Petition
Health Education (Guidelines) (PE427)
We are now a quarter of an hour behind schedule. The next item on the agenda is our consideration of petition PE427 on the Scottish Executive's health education guidelines, which has been referred to us by the Public Petitions Committee. Members have received a series of papers that relate to the petition and a copious folder that contains letters, information and various examples of materials. Members have also been circulated with a copy of the petition, a summary of responses from directors of education in Scotland and a summary of the concerns that the petitioners have submitted.
The convener and I have discussed the petition with the petitioners. I have also met the minister, who has agreed to respond to any written questions that the committee might wish to ask following its consideration of the petition and to invite members' comments on what further action, if any, to take. Gil Paterson, who is a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, is with us for this part of the meeting; he has had the petition presented to him in his capacity as a regional list member for Central Scotland. Furthermore, one of the individuals responsible for the petition, Reverend Iain Murdoch, is in the audience. I should point out that individuals cannot participate directly in the committee's discussion. However, I hope that members will raise various issues in the course of the discussion. No ministers will be attending the meeting, and this afternoon we will focus on how to proceed with the petition. I invite remarks from committee members and will ask Gil Paterson to comment on the petition in a moment.
Clearly, there was much debate about sex education a number of years ago. The impetus for that debate was the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. The debate broadened out to include sex education for a variety of reasons, not least because the Executive at least attempted to reassure the public through the issuing of guidance.
The petitioners are quite right to raise their concerns. People should debate how sex education is conducted and, indeed, how the issue of drugs is dealt with. The information that has been put together by the petitioners is very useful.
If the guidance is intended not only to help teachers and the people who run schools but to reassure parents, what the petitioners are asking for—a reassessment of the classroom materials on the resources list, alongside the guidance or the circular—would be beneficial. If the guidance is to mean anything, the materials must fit in with it. Then, quite properly, it is for the teachers or practitioners to select the appropriate materials for use in their classrooms. In conjunction with the appropriate safeguards—which are also laid down in the guidance—on involving parents in the selection of materials to be used, the professional judgment should be left to the teachers.
The materials that are made available and recommended for selection must fit in with the guidance. It would appear from the research that has been done by the petitioners—with which, having looked at it, I can only agree—that much of the material conflicts with the guidance. If one takes that view, it is only appropriate that the selection of materials be reassessed and a new list be produced. That would reassure parents about what is available and, quite properly, protect the position of teachers in making the professional judgment of how they go about teaching delicate matters in schools.
There has been discussion on this issue for some time, and a number of MSPs receive a large amount of post about it. It is important that we consider the issues of guidance and of what materials are available for teachers' use, and that we examine what is most appropriate. We should consider the appropriate age group with regard to any materials that are used and the levels of understanding of the children concerned.
We know that there are materials among the guidance and papers available that teachers probably do not use. Those materials are not used in a number of schools, and I understand that Falkirk Council does not use the material in its schools. It might make most sense to ask for the minister's comments on those issues. It might also be useful for us to obtain a regular review of the materials that are available, particularly given the fact that some materials are not being used.
There needs to be some debate in schools on drugs. For too long, we have buried our heads in the sand on that issue and have not discussed it sufficiently with children. I feel less willing to remove some of the resources from the list with regard to discussions on drugs. As Brian Monteith indicated, we need to trust the teachers who are using the materials and the guidance notes. They are the people who are working with children on a day-to-day basis and who are able to decide what is appropriate.
The most important thing is for parents to be involved and to be happy about the materials that are being used. The Church of Scotland leaflet was useful in providing parents with information. Parents need to understand clearly what materials are being used within the school and to know what approach the teacher is taking. It is clear that the role of parents is, if you like, to endorse or discuss what happens in class. When such issues were being discussed in school with my children, I felt that it was appropriate that I also discussed them at home. Parents should spend time on such issues with their children.
We must speak to the minister, but we must keep a level head on the issue and accept that a host of the worrying areas in the materials are not used within classrooms.
I have, unfortunately, seen some of the materials before. They were sent to me in my party role as spokesperson on education. The materials were also brought to me at a constituency surgery in Carluke in Lanarkshire. I admit that I was immensely surprised and embarrassed by the materials, particularly the sexual ones. I had no idea that such materials existed and were being circulated, and had little idea that children in classes might be asked to do some of the things that are suggested in the materials.
That is the most worrying aspect. It is possible for children to get hold of all sorts of material for a variety of reasons, legitimate or illegitimate. However, it is much more difficult to understand how such materials could suggest actions for children and others to undertake in the classroom, including discussion of and writing about issues that I think, frankly, most children would find it difficult to be involved in without embarrassment or difficulty.
