From: REEKIE Alan Fraser <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 94 10:27:00 MST

The following report appeared in a British Sunday newspaper that generally 
has close links with the more "traditionalist" politicians on the Government 
side, and thus is likely to reflect their views.  Other media have 
emphasized the difficulties in putting Mr. Patten's wish to segregate 
sexually precocious pupils from "innocent" ones into practice. It is not, 
however, difficult to guess what the Ministry thinks pupils should be taught 
about homosexuality. To the general public, the fact that the government 
does't appear to know whether or not it is illegal for teachers to provide 
certain factual information to pupils must seem absurd.

 - Alan Reekie
___________

"Sex education crackdown revealed" (Jonathan Pirie, Sunday Telegraph,
1 May 1994)

Tough new curbs on explicit sex education are to be introduced this
month by John Patten, the Education Secretary, amid growing concern
that children are being told too much about sex too young.
The instructions, contained in strengthened guidelines which seek to
place lessons on sex in the context of family values, are an attempt
to end confusion about Government policy on the issue.
But they are expected to case friction with health ministers who fear
Mr Pattens's moral line could undermine the drive against teenage
pregnancies.
Governors and heads will be told that sex lessons should be carefully
"calibrated" to take account not only of the age of the children in
the class, but also their level of understanding.
Ministers are anxious to protect innocent children from learning about
sexual practices because precocious or mischievous pupils ask leading
questions.
Following the row over a nurse who told Leeds schoolchildren about
adultery and the use of chocolate bars as sex aids, teachers will be
asked to answer difficult questions away from the classroom.
Services have also confirmed that the guidelines will require
teachers to tell parents if they discover that pupils under 16 are
having sex. Ministers believe that parents have the right to know what
their children are doing and be given a chance to exert a
restraining influence.
They are also concerned to that teachers could leave themselves open
to prosecution for aiding and abetting underage sex.
The guidelines are expected to run into heavy flak from teachers and
health professionals who fear that many schools will shy away from
providing proper sex education rather than risk breaching the new
rules.
Some believe the tone of the guidelines will show that the discredited
"back to basics" campaign is not yet dead in all parts of Whitehall,
and they predict a new bout of confusion at the heart of Government
policy.
They were alarmed when an AIDS campaign promoting safer sex and the
use of condoms was vetoed by ministers earlier this year amid concern
that Right-wingers could have thought it too explicit.
But Department of Health officials are most concerned that the new
guidance could militate against its target of reducing teenage
pregnancies by half by the year 2000. They want to ensure that young
children should be fully informed about contraception and reject the
view that this approach will encourage under-age sex.
Differences were highlighted last week when Lady Cumberlege, the
Health Minister, suggested condoms could be given to girls of 12 in
some circumstances. Her remarks were greeted with consternation in the
Department of Education - but vigorously defended in her own
Department.
Virginia Bottomley, the Health Secretary, appears to have won
concessions from Mr Patten over whether teachers can give
contraceptive advice to children under 16.
Draft guidelines published in December warned that teachers could face
prosecution for doing so without parental consent. But Mr Patten came
under pressure to take a more pragmatic view, and it was pointed out
that doctors respect confidentiality if an under-16 asks for
contraceptive advice."