Agenda item

Cabinet Member – Councillor Beca Brown

 

To consider a report on the above.

 

To accept the report and note the observations, and scrutinise the matter again when appropriate.

 

The Cabinet Member and officers from the Education Department and GwE were welcomed to the meeting.

 

The report of the Cabinet Member for Education was presented in response to a request from the Committee members for an opportunity to examine in more detail relationships and sexuality education, which was a mandatory element of the Curriculum for Wales Framework from September 2022.  It was explained that this element had been mandatory in all primary schools in the county since September 2022, and in six of the secondary schools that had chosen to introduce the curriculum to Year 7 in September 2022.

 

The Cabinet Member set out the context for the report, noting the following:

 

·         That it was early days on the journey of the Relationships and Sexuality Education Code, but that the feedback from the schools had been good and that positive communication had been taking place between schools and parents.

·         That she had every faith in the profession to deliver this pluralistic and inclusive education that was appropriate for the child's development, as well as the child's age.

·         That she was extremely proud that children were going to receive an education that would keep them safe and happy as they went through life.

·         That the Code had received a great deal of attention, and that she had received a lot of correspondence from victims of sexual abuse who were now adults, from parents of victims and from people who worked with victims, all of whom said that they were so glad to see this education being formalised.

·         That she very much hoped that this education went a long way towards ensuring that no child would be bullied and insulted for being different from what was regarded as the norm, and that was why it was so important that this education was implemented effectively across the county.

 

The Head of Education reiterated the Cabinet Member's comments, and noted:

 

·         That school headteachers reported that they had received a positive response to the Code from the majority of parents and carers, and that he also had every faith that school leaders and staff dealt with the matter wisely.

·         Because the field was presented in a pluralistic way, there are different views presented so that children and young people had the opportunity to come to their own independent opinion based on facts.

·         That it was important to note that the Welsh Government had recognised that development or maturity or developmental relevance was at the heart of the curriculum.  Therefore, the schools would deliver the education according to their knowledge of their learners in terms of their maturity and their ability to understand and deal with the matter.

 

The Head then referred to paragraph 4(iii) of the report which stated, "when developing the Curriculum for Wales, Gwynedd schools will be supported by GwE", noting, in terms of correction, and to make the situation clearer, that the six authorities across the north had commissioned an individual to collaborate with the Healthy Schools movement in order to support schools in this field, and that GwE's Supporting Improvement Advisers were in the process of supporting all the schools to follow the Code.

 

Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and offer observations.  The following matters were raised by individual members:

 

·         It was asked whether it would be possible, in due course, to have input from headteachers and teachers, and possibly parents, by means of a questionnaire, in order to see how satisfied they were with the new arrangements.  In response, the Head of Education noted that a short report could be brought to the members conveying this, after a fairly considerable period of implementing the new curriculum.

·         In response to a comment that it was not believed that the new framework was fundamentally different to the way personal education had been taught in the past, the Head of Education stated that this was exactly the comment that came from the profession.  What is different, probably, is that the framework is presented cross-curricularly across the areas of learning and experience, and that it is a move that further strengthens children's ability to understand what a healthy relationship is, to understand the boundaries and to understand what was acceptable to them personally, so that this enabled them to make choices in terms of relationships and to safeguard themselves.  It was also noted that the Children's Commissioner's Office and the NSPCC had welcomed this move and the advent of the new curriculum.

·         It was noted that this matter polarised people.  On the one hand, the Department reported that the response had been positive, but there was a group of parents who were dissatisfied.  It was also understood that there were teachers who were extremely nervous about the new arrangements, and were asking for more training, and it was asked whether there was an intention to discover their views on the matter too.  The importance of gathering negative evidence, as well as positive evidence, was emphasised in order to maintain a balance, and it was also suggested that the implementation of the Code in the schools needed to be scrutinised before, rather than after, the academic year ended.  In response, the Head of Education noted that the Department had been finding out the opinion of headteachers on the matter, and that those headteachers represented and voiced the opinions of the staff in their schools.  While fully accepting that this field had been the focus of attention, it was noted that some of it was based on a lack of knowledge, and that the reaction the schools got was that parents and staff in general welcomed the new curriculum.  It was also confirmed that arrangements were underway to conduct training sessions in this field as in any other curriculum area.

·         In response to a question, the Head of Education confirmed that consideration could be given to how the Department and the Council would be able to disseminate some of the positive evidence to the outside world.

·         In response to a question, the Head of Education confirmed that no concerns had become evident since starting to implement the new curriculum, and that what had appeared on social media did not in any way reflect the general opinion.

