Education - delivery of relationships, sexual health and parenthood: draft statutory guidance - consultation report

Section 1: Consultation Analysis

Question 1: Is the draft introduction clear on the status and application of the guidance?

There were 3,620 responses to this question. 28% of respondents said the introduction was clear on the status and application of the guidance; 60% said it was not clear, and 4% did not know. 8% of respondents did not answer whether they thought it was clear or unclear.

The following themes were raised within the free text response option.

Parental role

This was the most prevailing theme of question 1, with 170 respondents mentioning parents and carers/parental role. The majority of respondents expressed the view that parents and carers should be consulted on how RSHP education is delivered, including what is taught at each age and stage. A number of respondents felt that parental rights should be emphasised more, and that consultation with parents and carers should be mandatory rather than ‘good practice’. There was some confusion and contradictory opinions expressed about what schools are required to share with parents and carers.

Concerns were expressed about teachers ‘promoting’ views that contradicted the views of parents and carers, however other respondents stated that young people should be entitled to equitable information regardless of their parents’ and carers’ views.

A small number of comments addressed teacher workload and how pressure to deal with multiple requests from parents and carers, or being asked to justify the content of every lesson, was unworkable and unsustainable.

2014 guidance/Denominational schools

134 responses mentioned the 2014 guidance. 164 mentioned Catholic schools. The concerns raised were in relation to the role of faith and belief, particularly within denominational schools. As question 6 specifically focuses on the role of faith and belief within the RSHP curriculum, comments are discussed more fully in relation to that question.

Role of external organisations

45 responses mentioned the role of external organisations, 12 of these responses made direct mention of the LGBT Inclusive Education Working Group’s report. 19 responses mentioned LGBT groups, including specific organisations such as Stonewall, Time for Inclusive Education, LGBT Youth Scotland and Scottish Trans Alliance. Some responses questioned the influence of external groups on the delivery of RSHP education.

Respondents felt that particular external organisations were being promoted in schools by teachers. They also stated they were concerned as to a lack of transparency on what materials are being used by external organisations in schools. It was asked whether third party organisations were vetted prior to being allowed to work in schools.

A number of responses indicated confusion and/or concern over the phrase ‘empowered and active bystanders’. Comments indicated there was a lack of clarity on when and how young people should get involved, and concern this could lead to the singling out of classmates who expressed differing opinions to the class consensus.

Co-designing the curriculum

Some responses felt that the advice to involve children and young people in helping design the RSHP curriculum was not appropriate as young people, especially younger children, might lack the breadth of knowledge and awareness needed to understand what areas needed covered.

Protected characteristics

Responses also referred to protected characteristics and fell into one of two categories:

• Responses that felt some protected characteristics were afforded more attention/priority than others. The majority of these felt there was disproportionate focus on LGBT, and not enough on areas such as disability and religion. This is addressed under questions 6 and 9.
• Responses seeking clarity on definition of protected characteristics, namely the difference between the protected characteristic of sex, and gender which is not a protected characteristic, including which should be used in particular circumstances; and clarity on what qualifies as discrimination based on a protected characteristic. This is addressed under question 7.

Age appropriate

87 responses mentioned concerns over determining at what age/stage RSHP education should be introduced, and how to determine what content is suitable to be delivered at different ages/stages.

Views on age appropriateness included respondents stating that RSHP education is being introduced into the curriculum at too early a stage, with concerns expressed that children are being introduced to contentious topics before they have the skills to critically assess and come to their own conclusions. Some respondents believed that the topics and material covered was too complex for younger children to understand. A minority of these responses expressed concern that younger children were more susceptible to being influenced towards particular viewpoints, with some stating that RSHP education should not be introduced until secondary school. Some felt the guidance was not sufficiently clear on what topics are introduced at which age and stage, and how decisions about what is age and stage appropriate are made and whether parents and carers should be part of this decision-making process.

Question 2: How clear is the purpose of the relationships, sexual health and parenthood (RSHP) education section?

There were 2,992 responses to this question. 27% of respondents felt the section on the purpose of RSHP education was clear; 46% felt it was unclear; and 4% said they didn’t know. 23% of respondents did not answer whether they thought it was clear or unclear.

Respondents raised a number of areas where they suggested further clarity within the guidance would be helpful. These fell largely under the following themes.

Parental role

This was the most prevailing theme with 188 respondents mentioning parents and carers/parental role. Comments fell largely into four categories:

• The need for further clarity on the parental option to withdraw from RSHP education. As question 3 dealt specifically with this issue, these comments are addressed under that question.
• The need for further clarity on when and how schools should consult with parents and carers, including clarity on parental role when RSHP education is delivered within areas of the curriculum other than PSE/RME.
• Clarity on what materials should be shared with parents and carers. Some parents and carers wished to be informed of any content being delivered by third party organisations, including where a young person may be referred to youth work or health services.
• Expressed the view that RSHP education should be taught predominantly at home, and expressed concern that the delivery of RSHP education in schools risked infringing on home life and the ability to raise their child in conformity with their beliefs.

Role of children and young people

111 responses related to age appropriateness, and largely covered the same concerns as those detailed in question 1. Additionally, respondents expressed concerns over young people’s response to receiving RSHP education, including that encouraging children to become ‘active bystanders’ could lead to young people challenging each other without adult oversight - and that being encouraged to share openly may lead to age inappropriate subjects being raised in front of the rest of the class.

It was suggested it would be helpful to have greater clarity on what role children and young people should play in co-designing the curriculum, and what measures are in place to ensure issues are addressed sensitively and in an age appropriate manner. Some responses expressed concerns regarding co-designing the curriculum with young people, as they felt children and young people may not be mature enough to understand what content was age appropriate to include, or would lead to too much focus on some areas, and not enough on others, for example building healthy relationships.

Emphasis was also placed on aligning content to and clearly stating the legal age for certain activities including the age of consent.

Some comments suggested there should be increased emphasis on the importance of the inclusive and rights-based approach to this aspect of the curriculum in supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people.

Faith and belief

151 responses related to the teaching of RSHP education in denominational schools, with a further 58 responses mentioning faith and belief. As question 6 asks specifically about the teaching of RSHP education in the context of faith and belief, these issues are explored in more detail under question 6.

Balance

58 responses mentioned or alluded to ensuring young people received information from a range of perspectives, with no one belief or perspective being over emphasised or taught as the ‘correct’ view.

