Sex education: parents should not decide

It cannot be denied that more young people in Britain are having sex younger, and that the consequences are, in general, harmful to them and to our society. This fact is well supported by the evidence of increasing numbers of teenage pregnancies and a rising incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. The Government accepts that it has a clear obligation to improve the health of the nation and, thus, to reduce these figures. What role can sex education play?

It cannot be denied that more young people in Britain are having sex younger, and that the consequences are, in general, harmful to them and to our society. This fact is well supported by the evidence of increasing numbers of teenage pregnancies and a rising incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. The Government accepts that it has a clear obligation to improve the health of the nation and, thus, to reduce these figures. What role can sex education play?

A clearly specified and well-resourced sex and relationships education (SRE) can and should play its part in ameliorating the current unacceptable situation. We educate children within a society which is sexualised and yet, at the same time, deeply confused about its understanding of childhood and sexuality. Any sex education must acknowledge these social realities. Otherwise it will not be taken seriously by young people, who will receive mixed messages about sex or detect adult hypocrisy.

There is no evidence that sex education directly prompts young people to try what they are being taught about - quite the contrary - and to say that sex education of itself corrupts youthful innocence is overblown.

We are, as a society, deeply divided in our views about sexual morality and, in consequence, about what should be taught in any SRE. So what are the basic moral and political principles which ought to bear on the formulation of laws and policies?

There are, I think, four candidates. One is that governments ought not favour any particular moral or religious view. A second is that a government should recognise the differences between and distinctiveness of each religious faith or culture. A third is the right of parents to determine what their children should be taught. The fourth is in realising the abilities of young people and promoting their development into productive citizens.

I do not think any SRE can completely satisfy all these suggested principles. But it is no solution to opt for an SRE which avoids moral controversy by eschewing moral content, nor one which assumes that there are some very fundamental moral precepts all can agree on, nor one which simply preaches abstinence.

If there is to be progress we need critically to examine the four principles offered as the moral underpinning for our considered thinking about SRE. I think that we should not see these principles as all having the same weight. In particular I believe that the ends of education should be taken as paramount and that the rights of parents over their own children should not be taken as allowing them to determine the complete content of any education.

Of course, it may be best if the Government allows parents to bring children up as they see fit, subject to certain constraints. But one of these is precisely that children should undergo a compulsory public education. Parents do not have a right to insist that the state teach their children just those values they believe the child should acquire.

The principle of neutrality, also, cannot mean that the right of parents to lead the lives they choose is also a right to have their children lead the lives their parents choose for them. An SRE should be consistent with the liberal ideals which underpin education in general. It should thus educate for sexual choice: young people should be supplied with enough information to make informed, considered choices; they should be taught to make their own choices; and choice should be accorded a central role in making sexual conduct legitimate. Any SRE should be sensitive, in its particular implementation, to the views of a community or parental group. But it should not abandon its commitment to the ideal of individual choice.

The writer is a reader in moral philosophy and director of the Centre of Moral Philosophy and Public Affairs at the University of St Andrews

Impact 7: Sex Education (ISBN0-902227-08-4) is available at £6.99 plus £1 p&p from Sally Armstrong, University College Northampton, Boughton Green Road, Northampton, NN2 7AL (tel: 01604 735500)

A symposium on the pamphlet will be held at University College Northampton on Thursday 5 October. Contact Sally Armstrong on 01604 735500 to book a place