for the

Family

for the

Youth

for the

Future

Bulletin 141: Autumn 2010

In this issue:

 

The Family at the Conferences

It was inevitable that the economy would take centre-stage at this autumn’s party political conferences. Nevertheless, in quite different ways, family issues featured on the conference platform in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, as the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats sought to inspire the party faithful and convince the general public that theirs was the party with the policies needed to build a better Britain.

Here we briefly survey what the three major political parties had to say on the family.

CONSERVATIVES

Addressing the Conservative Party conference for the first time as Prime Minister, David Cameron reaffirmed his commitment to recognising marriage in the tax system and stressed the importance of a stable family upbringing. He said:

‘Let’s support real routes out of poverty: a strong family; a good education; a job.

‘So we’ll invest in the early years, help put troubled families back on track, use a pupil premium to make sure kids from the poorest homes go to the best schools not the worst, recognise marriage in the tax system and most of all, make sure that work really pays for every single person in our country.’

 

Child benefit

But it was the announcement that child benefit was to be withdrawn for higher rate taxpayers from 2013 that captured the headlines and provoked fierce debate. In his keynote speech to the conference, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne stated:

‘I understand that most higher-rate taxpayers are not the super-rich. But a system that taxes working people at higher rates only to give it back in child benefit is very difficult to justify at a time like this.

‘And it’s very difficult to justify taxing people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those earning so much more than them.

‘We have got to be tough but fair, and that’s why we will withdraw child benefit from households with a higher rate taxpayer.’

The proposal has proved highly controversial, not least because a family where both parents earn just below the threshold at which higher rate tax becomes payable (currently £43,876) would continue to receive child benefit even if their combined income amounted to over £80,000, whereas a family with a single income in excess of the threshold would no longer be eligible for the benefit. Critics have argued that the planned cut will punish stay-at-home mothers.

Although the Chancellor acknowledged the anomaly, he defended the policy on the basis that the only alternative would be to introduce ‘a new complex, costly and intrusive means test that would spread right up the income distribution’.

In television interviews, the Prime Minister confirmed his support for transferable tax allowances for married couples – something he had ensured was included in the coalition agreement. Prior to the General Election, David Cameron stated that the transferable tax allowances would be limited to basic rate taxpayers, but at the Conservative party conference he pointed out to the BBC’s political editor, Nick Robinson, that the coalition agreement did not specify any restriction and he refused to rule out extending the tax break to higher rate taxpayers.

LABOUR

In his first speech as leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband placed a strong emphasis on standing up for families and called for a change in the long working hours culture in order to allow parents to spend more time with their children. Mr Miliband stated:

‘Families can’t do the best job if they are stressed out, working 60 or 70 hours a week, can’t be there when the kids get home from school, doing two or three jobs.

‘We’ve got to change our culture on working time not just for the good of families, but because it is through family that we learn right from wrong, develop ambitions for ourselves and show kindness and respect for others that is the foundation of our society.

‘When I look at some of the challenges we face as a country – from gangs to teenage pregnancy – it is only a government that stands up for families that are trying their best to bring up their kids that can offer answers.

‘So as we rebuild our economy we must think about how we protect and nourish the things that matter to families and to family life.’

The Labour leader also used his first conference speech to register his support for same-sex relationships. He spoke of being privileged to attend Manchester Pride, the annual lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender festival, over the August bank holiday weekend and stated:

‘We should be proud that our commitment to equality means we have couples forming civil partnerships across the country and celebrating with their family and friends.’

Marriage

Mr Miliband, who has openly spoken of changing the definition of marriage in order to accommodate same-sex couples as ‘the next step in our mission for equality’, appears ambivalent about the importance of marriage both for families and society. While he told BBC Breakfast that ‘marriage is a very important institution’, he went on to suggest that it is a matter of indifference, adding: ‘there are stable families that aren’t married and stable families that are married’.

Stating his intention to marry Justine Thornton who is currently expecting their second child, Mr Miliband implied that the couple might have married sooner, but the Copenhagen climate change summit, the General Election and the leadership election had ‘got in the way’.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

Unlike the leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties, Nick Clegg said very little about the family in his speech. Apart from pledging more investment in the children who need most help at school and stating his opposition to selective schools, the Liberal Democrat leader did not address the concerns of parents and children, choosing to focus on the economy.

