Scottish Union for Education – Newsletter No124
Themes: Government's pretend consultations, sex education and universities in crisis
PLEASE SUPPORT OUR WORK by donating to SUE. Click on the link to donate or subscribe, upgrade to a paid subscriber or ‘buy us a coffee’. All our work is based on donations from supporters.
This is the final newsletter for this school year. We will return before schools begins again in August. This week’s main article is by Dr Jenny Cunningham, SUE board member and retired paediatrician. Jenny has taken a good look at the government’s 2023 consultation on sex education in schools. Many parents concerned about what was being taught and shocked by the content of some teaching resources responded to the government consultation. It took 15 months for the government to finally publish a response, and many of the most important questions raised by parents were ruled ‘out of scope’.
This idea that consultations and inquiries can only address issues that sit within a set ‘term of reference’ outlined by those in power is frustrating and anti-democratic. In the case of the RHSP consultation, it is clear that government is committed to some ideological ideas and unprepared to listen to questions and concerns from parents and the wider community. Jenny raises some important questions which we would like to see raised in parent councils and public debates next year.
This last week the Scottish Parliament Committee on Education and Young People met twice to discuss the crisis at the University of Dundee. The meetings were disappointing, more Punch and Judy than forensic investigation. Professor Iain Gillespie, the former principal and former convenor of Universities Scotland, did not come out well from the process. The ‘inconsistencies’ in his account of what had gone wrong were exposed; however, the opportunity to address broader questions about higher education were overlooked.
No one returned to the issue raised in March about the roles of Scottish government and the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) in the chronic underfunding of Scottish higher education. How much longer can they pretend that government is ‘supporting young people’ when it is increasingly clear that, to survive, universities are undermining their integrity and the value of a degree? What can be done about the systemic failures of governance and the rampant managerialism in most Scottish universities? Did government and SFC policies on ‘inclusion’ for boards, courts and senates lead to the appointment of passive and underqualified individuals on court and in senior management? Why have universities contracted out so much of their administrative activity and centralised so much academic control – are management’s future plans for further centralisation really good value for public money?
How many more young Scots will we encourage to engage in academic courses without the necessary qualifications or preparation, just so we can sustain the myth that Scotland is progressive because it doesn’t charge university tuition fees?
SUE’s higher education group is open to staff and students involved in university life. If you want to find out more, or to contact parents in your area, please email us at info@sue.scot. If you have some free time over the summer, why not check out SUE’s YouTube channel. And finally, please put Saturday 15 November in your diary as that is when we will be holding our annual conference in Glasgow.
Penny Lewis
This Substack is supported by our paid subscribers. Please consider upgrading from a free to a paid subscriber. SUE needs you.
Scottish government’s consultation on RHSP is all smoke and mirrors
Jenny Cunningham is a retired community paediatrician who worked in Glasgow for over 30 years. She has specific experience in neurodevelopmental and autism diagnostic assessment.
The draft statutory guidance on Delivery of Relationships, Sexual Health and Parenthood (RSHP) Education in Scottish Schools (August 2023) was the subject of a public consultation which closed on 23 November 2023.[1]
The report on the outcome of the consultation was finally published in March 2025.[2] Apparently the findings of the consultation will be used ‘to inform revisions of the draft Guidance over the course of 2025’. The report’s authors concluded that the responses to the consultation ‘indicated a range of different perspectives about the role of RSHP education’ (p. 55). In the overview of the consultation process, it was remarked that the availability of ‘a suite of dedicated resources to support teachers to deliver meaningful relationships, sexual health and parenthood education, increased the need for teaching guidance to match the current, relevant and age and stage appropriate resources now available for teachers.’ (3)
In other words, the RSHP educational material existed and was being used – now teachers needed updated statutory guidance on how to teach it! The consultation drew 4233 responses ‘representing a variety of views and included several campaign responses’. There were two parts to the consultation. Alongside the online public consultation, there was the ‘Young People Engagement’ commissioned by the Scottish government: an online survey led by Young Scot and six focus groups, led by the Scottish Youth Parliament, in Aberdeen, Dumfries, Stirling, Shetland, and two in Edinburgh. In total, 321 young people took part in the survey and 49 in the focus groups.
