Response to the ‘Background Paper and Brief for the redevelopment of Senior Cycle SPHE’
Submission from The Iona Institute to the NCCA
December 6, 2022
Introduction: We would like to use this submission to draw attention to three particular areas we believe it is absolutely essential to properly consult parents about ahead of them being added to the Senior Cycle SPHE curriculum, namely ‘gender identity’, ‘consent’ and ‘pornography’.
We note that parents have been and will be consulted again about SPHE but are concerned that the consultation with them will not be wide enough or extensive enough. We note that consultation with parents is mentioned only twice in the background paper and that they are reduced to merely one more stakeholder in this process, rather than the key party.
We will now deal with the issues of ‘gender identity’, ‘consent’ and ‘pornography’ one by one. We will then discuss two other issues we think are worthy of note.
Gender identity
We note that the background paper (p4) says that the updated curriculum should address the issue of ‘gender identity’.
We believe it needs to be made totally clear to parents what this means, and Senior Cycle SPHE will teach in this regard. For example, will it teach that biological sex and gender are two totally separate things? Will pupils be taught that to be ‘male’ or ‘female’ is simply a matter of self-identification and has nothing to do with your biological body? How does the NCCA want the words ‘woman’ and ‘man’ defined?
Does it believe that schools should be allowed to teach that a woman is biologically female, by definition, and a man is biologically male?
Exactly how many genders does it want pupils to be taught about? What does it want them taught about gender pronouns and their use?
Does the NCCA appreciate how controversial these topics are and that it is impossible to teach them in a value-neutral way? If the NCCA believes that gender is a choice (even if partly socially constructed) and has no intrinsic relationship to our bodies, then it is taking sides on this issue in a way many parents might find unacceptable.
To repeat, parents need to be fully and comprehensively informed about what gender ideology is, and its implications. This must be done in a way that is true to both sides of the argument.
Consent
The background paper mentions the issue of consent (p4 etc) and rightly wants pupils taught about this, which is laudable, but does it go far enough? For example, will schools be permitted to teach pupils that consent alone is not enough, and that two people should be in a committed, long-term relationship first, before they become sexually involved? Will religious schools be allowed to teach that the ideal setting for sexual relationships, in their view, is marriage?
Does the NCCA believe a couple does not have to be in a romantic relationship before having sex?
We note that on page 23 the background paper says that one ‘key idea’ pupils can be taught is that ‘marriage and long-term commitments can be rewarding and challenging’, which is obviously correct. (The phrase comes from the UN’s ‘International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education’, a document the NCCA relies heavily on and needs to be properly debated and discussed with parents).
The word ‘challenging’ in UN phrase quoted above amounts to something of a warning but is realistic at the same time.
Will schools also be allowed to teach that casual sex can have poor consequences in terms of feelings of self-worth etc even when consent has been fully and freely given?
The HSE website, b4udecide.ie suggests reasons why young people should wait https://b4udecide.ie/your-decision/why-its-better-to-wait/ [1] until they are older before having sex (although it only encourages they wait until they have reached the age of consent).
Crucially, we must ask again what parents want their children to be taught. Do they think a consent-alone approach is enough? Do they want them taught about the importance of being in a relationship first, or even being married first?
Pornography
How will the topic of pornography be discussed in SPHE class? Will pupils be taught that pornography is a negative force or that it can also have a ‘healthy’ side?
We note that some influential voices in debates and discussions about RSE believe pornography can be positive as well as negative, this includes the ‘Active Consent Unit’ at NUI Galway which works in partnership with the Department of Justice and the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. https://www.consenthub.ie/ [2]
For example, in a submission [3] made in 2019 to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Skills about RSE, two members of the team, Pádraig MacNeela ( a senior lecturer at NUI Galway) and Siobhán O’Higgins (who has worked for AIDS West, also State-funded) said: “pornography can have a positive impact in assisting with learning about sexual activity, [our italics]”, although they accept that “the scripts [from pornography] for sexual activity and role models that young people are exposed to do not map well on to the WHO definition of positive sexual health” (see note below).
In 2018, a document called ‘Porn Report’ was launched by then Minister of State for Higher Education, Mary Mitchell O’Connor. It was written by Kate Dawson and the aforementioned Pádraig MacNeela and Siobhán O’Higgins.
Commenting on the report, Dawson said: “it is not good enough to just say that ‘porn is bad’ because it is not, people really enjoy watching it, there are a lot of positive uses, but people need to have the skills to make their own mind up about the content they see because porn is so varied.”
https://www.thejournal.ie/porn-report-nuig-4168032-Aug2018/ [4]
The question therefore arises as to whether the NCCA believes pupils should be taught about pornography in a ‘value-neutral’ way that presents it as neither good nor bad as such but takes the approach that it can be either a positive or a negative influence depending on its content and how it is used?
Again, we ask, will parents be properly consulted about this? What do they want?
Key question: Does Relationship and Sexuality Education actually work?
An absolutely crucial question that needs to be considered in this consultation is whether RSE-type programmes actually work. International and domestic research suggests, probably not.
The efficacy of sex education can be assessed on measurables such as whether they lead to reductions in the number of unplanned pregnancy, a reduction in STIs, an increase in teenage sexual delay, etc.
A major review [5] of peer-reviewed journal articles, published by Cochrane (a global network of 13,000 health researchers) in 2016, evaluated six school-based programmes across eight countries aimed at improving the sexual and reproductive health of adolescents. The authors found that the programmes “had no demonstrable effect on the prevalence of HIV, or other STIs. There was also no apparent effect on the number of young women who were pregnant at the end of the trial. [5]” The authors concluded that “there is little evidence that educational curriculum-based programmes alone are effective in improving sexual and reproductive health outcomes for adolescents. [5]”
A 2018 review of 103 school-based studies [6] in 44 countries, presented by the Institute for Research and Evaluation, concluded that “comprehensive sex education has not been an effective public health strategy in schools around the world, has shown far more evidence of failure than success, and has produced a concerning number of harmful impacts.”
The Oireachtas Library & Research Service document, ‘School-based relationships and sexuality education: lessons for policy and practice [7]’, produced in 2018, admits that the “evidence base for school-based sex education is contradictory and contested”.
An ESRI report [8] called ‘Talking about Sex and Sexual Behaviour of Young Adults in Ireland’, says there is “little relationship between receiving Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) or not and young people’s sexual behaviour and competence”.
in three key areas it found it makes no discernible difference at all, namely age at which first sexual intercourse occurred, whether contraception was used, and whether the young person regretted the first time they had sex.
Everything on the school curriculum needs to be justified because time is precious and there is so much to be learnt. RSE must fight for its place and it needs evidence it has the desired effects to support that place. The evidence does not seem to exist, which calls into question its entire rationale.
Should RSE/SPHE be mandatory?
We are concerned at calls to make RSE/SPHE mandatory. No subject should be mandatory and indeed under Irish law a parent is allowed to withdraw from any class. Making RSE/SPHE mandatory would almost certainly be unconstitutional and proposals to make it mandatory should not even be considered.
ENDS
(Note: The WHO defines ‘positive sexual health as: “…a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. For sexual health to be attained and maintained, the sexual rights of all persons must be respected, protected and fulfilled.”
https://www.who.int/health-topics/sexual-health#tab=tab_2 [9]