How is it right to shield children from the 'protection' of their parents - Miriam Cates

Over the last few years there has been increasing controversy over what is being taught to children under the guise of ‘relationships, health and sex education’ (RHSE). While most people agree that it is important for children to be taught—at an appropriate age—the facts about reproduction, the law, and sexual health, it has become apparent that some schools are using materials produced by third-party ‘education’ companies that go far beyond the law and the facts.

When I was a Member of Parliament, parents wrote to me sharing outrageous examples of what their children were being shown in the classroom. Some of the lessons are truly shocking, with graphic pictures informing children about dangerous sex acts, implying that the age of consent can be ignored, condoning pornography and of course telling children that there are numerous genders. Many of these materials would be disturbing for grown adults and it would almost certainly be an offence of sexual harassment were an employer to force an employee to view such material in the workplace. I presented a dossier of these materials to then-prime minister Rishi Sunak, who commissioned an enquiry into RSHE.

In theory, parents have the legal right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons. But this is a useless safeguard when some schools do not allow parents to view in advance the materials to which their own children are being exposed. In a high-profile case, London mother Clare Page was forced to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office when her daughter’s school refused to give her a copy of what her children were being taught. The ICO found against Mrs Page, on the grounds that the ‘commercial interests’ of the sex education provider in protecting their products outweighed the public interest in transparency.

But this is a nonsense judgement that fails to understand copyright law, and Mrs Page is rightly appealing the decision. Of course, companies that produce and sell written and educational materials are and should be protected by copyright law. But the purpose of copyright is to prevent a person from profiting from someone else’s materials, not to keep those materials secret. For example, schools allow children to bring home maths textbooks, which of course parents are allowed to read. It would be illegal for a parent to claim that the contents of the textbook was their own work and to make money from it, but it is perfectly legitimate or anyone to read and examine the book.

So what is the real reason that sex education materials are being kept secret from parents? Very obviously it is because parents would be rightly angered and would take action if they realised the extent to which their children were being sexualized. We know that normalising talk of sex and sexual pleasure between adults and children can be a precursor to grooming, and that encouraging children to keep secrets from parents is the number one way to cover up abuse. The sex education providers—and some teachers—try to portray parents as the enemy, backward ‘bigots’ who are ‘endangering’ children by not allowing them to express their ‘true sexual identity’. But of course, the opposite is true—no one is more invested in a child’s safety and welfare than a parent.

In the House of Commons committee examining the Bill, Labour MP Tom Hayes opposed the amendment on the grounds that “if parents and carers are able to access teaching materials, they may meet with the teachers who drew up the materials and raise significant concerns”. Yes Mr Hayes, that is exactly the point. The instinct to protect one’s child from sexualization is a right one and a good one, and the fact that some schools are trying to override this instinct is a giant-sized safeguarding red flag.

When I raised these issues publicly over the last few years, I was repeatedly told that this was not happening, or that it was a marginal issue. But polling shows that only four in ten parents have been consulted on their school’s RSE policy—a legal requirement—and nearly half of those who asked to see materials were refused their request.

Keeping secrets from parents is not only a safeguarding concern, it is also an affront to taxpayers. Schools are funded by the public purse, so any third-party materials purchased for teaching purposes have been paid for by you and me. If materials are kept secret, how can taxpayers—and journalists, politicians, researchers and, indeed, Ofsted—assess whether or not we are getting value for money? In this sense, the Conservative amendment, which would have ensured that “parents are allowed to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum,” did not go far enough.

Materials should not just be “available to view” they must be published without restriction, so that they can be properly scrutinised. If the requirement is merely for parents to be allowed to see lesson resources, schools can make it extraordinarily difficult for parents to gain access. At one of my children’s previous schools, parents were allowed into school on just one pre-arranged occasion to view the curriculum, making it logistically impossible for many working mums and dads. And when I asked to see specific materials, I was only allowed to see the “parent version”. One wonders how exactly this differs from the “pupil version.” As Clare Page points out, allowing parents only to view paper copies of materials on the school premises prevents them from acting on what they see by making complaints or raising alarm.

It is not only in sex education where we need greater transparency. Polling this week has revealed just how differently—and inaccurately—young people see the world. A study for the Times revealed that just 41% of young people feel proud of Britain (compared to 80% twenty years ago) and only 11% would fight for our country. A separate report for Policy Exchange found that 61% of young people think Britain is a racist country and just 9% of young women have a positive view of Churchill.

There is only one explanation for this sharp change in social attitudes among the young; they are being indoctrinated by our education system to reject our shared heritage and cultural norms. From history to maths, the curriculum is being ‘decolonised’, children are being taught to catastrophise about climate change, racial equity and ‘toxic masculinity.’ Our schools and universities are supposed to pass on knowledge, but instead they have become a vehicle for social engineering. It is impossible to challenge what is going on in our schools unless we—as parents and taxpayers—have sight of what is being taught.

Labour MPs seem to think they are doing children a great favour by shielding them from the ‘protection’ of their parents. But in deliberately eroding parental authority, sex education providers—and their useful idiots on the left—are putting children in harm's way. I hope the Conservatives bring back an improved amendment at the next stage of the Bill, and I implore Labour MPs to think again.