The introduction to the consultation report argued that it was made clear the Scottish government did not seek views on ‘the specific content of individual teaching resources’ (p. 7). This is a little disingenuous, as the actual paragraph on ‘What is not in the scope of this guidance’ said ‘It is not a consultation to seek views on the health and wellbeing curriculum on RSHP or on the guidance and tools [...] provided by other organisations’[4]. This was almost certainly not interpreted as the same thing as ‘the specific content of individual teaching resources’. Unsurprising, many parents and critics of the draft guidance will therefore not have presumed that the RSHP teaching resources, which many had seen and been alarmed by, would be discounted as ‘matters out of scope’. Responses considered out of scope in the consultation included the
content of learning in RSHP education, such as what is taught as part of sex education; content relating to LGBT identities and relationships; content of teaching resources, including specific images used in accessible resources; and guidance on access to single spaces such as gender neutral or gender specific toilets in schools. (p. 7)
In other words, issues that most concerned parents, and campaign groups like SUE, were ‘out of scope’. Despite this, parents’ concerns and critical responses emerged in many of the question posed in the consultation. The consultation was structured through 11 questions. For brevity, this article will go through only five of the questions – referring to short excerpts from the draft guidance and then some of the responses recorded in the consultation report.
Question 1: Is the draft introduction clear on the status and application of the guidance?
Less than a third of respondents said it was clear, and almost two-thirds said it was not. This question drew the most ‘free text’ comments. The introduction to the draft guidance raised parental rights in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights:
Parents and carers have the right to have their children educated in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. This why RSHP education should be presented in an objective, balanced and sensitive manner within a framework of sound values and an awareness of the law, and teachers should work closely with parents in its delivery, by discussing proposed lessons and resources with them in advance. The delivery of RSHP education should reflect the drive towards improved awareness, understanding and realisation of child rights across Scottish public policy, public services and society as a whole. (draft, p. 4)
Most respondents believed that parents and carers ‘should be consulted on how RSHP education is delivered including what is taught at each age and stage’. Many ‘felt that parental rights should be emphasised more and that consultation with parents should be mandatory rather than good practice. Concerns were expressed about teachers promoting views that contradicted the views of parents and carers.’ However, other respondents thought that ‘young people should be entitled to equitable information regardless of their parents’ and carers’ views’. The first question elicited responses which questioned the role and influence of external organisations such as ‘Stonewall, LGBT Youth Scotland, Time for Inclusive Education and Scottish Trans Alliance were mentioned’ (all of which were part of the LGBT Inclusive Education Working Group). ‘It was asked whether third party organisations were vetted prior to being allowed to work in schools.’ In relation to ‘protected characteristics’, some respondents argued that certain protected characteristics ‘were offered more attention/priority than others’, namely a ‘disproportionate focus on LGBT, and not enough on areas such as disability and religion’. Lastly, a number of respondents were concerned about ‘what age/stage RSHP education should be introduced’. Many felt that ‘children are being introduced to contentious topics before they have the skills to critically assess and come to their own conclusions’. Some respondents stated that ‘RSHP education should not be introduced until secondary school’. (pp. 9–11)
Question 2: How clear is the purpose of the relationships, sexual health and parenthood (RSHP) education section?