Same-sex marriage

However, family related issues were not totally absent from the conference, and on 21 September the Liberal Democrats formally adopted a policy supporting same-sex marriage. Following a debate led by former Liberal Democrat MP, Evan Harris, delegates supported a motion calling on the government to ‘o pen both marriage and civil partnerships to both same-sex and mixed-sex couples’, ‘to establish a simple and straightforward process by which any existing civil partnership may be converted into a marriage or vice-versa without the need to dissolve the civil partnership or proceed with a divorce’ and to ‘openly promote and encourage recognition of same-sex marriage and civil partnerships across the European Union, especially in countries where currently no laws exist’.1

Stephen Gilbert, the openly homosexual MP for St Austell and Newquay, stated:

‘Current legislation degrades same-sex couples to a second-tier partnership and leads to unnecessary pain and trouble for anyone wishing to change their legally recognised gender, forcing them to divorce or dissolve their civil partnership and enter into a different commitment.

‘It is time that Britain ends the current unfair legal situation and regains its position as a country leading the fight for full LGBT equality.’2

Earlier in the year, Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat party leader and now Deputy Prime Minister, told the Pink News, ‘I support gay marriage. Love is the same, straight or gay, so the civil institution should be the same too. All couples should be able to make that commitment to one another.’3

The equality minister and Liberal Democrat MP, Lynne Featherstone, responded positively to the vote:

‘I’m proud of the Liberal Democrats overwhelmingly supporting this motion. It underlines our fundamental commitment to equality and fairness.

‘As minister for equality I hear the growing call for same-sex marriage and I believe that as a government we must listen very carefully to that message.’4

 

References

1. ‘ Equal Marriage in United Kingdom’, http://www.libdems.org.uk

2. ‘Stephen Gilbert: Government must open marriage to all couples’, Liberal Democrat press release, 21 September 2010.

3. Pink News, 17 February 2010.

4. Press Association, ‘Lib Dems back gay marriage motion’, 21 September 2010.

^ Back to the top ^

 

NICE calls for antenatal classes in school

In a move that risks normalising teenage pregnancy and increasing the very problem it was intended to address, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended that schools in areas with high teenage pregnancy rates should provide antenatal classes. According to NICE, many teenage girls are missing out on antenatal care because they are too embarrassed or frightened to attend clinics in the community and would therefore benefit from antenatal education in peer groups on school premises.

While everyone is agreed that pregnant teenagers need help and encouragement to take responsibility for the child they are bringing into the world, the NICE recommendation fails to consider the possibility that bringing antenatal clinics onto school premises could lead to the perception that there is nothing wrong with schoolgirls having babies and be seen as the school giving its seal of approval to teenage pregnancy.

Family Education Trust director, Norman Wells, told Channel 5 News:

‘Schools exist to assist and support parents in the education of their children, not to be the panacea for every social ill. The more that schools are called on to shoulder the burden of problems created by a permissive society, the more they will lose their focus on delivering the curriculum and providing a broad and balanced education.

‘Where girls are reluctant or afraid to go to antenatal classes in the community, more work needs to be done with their own parents and members of their families. After the birth of the child, it is often the girl’s mother or in some cases the grandmother who plays a major part in helping the teenage mother to care for her baby, so it is a good thing to involve them at an early stage.

‘It’s also a good thing to encourage the mothers of pregnant teenagers to accompany their daughters to antenatal classes where there are older mothers present. The teenagers can benefit from the experience of older mothers and they will lose that if classes are provided in school, away from their parents and other older mothers.’

The NICE recommendation prompted a high level of press and media interest, with the result that Family Education Trust was quoted in the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, Daily Mail and Guardian. We also featured on national television news bulletins and gave numerous interviews on local, national and international radio stations, including 30 minutes on the BBC 5 Live Breakfast phone-in.

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Wasted: Why Education Isn’t Educating

Frank Furedi, Continuum 2009, ix + 246pp, ISBN 9781847064165, hb £16.99

This year saw A-level pass rates rise to a record high of 97.6 per cent, with an unprecedented 27 per cent of entries securing an A or A* grade. On the day the results were announced, Science and universities minister David Willetts dismissed claims that public examinations are less demanding now than they were a generation ago and celebrated the fact that more students are entering university than ever before. Yet professional academic concerns and personal experience have led Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, to the conclusion that far too many young people who enter universities lack the standards of literacy and numeracy expected of an undergraduate.

Professor Furedi laments the fact that attempts to have an honest debate about educational standards are invariably suppressed on the basis that the mere raising of the question constitutes an insult to the integrity of the teaching profession and denigrates the achievements of young people. In this penetrating critique, he dares to challenge the spirit of low expectations that influence so much thinking on education and asserts that the more society invests in and expects of education, the less schools and universities demand of students. He writes: ‘When education becomes everything, it ceases to be education. Education needs to be saved from those who want to turn it into an all-purpose institution for solving the problems of society.’

Loss of adult authority

Furedi argues that many of the problems in modern education stem from the loss of adult authority: ‘It is the reluctance of contemporary society to value and affirm the exercise of adult authority that undermines our capacity to develop the potential of young people. Without the valuation of adult authority, much of teachers’ hard work and effort and society’s resources are wasted.’