 

A member expressed her concern about the Code, and noted:

 

·         That the parents were the main legal guardians of their children, and that this right was being blurred here.

·         That the law states that no one under the age of 13 could ever give legal consent to any kind of sexual activity.

·         Were parents entitled to withdraw their children from Relationships and Sexuality Education lessons?

·         Was it appropriate to discuss sexuality with very young children?

·         Why change from sex education to sexuality education?

·         That the authors of the document were Professor E. J. Renold from Cardiff University and her colleague, Ester McGeeney, and that the development of the document was entirely based on the research work of only the two of them, using fewer than 10 of their own articles and books to justify the document Relationships and Sexuality Education.  Was this, then, ethical evidence?

·         That the report stated that there was firm evidence - but where was that evidence?

·         That the committee could not scrutinise something that was yet to be presented, and we had the right to question the Welsh Government on this.

·         That every parent of every child in Gwynedd schools was a stakeholder, and that the Authority was being arrogant in dismissing parents' real concerns as misinformation on the basis that they did not agree with what the Government said was the truth.

·         That all of us had the right to protect our children from inappropriate sexual material, and that parents knew their children best.

·         That it was difficult to understand why people were so willing to accept this.

·         That we could not ignore the protestations coming from Scotland and England.

·         Our teachers were not qualified to teach sexuality education.

·         That this challenged all the western family culture that was inherent to us, and we had a duty to scrutinise this thoroughly and extensively before it was too late.

·         That the objectors could not be dismissed as extremists - they were parents who were very concerned about the welfare of their children.

 

In response to the comments, the Head of Education noted:

 

·         That the comments were not representative of what was happening in the schools according to his interpretation of the Code.

·         That it was correct to say that Senedd Cymru had legislated to remove the right for parents and carers to exclude their children from the curriculum, and Gwynedd, as an Authority, was subject to a mandatory code or statutory curriculum as presented by the Government.

·         That the Welsh Government had consulted widely before introducing the curriculum to our schools, and our role as an Authority and the school support service was to ensure that our schools were ready to implement it.

 

The member asked whether children had the ability to make moral decisions about their sexual behaviour, and whether the Head would agree that this completely undermined the safeguarding of children.  The member also noted that it was essential to introduce age-related regulations in order to safeguard children from potential sexual abuse.

 

In an attempt to alleviate the concerns, the Managing Director of GwE gave a detailed explanation of the support given to schools, putting this part of the curriculum within its wider context.

 

The Chair asked what resources were available to schools.  In response, the Managing Director of GwE noted that the Cross-regional Group looking at this had emphasised the need to make sure that the resources were appropriate.  They were not looking for the extreme poles in the discussion, instead they were drawing together a list of resources which, in their professional opinion, were suitable for our pupils across the north.  That list could then be shared at school level, and it was then a matter for the school to decide whether those resources were relevant to the school's context.  He further noted that he had asked the Group to consider whether they could see gaps in resources in some fields, and if so, how best to meet that.  He also noted that thorough information about the resources would be included on the Group's list in due course, and that it could be arranged for that information to be available to members of the scrutiny committee too.

 

A member noted that he too was completely unhappy with the direction in which the Council was taking the schools with this, stating:

 

·         Were the training courses funded through Stonewall the only training received in this field?

·         That the expertise of the person primarily responsible for drawing up the Code, namely Professor E. J. Renold, was 'Posthumanism’ and ‘Queer Theory’, and that it was terrible to think that we were considering getting rid of Christian ideology, which had been attached to these areas for almost 2000 years, and replacing it by introducing this baseless ideology, which was being pushed forward by Stonewall and by the Welsh Government.

·         That this ideology was highly dangerous for our children, and that when a small child told a teacher that he/she was being abused, using the type of terminology presented as part of this education would not manifest anything.  Training was needed so that the teachers could pick up on this, instead of pushing the agenda of transgenderism and gender neutrality, and consequently changing the face of our society through the schools.

·         What we would end up discharging from schools would be people who do not owe anything to their parents, or to the state, and that was the ideology that was being pushed forward here.

·         It was said that development or maturity or developmental relevance was at the heart of the curriculum, but by misinterpreting that, there were horrendous implications that could affect children for the rest of their lives, and we only had to look at what happened in Tavistock to see the impact of that, with thousands of children butchered in the name of the very ideology that was being driven forward here by our officers and some of the members.

·         That the Welsh Government was undermining Article 9 of the Human Rights Act by removing parents' right to withdraw their children from sex education if it was going to impact on their religion or beliefs.

·         That 16 was the age of consent, but not according to what was being pushed onto the schools, and the sources that teachers were expected to use were going to lead to the sexualisation of young children.

