Changes to sex education in schools

[mantra]

CHILDREN will be taught to "recognise sexual feelings" from age 11 or 12 under a new national physical education curriculum criticised by religious schools.

Physical, social and emotional changes of puberty will be taught in Years 5 and 6, when children are as young as nine and 10.

But Catholic educators have forced the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority to back down from its plan to explain puberty to children as young as seven, over concerns the kids might "freak out".

ACARA had wanted puberty as a topic to be introduced in Years 3 and 4.

Guidelines for the first national curriculum on health and physical education reveal a shift from a focus on sport and fitness, to the politically correct topics of "gender, sexuality, culture, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and psycho-social environments".

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/s ... 6475402901" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree with the Catholic Church on this one. Is it really necessary for children in primary school to learn about recognising sexual feelings? This will happen eventually in high school - but kids need to remain children for as long as they can, although it's possible they're maturing quicker each generation physically - but that doesn't equate to emotional maturity.

Most children don't think about sex in primary school. By shifting the focus away from sport and fitness and onto awareness of sexual feelings - we are going to encourage children to have sex instead of having fun experiencing other benign physical activities.

[Rorschach]

I agree mantra, let kids be kids.

[Rorschach]

Should 11-year-olds be taught about "sexual feelings" in school?

* Yes 25.65% (730 votes)
* No 74.35% (2116 votes)

[Super Nova]

Should 11-year-olds be taught about "sexual feelings" in school?

* Yes 25.65% (730 votes)
* No 74.35% (2116 votes)

No..........

So 1/4 of the people are deviants... that's scary.

[Rorschach]

Nah, they are probably just LW Progressives or Greenies.

[AnimalMother]

11-year-olds shouldn't be given sex education as a standard practice.

However, some children are early developers, or curious, or have been exposed to sexual events or material. If any of these children ask for help or understanding, they should be informed in an appropriate and gentle way about such matters, if it will help them.

But such education should not be forced on those too young to understand it or need it.

[Neferti]

11-year-olds shouldn't be given sex education as a standard practice.

However, some children are early developers, or curious, or have been exposed to sexual events or material. If any of these children ask for help or understanding, they should be informed in an appropriate and gentle way about such matters, if it will help them.

But such education should not be forced on those too young to understand it or need it.

Are you a parent of a child under 16?

[boxy]

Isn't the whole idea behind education, that you teach people what they need to know before they actually need it? I fail to see how supporting such a stance is deviancy?

[IQS.RLOW]

Sex education other than the basic mechanics should be left to the parents and the school yard.

If you listened to these leftwing progressive educators, you would think that the human race wouldn't be able to form relationships or have sex without their input

Just look at their complete balls up when it comes to English, literacy and maths and their staunch opposition to rote learning has left a generation of kids behind

[AnimalMother]

11-year-olds shouldn't be given sex education as a standard practice.

However, some children are early developers, or curious, or have been exposed to sexual events or material. If any of these children ask for help or understanding, they should be informed in an appropriate and gentle way about such matters, if it will help them.

But such education should not be forced on those too young to understand it or need it.

Are you a parent of a child under 16?

As it happens, I'm not a parent of anyone. But that has no bearing on the discussion.