The draft sex and relationship education guidance which was circulated for consultation in January 2010 placed a strong emphasis on consulting pupils about the content and delivery of the curriculum. This is just one recent example of what Frank Furedi calls ‘the pedagogic project of suppressing hierarchy’ or ‘the institutionalisation of the pupil voice’, marking a shift in authority from teacher to learner with the result that the teacher is downgraded to the role of a ‘facilitator’.

The current obsession with making education ‘relevant’ to pupils has given rise to a ‘pedagogic policy continually fixated with novelty and innovation’ and led to a general dumbing down of standards. Furedi contends that: ‘Education is not, and should not be, reducible to ideas that are directly relevant to a pupil – it is about imparting the knowledge and insights gained through the experience of others in far-away places and often in different historical circumstances… Education involves providing answers to questions that the young have not yet asked.’

Socialisation in reverse

In a chapter entitled ‘Socialisation in reverse’, Professor Furedi makes some perceptive observations about the way in which schools have increasingly assumed responsibility for the socialisation of children which has historically been viewed as a parental responsibility. While not all educationalists embraced the view that free state education was ‘an engine of social control’, by the beginning of the 20 th century there was a general consensus that the role of schools was to extract children from their families so that they could come under the influence of enlightened professionals. In more recent years, schools have been encouraging children to wean their parents away from their outdated prejudices and to accept the latest enlightened ‘value’ provided by expert authority.

Professor Furedi is no conspiracy theorist and does not suggest that the authorities are deliberately manipulating children to police their parents, but he does note that while totalitarian societies have frequently attempted to use children to ensure that their parents conform to the officially sanctioned worldview, ‘it is only in recent times that this form of direct indoctrination has been used in liberal democracies in association with the self-conscious elevation of the moral status of young people.’

Undefined values

Education policy documents repeatedly refer to ‘values’, yet as Professor Furedi points out, the term is never defined. In fact, according to the thinking behind ‘values clarification’, it has no fixed meaning and it is for each individual to determine his or her own values. This presents schools with a difficulty: on the one hand they are increasingly expected to use the curriculum to solve society’s problems, yet there is no consensus as to what is morally right and wrong. Furedi notes, for example, that: ‘One of the distinctive features of Citizenship education is that it combines this aspiration to indoctrinate with uncertainty as to which values it should inculcate in children.’

The book concludes by prescribing several steps that need to be taken in order to save education from itself. These include reasserting the role of the teacher as an educator, introducing a more intellectually challenging curriculum into teacher training institutions, re-evaluating the meaning and purpose of education and, most important of all, recovering adult authority.

^ Back to the top ^

 

ContactPoint closed down

ContactPoint, the database holding personal information on every child in England, was closed down on 6 August in accordance with a commitment contained in the coalition agreement.

In a written statement, the children’s minister, Tim Loughton, commented: ‘It has always been our view that it was disproportionate and unjustifiable to hold records on every child in the country, making them accessible to large numbers of people.’ 1 Speaking on the Radio 4 Today programme on the day the database was finally switched off, Mr Loughton said that ContactPoint had raised civil liberties issues and went on to state: ‘This is a surrogate ID scheme for children by the back door, and we just don’t think it’s necessary.’

The government is committed to taking a more targeted and proportionate approach to information sharing and is currently considering the feasibility of a new signposting service to help a strictly limited group of practitioners support and protect the most vulnerable children.

Reference

1. HC Hansard, 22 July 2010, col 31WS.

^ Back to the top ^

 

The myth of a ‘Dutch model’ of sex education

On 8 September, the Labour MP Chris Bryant introduced a 10-Minute Rule Bill aimed at making sex and relationships education (SRE) a statutory part of the curriculum. He asserted that SRE was the answer to teenage pregnancy and to rising sexually transmitted infection rates. In the course of his speech, Mr Bryant incorrectly claimed that:

‘There is one big difference between this country and European countries with lower rates of teenage pregnancy: all the other countries provide statutory sex and relationships education to every single child from an early age. That is particularly the case in the Netherlands, which has the lowest rate in Europe and by far the best sex and relationships education.’1

However, as Joost van Loon demonstrated in our report Deconstructing the Dutch Utopia, the re is no government-mandated curriculum for sex education in Dutch schools and no uniform approach to how the subject is taught. Having made a qualitative analysis of sex education provision in the Netherlands, Dr van Loon concluded that: ‘The differences between the schools visited were probably greater than any differences between sex education in the UK and the Netherlands, considered overall.’2  Dr van Loon’s findings have since been confirmed in a review of young people’s sexual awareness and behaviour in European Union countries conducted by the contraceptive manufacturer Durex.