 

The Monitoring Officer noted, on a point of propriety, that comparatively serious allegations had been made regarding the nature of the curriculum, along with an implication that comparatively serious and inappropriate elements arose from the implementation of the curriculum, and he reminded the members of their responsibility under the Code of Conduct not to bring the Authority and schools into disrepute without foundation.  In response, the member stated that all the evidence was available regarding the nature and background of the research work behind the education curriculum, and that the members did not have the opportunity to discuss the evidence base as the Chair had told him that it was not appropriate to speak about that at this meeting.  He further noted that he had not accused any headteacher, and that all he had said was that they needed the necessary education and training to deal with the extremely complex issues that they would be encountering.

 

The Monitoring Officer again reminded the members of their responsibility under the Code.  In response, the member noted that following the introduction of the Code in Scotland, an increase of 1,600% had been witnessed in the cases of children going for treatment relating to transgenderism, and that therefore it resulted directly from the education system.

 

In response to the member’s observations, the Head of Education noted:

 

·         That it would be ensured that the training was appropriate for the staff, as with any other field.

·         That this was part of the Curriculum for Wales, not part of the curriculum for Scotland or England.

·         That the curriculum stood alone on the basis of research in Wales, and had received the seal of approval of several organisations.

·         That what was at the heart of the curriculum was that children received information and made their own choices, based on pluralistic opinions.

·         That the schools knew that it was appropriate for them to teach and discuss with children in accordance with their level of maturity.

 

A member noted:

 

·         That he completely agreed with the Cabinet Member's comments in a recent magazine, which stated "If we as schools do not give our children appropriate sex education, the pornography industry will step into the gap and what they will learn through that will not be suitable for their age, nor will it be presented within the context of a healthy, equal and happy relationship.  Appropriate sex education is an important step towards creating empathetic, respectful, fair, resilient and inclusive and kind citizens."

·         That the key stakeholders in relation to this matter, namely the Welsh Government, Healthy Schools, the NSPCC and the Children's Commissioner's Office, were all supportive of the Code.  The vast majority of teachers were also supportive, and it was assumed that the pupil councils in the schools had also voiced their opinions, and that they were also firmly in favour of the Code.

·         That it was recognised that the topic was a complex one, which polarised people, and that parents' fears needed to be allayed, instead of people relying on sweeping statements on social media.  Therefore, it was suggested that the Education Department should send a general letter, on behalf of the headteachers, to all parents in an attempt to allay the real fears and nervousness that many parents had.  In response, the Head of Education indicated that this was certainly something that could be discussed with the headteachers.  The Managing Director of GwE corroborated the comment, stating that the Cross-regional Group had drawn up a leaflet to that effect to be adapted locally, and that the Department and GwE had the information to be shared.

 

A member noted:

 

·         Until recently, that all the child protection organisations, including the NSPCC and the police, accepted that it was not appropriate for unfamiliar adults to have conversations with children about sexuality, but that this research had changed their opinion.

·         Did the Head of Education believe that it was appropriate to talk to young children about sex and sexuality, bearing in mind that the author of the document challenged the concept of childhood innocence?

·         That this was consistently recognised as a grooming technique that placed children at risk of being exploited by adults.

 

The Chair asked the member to quieten down, and the Monitoring Officer noted that he was not sure where this point was going in terms of context, as it referred to child abuse techniques within a criminal context.

 

For the sake of clarity, the Managing Director of GwE noted that there was a need to separate two things here, namely the curriculum, which offered age-appropriate education for children, and abuse, which had a completely clear and specific path.

 

A member noted:

 

·         That they did not agree with the comment in the report that it was premature to scrutinise our schools' provision in this field, because, if the provision was to be presented, then there were schemes of work available, together with resources and teacher training, and perhaps it should be noted in the general letter to parents that there would be a task group scrutinising the matter.

·         Why ask for the opinion of this meeting, when the members could not see the resources that were already being presented?

 

The Chair suggested that a request could be made to establish a task group to look at what was actually happening in our schools.

 

The UCAC representative was asked for his opinion regarding a defence for teachers should some parents complain that the education was inappropriate for their children.  In response, it was noted that it was important that the content of any lesson was carefully discussed, and that it was expected that a discussion would take place between teacher and headteacher on the basis of their knowledge of the children, and therefore that it was hoped that this situation would not arise.

 

A member noted that he would be more comfortable seeing sex education taught in personal and social education lessons on the one hand, and in biology lessons on the other. 

