Bridgend Council Sex Ed Curriculum Under Fire

Alarm Sounds Over School Sex Ed Draft That Appeared to Endorse Strangulation

A Welsh local authority encountered intense scrutiny after details emerged about draft educational materials. The materials, intended for school-based relationships and sex education (RSE), included content which seemed to support choking as part of sexual acts. Bridgend County Borough Council arranged for the resource creation. The controversy ignited concerns among parents, child protection specialists, and elected officials regarding safeguarding protocols and the oversight of RSE content development. The incident highlighted profound anxieties about the messages children might receive concerning consent, safety, and unlawful actions within the sensitive context of sex education. It prompted urgent calls for greater transparency and stricter quality control over teaching resources used across Wales and potentially the wider UK. The debate underscored the challenges educators face in delivering age-appropriate, legally accurate, and safe RSE.

The Problematic Presentation Slide

Central to the controversy was a specific slide within a draft PowerPoint presentation. This slide contained wording implying permission should be sought before initiating choking. The implication that obtaining consent could legitimise such a dangerous act caused immediate alarm. Critics argued this framing fundamentally misunderstood the nature of consent, particularly concerning acts carrying significant inherent risk. Furthermore, it appeared to trivialise or even condone an action explicitly outlawed under UK legislation. The slide's existence, even in a preliminary document, raised serious questions about the judgement exercised during the resource's initial development stages within the council-commissioned service.

Bridgend Council's Defence

Bridgend council officials moved quickly to address the growing criticism. They emphasised the presentation belonged to an initial 'draft version' undergoing development. The council stated categorically that children never viewed the contentious slide. Officials explained the material formed a component within materials developed by Assia, the authority's internal unit addressing domestic violence. They asserted that the slide deck circulated only among professionals for feedback and review. Following this consultation process, which involved input from various specialists, the council decided to remove the problematic slides entirely. The authority maintained the intention was never to present this specific content to learners in schools, framing it as belonging to an internal cycle of review and revision that ultimately corrected the flawed messaging before any potential harm occurred.

Widespread Condemnation Erupts

Despite the council's assurances, condemnation of the draft material was swift and widespread. Natasha Asghar, a Conservative Member of the Senedd (MS) and participant in the Children, Young People and Education Committee, voiced significant concerns. She questioned the initial decision-making process that allowed such content, depicting unlawful behaviour, into any draft stage. A widely shared letter detailed the worries held by parents plus RSE educators which reached prominent figures. Those receiving the letter included UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Eluned Morgan, Wales' First Minister. Claire Waxman, London's Victims' Commissioner, described the material as generating significant alarm in comments to The Times newspaper, reflecting the seriousness with which experts viewed the potential implications for young people's understanding of safe and legal behaviour.

Image Credit - BBC

Legal Experts Weigh In

Further criticism came from legal and political figures knowledgeable about relevant legislation. Baroness Jacqueline Foster, previously a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, highlighted the legal realities surrounding the act depicted. Speaking in Parliament, she reminded colleagues that choking someone without fatal results represents a distinct crime. This offence carries the potential for a significant prison sentence under UK law. Her intervention underscored the gravity of including references to illegal acts within educational materials, particularly without immediate and unambiguous condemnation. The Welsh Government itself later reinforced this point, explicitly stating that non-fatal strangulation is both perilous and unlawful. This confirmed that the resources eventually provided to schools by Bridgend council made this position unequivocally clear, distinct from the controversial draft content.

Clarification Raises Further Questions

Bridgend council attempted to further clarify its position through a subsequent statement. This communication suggested the slides formed a component of 'incorrect or outdated details'. The council stated this information had been 'subject to updates or deletion' during the revision process. However, this explanation did little to quell the concerns. Instead, it intensified questions about why such content and the associated message were present at all within a resource intended for safeguarding and educating children. If the information was inaccurate or outdated, critics asked, what was its origin, and why was it initially considered relevant for inclusion, even provisionally? BBC Wales pursued the authority for more detailed information to understand the genesis of the controversial content and the internal processes that allowed it.

The 'Stimulate Debate' Rationale

Responding to further inquiries, the local authority elaborated on the slide's intended purpose within the draft presentation. A council statement explained the specific slide belonged to an interactive presentation style format. The concept, officials claimed, involved the facilitator employing that particular slide for 'prompting discussion'. Following this discussion, the presenter would then unequivocally advise attendees that non-fatal choking represents, in reality, a hazardous, unlawful offence with major consequences. The council reiterated that specialists who provided input when the materials were being drafted offered feedback. This feedback led directly to the removal of this section from the presentation before finalisation. This explanation, however, still drew criticism for potentially normalising the topic initially.