European review

While the sex education lobby frequently objects that sex education in the UK is ‘too biological’ and lacks the comprehensive character of ‘Dutch sex education’, the European survey notes that ‘only the biological aspects of sexuality education are mandatory for Dutch schools to cover’. Another criticism levelled at sex education in the UK is that it is ‘patchy’, unlike the Netherlands where, it is claimed, standards are consistent throughout the country. However, the Durex study states that: ‘Although most [Dutch] schools have some ongoing sexuality education activities, the quality and frequency varies among different teachers and schools. No formal mechanisms for monitoring the standard of provision exist .’

There are also religious factors that lead to a wide variation in the content and delivery of sex education in the Netherlands. The European review remarks that: ‘where the Protestant north of the country meets the Catholic south which is sometimes referred to as the “religion belt”, people tend to have stronger religious convictions and sexuality education in schools may be more problematic’.3

Fundamental principle

Dr Thérèse Coffey, Conservative MP for Suffolk Coastal, responded to Mr Bryant in a robust manner. She argued that sex education is ‘the fundamental, primary domain of parents within families’ and emphasised the importance of schools developing their own policies in consultation with parents. She stressed that it is ‘imperative that parents continue to be able to exercise the right to withdraw their children from lessons that they do not believe to be in their children’s interests’ and concluded by saying that, ‘the fundamental principle is that families and parents know best, not the government, so we will oppose this Bill fundamentally, every hour, every day’.4

When the UK government commences its curriculum review this autumn and considers the place of SRE in the curriculum, the point cannot be made strongly enough that there is no evidence for attributing low teenage pregnancy rates in the Netherlands to ‘comprehensive, consistent and early’ sex education in Dutch schools.

References

1. HC Hansard, 8 September 2010 , col 339.

2. https://familyeducationtrust.org.uk/pdfs/DDU.pdf

3. Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide and Durex Network, Safer Sex for Young People: Review of information and data relating to sexual awareness and behaviour of European Youth, March-April 2007.

4. HC Hansard, 8 September 2010 , col 342.

^ Back to the top ^

 

Office of Children’s Commissioner under review

As part of the government’s commitment to increase accountability and assess the cost of quangos, the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has commissioned an independent review of the office, role and functions of the Children’s Commissioner for England. Mr Gove has invited John Dunford, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, to conduct the review and asked him to consult widely and to make recommendations that would improve the impact and effectiveness of the role.

Last autumn, Michael Gove publicly challenged Ed Balls over his decision to disregard the judgment of the Education Select Committee in proceeding with the appointment of Maggie Atkinson to succeed Sir Al Aynsley-Green as children’s commissioner, and prior to the General Election, there was speculation that an incoming Conservative government would close down the Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC).

However, in a written statement to the House of Commons on 12 July 2010, the Education Secretary stated: ‘The Government are committed to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child (UNCRC) and believe it is vital that children and young people have a strong, independent advocate to champion their interests and views and to promote their rights.’ 1

In its response to Dr Dunford’s public consultation, Family Education Trust called for the abolition of the OCC on the basis that there is no evidence that children need a statutory office to promote their rights. The overwhelming majority of children and young people have parents who are better placed to meet their needs and look after their interests than any impersonal office will ever be.

The Trust also expressed concern that the OCC has pursued an ideologically-driven agenda that undermines the role of parents and poses a continual threat to the autonomy of the family. It highlighted the OCC’s campaign to make it a criminal offence for parents to even mildly physically chastise their children and drew attention to the opposition of the OCC to making it a requirement for professionals to report young people for underage sexual activity because it would constitute ‘an invasion of young people’s right to private life’. The OCC had even opposed the mandatory reporting of sexually active under-13s on the basis that children under that age who were being abused would not seek contraception or confide in a professional if they if they thought they would be reported.2

The deadline for responses to the public consultation passed on 4 October and Dr Dunford is due to submit his report to the Secretary of State by the end of November. The Department for Education expects to publish the results of the consultation before the end of the year.

References

1. HC Hansard, 12 July 2010, col 17WS.

2. ‘Working with sexually active people under the age of 18 – a pan-London protocol’, Response of the OCC.

Independent Review of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner – Call for Evidence http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

In the best interests of children?

During the summer, the Charity Commission rejected an application from the adoption agency Catholic Care to work with married couples only. The Commission determined that the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was such a fundamental principle of human rights law that an exemption could be granted in only the most compelling of circumstances. Mark Wiggin, the adoption agency’s former chief executive officer, and currently Director of Caritas Diocese of Salford, reflects on the Charity Commission’s decision and its implications for needy children.