 

In response to a member's request for comments regarding teaching the field cross-curricularly, the Head of Education stated that the essence of the curriculum was that the content was taught across the areas of learning and experience, but in reality, our school leaders and the teachers would know in which area it would be most appropriate to present this type of curriculum.  However, the 'relationships' element, for example, could arise in History lessons in order to explain how attitudes have changed over the last decades and centuries.  The Managing Director of GwE added that, in terms of provision, it was possible to bring in external people to support specific themes and that the way to meet the requirements of the Code depended on the availability of the expertise within the school, and also the learning model the school wanted to adopt for the local curriculum.   Therefore, it would not be one model of presentation, but a model that would be suitable for each school as they saw best.

 

The member further noted:

 

·         That the tendency of new elements, when presented in a new way, was that they had the ability to take over, and that it would not be desirable to see this field arising in every lesson.

·         Although it was fair to refer to ideologies, the essence of the education should be rooted in the basic undeniable biological facts.

 

In response, the Head of Education noted:

 

·         That a healthy relationship took priority.

·         That what was at the heart of the curriculum was the pluralistic element, i.e. that one view/tendency did not dominate another, and that different views were presented so that children and young people had the opportunity to reach their own independent opinion based on facts.

 

The member suggested that that could be explained clearly, with examples, in the general letter to parents.

 

In response to a question from a member regarding the response of the governing bodies, the Head of Education stated that there had not been a general audit at this point with the governing bodies, but that it was clear from the discussions with the headteachers that those discussions were ongoing.  Also, in cases where schools had received a request, or decided with members of the governing bodies, to explain the new curriculum in its entirety to parents, that had been welcomed.

 

A member asked how we could protect our children if the curriculum was being changed significantly by the Minister.  In response, the Managing Director of GwE noted:

 

·         That all of us, as members, governors and officers, had a responsibility to protect that, and where there was real concern, that there were forums to have those discussions, regardless of the Minister's rights.

·         Although the curriculum framework was set centrally by the Government, the difference between a national curriculum and this curriculum was that this curriculum was delivered locally, and therefore there was a responsibility on the school's leadership and the governors to make sure that the content was age-appropriate and appropriate to the maturity of the pupils.

 

After the Chair stated that she would bring the discussion to a close, the Head of Education noted:

 

·         That following the discussion at this meeting, he wished to have a definition of what exactly the members wished to have scrutinised again, and that this was appropriate as we looked at what was happening in the schools.

·         That the schools and governing bodies looked at how to present the new curriculum in accordance with the conditions and circumstances that were local to them, and it was also crucial for the members to consider that.

·         As there were differences in how the work was done from one place to another, in relation to the context of children's maturity, etc., it was important to have the definition in order to be able to prepare appropriately for the scrutinisers.

 

A member noted that the committee had discussed this matter blindly, and as concern had been expressed about resources, it was suggested that the members should receive a very extensive selection of resources the next time the matter was scrutinised, as this was bound to be reassuring.

 

A member asked whether it was intended to use individual learning plans for the relationships and sexuality education.  In response, the Head of Education noted:

 

·         That if there were children open to the special education service, and that the requirements needed to be tailored to them, he was confident that the schools would act accordingly.

·         That what was at the heart of this was a strong recognition in our schools of where the children were in terms of their ability and maturity to deal with issues like this maturely, sensitively and intelligently, and that he was confident that the staff knew their children well enough to get this right. 

 

The member noted that it was important to include that too in the general letter to parents.

 

In her closing comments, the Cabinet Member noted:

 

·         That it was asked why it was necessary to mention sexuality to young children, and that she wished to remind people that there were children in Gwynedd with two mothers, two fathers, a transgender parent, or brothers/sisters who were gay, or transgender.

·         That all children were entitled to have themselves and their family reflected in education and educational materials, so that they grew up knowing that they themselves and their family were completely normal.

 

A registered vote was called for on a motion to accept the report and to note the observations, and to re-scrutinise the matter when appropriate.

 

According to Procedural Rules, the following vote on the motion was recorded:

 

In favour	15	Councillors Iwan Huws, Dawn Lynne Jones, Dewi Jones, Gareth Tudor Jones, Gwilym Jones, Cai Larsen, Beth Lawton, Dewi Owen, Gwynfor Owen, Richard Glyn Roberts, Huw Llwyd Rowlands, Paul Rowlinson and Sasha Williams. Co-opted Members: Colette Owen and Manon Williams
Against	3	Councillors Jina Gwyrfai, Louise Hughes and Gruffydd Williams.
Abstentions	1	Councillor Rhys Tudur

 

RESOLVED to accept the report and note the observations, and to re-scrutinise the matter when appropriate.