Around a quarter of respondents felt it was clear, half that it was unclear and a quarter did not answer the question. The draft guidance stresses that:
RHSP education sits within one of the eight Curriculum for Excellence areas, Health and Wellbeing (HWB). The development of skills and knowledge in HWB sits at the very centre of all learners’ educational experiences, from 3–18. Inclusive RSHP education equips all children with the knowledge, understanding and skills to make informed decisions and consensual choices about all aspects of their health and wellbeing. It can be used as a preventative tool to help reduce domestic abuse, gender based violence, and ensures the importance of appropriate boundaries for all children and young people are understood. (draft, p. 6)
As an aside, Carlton Brick challenges these sort of assertions in a useful SUE newsletter in September 2024, arguing: ‘there is no evidence that any form of school-based sexuality education has any meaningful impact – good, bad or otherwise – on the behaviour of children or young people’. He points out that UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), which along with the World Health Organisation promotes comprehensive sexuality education, admitted in a 2018 document that there is a paucity of good quality evidence for these programmes, especially for ‘non-health outcomes, such as gender equitable attitudes, confidence or self-identity’.[5]
The draft guidance continues:
Parents and carers play a key role in all aspects of their children’s education; they are their primary educators. Therefore, the collaborative partnership schools have with parents and carers should be a key element of RSHP education delivery [...] parents and carers should be given advanced opportunity to view key teaching materials and to ask questions about any aspect of the RSHP education programme [...] Children and young people have a right to learn about their growing bodies, relationships (including online relationships), sexuality, sexual health and parenthood. Therefore, schools should work collaboratively between children and young people, as well as parents and carers, when developing their RSHP education programme. (p. 7)
Consultation respondents ‘raised a number of areas where they suggested further clarity within the guidance would be helpful’. Themes included third-party agencies, the parental role and RSHP education delivered across the curriculum. What materials should be shared with parents and carers? Some respondents ‘wished to be informed of any content being delivered by third party organisations’. Many responses ‘expressed the view that that there should be a requirement that information provided by external groups be published, accurate and evidence-based [...] and that this information should be factual and non-political’. More clarity was needed in terms of the parental role, especially ‘on when and how schools should consult with parents and carers, including clarity on parental role when RSHP education is delivered within areas of the curriculum’ outside Health and Wellbeing. Some respondents felt that ‘parents and carers should be informed when RSHP education is delivered through any aspect of the curriculum, and should have the option to withdraw from any aspect of RSHP education regardless of which curriculum area it is delivered’. (pp. 12–14)
On this last point, the consultation report’s authors curtly corrected this view in Question 3:
Question 3: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in relation to the rights of parents and carers and is the process for withdrawing a pupil sufficiently clear?
The onsultation report says: ‘Responses indicated some confusion surrounding the option to withdraw, with the majority of responses expressing the belief that parents and carers have the “right” to withdraw from any and all aspects of RSHP education, regardless of what curricular area it is delivered in. NB. As stated in paragraph 2.13 of the guidance, the option to withdraw applies only to the sexual health element of RSHP education’. (p. 8, emphasis added in bold). Most parents or critics of RSHP education might have missed this single sentence. However, the point is stressed more emphatically in the Scottish government’s Guidance on LGBT Inclusive Education (which SUE strongly recommends that parents read):
Parents and carers may have the option to withdraw their child(ren) from all or part of a planned sexual health education programme as part of RSHP. There are no similar terms on which withdrawal can be requested from LGBT Inclusive Education learning. [...] Where LGBT-related content or themes arise as part of the curriculum in the delivery of broader Experiences and Outcomes [...] it would not be possible for a withdrawal request to be granted. (p. 9)[6]
Having given parents and carers the opportunity to view the key teaching materials, they can decide to withdraw their children from participation in the sexual health elements of RSHP education. This option should be made known to parents and carers and their views respected [...] Where a child or young person is withdrawn from RSHP education, suitable arrangements should be made, in conjunction with parents and carers, and the child or young person for them to participate in an appropriate alternative activity [...] Any potential negative impacts on the curricular progression of the child or young person or their right to an education should be conveyed to parents or carer. (draft, p. 8)
‘A number of responses indicated concerns with how information on RSHP education delivery is shared between the school and parents and carers, and what information schools are required to share [...] Multiple responses stated that it is important when schools share materials with home to allow parents and carers sufficient time to review the materials and discuss with the school before coming to a decision regarding withdrawal.’ Some responses ‘sought clarity on the option of young people to withdraw themselves from aspects of RSHP education’. In terms of providing alternative provision for those withdrawn from RSHP education, responses, ‘particularly from teaching unions, expressed concern that [this] could significantly increase teacher workload in a manner that may prove unsustainable’.
For many, age appropriateness was the issue; they expressed the view that ‘the option of parental withdrawal was important to protect particularly younger children from information their parents and carers thought was not appropriate or they were not ready for.’ (pp. 16–18)
Question 5: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in supporting consent and healthy relationships having a greater focus in relationships, sexual health and parenthood education?