I want to differentiate between the sexual materials and the drugs materials. The debate on drugs involves issues about how drugs are perceived by society. We can take different views on that issue. With most, but not all, of the drugs materials, that debate lies in the public domain and there are arguments on both sides about how drugs information should be presented to young children. I wonder whether role-playing as a drug dealer is useful, but I accept that teachers might argue that that could be done properly and sympathetically in class.
It is far more difficult to make any case for the sexual materials even being used as resource materials for teachers. Something has gone wrong when such materials are devised as resource materials for teachers. I am a believer in the inherent good sense of many teachers. In fact, I think that 99.99 per cent of teachers will take only two glances at these materials—if they ever see them, because local authorities have the right not to approve them. One glance would perhaps be in shock and the second would be to decide that they would not use the materials.
I would question substantially the availability of the materials, as preferred or supported materials, to guide teachers in their decisions on sex education. I do that not as a prude or somebody who is known for having an illiberal attitude to such materials and issues, but simply because the materials appear to be entirely inappropriate for the age ranges that are mentioned. Indeed, some of the materials are inappropriate for a classroom setting.
It is more difficult to condemn the drugs materials in those terms, but perhaps they need to be thought of carefully within the context of the on-going debate on drugs in Scotland and more widely. Therefore, it might be sensible to fine-tune those materials to make them more sensitive.
The question is what the committee should do. We have been supplied with a substantial folder of material and more material is available. Can we move the issue on? I wrote to the minister because of my constituency case and received a reply that was not much different from the reply that Mr Murdoch received when he started on his process of petitioning and complaint. The committee can say to the minister that it believes that something is wrong. I think that we should use those words for the materials that we have seen, if they are genuinely meant for the purpose for which they purport to be. We should suggest that the materials are inappropriate and should be reconsidered. That would apply to the sex materials that we have seen. However, my worry is that we have not seen everything and cannot, therefore, make a wider judgment. We might want somebody to look at the material more widely and report to us on that.
I would be more reluctant to take that action with the drugs material, but I would want to indicate to the minister and the Executive's education department that care and caution, in the light of present legislation and the emerging debate, should always be taken on drugs issues. Advice should be sought from bodies that are involved in best practice on education in the drugs matter, such as Scotland Against Drugs, health education boards and others.
I share Mike Russell's view about the drugs education material, because increasingly it is difficult for teachers—indeed for professionals—to tell the difference between a casual drug user, a habitual drug user and a non-user. Given that many children can fool even their parents, we need to be careful and cautious but to ensure that we have a range of responses that reflect the experience of the children in the classroom.
I confess to looking at the sex education material in the light of being a parent of a nine-year-old, and I was quite astonished by some of the material that was supplied in the pack from the petitioners. I found it difficult to understand the context in which it could be used, in particular given the level of experience and the age range that we are talking about. I took some comfort, as did Mike Russell, in the fact that I know of no teacher who, having viewed the material, would decide to use it. Clearly the material is not appropriate for the age range at which it was targeted.
I also took some comfort from the fact that the guidance in circular 2/2001 is explicit about the framework in which we should operate, and about the need for parental consultation and involvement in the process. The responsibility for sex education lies not just in the classroom; it is a responsibility for parents as well. I note that the Scottish Executive has said that it neither endorses nor recommends the resources, and that no evidence—this is supported by the Church of Scotland—of the materials appearing in classrooms has been found. For that I am grateful.
We should take more than just a passing interest in this matter. First, I suggest that we write to the Minister for Education and Young People. I would like a number of points to be addressed. The materials were devised by Learning and Teaching Scotland. What is that organisation's role? What is its relationship with the Executive? Are materials vetted by the Executive before they are included in a list, and if so, how can we tighten that up in the light of the sensitive issues involved?
Secondly, I wish to question the primacy of guidance that is given to local authorities. I am sure from the evidence that we have taken that many local authorities set up their own professional committees to vet materials. The process is stringent, and that filter helps to ensure that nothing inappropriate reaches the classroom. Is circular 2/2001, with its underpinning emphasis on stable relationships, the key that education authorities should be considering, or is the key the guidelines? It would be helpful to have that information.
Lastly, as new materials come on to the market, I am sure that the education department, if not Learning and Teaching Scotland, will want to review the five-to-14 health education guidelines. That will provide an opportunity to reflect on the list, with a view to either changing it or making absolutely explicit the context in which the list is provided.
