Teachers’ perspectives on relationships and sex education lessons in England

Relationships education and RSE lessons – the new rules

The seeds of reform were sown in 2017 when Justine Greening, then Secretary of State for Education, announced that ‘Relationships and Sex Education’ (RSE) – as opposed to what had previously been termed ‘Sex and Relationships Education’ – would be put on a ‘statutory footing’ (Greening Citation2017). Ms Greening explained that change was necessary because the official guidance at the time on Sex and Relationships Education had become ‘increasingly outdated’ (Greening Citation2017). Ms Greening’s announcement was supplemented by a Government Policy Statement, which stipulated that educators should focus more on relationships, and that lessons should include issues such as different types of relationships and how relationships may affect health and wellbeing (DfE Citation2017).

The Government’s plans on relationships and sex education were then presented to and accepted by Parliament, leading to the enactment of section 34 of the Children and Social Work Act Citation2017. It stipulated that power was to be delegated to the Secretary of State for Education, who was thereby enabled by way of regulations (i.e., secondary legislation) to make provision for:

Accordingly, two years later, the Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education (England) Regulations 2019 (SI No. 924) were introduced. The 2019 Regulations provide for Relationships Education in primary schools, and RSE in secondary schools. These subjects must now be taught in all maintained schools, academies, and independent schools, as well as in a range of other places of learning (e.g., pupil referral units, maintained special schools, special academies, and non-maintained special schools). Additionally, whilst sex education is not compulsory in primary schools, if a maintained primary school chooses to teach it and goes beyond what is covered in the national curriculum for science, it must make this clear in its policy and consult with parents on what is to be covered (DfE Citation2021b). In view of the need to update the previous Guidance (DfEE Citation2000), the Government in 2019 published new guidelines on the teaching of Relationships Education and RSE (DfE Citation2019). The 2019 Guidance – informative and advisory in tone as opposed to being legally binding per se – sets out what schools must do to comply with their legal obligations when teaching about relationships and sex. For example, it provides that every school must have a written policy for the teaching of Relationships Education (primary) and RSE (secondary) – and that schools should consult with parents to ‘ensure that the policy meets the needs of pupils and parents and reflects the community they serve’ (DfE Citation2019, para 13).

Research aims

The aim of this research is to explore some of the challenges and opportunities arising from the recently introduced rules on Relationships Education and RSE in England. The perspectives of teachers/educational professionals lie at the heart of this research. Their insights, especially in terms of what is happening in schools, are valuable for three reasons. First, they can help to ensure that teachers receive appropriate support when implementing the new rules governing lessons on relationships and sex. Second, the perspectives of teachers/educational professionals offer useful guidance to law and policy makers. Third, the insights of teachers can help provide a springboard for the establishment of more informed discussions with other key stakeholders in the field.

Recruitment and data collection

Aligned with our qualitative design, we recruited a convenience sample of educators in primary and secondary schools in the East Midlands from a conference we had previously organised. In total eight primary school teachers, two primary deputy headteachers, two primary headteachers, one secondary headteacher and three secondary school leaders participated (N = 16). All participants worked in state/publicly funded schools, covering both urban and rural areas, with a wide-ranging and diverse pupil demographic.

Data were collected using focus groups. Whilst scholars debate the value of focus groups as an effective research tool (Acocella Citation2012) an obvious strength is that they allow participants to share ideas, question others and discuss the wider issues at stake (Willig Citation2008). Specifically, focus groups are a valuable method of data collection for research in the field of education (Lederman Citation1990) and, given the highly sensitive nature of discussions about relationships and sex, such groups are ideal ‘for gaining information and listening to people’s views in a non-threatening environment’ (Litosseliti Citation2003, 9).

Three focus groups were conducted face-to-face in March 2020 and were audio-recorded onto an encrypted device and transcribed verbatim. These were conducted by the three female authors (SA, MO, KO), who all have experience in their career history working in schools in some capacity, working and researching with children, as well as engaging educational practitioners in dialogue about important issues. This experience and knowledge functioned to facilitate the flow of conversation in the focus groups, helped to build alignment with participants, and encouraged a more participant driven discussion.