 

The strong tradition of the Catholic Church to uphold the model family of child, father and mother was the positive reason that took the adoption service of Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) to the High Court earlier this year to challenge the Charity Commission’s interpretation of the new Equality legislation. The High Court agreed with the charity that it was entitled in law to seek an exemption under the new regulations. The Charity Commission was then instructed by the judge to carry out a balancing exercise as to the public benefit of allowing the charity to limit its beneficiaries to married couples and therefore restricting same-sex couples from applying to the charity to become adoptive parents.

No accommodation

In August the outcome of the public benefit balancing exercise of the Charity Commission was made public – there would be no accommodation of Catholic Care’s request to change its charitable objects to take advantage of the new regulations as the balancing exercise came to the conclusion that children awaiting adoption could be accommodated by other adoption agencies already complying with the new legislation. In the opinion of the commissioners, it was not in the public interest to allow the charity to change its charitable objects to allow it to continue its adoption work only with married couples. Catholic Care, as far as the Charity Commission was concerned, would either have to give up its principled position on adoption or close its adoption service.

One of the main reasons the Charity Commission balancing exercise came to its conclusion was because Catholic Care only found between 10-15 new families per year for the 4,000 children awaiting adoption in our country. It was therefore a minor player in the larger national adoption picture. By this logic, if Catholic Care had found 50 or even 100 new families per year then, according to the balancing exercise, perhaps the scales of judgement may have fallen in their favour. Following this reasoning, had the Catholic adoption agencies acted together, the question arises would their collective weight have tipped the Charity Commission decision in their favour? Unfortunately, we may never know the answer.

Children lose out

The long and costly legal battle has been a technical one of interpreting new and sometimes poorly drafted legislation. There has also been a tendency by the press to polarise the issues around discrimination, gay rights and the place of faith-based organisations in the public delivery of services. Little attention seems to have been given to the most important people in all this – children and their rights. There is no doubt in my mind that children awaiting adoption have been the losers in all this and if as much effort was put into finding loving homes for the 4,000 children awaiting adoption as has been put into defending the positions of the respective parties involved, that unacceptable number of children awaiting adoption may already have been reduced.

The Charity Commission’s ruling presented the trustees of Catholic Care with an important decision. Should they close their adoption service after over 100 years or should they challenge the conclusion of the Commission’s balancing exercise? Such is the character and determination of the charity’s trustees that they have not been prepared to give up the fight easily. They have therefore appealed to the High Court, firmly of the view that to close would not be in the best interests of children.

^ Back to the top ^

 

Health hazards of homosexuality

Bryce J Christensen and Robert W Patterson

When homosexuality was deleted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association was motivated not by the scientific evidence but by a therapeutic desire to weaken prevailing social attitudes that allegedly damage the self-esteem of homosexuals. Consequently, much of the discussion of homosexuality by public-health officials and professional associations ignores the large body of empirical literature that casts homosexual behavior in an unfavorable light.

Yet the inaugural issue of the journal of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality offers a review of experimental evidence, clinical studies, and empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals over the course of 125 years that leads to a ‘singular’ conclusion:

‘Homosexuality is not innate, immutable, or without significant risk to medical, psychological, and relational health.’1

The review of 600 reports and studies contains three review essays, two of which refute claims of the American Psychological Association that sexual orientation is fixed and that attempts to change it can be harmful. The third review finds that the literature demonstrates, contrary to another claim of the APA, that ‘problematic behaviors and psychological dysfunctions are experienced among homosexuals at about three times the prevalence found in the general population—and sometimes much more’.

Among the significantly increased risks for mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders:

  • Despite knowing the AIDS risk, homosexuals repeatedly and pathologically continue to indulge in unsafe sex practices.
  • Homosexuals represent the highest number of STD cases.
  • Many homosexual sex practices are medically dangerous, with or without protection.
  • More than one third of homosexual men and women are substance abusers.
  • Forty per cent of homosexual male adolescents report suicidal histories.
  • Homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to have mental health concerns, such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression, and anxiety.
  • Homosexual relationships are more violent than heterosexual relationships.
  • Social bias and discrimination do not, in themselves, contribute to the majority of homosexual maladaptivity.

Although conceding the methodological limitations of older studies, the authors include them because the research not only met the research standards of the time but also, perhaps more important, their conclusions are largely supported by the most current and more rigorously quantitative studies.  These findings may not lead to a revision of the DSM, yet they illustrate the degree to which the mental-health establishment appears animated more by political science than by hard science

Reference

1. James E. Phelan et al, ‘Response to the APA Claim: There is No Greater Pathology in the Homosexual Population Than in the General Population’, Journal of Human Sexuality 1 [2009]: 53-87.

