Co-designing guidance for Relationships and Sex Education to ‘transform school cultures’ with young people in England

ABSTRACT

Young people’s perspectives on the potentialities of and problems with Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) in England are well documented. This article shares insights from a co-design project conducted with young people and third-sector experts during 2020/21 which sought to identify and develop recommendations for schools regarding the design and delivery of critically informed RSE that engages with the realities and complexities of youth sociosexual life and development. The article discusses findings from workshops pertaining to how RSE can address the ‘ecosystem’ of young people’s sociosexual lives and development; judgment and shame within and beyond the classroom; safe, constructive, and inclusive teaching and learning; and inclusivity and cultural sensitivity. The challenges of designing and delivering safe, inclusive, and meaningful RSE for learners, that upholds and supports their development as sexual citizens, are acknowledged and addressed.

KEYWORDS:

• young people
• relationships and sex
• schools
• participatory
• co-design

Introduction

Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) has been mandatory in most state-maintained schools in England since September 2020 (Department for Education (DfE), 2019). This development has not been without controversy, with passionate debate, even protest, about whether and how RSE should be taught in schools (e.g. Mahendru, 2019). In the present article, I discuss findings from a project conducted in England during 2021/22 which involved co-designing guidance for RSE with young people and third-sector providers (the School of Sexuality Education and online sex education provider Fumble) in response to this fraught context. The third-sector providers and I sought to develop tangible suggestions for schools regarding developing and designing RSE provision and curriculum that addresses the realities and complexities of young people’s sociosexual lives through active and participatory teaching and learning. We all believed that working with young people to identify and develop suggestions was important. The project was not designed to inform a specific curriculum and the findings are applicable across the RSE curriculum because they pertain to the hows of RSE delivery across topics.

We conceive of RSE as, potentially, helping to transform young people’s school-based peer cultures and, in turn, their sociosexual lives and development, in ways that uphold their rights as sexual citizens (Alldred and Fox, 2019). We therefore hope that the findings are of particular value for educating about topics relating to safe, healthy, and respectful relationships. In this article, I, as the lead academic researcher on the project, reflect on what the third-sector partners and I learnt about taking a youth-led and youth-centred approach to RSE. It was through working with young people that we began to resolve some of the tensions and challenges entailed in designing and delivering RSE that is safe, inclusive, and meaningful for all young people. Our intention is to undertake further evaluation of the impact of the guidance on policy and practice regarding RSE pedagogy and curriculum design and delivery with the aim of identifying areas for further research and development.

RSE in England

The Children and Social Work Act (2017) bestowed compulsory status on RSE for most state-maintained schools in England. RSE provision in England had, beforehand, been patchy and inconsistent across schools and Local Authority Areas, with schools having a legal duty only to cover the ‘science’ of sex, reproduction, and puberty (e.g. British Humanist Association, 2017; Emmerson, 2018; National Children’s Bureau, 2016). RSE policy and practice in England has moved steadily ‘toward compliance with a rights-based framework’ (Yilmaz and Willis, 2020, 12) and DfE guidance on RSE broadly mandates holistic education about sex, sexuality, and relationships (DfE, 2019), typically referred to as Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) (Pilcher, 2005). CSE seeks to uphold young people’s rights to full information, skill development, and active participation. It aims to enable young people to make informed decisions and, consequently, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes, as well as uphold their rights to positive sex, sexuality, and relationships (Jones, 2011; Miedema et al., 2020). International evidence suggests that CSE is beneficial for sexual health and wellbeing (Goldfarb & Lieberman, 2021; Kantor et al., 2021; Miedema et al., 2020).

There are, however, long standing debates in England about what is ‘good’ and ‘appropriate’ regarding RSE (Jackson & Scott, 2010; Johnson, 1996; Moore, 2013). Setty and Dobson (2022) identified tensions and contradictions in how RSE, and young people as sociosexual subjects, are conceived of and addressed in DfE guidance. They argue that the guidance is dominated by a factual and legalistic approach to teaching about rights and responsibilities and normalises relationships and family types as desirable and appropriate (in terms of stable, committed, and healthy relationships and families). There is little critical engagement with concepts of sex and relationships or positioning of youth as active agents rather than just as recipients of knowledge. Digital media and online relationships are framed mainly in terms of risk and harm. While there is otherwise oftentimes a positive framing of relationships, the emphasis is more on young people integrating into society rather than offering their own perspectives. There are, furthermore, ongoing tensions between young people’s right to receive RSE and rights of parents to withdraw, teachers to decide upon ‘age appropriate’ content, and faith schools to deliver RSE in line with faith teachings.