I think that we are at one on this matter. I agree with Mike Russell and Jackie Baillie, and I have considerably fewer reservations about the drugs material than about the sex education material. We are dealing with a social problem, and the great education debate about problems of innocence and experience. Of course we want children to remain innocent for as long as possible, but if education is a preparation for adulthood, we also have to combat ignorance and provide knowledge. It is a matter of dealing with difficult topics in a way that matches the age of pupils and the appropriateness of materials.
Like Mike Russell and Jackie Baillie, and as a teacher myself, I think that very few, if any, teachers would use the worst of the material. There are gatekeepers, such as education authorities, teachers, and school boards, and mechanisms for consulting parents, all of which ought to mean that material of the sort that we find debatable ought not to reach the classroom. The question then arises of whether the material should be on the list at all. I am sure that screening would take out some of the materials. If there were debates to be had around the margins of other items, those debates could be held in a professional way.
The list includes materials that, as a teacher, I would have looked at once before putting them aside as things with which I did not want to work. Mike Russell made that point. Professional judgment and scrutiny of materials would filter out some items from the list. There is no reason that that should not be done without throwing out the whole idea of sex education and guidance.
In principle, I support the sentiments that are expressed in the minister's letter. In practice, I think that some of the material needs to be reconsidered. The letter from the Church of Scotland provides a basis on which we can work and endorses the principles with which we are working. In principle, I am happy with the approach that it is being taken, but in practice I think that there needs to be scrutiny of the material.
The petition reflects the concerns of a large number of people in Scotland, many of whom wrote to MSPs or visited them to share their concerns. Like other members, I regret the inclusion on the list of some materials that are clearly not appropriate for the age range for which they are alleged to be intended.
However, I was reassured by the responses that we received from some local authority directors of education. I was reassured by comments such as
"All resources checked for fitness for purpose"
and
"At primary level parents invited to attend information sessions",
as well as by the reference to an
"independent research project to study views"
of everybody involved. One local authority specifically mentioned
"that worksheets of concern … are not used".
That underpins members' belief that, on the ground, teachers and local authorities are making the right decisions about the materials.
That leaves us with the difficulty that has been identified—that the materials do not fit with the principles that are set out in some of the later circulars that have been distributed and which local authorities have welcomed. That does not send out a clear message to anybody. One local authority said that it was
"Not persuaded that all materials on list of resources comply with SEED guidelines".
That is the root of the problem. Jackie Baillie suggested that we seek to establish what has priority and where the primacy lies in the guidance that is being sent out to schools and teachers. We should be able to clarify that.
We will now hear from Gil Paterson, who has been waiting patiently.
I am grateful to the committee for allowing me to speak today. I will start by addressing Brian Monteith's remarks. I was very surprised when I eventually got my hands on the materials, because I came to this issue in the aftermath of the debate on section 2A. To be honest, I discounted initially the claims that were being made. However, when the letters started to flow I decided that it was my duty to get copies of the materials and to examine them. In my view, many of the materials are totally inappropriate. My starting point is that they are damaging to children and that we must therefore do something about them.
It has been suggested that the materials are not designed for classroom use, but they are—they are designed to be photocopied. The documents say that they should be used in that manner. The argument has been made that more than 99 per cent of teachers would not use such materials. That is good and contains a strong message. If more than 99 per cent of teachers would not use the materials, why are they on the list in the first place? If 99 per cent—99.99 per cent, according to Mike Russell—of teachers believe that more than one child would be damaged through use of the materials, we must take that seriously.
I know some of the petitioners and I have to say that there are a lot of them. Since I became involved in the petition, I have found the subject to be nebulous. It is difficult to find someone who will take ownership of the list of materials. Every time we think that we have found somebody, they go off ducking, diving, bobbing and weaving—they could play for the Scottish football team. The Executive has ultimate responsibility for the list, because it endorsed the materials in the first place. I ask the Executive to withdraw some of the materials.
We are aware that the drugs debate is changing. However, there are problems with the way in which the drugs message is expressed in materials for schools. We should not proceed to teach children based on the wrong premise that everyone in the class has a drug addict mummy or daddy and that the teacher might be a drug addict. I use that simply as an example, because I did not want to have to bring all the materials to the meeting today and to point out to the committee how horrific they are. However, I am cheered by the way in which the committee has responded to petition PE427. If the committee takes the actions that are proposed, I will be more than pleased.
Some people have called the petitioners the God squad. I know one or two of them intimately now and my view of the individuals who are involved has changed. They do not occupy the moral high ground. They are simply asking people not to judge the petitioners, but to look at the materials and form a judgment on them.
