2 April 1980, Page 2

Sex education in primary schools rejected by Govt.

PA WellingtonThe Government had de-' cided that sex education will not be introduced in primary; or intermediate schools, the; Minister of Education (Mr: Wellington) said yesterday. : [ •His announcement camel after years of public debate about the controversial] recommendations in the] Johnson report -on health' and social education. ■•

The report;-; published ini 1977, recommended . among other things that the Gov-] ernment- take urgent. action to delete from the Education Act a clause that says there: is] no place in primary! schools for group or class' instruction in seX education. 1 But Mr Wellington said th 6 Government had consid-j ered and .ejected this: recommendation. The clause' would remain. i Mr Wellington said- the 2700 submissions from the! public were so sharply di-( vided on this issue that it! would have been “dis-’ astrous” for the Government to implement the report’s I proposals. ( He had rejected the propo- 1 sals for three main reasons, i “In - the ' ■ first- place it ■ seems to me that the poten-i tial contribution, of primary] and intermediate schools toil sex education . has, been 1 given more prominence' (han : it deseryes.V . . It ,)yas widely, agreed that J parents- had 'the prime re-] sponsibility" for giving sex ■: education to ; their -children. 1 ] rather than introducing sex|i education to the primary: classroom. i Mr Wellington said he preferred to develop policies I through the Health. Social < Welfare and Maori Affairs-: departments to help teen- I agers and their parents. i Second, Mr Wellington i said he was concerned about:-' the consequences for prim- i ary schools and primarv 1 teachers if the proposals t were implemented. 1 “I think.it' probable thatir the controversy, that .. has! stfrrbunded this issue -during;! the eight’years it has been 1 discussed at . national level i would] cohfjntie in' a’, greatu

[many local communities ifl I the responsibilities of prim■'ary and intermediate schools I were widened to include fordmal instruction in sex education. ■i “I-am sure that principals [and teachers would find th"-, t >1 altogether too much of their ‘ time and ene'fgy would be I]taken up explaining, justifying, and defending themp selves to .members of their . communities y on / .matters

i!which might .have a small / place, in their ..schools or - class programme, but which i were profoundly disturbing rto parents who might know > about them ‘ only through ri hearsay,” Mr Wellington ,'said. - i Third, Mr Wellington said 1 that important and worrying .[as the issues of sex education were, primary- schools >|and primary teachers had Imore immediate and more > important responsibilities. - ‘i "In the difficult and rapidly ./changing times we live Jin, it k essential that the -'schools are not dis- : tracted from these responsi- ; bilities,”.he said. , He described sex education as falling into the “dead I ball” area of primary : schools’- responsibilities. The (task of equipping .children I for responsible - parenthood /belonged to the parents and i'. a host-of other groups, such i as the Churches. - “For God’& sake don’t add J the school to then,” he said. J Mr Wellington said that [for .secondary schools, the /present arrangements done (under the authority of each - secondary school would continue. Most .secondary .' .schools had ' over the years devel- : oped satisfactory procedures i for consulting parental opinion before they embarked upon programmes on human development, and relation-, :ships. and they took steps to; ensure a balanced presenta-j tion. o,n. topics upon which! there were likely to be.con- 1 flicting views in their comimunities. . . .'- 1 I “I believe it could be help|ful to boards and. principals,, however, if the consultative: procedures followed ; by i schools, were to’ 1 bp' reviewed I

tiana a set or national guiae- ■ jlines made available.” On the report’s recom- - mendations on moral, spirit - ual, and values education, Mr Wellington said he did > not intend to change the t secular clause in the Educa- ■ tion Act, 1964, or section 78 ; of that act concerning reli- • gious education in primary - schools. The views expressed in ; submissions •on education I about human development • and relationships were i “sharply divided . . . and, in ; my view, incapable of recon--iciliation,” he said. II “At one extreme are those i who hold the view that /courses in human development and relationships, including sex instruction for primary school children, should be taught as an integrated subject. “At the other .extreme were those who objected not only to the inclusion of sex instruction in any form in primary school syllabuses but who also took the view . that if school syllabuses did include such instruction, . their children should not I have to be subject to undue attention by having to absent themselves temporarily from their classroom,” Mr Wellington said. He released a section of a /report prepared for the Government by a consultant [ who analysed the submissions. The analysis showed that 49 lay education groups, such as school committees, supported the sex-education recommendations and three opposed them. The recommendations were opposed by 40 Church groups and supported by three. But 427 individual submissions opposed the Johnson report’s proposals on sex (education. Only 27 individ- ! iuals supported them. The Government will also’ 'consider; those recommendations in the Johnson report concerning school organisation and guidance, physical and outdoor education, children with special needs, comimunity* aspects* teacher /training, and research. - .