Dr. Debbie Ging:

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak here today. I am also a member of the National Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre and of the Institute for Future Media and Journalism, both based at DCU. My research is primarily concerned with issues relating to gender, sexuality and social media. I am particularly interested in the topic of sex and sexuality education as it relates to the Internet and social media, as well as pornography.

I was a co-investigator on the Government-commissioned report on the sexualisation and commercialisation of children in Ireland and principal investigator on a recent study about LGBT inclusion in post-primary schools.

I will give a summary of my written submission. I draw on existing research and literature in Ireland and elsewhere to identify the key problems have been identified with the Irish RSE curriculum and its delivery. These are as follows. The programme focuses largely on the avoidance of pregnancy and STIs. The programme constructs heterosexual intercourse as the primary definition of sex. The programme is not inclusive of LGBTQ students’ experiences and sexual practices. The programme does not deal sufficiently with consent, although the senior cycle materials do contain a very good section on consent that was certainly progressive for its time. The programme does not explicitly acknowledge sexism and inequality. The programme does not deal with the role of the Internet, social media, mobile phones or pornography. The programme does not start with young people’s lived experiences. As noted by Maycock, Kitching and Morgan in their 2007 review, significant problems have been observed with the delivery of the programme.

This last problem is the most significant and the one that presents the biggest challenge to improving RSE in our schools, not just in terms of time and expense but also in terms of impressing upon school boards of management that comprehensive RSE is a human right and not something that can be selectively addressed.

The international literature recommends that an overall shift in focus is required toward a rights and gender equality-based, inclusive, holistic, creative, empowering and protective RSE curriculum. This again draws from Renold and McGeeney's research and recommendations in Wales. This should be underpinned by key principles of sexual literacy and sexual citizenship. This is of crucial importance, particularly in the digital context, because it shifts the emphasis away from risk, shame and self-censorship to rights, responsibility and self-empowerment.

The 2017 European Network of Ombudspersons for Children position statement on comprehensive relationship and sexuality education, states that all children and young people have the right to high-quality, holistic and inclusive education about sexuality and relationships. A recent synthesis and review of international research on the views of children and young people suggests that high-quality RSE starts early; is adaptable and needs-led; offers a spiral curriculum; collaborates with external providers; is of sufficient duration; is engaging and participatory; and creates a safe, respectful and confidential learning environment.

To this end, I have suggested that the Irish relationship and sexuality education, RSE, programme should consider adapting the core principles underpinning the recent recommendations made on the future of the sex and relationships education curriculum in Wales. These are rights and gender equity; creative and curious; empowering and transformative; experience-near and co-produced; holistic; inclusive; protective and preventative. My more specific recommendations are for an RSE programme that moves beyond abstinence and pregnancy prevention to embrace issues of consent, negotiation and the dynamic, evolving nature of sexuality. This summarises the points I made in my written submission and I am happy to expand on them and respond to questions.