Pornography “is having a damaging impact on young people’s understanding of relationships and needs to be discussed”, according to a report published on Monday.
It follows a public consultation last year by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) on its proposed revamp of the Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) programme for Junior Cycle pupils. An updated programme is to be introduced in schools later this year.
Students consulted said that “they encounter pornography once they get their first phone”, and teachers in one boys’ school spoke about hearing students joke about pornography on the corridors in such a way that suggested it was “normalised”.
In contrast, a number of parents expressed deep concern that teaching pupils about pornography might promote its use, the report says.
‘I’m quite optimistic’: Trump trade threat fails to rattle Chinese people
Less-than-fully-appreciated Lineker leaves big shoes to fill on MOTD
Kathleen Watkins obituary: broadcaster, author and one half of the original power couple
Just Eat guy was on the clock and no war memorial service was going to stop him
A public consultation on the draft Junior Cycle Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) curriculum took place between last July and October. The draft SPHE curriculum itself followed a 2019 review of sex education in schools which concluded that most students’ experience of sex education to date could be summed up as being “too little, too late and too biological”.
It recommended taking into account issues such as consent, the effects of pornography on sexual expectations and relationships, and LGBT+ matters.
Minister for Education Norma Foley launched the 10-week consultation process in July, remarking that the current syllabus was 20-years-old and children now lived in a different world.
In general, the report found “unanimous agreement” among stakeholders “that the proposed course is an important step forward in addressing the needs of adolescents growing up in Ireland today”.
It was found to be “responsive and relevant to the lives and needs of students”, while “the inclusivity of the proposed course was particularly welcomed with many noting that the course was sensitive to and respectful of the diversity of student experiences, backgrounds and identities”.
The report says: “Many people noted that the draft specification refers to ‘values’ several times and that SPHE is a subject that is clearly values-based. However, the draft specification does not state explicitly the values which underpin the updated SPHE course and this merits consideration in the final stage of development.”
Across all respondents to the consultation, “concern was raised about the small number of qualified, confident and skilled SPHE teachers to work with the updated curriculum, with many contributors expressing real concern about the potential harm that might occur if the topics included within the updated course are not skilfully and sensitively facilitated”.
The importance “of professional development to enable teachers to teach the new curriculum in full and as intended” also arose in consultation meetings.
There was strong criticism of “the lack of prioritisation of SPHE/RSE at both school and system level” throughout the consultation process, with calls for “adequate timetable space and time for planning, deployment of teachers who are interested and trained in this area and avoiding using SPHE as a means to increase teacher class-contact hours”.
Meanwhile, a “sub-set of parents” who took part in the consultation expressed “strong criticism of the proposed updated junior cycle SPHE curriculum” with some pointing out “that gender identity is a highly contested and sensitive topic” which “should not be included in the curriculum, as they hold the view that it may lead to questioning, confusion and even harm for some adolescents”.
Among this group, a “commonly expressed view was that the NCCA is seeking to promote ‘gender ideology’ by refusing to acknowledge the binary nature of gender. These respondents are strongly of the view that we are born as either male or female and that sex is binary and immutable”.
Some parents were also “concerned about the lack of reference to morality, moral teachings or family values and would like to see the specification reflect a school’s right to teach topics in a manner that aligns with the school’s ethos and values”. Others “questioned the legitimacy of schools providing SPHE/RSE as they saw this as usurping the role of parents as educators of their children.”
The majority of these responses, the report says, “offered very similar points of feedback most of which relate to concerns about the relationships and sexuality related learning outcomes”. In general, however, “students and teachers alike expressed a strong view that nothing should be taken out of the draft specification as all the topics were deemed to be important”.
[ Ask the Expert: ‘My 13-year-old son is constantly inside on his phone'Opens in new window ]
Those taking part in the consultation process included 4,343 parents, 142 students and 102 teachers, with written submissions received from 40 organisations, 55 individuals, and 317 emails and letters also received. Focus groups met in five schools, representing different school types/diverse locations.
Within each school, separate meetings were held with focus groups of 10 to12 Transition Year students and with 3 to5 SPHE teachers. In total, 56 students and 22 teachers took part in 10 focus group sessions across the five schools.