Some of the key benefits of teaching children and young people about healthy relationships, including consent, include the positive impact this can have on reducing instances of sexual harassment and gender-based violence [...] Older children and young people benefit from regular discussions of laws, particularly in relation to unwanted sexual behaviours such as the increasing prevalence of sharing intimate images, as well as the importance of consent. The age of consent in Scotland is 16, as set out in the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 [...] the National Guidance on Under-age Sexual Activity provides protocols that can be developed to ensure early identification and support, and help ensure that in cases where there may not be a child protection issue, needs are still met appropriately. Whilst not all cases where young people are sexually active raise child protection concerns [...] the impact of under-age sexual activity could cause significant harm. (p. 7) [7]
Children and young people have the same rights to confidentiality as adults, namely personal and private information disclosed during RSHP education should not be shared without consent [...] unless if not disclosing information might result in harm coming to the individual [...] Further guidance on consent and healthy relationships can be found in the document Key Messages for Young People on Healthy Relationships and Consent – which argues: If there are no child protection concerns about the young people in a relationship and professionals are confident that the sexual activity is taking place/has taken place within a safe and mutually respectful relationship, then it is important that confidentiality is maintained. (p. 19) (draft, pp. 11–12) [8]
As Joanna Williams argues in ‘Sexualising Children? The rise of Comprehensive Sexuality Education’, a report for MCC Brussels: ‘The dominant framing is one of consent: children are taught that “anything goes” as long as people engage in consensual sexual activity.’ [9]
And the responses to Question 5 in the consultation report indicate that parents and critics of RSHP agree with Williams: ‘Some responses objected to the text in the draft guidance that not all sex under the age of consent represents a child protection concern [...] Responses on the theme of safeguarding included the belief that parents and carers should be informed if their child is having any kind of underage sexual experience’ Note: here the authors of the report make an extraordinary interjection – ‘this indicates a lack of understanding around the rights of children and young people to confidentiality, and the policies and procedures schools will have in place to ensure this’. Some respondents felt ‘teaching about consent and healthy relationships was the responsibility of parents and carers, and that schools should not be infringing upon this right.’ Echoing the charge made by Carlton Brick (see above): ‘The evidence base for the positive impacts of educating young people on healthy relationships and consent was requested.’ (pp. 23–24)
Question 7: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in ensuring gender inclusive language is used to deliver relationships, sexual health and parenthood education?
Children can receive and internalise gender stereotyped messages about what they can and cannot do from a very early age. It is widely understood that there are no inherent differences between individuals based on their gender alone which should limit their interests, capabilities or ambitions [...] Throughout the Curriculum for Excellence, all children and young people are given ongoing sustained opportunities across the curriculum to reflect on gender stereotypes, and to recognise and help address unconscious bias. (draft, p. 16)
Of course, referring to gender stereotypes implies sex stereotypes and responses in the consultation reflected this desire for unambiguous terminology: ‘The majority of responses objected to the use of the term gender, and expressed the view that the correct terminology for this section should be sex instead of gender’. Responses asserted ‘that there are only two biological sexes’. A number of responses ‘disagreed with the draft guidance stating that there are no inherent differences between individuals based on their gender [...] Respondents believed it was important to point out what they perceived were “biologically based differences” between men and women in interests’. Note: here again the perspective of the authors appears evident – there can be no doubt that respondents did not ‘perceive’ but knew that there are biologically based/inherent physical differences between men and women. ‘Some respondents viewed the use of gender rather than sex could lead to safeguarding issues. There was the perception that acceptance of language and wider learning around the topic of gender – including trans identities – was potentially harmful to children.’ Note: I suspect that these respondents went further and expressed their concern that ‘learning around gender’ might promote the idea to children that they could change their sex – if so, it wasn’t reported. Similarly, some respondents expressed their belief that gender-inclusive language was erasing the rights of women and girls by diminishing uniquely female experiences. (pp. 31–2)
Question 9: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in ensuring relationships, sexual health and parenthood education is lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender inclusive?