A semi-structured approach to the focus groups was employed. A basic guide for moderators was used to ensure group discussions aligned with the overarching research agenda, but provided sufficient opportunity for participants to lead discussion and drive topics of interest. Thus, the guide focused on three areas of interest: 1) teachers’ perceptions of relationships and sex education; 2) their views on the importance of relationships and sex education; and 3) the challenges of providing relationships and sex education. While the guide helped maintain a focus on the research topic, it was applied flexibly to promote participant driven discussions and provide space for insightful areas of dialogue to be followed.

Analytical approach

Congruent with a macro-social-constructionist stance, data were analysed using reflexive organic thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke Citation2019). This approach harnessed sense-making from the participants, with all four researchers familiarising themselves with the data to seek meaning from the perspectives of participants. Thus, the authors engaged in data collection and the Project Lead (PC) worked carefully together with a team approach to undertake the coding process and collaboratively worked through discussions agreeing the final identification of overarching themes: challenges, opportunities, LGBTQ+, and parents.

In identifying these themes, we undertook a series of coding of each focus group to create coding frameworks, using the specific procedures and reflexive discussion processes as advocated by Braun and Clarke (Citation2022). In practice, this involved familiarisation with the data by all authors, discussion in labelling codes and clustering them into themes, and some level of description and interpretation of the wider issues identified by participants. The interdisciplinarity of the team, the educational experiences of the data collectors, and the different epistemic foci of the four members provided for rich and in-depth discussions of the data, as well as anchoring the themes and participant narratives to wider evidence, knowledge, and team expertise.

Ethics

Ethical governance in relation to the project was provided by the University of Leicester’s Research Ethics Committee. Informed written consent was provided by all the educational professionals in the focus groups. To differentiate between them, and retain anonymity, each participant was allocated a number. This is represented below with a capital ‘P’, alongside their individual contributions.

Challenges

Prior to the formal introduction of the new rules on Relationships Education and RSE, fears had been expressed that their implementation would create ‘serious challenges’ for teachers/educational professionals (Calvert Citation2020). Some participants agreed, and an issue of concern – raised in earlier studies in the field more generally (Alldred, David, and Smith Citation2003, 86) – was that teachers might struggle to comply with the new rules given the constraints of time:

A second ‘challenge’ was that of ensuring consistency between different teachers charged with taking classes on Relationships Education and RSE:

It is perhaps ironic that when Justine Greening first announced the Government’s plans to reform the teaching of relationships and sex education, she stressed the importance of ensuring that ‘every child had access to age-appropriate provision, in a consistent (our emphasis) way’ (Greening Citation2017). But the problem of inconsistency in delivering lessons in this area, which has been identified by scholars elsewhere (Hulme Chambers et al. Citation2017), seems unlikely to go away. Moreover, the risk of an inconsistent approach in schools was, in the opinion of one discussant in the focus groups, increased if teachers felt uncomfortable in class:

Accordingly, a third and final ‘challenge’ identified by participants was the need to ensure that teachers received appropriate training, thereby enabling them to feel both confident and comfortable when discussing relationships and sex in the classroom. Yet in England the education offered to teachers in this regard has been recently described as ‘limited’ (Sell and Reiss Citation2022, 53), whilst scholars have established a clear link between a teacher’s confidence (or lack thereof) and their ability to provide effective relationships and sex education lessons (Walker et al. Citation2021; McNamara, Geary, and Jourdan Citation2011). Certainly, in this research the significance of a teacher’s confidence was an important consideration, being highlighted in the following terms:

The importance of an educator’s comfort when communicating about sexual health has been well documented (Greenan Citation2019). Likewise, many participants emphasised the importance of teachers feeling comfortable, when implementing the recently introduced rules on Relationships Education and RSE:

In this regard, attention was drawn to the value of the teacher having appropriate experience and subject knowledge:

Similar concerns about teachers not having appropriate training were expressed in Parliament when the proposed reforms were being debated (Moran Citation2019, col 44). However, the (now former) Education Secretary, Damian Hinds, promised to ‘make sure that good training is in place’ (Hinds Citation2019, col.44), and one way of measuring the veracity of these words would be for there to be more research projects aimed at eliciting the views of those teachers/educational professionals who educate schoolchildren about relationships and sex.

Of the three aforementioned ‘challenges’, it is significant that they all related to practical concerns – whereas the principles underpinning the recent reforms attracted their general support. Because of this, we now turn to the ‘opportunities’ identified by our discussants.