Jackie Baillie made a sensible suggestion, which was to press for further questions on behalf of the committee, which would allow us to consider the responses. Gil Paterson has posed some questions that are additional to those that Jackie Baillie listed, and others need to be added. On the basis of a conversation that I had this morning with Gil Paterson, I understood that the circular was to be reviewed, but I have since read more on the subject and found that that is wrong. It might be wise to ask the minister whether the circular will be reviewed. If so, we can ask whether the review will take place speedily and whether it will take into account the objections to the materials that are made in petition PE427.
A number of committee members have raised other questions, but a useful way forward might be to send an urgent letter to the minister, asking him about the review. The letter should be circulated to the petitioners and other interested MSPs and we could ask for a prompt response.
Gil Paterson's comments were helpful, in particular with regard to putting us right about the petitioners. His attendance at the meeting is well worth while.
The circular that was issued on sex education guidance is of great importance to the people of Scotland. The guidance sought to reassure many people, but it will end up as gesture politics if the materials that are available do not fit with the guidance. Even if we discover that the materials are not used, it is absurd that materials that teachers and education authorities would not touch with a barge pole are to be found on an official list. While they are on that list, questions will be raised about the guidance and those questions will undermine the reassurance that was given. I support Jackie Baillie's suggestion that we write to the minister.
If the guidance is to stick, it is important that any list of material should be produced after the guidance. As Jackie Baillie said, some materials—including board games, the details of which I will not go into—have been produced, which have been well publicised and which involve a great deal of role playing. Those materials from different academic backgrounds and commercial organisations are becoming available and are often seen in educational journals. It is suggested that because the materials are used in England, they might somehow be acceptable for use in Scotland, although there has not been the debate on the subject in England that there has been in Scotland. It is therefore important that we ensure that the list of materials from which teachers can select is updated regularly and that it fits in with the guidance. There is no point in having a list that precedes the guidance. We must ask the Executive to review its list—either directly or through an organisation such as Learning and Teaching Scotland—so that the two match up, because if they do match up, parents will be reassured.
Although it is somewhat reassuring that local authorities respond and say nice things about what they are or are not doing, had we asked local authorities a year ago what they were doing about their finances, we would have heard Scottish Borders Council, for example, say what a good job it was doing. We can take the assurances of officials; however, as members have said, the materials need be used only once for great damage to be done to individual children and to the reputation of what is being taught by sensible teachers.
On drugs education, the committee is right to point out that the drugs debate has moved on, but the difficulty is that the advice—which still stands—that was issued by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education has not. We should expect at least that that advice be updated and consulted on, just as the guidance on sex education went to consultation. That would create a healthy debate and people would be able to air their various points of view about what should be available in the classroom. The difficulty with drugs education is that although the thinking has changed, there has not been a great deal of debate about that change. It would be healthy for that change to be debated and, if it is supported, to be endorsed. That cannot happen without the debate.
I welcome the letter and add those points. The guidance and the list must match up. First, the list must be updated and secondly, the advice must be updated.
I thank members for their suggestions. We should agree that a series of points be raised formally in a letter, touching on what members have said. We should also determine the position of Learning and Teaching Scotland, as distinct from the position of the Executive, on what we have defined as recommended materials, as well as the Executive's view on those materials. We should state publicly that there is no evidence to suggest that any school in Scotland has used the resources in question. Although concern has been expressed about their possible use, no indication has been given to the committee that they have been used in a classroom. Perhaps Mike Russell would like to clarify that.
The petitioner gave evidence in his presentation to the Public Petitions Committee to the effect that the materials have has been used. The jury is out on the matter. I do not dispute the petitioner's information, but it would be equally churlish of me to dispute the minister's contention. There is a gap between the two. What the committee proposes and is agreed on is action at the next step. We will return to the issue in the light of the answers that we receive to the questions that we will ask the Executive.
I was trying to stress the fact that no details have been given. A general claim was made that some of the materials might be available, although no school was identified. Given the concern that has been expressed—the vast majority of adults in this room have expressed their concern about some items on the list—it would be surprising if that concern was not shared by the many elected members at local authority and parliamentary levels. We will await details.
The issue of the review of the circular has been identified by committee members and should be raised in our initial letter to the minister. That letter should also address the fact that some recommended material pre-dates the McCabe guidelines. The need to synchronise the two is an appropriate point to raise with ministers.
Can we expect to receive a draft of the letter?
We can get something together on that and try to come back next week with a draft for the committee to approve. Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank those who contributed to the debate and those who petitioned the Public Petitions Committee and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.