Conflicting Accounts Emerge

Accounts regarding the presentation's circulation began to diverge. Individuals like Michael Conroy, an experienced trainer who equips teachers and other professionals to deliver RSE lessons, informed the BBC of their understanding. They believed the teaching resource, including the controversial slide, had been made available to educational institutions and various youth settings for use. This contradicted the council's firm assertion that distribution was strictly limited. The council maintained it only shared the document merely as an unfinished item shared among a limited number of specialists seeking their opinions. This discrepancy highlighted a fundamental disagreement about the presentation's status and intended audience during its development, fuelling further mistrust among concerned parties outside the council.

Image Credit - BBC

Safeguarding Expert's Alarm

Michael Conroy, with past experience coordinating personal, social, and health education (PSHE) in schools, shared his profound concerns after seeing the slide content, although he hadn't obtained the presentation via the authority itself. He described his reaction as "terrifying." Conroy noted the absence of accompanying information on adjacent slides regarding safety or the illegality of the act. He forcefully condemned the underlying message. Mr Conroy found the underlying suggestion appalling that getting consent could justify strangling another person. He framed the issue as a fundamental failure of safeguarding principles, describing it as a contradiction of safeguarding duties and a severe violation of confidence between educators and young people.

Calls for Full Transparency

Natasha Asghar MS amplified calls for transparency from Bridgend council. Citing contact from worried mothers and fathers, she publicly requested the release of the materials. Specifically, she asked for the two iterations of this slide program – presumably the initial draft and the final, approved version. Asghar stressed the importance of understanding the original intent. "We must acknowledge that the creators initially considered this content suitable," she stated. Her position emphasised the need for accountability and scrutiny to ensure the integrity of RSE content. She argued that investigating the origins and evolution of the resource was crucial "to guarantee young people receive appropriate instruction."

Underlying Concerns About Judgement

The Senedd member acknowledged the council's point regarding the slide's intended context. However, she maintained this did not excuse the initial lapse in judgement. She asserted this point failed to diminish the reality that the content creators initially thought it suitable, which Asghar identified as her main worry. She indicated this fundamental issue of judgement during the creation process remained problematic, regardless of the later corrective actions taken by the council. Asghar also reported she had contacted the head of the council directly seeking answers but, at the time of her comments, had not received a reply, adding to frustrations about the perceived lack of openness from the authority.

Broader Implications for RSE

The Bridgend example resonated far beyond the specific local authority, sparking wider debate among parents, education specialists, and elected figures. The core issue touched upon fundamental questions about the content and delivery of RSE lessons in schools across the UK. Concerns surfaced about curriculum consistency, the vetting of materials, and the potential influence of external providers. The incident served as a stark reminder of the high stakes involved in educating children about relationships and intimacy. It prompted calls for increased parental oversight and more robust national guidelines to prevent potentially harmful or inaccurate information from reaching vulnerable young learners in classrooms anywhere.

The 'Rough Sex Defence' Connection

Fiona Mackenzie, a prominent campaigner instrumental in the successful push to eliminate the legal argument sometimes known as the 'rough sex defence' within the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, drew parallels. She warned against dismissing the Bridgend case as an isolated incident involving a single provider. Mackenzie urged vigilance, stating, "every parent ought to request access to the resources used in their child's PHSE lessons." She argued strongly for greater governmental control over RSE materials. Mackenzie cautioned against the risks associated with opening up sex education provision to market forces, suggesting it could lead to unqualified or ideologically driven individuals or groups influencing what children learn about sex and relationships, potentially with dangerous consequences.

Council Reaffirms Safeguarding Commitment

In further public statements, Bridgend council sought to reassure the community. Officials explicitly stated confirmation that area youngsters receive no instruction suggesting hazardous sexual acts become permissible if consent is given. This message aimed to counter the narrative suggested by the leaked draft slide and calm parental anxieties. The council stressed its commitment to safeguarding and providing accurate, responsible education. The emphasis was placed firmly on the final, approved materials, distancing the authority entirely from the problematic content that had initially caused the significant public and political backlash, framing it as a corrected error.