Opportunities

Participants in this study appeared to welcome (certainly in principle) the opportunities afforded by the recently introduced rules on relationships and sex. In this respect, three themes were identified.

The first of these was that schools, when teaching Relationships Education and RSE, must now take their obligations more seriously. Accordingly, for some participants, the recent reforms addressed previous concerns about lessons on sex and relationships (Best Citation1999) being marginalised in the curriculum or relegated to the end of the teaching day:

Moreover, it was felt that the new rules on relationships and sex would provide the timetable with greater clarity and structure:

With relationships having been said to ‘impact a vast array of [life] outcomes’ and ‘accepted as a core social determinant of health and wellbeing’ (Janssens et al. Citation2020, 494), a second positive effect of the recent changes identified by our research was the clear and unambiguous recognition of the importance of relationships education. In this regard, it is worth bearing in mind how, in the past, sex education was effectively prioritised over relationships education. For example, two and a half decades ago, the main statutory provisions in this area (the Education Act Citation1996, ss.403–405) only referred to ‘sex education’. Indeed, even when schools were later required to provide sex and relationships education/SRE (DfEE Citation2000), the greater emphasis on ‘sex’ was still clear – prompting concerns around this time ‘that far too many young people – boys and girls – do not know what a good relationship looks like’ (Nandy Citation2013, col 255). Today, however, with secondary schools under a duty to provide both Relationships and Sex education, the latter should not dominate at the expense of the former. After all, the current Government Guidance states:

Thus, the change of order – so that SRE (sex and relationships education) has been replaced with RSE (relationships and sex education) in secondary schools – is a symbolic demonstration of a new commitment to relationships education. As one participant, speaking approvingly of the change, put it:

Likewise, there was recognition of the need to ensure that parents are also aware of the importance of relationships education in primary schools:

A third positive effect of the recent changes to Relationships Education and RSE identified in our research has been the creation of fresh opportunities for the discussion of issues that previously were seldom (if ever) addressed. For example, commenting on the change whereby all primary schools must now teach Relationships Education, one primary school representative said:

A similar point was made about the new opportunities afforded secondary schools to cover, in more detail, different kinds of relationship (both good and bad), including:

Furthermore, perhaps mindful of a traditional reluctance on the part of some schools to cover LGBTQ+ matters (Abbott, Ellis, and Abbott Citation2015; Strange et al. Citation2006), some participants in this study welcomed the increased opportunities for classroom discussion of LGBTQ+ relationships:

The issue of how England’s schools should cover LGBTQ+ issues in the classroom has, in recent years, generated debate (Epps, Markowski, and Cleaver Citation2021) and controversy (Griffiths and Ramzan Citation2019). Thus, it is hardly surprising that in the focus groups there was discussion about how LGBTQ+ matters should be incorporated into lessons on Relationships Education and RSE – so it is to this that we now turn.

LGBTQ+ issues in relationships education and RSE

The new rules on Relationships Education and RSE in England aim to ensure ‘that every child has the opportunity to learn about and to discuss the different types of relationship there are in the world’ (Hinds Citation2019, col 47). Thus, today in England, schools should address LGBTQ+ relationships in an age-appropriate context. Or, as the Department for Education’s Guidance puts it, when schools ‘consider it appropriate to teach their pupils about LGBT, they should ensure that this content is fully integrated into their programmes of study for this area of the curriculum rather than delivered as a standalone unit or lesson’ (DfE Citation2019, para 37).

In this regard, the Guidance distinguishes between primary and secondary schools. In relation to the former, there is recognition of the fact that there are many different kinds of ‘family’, including ‘LGBT parents’, and that ‘[t]eaching about families requires sensitive and well-judged teaching based on knowledge of pupils and their circumstances.’ (DfE Citation2019, para 59). Regarding the latter, the DfE Guidance states that ‘Sexual orientation and gender identity should be explored at a timely point and in a clear, sensitive and respectful manner’ and that there ‘should be an equal opportunity to explore the features of stable and healthy same-sex relationships … integrated appropriately into the RSE programme, rather than addressed separately or in only one lesson’ (DfE Citation2019, para 37).

In our focus group discussions, three themes were identified in relation to how best to incorporate LGBTQ+ content into lessons on relationships and sex.