Under the heading LGBT Inclusive Education: Schools have a key role to play in providing an educational experience inclusive of LGBT people. When RSHP education is inclusive, LGBT young people are more likely to feel included and accepted within the school community [...] It also supports all young people to understand equalities and rights, and to recognise the impact of prejudice and stereotypes. As with all learning, content regarding LGBT inclusive education should be age and stage appropriate and linked to the Experiences and Outcomes within the Curriculum for Excellence. To enable LGBT inclusive education across the curriculum, there should also be an emphasis on the importance of interdisciplinary learning [...] recognition should be given to particular issues of confidentiality for LGBT young people. Schools should be alert to safeguarding duties, and the fact that some young people may not have told everyone in their lives about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and unnecessarily sharing personal information about them with others (‘outing’), such as through social media, could cause direct and needless distress [...] LGBT young people face disproportionately higher levels of prejudice-based bullying in school and this has a detrimental impact on their educational experience as well as their mental health and wellbeing. (draft, pp. 19–20)
‘Respondents felt that LGBT content in particular was not appropriate for younger ages and stages. Some responses also expressed concern that children and young people should not feel pressurised into define their sexuality or gender identity at too early an age and stage.’ A number of respondents felt ‘sexual orientation and trans identities/gender transition were afforded disproportionate focus in comparison to other protected characteristics’. This extended to ‘including LGBT inclusive education across the curriculum’, which some respondents felt was ‘excessive, recommending it be reserved exclusively for RSHP education’. Many respondents felt that ‘trans issues and identities should be considered separately from those of lesbians, gays and bisexuals – arguing that the acronym LGBT unhelpfully equates gender identity with sexuality’. Some were of the view that ‘where a young person is questioning their gender or sexuality, this should be addressed by specialist services rather than by teaching or pastoral staff’. In relation to religion, the view of a significant number of respondents was that ‘LGBT inclusive RSHP education went against their right to educate their child in accordance with their own religious or philosophical convictions’. (pp. 36–37).
Finally, it is worth returning to the ‘Young People Engagement’ element of the Consultation – the online survey of 321 young people and the six focus groups, undertaken and analysed by Young Scot and the Scottish Youth Parliament, respectively. In both the survey and focus groups, around two-thirds of the young people felt that RHSP education would reduce homophobic bullying, while over a third disagreed. (pp. 49 and 54)
There were two significant aspects of this ‘engagement’ (recognising that its very small sample size and sampling method meant it could not be generalised). The first was that while respondents were advised that the consultation was not focused on the content of RSHP education but only on its delivery, young people in the focus groups often shared their experience of RSHP education. While a few thought the content was ‘sometimes helpful’, the majority ‘were less positive’, with words being used such as ‘boring’, ‘vague’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘censored’ and ‘lacking’. (p. 50) All the participants in the focus groups disagreed that their RSHP education lessons had been relevant to their lives (p. 51).
The second aspect was the observation that RSHP teachers ‘weren’t specialists’. Over 90 per cent of ‘older young people’ agreed with the statement: ‘I would prefer to have a guest specialist teacher than a regular teacher’. (p. 52)
The fact is that there is no such thing as a specialist RSHP education teacher. As Joanna Williams points out:
Relationships and Sex Education is not a traditional school subject. It has no disciplinary basis, no substantial body of knowledge and – although some make claims to the contrary – there is no such thing as a relationship ‘expert’. [10]
References
1. Guidance on the Delivery of Relationships, Sexual Health and Parenthood (RSHP) Education in Scottish Schools. https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2023/08/guidance-delivery-relationships-sexual-health-parenthood-rshp-education-scottish-schools/documents/guidance-delivery-relationships-sexual-health-parenthood-rshp-education-scottish-schools/guidance-delivery-relationships-sexual-health-parenthood-rshp-education-scottish-schools/govscot%3Adocument/guidance-delivery-relationships-sexual-health-parenthood-rshp-education-scottish-schools.pdf