Welsh Government Position

The Welsh Government also issued statements reinforcing the official stance on the matter. Officials asserted that unsuitable resources were never circulated for school utilization or viewed by any students. They highlighted existing frameworks and support systems designed to ensure the quality and appropriateness of RSE. The government pointed to additional funding allocated for offering specialist knowledge plus assistance towards educational bodies and councils. This support aims to ensure resources comply with statutory rules and are suitable for pupils' developmental stages. The government underscored its commitment to the mandatory RSE Code, stating clearly that all resources used must adhere strictly to its legal requirements and principles of developmental appropriateness.

UK Government Involvement

While the controversy primarily unfolded within the devolved context of Welsh education policy, the issue touched upon UK-wide legislation concerning non-fatal strangulation and domestic abuse. The open letter raising concerns had also been addressed to the UK Prime Minister. Reports noted contact had been made with the UK government seeking their view on the situation and the broader implications for RSE standards across the nation. The involvement of UK-level figures and the relevance of UK-wide laws demonstrated that the concerns raised in Bridgend had resonance beyond the borders of Wales, potentially influencing future discussions about national standards and oversight for relationship and sex education curriculum development and delivery in schools throughout Britain.

The Importance of the RSE Code

The incident brought renewed focus to the Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) Code in Wales. This mandatory code establishes the statutory rules for RSE provision. The Welsh Government frequently referenced the code in its responses, emphasising that all materials must align with its stipulations. The code aims to ensure RSE is holistic, covering rights, equity, relationships, health, and well-being in an age-appropriate manner. It stresses the importance of reflecting diversity and ensuring learners understand concepts like consent, coercion, and the illegality of harmful behaviours. The Bridgend controversy highlighted the critical importance of translating the code's principles into practical, safe, and unambiguous teaching resources, a task requiring careful judgement and rigorous quality assurance processes.

Image Credit - Primer

Challenges in Curriculum Development

Developing effective and safe RSE materials presents significant challenges for educators and authorities. Content must be factually accurate, legally compliant, age-appropriate, and sensitive to diverse student needs and backgrounds. It needs to address complex issues like consent, online safety, healthy relationships, and potentially harmful behaviours without causing undue anxiety or inadvertently normalising risky actions. The Bridgend case exemplifies how easily missteps can occur, even with intentions perhaps focused on stimulating discussion. Finding the right balance between openness and safeguarding requires considerable expertise, careful pedagogical consideration, and robust review mechanisms involving multiple stakeholders, including child protection specialists, educators, and potentially parent representatives, to avoid generating problematic content.

Role of External Providers

The debate also touched upon the role of external organisations and individuals commissioned or invited to contribute to RSE delivery. While external specialists can bring valuable expertise, concerns exist regarding consistency, quality control, and potential biases. Fiona Mackenzie's comments about the "market" for sex education materials reflect anxieties that commercial or campaigning interests could potentially influence content negatively. This raises questions about the vetting processes councils and educational institutions use when selecting external providers or resources. Ensuring alignment with the official curriculum, legal standards, and safeguarding principles is paramount. The Bridgend situation, involving an in-house service, still demonstrated the potential for issues, suggesting vigilance is needed regardless of whether provision is internal or external.

Parental Rights and Engagement

A recurring theme in the discussion surrounding the Bridgend controversy was the role and rights of parents. Natasha Asghar specifically mentioned receiving communications from worried family members, highlighting their crucial stake in RSE content. Many parents advocate for greater transparency and the right to review materials used in lessons. Finding effective ways to engage parents constructively, providing reassurance about curriculum content while respecting professional educational standards, remains an ongoing challenge. Open communication channels, clear information about the curriculum, and opportunities for parental feedback are often seen as vital components in building trust between schools, authorities, and the families they serve, particularly concerning sensitive topics like RSE.

Conclusion: A Call for Vigilance

The controversy surrounding the Bridgend council draft presentation served as a critical incident, exposing potential vulnerabilities in the development and oversight of RSE materials. While the council insisted the problematic content never reached students and was corrected during drafting, the initial inclusion of a slide appearing to trivialise illegal strangulation sparked legitimate alarm. It underlined the absolute necessity for rigorous vetting processes, unwavering adherence to safeguarding principles, and crystal-clear messaging regarding consent and illegal acts within all educational contexts. The incident fuelled broader debates about RSE curriculum standards, the role of external providers, parental rights, and the need for constant vigilance to ensure children receive accurate, safe, and responsible education about intimacy and relationships across Wales and the UK.