This article was originally published in the Spring 2010 issue of The Family in America (Vol 24 No 2) and is reproduced here by kind permission.

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Sexual health initiative fails to change the behaviour of young people

An evaluation of a £5 million government-funded project to improve the sexual health of young people has concluded that it had a ‘limited beneficial impact’ and failed to reach vulnerable teenagers. Healthy Respect Two represented the second phase of an initiative of the Scottish government that set out to integrate education, sexual health services and information for young people aged 10 to 18, though sexual health services were aimed at 13 to 18 year-olds. The project operated across Lothian including the city of Edinburgh from 2005-2008 and was supported by an overarching communications strategy that included branding and media campaigns.

However, a team of researchers, led by Professor Lawrie Elliott of Edinburgh Napier University, found that the initiative had not resulted in the behavioural changes that had been hoped for. The evaluation report stated:

‘Our data suggests that the impact of sex and relationships education was mainly confined to improvements in knowledge; there were no changes in the attitudes and intentions which, we anticipated, would lead to changes in behaviour.’

While the researchers reported beneficial effects of the programme for boys (albeit measured in terms of condom use rather than abstinence), they found that girls ‘ gained very little or experienced health losses’. Girls involved in the Healthy Respect Two intervention were more likely to use sexual health services and ‘significantly more likely to feel pressured into, and subsequently regret, their sexual debut’ than girls in the comparison area. The report states:

‘This evaluation found a marked improvement in knowledge for all groups except less affluent girls, but virtually no change in attitudes, intentions, or behaviour. Indeed, girls’ attitudes and intentions deteriorated thus any beneficial impact of SHARE was largely confined to knowledge.’1

These findings lend further support to the argument that providing young people with more sexual knowledge and making contraceptives readily available to them will not lead to positive changes in attitude and behaviour and may, in fact, make things worse.

In a keynote speech at the Wellbeing in Sexual Health (WISH) conference in Edinburgh on 14 September, Professor Elliott drew attention to several other evaluations which had similarly found little or no positive impact on the sexual behaviour of young people as a result of sex education initiatives:2

  • APAUSE 2004 – improved knowledge and attitudes and limited effect on behaviour;3
  • RIPPLE 2004/8– fewer reported pregnancies but no effect on behaviour;4
  • SHARE 2002/6 – improved knowledge but no impact on behaviour, conceptions or abortions;5
  • Teenage Pregnancy Strategy 2005 – reductions in pregnancy but more sexual risk behaviour;6
  • Healthy Respect 1 2005 – improved knowledge but no impact on behaviour;7
  • Healthy Respect 2 2010 – improved knowledge and limited impact on behaviour.8

Professor Elliott suggested that we may have reached a threshold in what can be achieved by population based interventions and commented: ‘ Our findings challenge the conventional wisdom that traditional public health methods such as education in schools linked to sexual health clinics are able to affect the sexual health of the neediest in society.’9

References

1. Elliott L et al (2010), Evaluation of Healthy Respect Phase Two: Final Report , NHS Health Scotland.

2. Elliott L, ‘ Lessons from Healthy Respect 2: should we have targeted or universal interventions?’ Wellbeing in Sexual Health Conference, Edinburgh, 14 September 2010.

3. Blenkinsop S et al (2004), Evaluation of the APAUSE SRE Programme, NFER.

4. Stephenson J et al (2008), The long-term effects of a peer-led sex education programme(RIPPLE): A cluster randomised control trial in schools in England. Public Library of Science Medicine, 5, 1579–1589.

5. Henderson M et al (2007), The impact of a theoretically based sex education programme (SHARE) delivered by teachers on NHS registered conceptions and terminations: final results of cluster randomised trial, BMJ, 334, 133–135.

6. Wellings, K et al (2005), Teenage Pregnancy Strategy Evaluation. Final Report, University College London.

7. Tucker J et al (2005) External Evaluation of Healthy Respect: A National Health Demonstration Project, Final Report. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.

8. Elliott L et al (2010) op. cit.

9. Edinburgh Napier University press release.

^ Back to the top ^

 

New qualification in sexual health awareness encourages sexual promiscuity

The national qualification provider NCFE has launched a level 1 award in Sexual Health Awareness with a view to raising awareness of relationship issues and the impacts and outcomes of sexual activity among young people. The stated aims of the course are to: raise learners’ awareness of sexual health and relationship issues, develop their understanding of contraception and sexually transmitted infections and develop their knowledge of relevant legislation.