28 responses mentioned ‘activists’ or ‘activism.’ As above, some responses reflected a belief that there was a bias toward ‘progressive’ views and a lack of balance; concerns regarding a lack of specificity about which third party agencies may contribute to RSHP education delivery; questions about qualifications and vetting processes for third party agencies; the perception that groups with particular “agenda”/interest are having undue influence on RSHP education; and questions regarding whether resources produced by third party groups are available to be seen by parents and carers. Multiple responses expressed the view that there should be a requirement that information provided by external groups be published, accurate and evidence-‑based. Responses stated there should be a strong evidence base for all information provided, and that this information should be factual and non‑political.

62 responses mentioned third party organisations. As above, the majority of these were an expression of the view that parents and carers should be able to see materials used by third parties to deliver RSHP education. As above, responses also mentioned ensuring alignment in values between third party organisations and the school/parents and carers/young people, including sensitivity to different religious and cultural beliefs; the need for all information to be balanced, objective, factually accurate, and evidence-‑based; and clear information should be provided on the qualifications of those delivering specialist third party content. A minority of respondents stated that third parties should not be involved in the delivery of RSHP education, or their involvement should be minimal.

43 responses mentioned or alluded to the inclusion of trans identities. This is addressed under questions 6 to 9 of the consultation.

Across curriculum

34 responses addressed the part of the draft guidance that suggested that RSHP education, while predominantly delivered through Personal and Social Education (PSE) and Religious and Moral Education (RME), should also be integrated across the curriculum through a whole school approach. The majority of these responses related to parental consent – namely the view that parents and carers should be informed when RSHP education is delivered through any aspect of the curriculum, and should have the option to withdraw from any aspect of RSHP education regardless of which curriculum area it is delivered through. A small number of responses stated RSHP education should be delivered exclusively through PSE and RME. However, conversely, there was concern expressed in some responses that the delivery of RSHP education through RME was inappropriate as teaching religious perspectives (or emphasising one religious perspective in the context of denominational schools) on potentially contentious issues such as same sex relationships, abortion, and sex outwith marriage may undermine creating a safe and secure environment for all young people.

Support for staff delivering RSHP education

Comments were also made around staff resourcing to deliver RSHP education and what professional learning, training and support will be made available to teachers to deliver RSHP education.

Question 3: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in relation to the rights of parents and carers and is the process for withdrawing a pupil sufficiently clear?

a. Is the guidance sufficiently clear in relation to the rights of parents and carers?

b. Is the process for withdrawing a pupil sufficiently clear?

There were 2,873 responses to question 3a. 28% of responses felt the guidance was sufficiently clear in relation to the rights of parents and carers; 43% felt it was unclear; and 5% didn’t know. 24% of respondents did not answer whether they felt it was clear or unclear.

There were 2,849 responses to question 3b. 26% of responses felt the guidance was sufficiently clear on the process for withdrawing a pupil; 43% felt it was unclear; and 6% didn’t know. 25% of respondents did not answer whether they felt it was clear or unclear.

For the purposes of analysis, responses to 3a. and 3b. have been collated. There were 2,965 responses in total to questions 3a and 3b.

Clarity on learning across the curriculum and parental withdrawal/ parental role

Over a fifth of responses to this question were in relation to parental withdrawal – 464 responses, with 122 mentioning parental role. 88 responses were in relation to RSHP education across the curriculum.

Responses indicated some confusion surrounding the option to withdraw, with the majority of responses expressing the belief that parents and carers have the ‘right’ to withdraw from any and all aspects of RSHP education, regardless of what curricular area it is delivered in. [N.B. As is stated in paragraph 2.13 of the guidance, the option to withdraw applies only to the sexual health element of RSHP education.]

A number of responses indicated concerns with how information on RSHP education delivery is shared between the school and parents and carers, and what information schools are required to share.

Multiple responses expressed concern that the parental option to withdraw is retained from previous versions of the guidance. They felt this risked children missing out on vital aspects of their education, and may prevent children from being able to recognise abuse or inappropriate behaviour towards them. Concerns were also expressed that parental withdrawal may hinder young people from developing a healthy understanding of their own body and developing sexuality. It was stressed that parental withdrawal should not be used to stop young people learning about diverse sexualities and gender identities in an attempt to prevent them coming out as LGBT. These responses highlighted the need for all children and young people to receive balanced, impartial, factually accurate and evidence-based RSHP education which not all children and young people will receive at home.

Many responses welcomed the opportunity for parents and carers to be given opportunity to view key teaching materials in advance of them being used in schools. Multiple responses stated that it is important when schools share materials with home to allow parents and carers sufficient time to review the materials and discuss with the school before coming to a decision regarding withdrawal.

A small number of responses raised the likelihood of young people learning about RSHP education from other, less reliable sources such as peers and media, therefore the effectiveness of withdrawal is inherently limited. The question was also raised of how to intervene effectively with a child or young person displaying harmful sexual behaviours if the parents and carers have requested withdrawal from discussion of sexual health.

Young person withdrawal

74 responses sought clarity on the option of young people to withdraw themselves from aspects of RSHP education. Several responses raised questions as to what should happen when the wishes of a young person competent to make informed decisions contradict those of their parents and carers with regards to withdrawal. Other responses stated that in cases of parental withdrawal, the child’s views should still be taken into account, and that the wellbeing of the child as well as any safeguarding concerns should also be considered.

With regards to young person withdrawal, it was raised that it may be helpful to provide clarity on how it is determined a young person has the capacity to make this decision, especially for senior phase young people.

A number of responses expressed the view that schools should ensure that children and young people withdrawn from sexual health lessons are not stigmatised or mocked by their peers.

Age appropriateness

42 responses raised age appropriateness in relation to parent/pupil withdrawal. As outlined above, these were mainly in relation to the role a young person’s age plays in determining whether they have the capacity to make an informed decision on whether they want to receive RSHP education. Some responses expressed a view that the option of parental withdrawal was important to protect particularly younger children from information their parents and carers thought was not appropriate or they were not ready for. Some responses expressed confusion as to what level their child was learning at, therefore affecting whether they considered the material age appropriate.

Alternative educational provision

It was questioned how a pupil can achieve equity in meeting Health and Wellbeing Experiences and Outcomes and Benchmarks if they are withdrawn from a key element of the RSHP curriculum. Responses stressed that young people who are withdrawn should still have access to factual, accurate information. Responses also strongly felt that the responsibility to deliver equity of education should also apply to homeschooled young people and to denominational schools. However others expressed concern that it was not possible for withdrawn young people to receive learning on par with their peers without receiving the content their parents and carers had chosen to withdraw from.

Responses indicated confusion on where responsibility lies for devising alternative provision that parents and carers find acceptable while aligning with Health and Wellbeing Experiences and Outcomes and Benchmarks. Currently, it appears there is confusion as to whether this is the responsibility of the parents and carers, the school’s senior leadership team, or of individual teachers - whether that is the teacher delivering PSE, or in primary school the class teacher. Responses, particularly those from teaching unions, expressed concern that the need to provide alternative provision could significantly increase teacher workload in a manner that may prove unsustainable. Concerns included additional staffing required to accommodate withdrawn young people; additional staff time needed to facilitate conversations with parents and carers to agree alternative provision, especially if this applies to multiple young people; and additional staff time and resource to create alternative or adapted teaching resources. Some responses indicated the perception that children who are withdrawn from RSHP education content are removed from the school premises and taken home by parents and carers while this is being delivered.

It was suggested further clarity was needed for parents and carers on the impact of removal including that the choice to withdraw is not a choice to delay.

Denominational schools

48 responses mentioned denominational schools. As above, these sought reassurances that denominational schools would be able to continue to deliver their distinctive curriculum on RSHP education.

Question 4: How effective is the guidance in explaining the key issues of a whole school approach alongside a positive school ethos and culture are highlighted to teachers in delivering relationships, sexual health and parenthood education?

There were 2,897 responses to this question. 25% of respondents thought the guidance was effective or very effective in explaining the key issues of a whole school approach alongside a positive school ethos and culture being highlighted to teachers in delivering RSHP education. 32% felt it was ineffective, and 17% felt it was neither effective or ineffective. 26% of respondents did not answer whether they felt it was effective or ineffective.

Clarity on values and other issues

At 241 responses, clarity on values was by far the prevailing theme on answers to this question. 47 responses mentioned further clarity.

A number of respondents sought clarity on what was meant by a whole school approach and the definition of positive culture and ethos. For example, it was queried whether a whole school approach hinders teachers from being able to adapt to the needs of the young people in front of them. Clarity was also sought on how this whole school approach would be communicated and implemented throughout the school, including what training and support would be made available to practitioners; clear actions senior leadership, classroom teachers, and support staff can take; how the whole school approach extends to third party organisations a school may bring in to deliver elements of RSHP education; and how delivery of RSHP education would be monitored and evaluated to ensure consistency and inclusivity.

Paragraph 3.1. of the draft guidance states that a whole school approach should be presented within a framework of sound values. However, some respondents noted that these values are not defined and that a common understanding is assumed that might not be shared by young people, parents and carers and teachers from different religious, cultural, or philosophical backgrounds. It was queried how this whole school approach framework takes account of and reflects the cultural, ethnic and religious influences within their young people’s homes and wider community, and leaves room for opposing views and protects freedom of thought and speech. It was suggested that it would be helpful for the guidance to provide an overview of what is meant by these sound values.

Other responses expressed view that having a whole school positive ethos and culture added necessary clarity in bringing consistency to learning, allowing children to feel safe and comfortable, and developing positive relationships with parents and carers and the wider community. They felt the balance was correct in that no one group or belief was prioritised, with the priority being on acceptance of all, including the protection and inclusion of minorities. The promotion of tolerance and inclusivity was mentioned as being key to the successful delivery of RSHP education. A whole school approach, when done correctly, was understood to mean all teachers presenting information in the context of a set of values which everyone adheres to in school, whether they are their personal beliefs and values or not.

Personal beliefs

70 responses mentioned or alluded to the impact of personal beliefs being taught with regards to gender-related themes and trans topics. Responses on this theme expressed concern that a whole school approach meant imposing ‘a particular world view’, or ‘biased perspectives’, on children and young people before they have the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills. This was of particular concern to parents and carers who felt this may contradict the values expressed at home. Questions were raised as to the factual basis by which the values underpinning this approach/ethos are determined. It was suggested that positive, consistent communication with home as part of a whole school approach may help alleviate these concerns.

Further comments on LGBT and trans topics are addressed under questions 7 to 9.

Teachers’ beliefs

70 responses were in relation to the beliefs of teachers and how these can be respected within a whole school approach. The majority of responses felt that teachers should not be required to express beliefs or values that do not align with their personal values and beliefs, fearing this may prove discriminatory to teachers who hold particular religious beliefs. It was felt it was impractical to suggest all staff would align with a shared set of values or positions on potentially controversial issues. Conversely, other responses expressed concern that this approach would allow teachers too much freedom to impose their personal views or values on young people.

Parental role

63 responses mentioned the role of parents and carers. These responses asked for clearer communication between the school and home on the school’s approach to RSHP education, including the opportunity for parents and carers to raise concerns. They felt parents and carers should have more input on what was included as part of the whole school approach, including what should be delivered at various ages and stages. Parents and carers felt it important that the values taught at school aligned with, rather than contradicted, the values their children were learning at home. As above, some parents and carers believed they retained the ‘right’ to withdraw from any and all aspects of RSHP education, including those embedded at a whole school level. Some expressed a lack of understanding of safeguarding and child protection procedures with regards to confidentiality, believing they should be informed in all circumstances if their child makes a disclosure or an incident occurs.

Other respondents felt that the whole school approach was positive as including families and the wider community may make it easier for young people to talk to their parents and carers about topics they may find awkward or difficult. They expressed that educating parents and carers was also important to help consistency of messaging and information across school and home.

Age appropriate

55 responses alluded to age appropriateness. Issues raised reflected those raised in the response to question 1, including determining at what age/stage RSHP education should be introduced, and how to determine what content is suitable to be delivered at different ages/stages.

Question 5: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in supporting consent and healthy relationships having a greater focus in relationships, sexual health and parenthood education?

There were 2,903 responses to this question. 23% of respondents said the guidance was sufficiently clear in supporting consent and healthy relationships having a greater focus in RSHP education; 44% said it was unclear; and 8% didn’t know. 25% of respondents did not answer whether they felt the guidance was clear or unclear on this point.

Age appropriate

116 responses mentioned age appropriateness. Issues raised reflected those raised in response to question 1. Additional points raised in the context of ensuring greater focus on consent and healthy relationships were:

• Some responses objected to the text in the draft guidance that not all sex under the age of consent represents a child protection concern. They stated the 2014 guidance contained more robust and specific language on what considerations need to take place to determine if an incidence of underage sex constitutes a child protection concern
• Views that guidance is unclear on which aspects are aimed at primary and secondary. It was suggested that it may be helpful for this section to be separated into guidance for nursery, primary and secondary and restructured in future drafts to clarify what advice applies to different age groups
• Awareness that children and young people are increasingly likely to be accessing material inappropriate to their age and stage through online content. Suggestions that teaching staff may need to give consideration to what young people have already been exposed to when making considerations about what is appropriate for their age and stage

Consent

It was suggested it should be made clear infringements of consent are not just wrong, but in some cases criminal. Where young people may realise through RSHP education that they have had a non‑consensual experience, it is important for appropriate procedures, support and signposting to be in place. Responses noted views of a perceived lack of knowledge among some educators on how to discuss consent and the age of consent with regards to sexting and the sending of sexually explicit images and videos over text and social media apps. The evidence base for the positive impacts of educating young people on healthy relationships and consent was requested.

It was also noted with the rise of online misogyny, there was a need to directly address the negative messages young people, especially young men, may be receiving about consent and respecting boundaries. They also felt it was important to take a more gendered lens in discussions about consent including domestic abuse and coercive control. Responses mentioned research showing young men were reluctant to engage in conversations about healthy relationships. An intersectional approach which considers the particular dynamics and factors that may influence the ability to give or withhold consent and have that respected was encouraged, including race, LGBT identity, and disability.

54 responses commented on the links contained under Consent and Healthy Relationships: Whole School Resources and Signposts section of the draft guidance Comments stated the inclusion of this table was unhelpful as it made the guidance look cluttered, and should instead be included in an appendix. It was also questioned whether inclusion of these links equated to Scottish Government endorsement and concern was expressed about keeping the content up to date.

Safeguarding

121 responses mentioned the role of parents and carers, and 111 mentioned safeguarding. Responses on this theme included the belief that parents and carers should be informed if their child is having any kind of underage sexual experience; this indicated a lack of understanding around the rights of children and young people to confidentiality, and the policies and procedures schools will have in place to ensure this. Responses also indicated a belief that parental consent is required to teach children and young people anything about consent and healthy relationships. Some responses felt teaching about consent and healthy relationships was the responsibility of parents and carers, and that schools should not be infringing upon this right. However other responses stated that parents and carers should be better educated on consent and healthy relationships to be able to reinforce positive messages at home.

A number of responses felt the guidance should provide support to parents and carers to recognise dangerous online activity including when this might be occurring and how to have challenging conversations regarding online activity.

A number of responses expressed concern that talking to children and young people about RSHP education may cause them distress, and that they had not consented to participate in these discussions. An issue raised was what happens if a child protection concern is raised with a peer, and the procedures to provide support to all young people involved in that scenario. Although signposts to support are included within the guidance, it was suggested extra support should be in place for young people who may need help to report a concern, for example young people with additional support needs.

Question 6: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in ensuring faith and belief is accurately captured in relationships, sexual health and parenthood education?

There were 3,718 responses to this question. 19% said the guidance was sufficiently clear, 73% said it was not sufficiently clear, and 3% did not know. 5% of respondents did not answer whether they felt the guidance was clear or unclear on this point.

Denominational schools and young people

The majority of responses to this question, 456 responses, related to denominational schools and specifically the option for Catholic schools to continue their distinct approach to delivering RSHP education. The predominant concern of responses related to the proposed changes that removed or altered some paragraphs relating to denominal education that were previously contained in the 2014 guidance.

Concerns were raised regarding a lack of clarity on how the guidance applies to denominational schools. Local authority denominational schools in Scotland are mostly Catholic schools. Catholic schools can use their own RSHP materials, designed in consultation with the Scottish Catholic Education Service (SCES) and the Bishops Conference of Scotland. Responses asked for it to be made clear that this option to use Catholic RSHP materials (God’s Loving Plan and Called to Love) is retained, and that the revised teaching guidance does not supersede the role of SCES and the Bishops Conference.

A smaller number of responses felt that it was important all children and young people have access to the same information on RSHP education, regardless of faith background. They expressed the view that denominational schools should deliver the same RSHP education content as non‑denominational schools. Where this was not the case, they felt it important that RSHP education delivered in denominational education should still be factual and evidence-based, and should not ignore teaching on issues that may be controversial to their faith such as LGBT identities, abortion, and contraception. This included responses from self-‑identified parents and carers of young people attending Catholic schools who felt comprehensive RSHP education was essential to equip their child to thrive in a diverse society.

Age appropriate

79 responses mentioned or alluded to age appropriateness. Concerns echo those outlined in responses to previous questions.

Defining faith and belief

89 responses sought clarity on how belief was being defined when it came to ensuring different beliefs were included within RSHP education. Responses questioned which beliefs and belief groups this would include (and which it would exclude). Specific comments relating to beliefs about LGBT identities are addressed under questions 7 to 9.

However, others felt there had been inadequate consultation with those from different faith communities, including secularist and atheist groups, to ensure a wide scope of different perspectives were considered under the umbrella term of ‘belief’.

Concerns were raised as to whether teachers could reasonably be expected to have a working understanding of all the beliefs that young people may hold, especially those of smaller or more marginalised faith and belief communities. In those circumstances, respondents felt it important that individual young people were not expected to be the ‘spokesperson’ of their belief, or seen as representative of all people of that belief. Responses suggested that when talking about different beliefs and perspectives, teaching materials and class discussions avoid stereotypes and generalisations about any specific belief; for example, it should be acknowledged that people of the same faith may hold different views on topics such as marriage, abortion, LGBT relationships, or gender equality.

62 responses fell under the broader category of faith and how this was defined within the guidance. A number of responses raised the importance of schools upholding and respecting the right to have no belief or religion, and that non-religious perspectives were also considered. Some felt this was undermined by encouraging consultation with faith leaders, and inviting faith leaders to deliver RSHP content within non-denominational schools, such as chaplains leading assemblies that relate to relationships, parenthood or sexual ethics.

There was some confusion around the “devising of themes to help those with different beliefs and values”. Some respondents took this to mean young people may be segregated for some topics with only those who share their beliefs.

Managing young people’s contrasting or conflicting faiths/beliefs

117 responses expressed concern that the approach of the guidance towards faith and belief may risk being exclusionary of young people with religious beliefs. The role of faith/religion in promoting positive wellbeing and forming healthy relationships for children and young people who ascribe to a faith was raised. However, there was a concern amongst respondents that young people who held strong religious beliefs, especially when these beliefs were more socially conservative, risked being ridiculed by their peers or teachers for their beliefs. Anecdotal examples were provided of young people being warned by their parents and carers not to share their beliefs, or the young person themself choosing not to, out of fear of bullying and intimidation. Responses on this theme also feared that young people with religious beliefs would not feel comfortable participating in some activities or class discussions as part of RSHP education due to their beliefs. Particular conflicts highlighted by respondents was the concern about how to respect a range of beliefs on gender equality and LGBT identities in the context of the guidance’s increased focus on LGBT and gender inclusivity. A minority of responses expressed the view that children and young people were being pressured to accept one particular worldview, even if this contradicted their religious beliefs.

266 responses raised issues relating to situations where certain beliefs may be in conflict. The majority of these responses requested clearer guidance and support for teachers, senior leadership teams and local authorities on how to manage situations where young people hold and express beliefs on morals and ethical behaviour that directly contradict each other. They reflected the challenge of ensuring all children and young people feel represented , while holding room for tension and disagreement. Respondents felt that in those situations it was important that no one view was upheld as more correct than the other. This was flagged as particularly important when young people of the same belief system disagreed on their belief system’s perspective on a particular topic. Connectedly, they felt the input of third parties should be limited to ensure any one perspective was not overrepresented.

44 responses mentioned free speech, particularly for young people within the context of RSHP lessons. Many responses requested an explicit statement on free speech to be included within this section of the guidance. They also wanted explicit reassurance provided that this should be done respectfully and young people would not be shamed, disciplined or reprimanded for expressing viewpoints that aligned with their faith or belief, even if others disagreed with these views. Conversely, some responses stated children and young people should be able to express ways in which they disagreed with religious beliefs. Others felt that religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse for prejudice, intolerance or discrimination and these views and any behaviours resulting from these views should be challenged regardless of their source. It was suggested that this was particularly true of certain practices that may be illegal or present a child protection concern, such as Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriage or ‘honour’ based violence. However responses also recognised that care should be taken when challenging these practices not to then apply stereotypes and generalisations towards entire communities.

Respondents felt that teachers should support young people voicing differing and dissenting views. It was suggested that school staff need clearer guidance and support on ensuring children of different faiths and beliefs interact and learn alongside each other on topics they disagree on, including how to facilitate these conversations to ensure they remain respectful and constructive. It was suggested that on matters where people might hold different moral positions such as same sex marriage or abortion, the legal position should be clearly stated, and that this could be done without implying approval or disapproval.

Teachers’ beliefs

77 responses were in relation to the beliefs of teachers delivering RSHP education. These broadly fell into two categories:

• Views that teachers should not be expected to endorse or deliver content that is against their personal beliefs
• Views that teachers should not exhort their beliefs onto students

On the first category, a number of responses mentioned the 2014 version of the guidance outlined the process through which teachers, who felt unable to teach aspects of RSHP education due to their religious beliefs, could raise concerns. Respondents believed that teachers should not be required to teach content that went against their personal beliefs, and expressed concern that at present teachers might feel coerced to deliver content that went against their beliefs.

On the second category, there was a divergence of views. Some respondents expressed that teachers should be neutral/non‑partisan when discussing topics on which there are a range of views and beliefs. They expressed concern that teachers would promote particular views/perspectives that contradicted the values parents and carers taught at home. However, others felt teachers should be free to express their personal views and beliefs as restricting this would restrict their right to freedom of religion. Responses suggested that it would be challenging for teachers to respect all young people’s and parents’ and carers’ beliefs while still clearly differentiating between fact and opinion. Responses repeatedly suggested that teachers should not state opinions as facts. Respondents felt strongly that RSHP content should remain objective, scientifically accurate and inclusive. It was stressed that teachers should feel able to challenge homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, misogyny or other prejudiced views, and should not be pressured to treat those views as of equal validity to views promoting inclusion and tolerance.

Question 7: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in ensuring gender inclusive language is used to deliver relationships, sexual health and parenthood education?

There were 2,844 responses to this question. 24% responses said the guidance was sufficiently clear, 40% said it was not clear, and 9% did not know. 27% of respondents did not answer whether they felt the guidance was clear or unclear on this point.

Age appropriate

32 responses mentioned or alluded to the age appropriateness of gender inclusive language within RSHP. The concerns raised were similar to those in questions above – primarily that this was being introduced at too young an age/stage and would be confusing for younger children. Additionally, responses to this question raised suggestions that at certain ages/stages it would be necessary to discuss some issues in a gender specific way e.g. male vs female puberty. This was raised as a section of the guidance where it may be helpful to have differentiated guidance for early years, primary and secondary.

Biology/Sex/Gender/Personal beliefs

135 responses made reference to biology or biological sex, 116 to sex, and 183 to gender. The majority of these responses objected to the use of the term gender, and expressed the view that the correct terminology for this section should be sex instead of gender, because sex is a protected characteristic whereas gender is not. Responses asserting there are only two biological sexes – male and female - are addressed more fully under question 8.

A number of responses disagreed with the draft guidance stating that it is widely understood that there is no inherent difference between individuals based on their gender alone which should limit their interests, capabilities or ambitions. Respondents believed it was important to point out what they perceived were “biologically based differences” between men and women in interests.

A small number of responses shared the perception that this section of the guidance was unnecessary as education has now moved beyond gender stereotypes. Respondents questioned the evidence that this is still a problem. Some responses questioned if it would be appropriate for some RSHP lessons to be segregated by gender.

A clearer definition of the terms sex and gender was requested. It was suggested that the UNICEF definition of gender may be helpful in clarifying a shared understanding, as presently different people, belief systems and cultures may have different perceptions of what is meant by gender.

Some responses raised views that in attempting to challenge binary perceptions of gender, the guidance may accidentally be upholding such understandings through using binary phrasing like boys and girls. More inclusive terms like all children/everyone were suggested.

126 responses mentioned or alluded to trans topics.

Some respondents viewed the use of gender rather than sex could lead to safeguarding issues. There was a perception that acceptance of language and wider learning around the topic of gender – including trans identities - was potentially harmful to children. Similarly, some respondents expressed their belief that gender inclusive language was erasing the rights of women and girls by diminishing uniquely female experiences.

Denominational schools

As above, responses on this theme questioned whether this aspect of the guidance applied to Catholic schools, or they could continue to teach their distinct approach and modules on RSHP education. Some respondents expressed views that although it was important to combat gender stereotypes, the Catholic church’s position on transgender and non-binary identities should be upheld in Catholic schools.

Misogyny

56 responses mentioned misogyny. Responses on this theme noted a rise within schools of misogyny, sexism and prejudice towards girls. Responses asked for it to be made clear that gender inclusive language should not limit the ability of schools to talk about gender specific issues including misogyny.

Question 8: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in explaining and including VSC/DSD/intersex people in relationships, sexual health and parenthood education?

There were 2,740 responses to this question. 23% responses said the guidance was sufficiently clear, 33% said it was not clear, and 14% did not know. 30% of respondents did not answer whether they felt the guidance was clear or unclear on this point. The high rate of do not know and did not answer suggests potential confusion regarding this section of the guidance.

Necessary

This was the most commonly raised theme, with 148 responses. The vast majority of these responses noted that VSC/DSD/intersex conditions affect only a very small percentage of the population, and felt it disproportionate for there to be a whole section of the guidance dedicated to this topic. The responses questioned the practicality of teachers being able to sensitively address/include all the conditions that may fall under the VSC/DSD/intersex umbrella that all have specific presentations. It was felt that supporting a VSC/DSD/intersex pupil should be addressed on a case ‑by ‑case basis by the school, treating each child/young person as an individual. Some respondents also felt that as these were primarily medical conditions, these were discussions that should take place between doctors, patients and (dependent on age and capacity) the patient’s parents or carers. They therefore did not see the necessity of including these topics in an educational, non‑medical setting.

It was suggested by some respondents that a more appropriate approach would be to produce separate guidance on VSC/DSD/intersex inclusion within education following consultation with relevant stakeholders and those with lived experience including VSC/DSD/intersex young people.

Age appropriate

54 responses mentioned or alluded to age appropriateness. Concerns echo those outlined in responses to previous questions. For this question in particular, respondents felt the subject matter was too complicated for younger children to understand.

Denominational schools

24 comments were in relation to Catholic/denominational education. Responses echoed points raised in previous questions.

Sensitivity to children and young people with VSC/DSD/intersex

A number of respondents made comments about how to engage with and consider the needs of children and young people with VSC/DSD/intersex. Greater clarity was requested on how to discuss these topics sensitively when many people with these conditions do not like the terms VSC/DSD/intersex and only use the name of the condition they have. In addition, some responses noted that some people do not like having their variation referred to as a medical condition.

It was suggested further clarity was necessary on how to ensure if a child with VSC/DSD/who is intersex is in the class, they will not feel singled out or stigmatised. It was noted there was a need for support to be in place for young people with medical conditions in education, while protecting their privacy.

There was some concern expressed that the current wording of this section implies value judgements about use of certain terms. It was suggested consultation with those with lived experience will be necessary to ensure nuances and sensitivities are considered for future drafts.

Clarity was sought on what measures had been taken during the development of the guidance to consult directly with children and young people with VSC/DSD/intersex rather than just with their parents and carers, who may have divergent views and opinions.

Support for teachers

A number of respondents raised points relating to ensuring teachers were confident delivering RSHP education that is inclusive of VSC/DSD/intersex. It was noted staff are unlikely to know about the full range of conditions that fall under VSC/DSD/intersex, and that there therefore needed to be professional learning on this topic available for teachers. It was also noted that some young people may not know they have VSC/DSD/intersex and become aware through RSHP education, and clarity was sought on whether school staff would be adequately prepared to support and signpost a young person in these circumstances.

Question 9: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in ensuring relationships, sexual health and parenthood education is lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender inclusive?

There were 2,793 responses to this question. 23% of responses said the guidance was sufficiently clear, 38% said it was not clear, and 10% did not know. 29% of respondents did not answer whether they felt the guidance was clear or unclear on this point.

Age appropriate

121 responses mentioned or alluded to age appropriateness. Responses on this theme echoed those given in previous questions. Respondents felt that LGBT content in particular was not appropriate for younger ages and stages. They also felt this section of the guidance should be separated into advice for early years, primary and secondary schools. A smaller number of responses asked who determines what is age and stage appropriate. Some responses also expressed concern that children and young people should not feel pressured to define their sexuality or gender identity at too early an age and stage. However, other responses raised suggestion that transgender children can often be aware of their gender identity at a young age, before trans identities are introduced into RSHP education.

Balance

Some responses expressed views against LGBT inclusive education approach set out in the draft guidance. They also felt sexual orientation and trans identities / gender transition were afforded disproportionate focus in comparison to other protected characteristics. This extended to including LGBT inclusive education across the curriculum which some respondents felt was excessive, recommending LGBT inclusive education be reserved exclusively for RSHP education.

LGB separate from T

62 responses expressed a viewpoint that trans issues and identities should be considered separately from lesbian, gay and bisexual issues and identities. They felt the acronym LGBT unhelpfully equates gender identity with sexuality when these are different issues.

102 responses were in relation to whether it was necessary to ensure RSHP education was LGBT inclusive. Responses on this theme included views that where a young person is questioning their gender or sexuality, this should be addressed by specialist services rather than by teaching or pastoral staff. Some responses stated views that LGBT young people are not currently excluded from any area of learning, therefore LGBT inclusive education was not necessary. Explicitly including LGBT themes was seen in some responses as risking resentment and pushback if young people and parents and carers felt it was not optional.

However other responses expressed that LGBT inclusion in RSHP education was necessary to reduce bullying, improve mental health outcomes, support safe sex, and foster greater inclusion and understanding. They expressed a desire for teachers to be given more support and training on how to combat prejudice-‑based bullying, the benefits of an inclusive curriculum, and how to have productive conversations and address misconceptions with parents and carers who may have objections to the inclusion of LGBT identities within RSHP education. They noted in particular the need for teachers to have better support and training on trans and non-binary identities, and how to make RSHP education trans inclusive.

Parental consent

86 responses mentioned a perceived need for parental consent to deliver LGBT inclusive education. [N.B. As outlined under question 3, the option to withdraw applies only to the sexual health element of RSHP education. There is therefore no parental or pupil option to withdraw from LGBT content within RSHP education, or LGBT inclusive education across the curriculum. Additionally, if parents or carers choose to withdraw their child from lessons on sexual health, this would apply to all sexual health content. It is not possible for young people to be withdrawn only from discussions of sex and sexual health within LGBT relationships.]

Religion and differing views

93 responses mentioned religion. There was significant overlap in the themes raised within question 6. The prevailing view among respondents to the consultation on this theme was that LGBT inclusive RSHP education went against their right to educate their child in accordance with their own religious or philosophical convictions.

A small number of responses expressed concern regarding LGBT inclusive education within faith schools. They were concerned that allowing for the teaching of RSHP through RME would enable faith schools to promote one-sided anti-LGBT messages as in alignment with the school’s religious charter. They believed this would have a negative impact on the wellbeing of LGBT young people in these schools.

Greater support and guidance for teachers was requested on how to address differing religious beliefs on LGBT issues and identities sensitively and respectfully, recognising the range of views that may be present among parents and carers and the wider school community.

94 responses mentioned denominational schools. Their predominant concern was that, in accordance with Equality and Human Rights Commission advice, denominational schools should be able to continue to teach the position of their particular faith on marriage and same sex relationships, provided that this is done in an appropriate, reasonable and professional way (and provided that they also teach the facts, where relevant, about the law concerning marriage in Scotland.) The position on denominational education is outlined in question 6 above. However a smaller number of responses expressed disappointment that LGBT young people in denominational schools were not receiving the support they needed, and that their peers were missing out on important education because some denominational schools were avoiding delivering LGBT inclusive education in RSHP education and across the curriculum. These responses came from teachers in denominational schools, parents and carers of young people attending denominational schools, and previous young people of denominational schools.

Question 10: Is the guidance sufficiently clear in explaining the requirement for pupils with additional support needs to have relationships, sexual health and parenthood education?

There were 2,709 responses to this question. 25% of responses said the guidance was sufficiently clear, 32% said it was not clear, and 13% did not know. 30% of respondents did not answer whether they felt the guidance was clear or unclear on this point.

Parents and carers

78 responses mentioned the role of parents and carers. The majority of responses asked for the guidance to advocate for greater involvement of the parents and carers of young people with ASN, working with the school to determine how to appropriately tailor RSHP content to meet their child’s needs. A smaller number of responses expressed the view that RSHP education for young people with ASN should be left entirely up to parents and carers, and therefore they should not receive this content in school. A number of general points in relation to withdrawal, parental role and parental consent were raised, which were discussed in relation to question 3.

Age appropriate

28 responses mentioned or alluded to age appropriate delivery of RSHP education.

While many responses raised similar points that were addressed in earlier questions, additional points relating specifically to young people with ASN included the need for further clarity on how assessments are made of a young person’s capacity, and of what is age and stage appropriate for young people with ASN. Consideration needs to be given to young people for whom physical development may not align with emotional, social and intellectual maturity. Several responses highlighted the importance of teaching young people with additional support needs about puberty and the changes they can expect in terms of physical changes, hormones, feelings and desires at the same age as their peers. Young people with ASN will approach puberty at the same age and stage as their peers and need to be adequately prepared in advance for what to expect. However, responses reported young people with ASN sometimes only receiving lessons on puberty after the fact which contributed to risks of harmful sexual behaviour and children and young people with ASN being at disproportionate risk of experiencing sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and gender-based violence.

It was suggested that it would be helpful to draw attention to the separate resources that exist for young people with complex ASN, however some young people in mainstream education may be able to use the same resources as their peers if appropriately differentiated.

Some respondents were concerned that the adapted materials used to deliver RSHP education to young people with complex ASN were not age or stage appropriate. They also expressed concern that the advice of the guidance that young people with ASN should receive age appropriate education in line with their peers may not be appropriate, as some pupil’s capacity and developmental stage may differ from their peers.

Involvement of children and young people in designing the curriculum

A number of responses suggested further guidance should be given on engaging children and young people in the design of the RSHP curriculum. It was noted that the views of young people with additional support needs was missing from this section, contrary to human rights conventions, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Respondents stated that collaborative learning is a critical component of RSHP education and learning, and that this should also apply to young people with additional support needs. Conversely, some respondents disagreed with younger children with ASN co-designing their RSHP curriculum.

It was suggested that additional information and guidance on what the co-design process should look like, and how young people with additional support needs should be supported to be involved in these processes, would be helpful.

Safeguarding

22 responses related to safeguarding. A number of reports (see question 11, suggested resources) were cited which all highlighted the need for improved RSHP education for children and young people with additional support needs.

It was suggested further clarity was required in relation to the language used in this section relating to young people with ASN and sexual harms, and whether this meant displaying sexually harmful behaviours, experiencing sexually harmful behaviours or both.

As above, respondents raised that young people with ASN must receive RSHP education to increase their knowledge and understanding of safe and healthy relationships. RSHP education was considered necessary to protect young people with ASN from becoming perpetrators of harmful sexual behaviours through learning in a way that is accessible to them about private body parts, consent, boundaries, personal space, and sex and the law.

A small number of responses raised concerns that young people with ASN were particularly vulnerable, and that teaching them anything about RSHP education could cause them undue distress. Support and guidance for staff on how to support a pupil with ASN in making disclosures was also requested.

The need for an awareness of the intersection of gender and disability in compounding risk of being targets of gender-based violence was also highlighted.

Linked to comments about age appropriateness and safeguarding were specific comments about the approach to teaching RSHP education to young people with ASN. Some respondents suggested the guidance should address ongoing negative attitudes and discrimination towards young people with ASN, and the perception that these young people don’t need to know or that it is inappropriate for them to talk about RSHP education.

For example, it was felt it would be helpful to clarify that although some young people with ASN may engage in consensual sexual activity now or in the future; others due to their specific conditions, abilities and needs will never be sexually active but still require RSHP content tailored to their learning needs to understand their own bodies, to understand how to interact appropriately with others, and as a protective measure against abuse and exploitation.

It was suggested that there was a need for support and training for teachers to feel confident delivering RSHP education to young people with ASN without embarrassment or avoiding certain topics because they don’t think they are relevant. It was also suggested there should be greater emphasis on partnership working.