The first related to the use by teachers of appropriate terminology in the classroom – an issue that has been recognised by scholars elsewhere as being ‘contentious’ (Mason and Woolley Citation2019, 4). In this regard some participants acknowledged the difficulties of knowing which term(s) to use:

A second theme identified from the focus groups concerned how teachers should best answer questions in the classroom about LGBTQ+ relationships. In this context the issue of adolescents ‘coming out’ was seen by some as being especially challenging:

Moreover, the task of answering pupils’ questions and giving them information in such a way as not to incur the wrath of some parents, was highlighted:

This fear, of teaching about LGBTQ+ issues in a way that might create parental disquiet, was something that concerned many participants:

These comments could, on the one hand, be characterised as an illustration of a pragmatic, cautious approach, which is necessary for the preservation of professional impartiality in the classroom. Yet, on the other, they might possibly also suggest that the legacy of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, the infamous law that prohibited ‘the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’ (Lee Citation2019), still lingers in the minds of some teachers.

A third LGBTQ+ related theme was the challenge of dealing with religious parents who view non-heterosexual relationships in negative terms. Given that some faith groups are wary of sex education generally (Tabatabaie Citation2015) and lessons on LGBTQ+ matters in particular (Christian Institute Citation2020), it was always going to be likely that religious (and cultural) norms would be discussed:

The DfE Guidance states that ‘positive relationships between the school and local faith communities help to create a constructive context’ (DfE Citation2019, para 19). A detailed example of an attempt to develop such ties was given by one participant.

Moreover, the need for all parents (of faith or otherwise) to accept the need for pupils to learn about LGBTQ+ issues in contemporary Britain, was a message that some participants felt needed to be conveyed.

Parents, relationships education and RSE

The Department for Education has stated that every school ‘should work closely with parents when planning and delivering’ Relationships Education and RSE (DfE Citation2019, para 41). But what if parents are unhappy and wish to withdraw their children from such lessons? In the case of Relationships Education there is no right of parental withdrawal in both primary and secondary schools (DfE Citation2019, para 50). By contrast, when it comes to Sex Education, different rules govern primary and secondary schools. In primary schools, ‘Head teachers will automatically grant a request to withdraw a pupil from any sex education delivered … other than as part of the science curriculum’ (DfE Citation2019 para 49). However, in secondary schools, the rules are more complicated. Whilst the long-standing right of parents to request that their child be withdrawn from the sex education element of RSE has been retained, a new rule has recently been introduced. It provides that all pupils can choose to ‘opt into’ sex education three terms before their 16th birthday, which effectively means that once a child turns 15, they have a right (irrespective of parental opposition) to be in receipt of sex education (DfE Citation2019, para 47).

These new rules have been criticised in some quarters for diluting parents’ rights (Offord Citation2019, col 46). However, the educational opportunities created by the fact that 15-year-olds, who might previously have been withdrawn from sex education classes by their parents, can now ‘opt into’ them on their own volition, was welcomed by one of our discussants:

The task of informing parents of their right to remove their children from sex education lessons without drawing attention to, or possibly even exacerbating latent fears that some parents (or communities more generally) might have about sex education, is a challenge facing teachers, especially in secondary schools. Different strategies in this regard were explored by participants. The most common, was sending a letter home to parents informing them about the school’s policy, and inviting them to discuss any concerns with teaching staff.

One participant however suggested that schools, rather than sending letters home to parents, might instead wish to explain their withdrawal policy in a publicly accessible document, accessible via, for example, the school’s webpage:

However, this same participant added that in their school they supplemented the published policy by organising a coffee morning as a way of engaging with parents, and this approach was mentioned by others:

Thus, the ‘coffee morning’ model sits neatly with the Department for Education’s recommendation that one way of helping schools build good relationships with parents is ‘by inviting parents into school to discuss what will be taught’ (DfE Citation2019, para 43) in lessons about relationships and sex education. Such bridge-building events are especially important given the misperceptions of some parents. For example, regarding relationships classes, one participant observed that:

Likewise, the misconceptions of some parents about sex education lessons were demonstrated by this exchange between two participants:

In seeking to assuage the concerns of parents, three key principles became evident from our discussions. First, there is a need for transparency, so that the materials used in relationships and sex education lessons can be easily assessed by parents.

Second, there is the value of listening and being sensitive to the views of parents:

And third, there is the importance of promoting communal values in the classroom, such as (respectively) empathy, kindness and child safety: