The Christian Institute is pushing their latest report (although the press release on their site has no links or other means of obtaining it). The press release launches right in:

Shocking sex education materials are being pushed by public bodies for use in schools with children as young as five, a new report reveals. The report is launched today (Wed. 9 March) in the midst of a coalition Government review of sex education guidance.

One resource encourages pupils aged five and over to learn about anal intercourse, oral sex and prostitution. Another helps five year olds to identify the clitoris, and another tells seven year olds that sex is like tickling or skipping. An educational video produced by the BBC featuring full frontal nudity of adults is being pushed to children aged as young as seven.

Christian Institute describes some of the information as “obviously unsuitable”, but it’s apparently not so obvious to all the teachers, retailers, award-winning authors, councils and parents using the material in a thoughtful educational setting.

Its [Christian Institute] report, Too Much, Too Young, criticises, among others, a BBC teaching pack for its images of a nude man and woman and the children’s book Mummy Laid an Egg, by Babette Cole, for its child-like drawings of a man and woman having sex on a skateboard and wearing red noses. The book won British Illustrated Children’s Book of the Year.

A number of councils have recommended the books and lesson plans to schools in their area. The institute said many parents would be “deeply upset” to find these images were being shown to their children.

Other teaching packs criticised in the report contain short explanations of bisexuality, anal intercourse and oral sex.

A Mortarboard blog post by Justin Hancock of bishUK.com gets a bit more explicit about how the Christian Institute report exaggerates the nature of both the teaching and the resources.

If I wasn’t working in SRE, and if I had a child of primary school age, and if I were to read this report without any critical viewing whatsoever, then I’d probably be a little scared and worried about what my child might be taught.

The report repeatedly refers to sex education rather than sex and relationships education, and it cherrypicks examples from resources that refer to sexual body parts and sexual acts.

What it ignores is that sexual anatomy and descriptions of sexual acts are only a very small part of a broad and comprehensive SRE programme, especially at primary school age.

Children need to know how their bodies work; that touching, for example, the clitoris can feel nice; that some touching is appropriate and some isn’t; that adults have sex and what that means; that some people love people of the same sex. A good SRE programme might include this material in primary school (at the appropriate age), but it certainly would not include only this.

… Teachers know what level of understanding their pupils are at and they are often the best judge of what materials are appropriate. They use their professional judgment now, and, even if SRE does become compulsory, they will do so in the future. The resources recommended by local authorities and the Sex Education Forum are just that, recommendations.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2011/mar/09/sex-education-more-than-body-parts

The British Humanist Association is committed to encouraging informed and responsible choice, and as such believes that all children should be entitled to full and accurate age appropriate Sex and Relationships Education (SRE), including unbiased information on contraception, STDs, abortion, sexual orientation, and the many forms of family relationship conducive to individual fulfilment and the stability of society.