Some respondents raised a general concern about the coverage of RSHP education to young people with ASN. It was suggested much of RSHP provision remains inaccessible. Some responses expressed views that terminology can be confusing if not properly explained, and provision for young people with ASN is often patchy or lacking altogether.

It was suggested it would be helpful for the guidance to highlight the importance of having monitoring processes in place to ensure young people with ASN are understanding and benefitting from the RSHP education they receive.

Trans topics

30 responses mentioned trans topics, trans identities or gender studies, most of which have been covered in questions 7 to 9. Some respondents expressed a view that young people with ASN should not receive LGBT inclusive education.

Structure and focus of the section

It was queried why the section was labelled as a summary but introduced ASN as a new topic. It was noted ASN covers an extremely wide range of conditions, abilities and needs and that it was hard to cover in a summary the variety of needs young people might present with and the range of ways in which support might need to be tailored. In line with this, some respondents felt there was a lack of depth in this section in comparison to other sections, and felt there should be equity with other protected characteristics. It was suggested that this section be moved to section 3 on embedding RSHP education amongst marginalised groups. Some responses highlighted the need to address intersectionality, for example disability and gender, and disability and LGBT and the need for inclusive RSHP education for young people with ASN.

Some respondents found the layout of this section confusing and suggested it should be reformatted.

Question 11: Does the guidance provide sufficient resources and signposts to support teachers in delivery of relationships, sexual health and parenthood education, if not, what resources do you think are missing?

There were 2,750 responses to this question. 19% of respondents said the resources and signposts provided were sufficient, 38% said they were insufficient, and 13% did not know. 30% of respondents did not answer whether they felt the resources and signposts provided were sufficient or insufficient.

There were widely contrasting views of the types of resources that should, or should not, be signposted to within the guidance. For example, some responses highlighted that there should be more faith-based resources included in the guidance, while other responses suggested it was not appropriate for such resources to be included. There were similar conflicting views on topics such as gender and LGBT identities.

Suggestions on what should be included

• Case studies and example scenarios for teachers on how to approach sensitive issues with parents and carers and the wider community
• Clarity on who was consulted in production of the updated guidance
• Clarity for teachers on the extent to which they can adapt resources, what topics have to be covered
• Clarity that rshp.scot is the national resource for delivering RSHP education, and aligns directly with the Curriculum for Excellence, rather than being just one option among many
• More resources tailored to young people with ASN
• Case studies on teaching young people with ASN about consent
• Diverse range of skin tones and body types in materials
• Resources on online harms, and on grooming and predatory behaviour including from family members, family friends, and those in ‘trusted’ professions
• Information on PVG scheme and safeguarding policies shared with young people
• Links to faith-based resources, which should be available to non-denominational schools who would prefer to use these. Additional resources for teachers on how to educate young people on VSC/DSD/intersex
• Advice and clear governmental support on implementing LGBT inclusive education. Clarity of definitions around terms like trans man, trans woman, transphobia
• Inclusion of non-binary identities
• Case studies of transgender young people and facts about those who detransition
• Support and advice for teachers on working with parents and carers with views that “may be considered by others as prejudiced”
• Support for teachers on implementing a whole school approach
• Impacts of pornography on mental and physical wellbeing. Information about sexual health clinics

Suggestions on what should not be included

• Biologically inaccurate props e.g. condom on banana
• Resources with a commercial interest or produced by external organisations
• Faith-based resources
• Gender Equality resources
• Signposting to LGBT resources
• Teaching about pornography

Additional comments

In addition to suggested resources, respondents also felt strongly that teachers needed to be given adequate time and support to engage with training on the wide range of topics covered under RSHP education, and especially those afforded greater focus in the updated guidance. This would require additional protected non-‑contact time for professional learning and development. Respondents also emphasised the importance of practitioners knowing the children and young people they work with well enough to deliver this area of the curriculum both sensitively and effectively. Staff consulted suggested further professional learning opportunities linked to the development of any new guidance would not only be helpful, but would be essential in supporting staff capacity and confidence to deliver RSHP education within the curriculum. Respondents also asked for a centralised ‘one-stop-shop’ of RSHP resources for teachers, rather than having to draw from a wide range of sources and sites. Additionally, a summary of the documents listed, and how they relate to RSHP education, was requested.

It was also suggested that each local authority have their own RSHP Working Group with responsibility for creating and maintaining their own bank of signposts and resources tailored to their local context. In the absence of local working groups, concerns were expressed regarding who was responsible for ensuring links and suggested resources in the guidance remained up to date and relevant. Teachers and school staff requested opportunities for peer learning and sharing, by inviting other sectors and schools to share information which they find useful beyond this list at regular intervals.

A number of respondents stated this section would be more helpful if it were limited to current Policy and Guidance for Scottish schools that is promoted, endorsed or required by Scottish Government and Local Authorities. Otherwise they felt inclusion in the guidance implied endorsement, when the Scottish Government and Local Authorities may not have reviewed all links for suitability.

A range of responses mentioned intersectionality and ensuring balance among various protected characteristics. They requested clearer links between different mentioned equality areas, showing how these intersect and overlap. Respondents expressed views that this would help avoid the impression that these areas are in conflict or competition with one another, instead showing how they all join up to create a whole school approach to equality and diversity.

Alongside resources for children and young people on gender-based violence, responses suggested that teachers may also require additional support and signposting to specialist organisations in case they have experienced gender-based violence including intimate partner violence or sexual assault or abuse. Respondents expressed concerns that delivering content on these topics could be retraumatising for some teachers, therefore flexibility and support would be necessary to ensure teachers are protected while not causing young people to miss out on important content.

Respondents noted the rise in disinformation around RSHP education and the need to be proactive in countering this. Responses noted that many adults will have had negative or insufficient experiences of RSHP education, adding to a lack of knowledge of the benefits of RSHP education, and heightened anxiety. They suggested there should be an explanation of the rationale behind the RSHP curriculum, including how high quality, factual RSHP education can aid safeguarding. Respondents suggested that resources on how to engage sensitively and positively with parents and carers may reduce withdrawal requests.

Although not a request for a particular resource, responses noted the increased cultural polarisation within contemporary culture (fuelled in part by increased amounts of time spent online) and the negative impact this has had on young people’s ability to form healthy relationships. They requested resources on holding healthy disagreements and engaging positively and respectfully with those who hold different opinions. Respondents also requested resources on media literacy, understanding how to assess information from a range of sources and viewpoints.