The NCFE press release, issued during Sexual Health Awareness week in September, specified that the new qualification course was suitable for learners under the age of 16, yet the course places an emphasis on ensuring that learners know where they can obtain free contraception without the knowledge of their parents. The qualification overview states that learners are required to:

  • Outline risky sexual behaviours;
  • Define what ‘confidential’ means in reference to sexual health and relationships;
  • State methods of contraception suitable for young people;
  • Give examples of where contraception may be obtained without cost;
  • State the age a person has to be to obtain contraceptive and sexual health services without parental consent;
  • Identify where ‘emergency contraception’ might be obtained;
  • Outline important things to remember when using a condom;
  • Give examples of where to look for information or go for help about contraception.

Given the scope of the course, it is no surprise to see NCFE directing teachers to the websites of the Sex Education Forum, fpa and Brook for resources to help them deliver the curriculum. These groups are well known for their efforts to break down traditional moral standards and for telling young people that there are no rights and wrongs when it comes to sexual expression. Family Education Trust director, Norman Wells, commented:

‘In spite of its name, this new qualification is more about promoting sexual experimentation and the use of contraception by children than it is about promoting sexual health.

The only sure way of avoiding sexually transmitted infections is to keep sexual intimacy within a faithful lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, yet this course makes no mention of marriage or of commitment and faithfulness. Instead, the focus is on telling pupils how to use contraceptives and how they can access them behind their parents’ backs.

‘This course is sending out all the wrong messages. Airy-fairy lessons on “close relationships” and the use of contraceptives in short-lived sexual liaisons will do nothing to help prepare young people for a stable and satisfying family life.’

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Childhood Wellbeing – we keep talking about it, but we still don’t know what it means

The wellbeing of children continues to receive considerable attention from academic researchers and policy makers throughout the world. UNICEF, the European Commission and the Office for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have all expressed substantial interest in developing a set of indicators to monitor child wellbeing across countries, and in 2005 an International Society for Child Indicators was formed to foster collaboration on the use of indicators and the measurement of child and adolescent wellbeing.

In the UK, child wellbeing was at the heart of the Labour government’s Every Child Matters initiative from its launch in 2003, and legislation has been passed placing local authorities under a legal obligation to improve the wellbeing of children in their area (Childcare Act 2006), and requiring the governing bodies of maintained schools to promote the wellbeing of pupils (Education and Inspections Act 2006). In January 2010, the Thomas Coram Research Unit at the Institute of Education was awarded a £2 million contract by the Department for Children, Schools and Families to establish a Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre in partnership with the University of Loughborough and the University of Kent.

Difficult to pin down

Yet for all the emphasis on child wellbeing and the vast sums of money that have been invested in studies on it throughout the world, the initial report of the Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre found that the concept of wellbeing has ‘a weak theoretical basis’ and is ‘difficult to pin down’. It has been described as ‘intangible, difficult to define and even harder to measure’ and as ‘conceptually muddy…[but] pervasive’.

Given the widely different ways in which wellbeing is defined and measured and the fact that ‘there is still limited agreement on what the constituent components of child wellbeing are, or of how they should be weighted in terms of importance or priority’, the researchers note that ‘it is very difficult to make meaningful comparisons of childhood wellbeing across different studies and different contexts’.

Studies that attempt to compare levels of child wellbeing in different countries are subject to particular limitations. According to the Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre study, ‘There is potential for international ‘league tables’ to penalise countries with better data systems because there is data available on more indicators than for other countries.’

Arriving at a consensus on the meaning of childhood wellbeing and how it is to be measured does not look set to become any easier. The government-funded report reveals that recent years have seen a gradual shift away from a reliance on objective measurements of child wellbeing and a growing focus on subjective impressions gained from speaking to children about their own feelings and perceptions.

June Statham and Elaine Chase, Childhood Wellbeing: A brief overview, Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre, August 2010 http://www.education.gov.uk/research/

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Stand for the Family

Alarming evidence and firsthand accounts from the front lines of the battle

Sharon Slater, Inglestone Publishing, 2010, x + 257pp, US$17.95

ISBN 9780977881499

Sharon Slater is co-founder of Family Watch International, an independent non-profit organisation established to preserve and protect the family and to promote family-based solutions to world problems. She has experience of campaigning at the United Nations (UN) and at national and local levels, and has written this book to raise awareness of the nature and extent of the attack on marriage and traditional family values, and to equip concerned individuals to withstand the destructive forces of anti-family initiatives.

The book contains a number of illuminating firsthand accounts of debates and behind-the-scenes activity at UN conferences. Sharon Slater writes of an alliance of radical feminists, extreme environmentalists, sexual rights activists, UN agency officials, NGOs, and some member state delegations working together to undermine the family. She documents instances where national delegates have promoted personal political agendas on the floor of the UN that are at variance with the laws and policies of the country they are supposed to be representing and notes that it is not uncommon for delegates to be unaware of the implications of the resolutions they are debating.