2. Report on Outcome of Consultation on Delivery of Relationships, Sexual health and Parenthood (RSHP) Education in Scottish Schools – draft statutory guidance. February 2025. https://www.gov.scot/publications/draft-statutory-guidance-delivery-relationships-sexual-health-parenthood-consultation-report/
3. Overview of the consultation starting with the call for comments on the ‘draft revised RSHP teaching guidance’. 3 August 2023. https://consult.gov.scot/learning-directorate/teaching-guidance-for-relationships-sexual-health/
4. Consultation on the draft Statutory Guidance on the Delivery of Relationships, Sexual Health and Parenthood (RSHP) Education in Scottish Schools. https://www.gov.scot/publications/consultation-draft-statutory-guidance-delivery-relationships-sexual-health-parenthood-rshp-education-scottish-schools-2/pages/2/
5. Brick C. Scottish Union for Education Newsletter 93. 21 September 2024. https://scottishunionforeducation.substack.com/p/scottish-union-for-education-newsletter-7ba
6. Guidance on LGBT Inclusive Education, Scottish Government. 2024. https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2024/12/guidance-lgbt-inclusive-education/documents/lgbt-inclusive-education-guidance/lgbt-inclusive-education-guidance/govscot%3Adocument/lgbt-inclusive-education-guidance.pdf
7. National Guidance: Under-age Sexual Activity: Meeting the Needs of Children and Young People and Identifying Child Protection Concerns. 2010. https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2010/12/national-guidance-under-age-sexual-activity-meeting-needs-children-young/documents/0108880-pdf/0108880-pdf/govscot%253Adocument/0108880.pdf
8. Key Messages for Young People on Healthy Relationships and Consent. 2019. https://www.gov.scot/publications/key-messages-young-people-healthy-relationships-consent-resource-professionals-working-young-people/documents/
9. Williams J. ‘Sexualising Children? The rise of Comprehensive Sexuality Education’, A Repot for MCC Brussels. 20 February 2025. https://www.cieo.org.uk/research/sexualising-children-the-rise-of-comprehensive-sexuality-education/
10. Williams J. Civitas. September 2024. https://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/teachers-or-parents-who-is-responsible-for-raising-the-next-generation/
News round-up
A selection of the main stories with relevance to Scottish education in the press in recent weeks, by Simon Knight.
Joanna Williams, Drag queens do not belong in schools. Children should not be celebrating Pride month 25/06/25
https://archive.is/nUhV6 James McEnaney, Are these SQA 'reforms' just the rebrand that many feared? 26/06/25
https://engelsbergideas.com/notebook/how-to-revive-our-reading-culture/ Tiffany Jenkins, How to revive our reading culture. Technology has become a convenient scapegoat for the decline of literacy. The real problem lies in our society’s approach to reading as a shallow mode of self-expression rather than as a tool of searching, critical self-improvement. 06/03/25
Dave Clements, Kids' fiction: From transgression to tall tales. A short tribute to children's fiction before it became worthy. 28/06/25
https://www.familyeducationtrust.org.uk/research/suffer-the-children-why-having-a-mental-health-professional-in-every-school-is-not-the-answer/ Lucy Beney. Suffer The Children: Why Having a ‘Mental Health Professional’ in Every School is not the Answer. 14/06/25
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/06/30/trans-activists-have-no-idea-theyre-in-a-cult/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwLQZgZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHuUvV3kpML3SfqUjBFM0Zec7dx5vHbQraiUePXga5UMdt7I5RNNfBMGkp3UJ_aem_ZVRXN2g89Sp-oyjYkQHFxA Kellie-Jay Keen, ‘Trans activists have no idea they’re in a cult’. Kellie-Jay Keen, aka Posie Parker, on why the battle for women’s rights is far from over. 30/06/25
https://archive.ph/2025.06.30-201358/https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/church-flouted-law-by-letting-trans-woman-use-girls-toilet-9xw7lvggb Daniel Sanderson, Church flouted law by letting trans woman use girls’ toilet the Kirk told mother of an 11-year-old girl that it was lawful for a biological male to use women-only spaces despite the Supreme Court ruling. 30/06/25
Support our work and upgrade to paid
Thanks for reading the SUE Newsletter.
Please visit our Substack
Please join the union and get in touch with our organisers.
Email us at info@sue.scot
Contact SUEs Parents and Supporters Group at psg@sue.scot
Follow SUE on X (FKA Twitter)
Please pass this newsletter on to your friends, family and workmates.