Although UN resolutions are generally not binding on member states, they are frequently cited in court cases and have the potential to influence laws at a local and national level. In addition, UN monitoring committees, such as the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child are known for placing pressure on national governments to legislate in areas that go far beyond any natural reading of the relevant treaty and what the convention was understood to mean when it was originally ratified.

Compassionate response

Having set the scene and summarized the social science research that conclusively demonstrates that heterosexual marriage provides the best and most stable environment for raising children, Sharon Slater turns her attention to the sexual rights movement, with a particular focus on its most aggressive component – the campaign for homosexual rights. She rejects the idea that homosexuality is genetic and immutable and notes that many homosexuals who experience unwanted same-sex attraction feel trapped because they have been told that they were born that way and it is impossible for them to change. ‘Since this is not true,’ she writes, ‘the compassionate response is not to condone, embrace, encourage or validate a harmful behaviour. Rather, it is to let people know there is a way out…’

Following a chapter on ‘Debunking common arguments used to advance homosexual rights’, Sharon Slater proceeds to look in turn at the assault on life, on parental rights, on children’s sexuality, on gender, and on religion. She also devotes a chapter to the prevalence and dangerous effects of pornography and uncovers some of the common strategies employed by anti-family activists.

The usefulness of this title is not limited to informing and equipping readers for the battle being waged at a national and international level. Throughout the book, Sharon Slater is conscious of the need for parents to take steps to protect their children from anti-family influences that they are increasingly subject to through the media, the internet, the school curriculum and peer pressure. She therefore concludes with a ten-point plan for parents to fortify their own families.

^ Back to the top ^

 

What women want: evidence from British Social Attitudes

Geoff Dench, Hera Trust, 2010, xiii + 154pp, £12.95, ISBN 9780952352952

In this report, Professor Geoff Dench of the Young Foundation questions the common assumption that women in Britain have freely chosen to leave the domestic sphere in order to take a fuller part in the labour market without any regrets. Drawing extensively on British Social Attitudes (BSA) surveys, he shows that family life comes much higher in the scale of priorities of most women than work outside the home, that family life suffers when women put work first, and that being a housewife is a rewarding role.

The fact that working mothers have always shown a preference for part-time work is indicative of a desire to keep work subordinate to family and community life, and Professor Dench suggests that the decline in the proportion of mothers in the labour market over the past five years furnishes evidence of a return to more traditional views and patterns of family life, particularly among younger mothers. He argues that: ‘Policy-makers urgently need to face up to the fact that the values underlying much social policy may not match the desires of women to the extent that they have assumed.’

The BSA data reveal a growing disinclination to work among single mothers over recent years and Professor Dench notes that rising rates of lone parenthood have coincided with relatively generous levels of government support and low rates of employment among young men. He comments: ‘As long as policymakers give priority to getting women into work, push gender quotas for jobs that women don’t want to do, and are quick to provide independent homes for young single mothers, then they chip away at men’s motivation to work and in the process reduce women’s reasons to marry them.’

Female independence backfires

It is at this point that the promotion of female independence in the education system and in popular culture has backfired. In previous generations, boys were brought up to be conscientious and reliable workers in the knowledge that one day they would need to provide for their families. Now, however, it is no longer necessary for a woman to be dependent on a man: she can either support herself independently or she can be provided for by the state. The effect of this development on the attitudes and behaviour of men has received little attention, yet as Professor Dench observes: ‘The traditional full-time housewife may be more productive economically than usually given credit for. She helps motivate a full-time working man who might otherwise be dependent on the state himself or even drift into anti-social behaviour and criminality.’

Rather than pursuing policies aimed at increasing the participation of women in the workforce, the pressing need is to tackle male worklessness and to bring men back into useful, productive roles in families and the community: ‘Men tied into extended families as partners, and best of all as husbands, are far more motivated to hold down jobs and perform other roles in the community in order to increase family capital. On the other hand, those who are liberated from such responsibilities are not merely less useful, but are also much more likely to become a drain on society, by drifting into disorganised states and criminality.’

Ordinary women alienated

There have never been more women in Parliament and occupying senior positions in Whitehall and yet the BSA data show that ordinary women are feeling increasingly alienated from the political process. Professor Dench argues that this is because the minority view of middle class careerists has been dominant and the concerns and interests of ordinary women have been squeezed out of the public debate. Ironically, ordinary women feel that their views are less well represented now than they were in the past when they were mediated through men.

We are indebted to Professor Dench for bringing out into the open findings which have hitherto received very little publicity. The uncomfortable truths contained in this book demand an urgent reappraisal of policies which have undermined the importance of the domestic sphere for the welfare of children, families, communities, and of society as a whole.

Copies of What Women Want are available from the Family Education Trust office priced at £8.00, inc p&p.

 

>