CSE advocates describe it as superior to abstinence based RSE (where young people are taught to abstain from sex) and as concerned with liberal democratic values of individual freedom and rights to self-determination (see Rasmussen, 2012). Yet, CSE requires a critical perspective. Internationally, critical scholars argue that sex and relationships should be conceived of in terms of wider social contexts and power relations regarding gender and sexuality (Connell & Elliot, 2009; Helmich, 2009; Johnson, 1996; Jones, 2011; Levesque, 2000; Miedema et al., 2020). They caution that if it does not speak to norms and inequalities, it may become normalising and harmful itself. Parker et al. (2004, p. 388) suggest that RSE should uphold a ‘liberating and celebratory concept of sexual rights as part of a broader emancipation of the social, as well as the sexual world.’ This would involve ‘teaching children sexual agency coupled with an inclusive, social justice-informed perspective’ (Connell & Elliot, 2009, p. 96). In these conceptualisations, young people’s agency and sexual subjectivity are conceived of as relational and socially embedded (Cense, 2019).

The co-design project

The project that I developed with the third-sector partners sought to explore young people’s perspectives on critically informed, youth-led RSE. Through the project, we aimed to identify how to support ‘sexual citizenship’ (Alldred & Fox, 2019) in ways that enable young people to act as change agents through developing and practising emotional literacy and maturity, perspective taking and empathy, self-reflection, and critical reasoning and analysis. We felt that RSE can be a space for exploring ideas safely and constructively. We were mindful that it must connect with the realities and complexities of youth sociosexual subjectivity and cultures that transcend, but manifest within, RSE classrooms. While RSE must resonate, this means that topics may be very real for learners in their day-to-day lives and for which peer dynamics may play out within and beyond the classroom. We were nevertheless optimistic about RSE engaging with the conditions of young people’s lives and, in turn, transforming their youth sociosexual subjectivities, relationships, and cultures. Our aim was to identify youth-led and youth-centred ways to:

• Empower young people as active participants in peer culture to challenge and shift the meanings, norms, and assumptions about sex and relationships that shape and constrain their lives and experiences.

• Create climates and cultures of acceptance, tolerance, and equity through challenging zero-sum conceptualisations of power and rights and inspiring collective empowerment and freedom.

• Capitalise on changing standards of practice and narratives about complex social issues to inspire young people to drive forward progressive change in their peer cultures.

The project took place during 2020/21 and involved six virtual one-hour workshops between me, the providers and 12 young people (eight girls and four boys) aged 16-18 recruited through one of the provider’s volunteer base. The young people were diverse in terms of geographical location, ethnicity, and sexuality. We encouraged them to reflect upon and share their experiences of RSE and make suggestions for change and improvement. Workshop discussions variously involved frustration, reflection, poignancy, humour, and optimism. We posed questions and sometimes asked them to post ideas, opinions, and experiences to Google ‘Jamboards’ as a way of collecting and exploring different thoughts. This process generated insightful data through visually displaying their perspectives; however, we did not formally record the discussions because we wanted to create an free space for open discussion and because we were hosting the workshops online we were particularly mindful of ensuring that the young people did not feel inhibited so chose not to record the discussions. After each workshop, the third-sector experts and I had a one-hour ‘debrief ’ session to work through the discussion and identify themes and implications. Workshops were held at intervals of two weeks to give time for reflection. We all ultimately spoke positively about our experience of discussing the complexities and challenges of RSE and our hopes and vision for it as a subject. Young people gave informed consent and the study received Favourable Ethical Opinion from University of Surrey Ethical Review Board.

Findings

The resulting guidance for schools contains descriptive text, visual diagrams and displays, suggested techniques, and video resources to convey our vision for RSE. It focuses on the roles of ‘educators’ and ‘pupils’ and the ‘ecosystems’ of youth sociosexual life and development; specifically, the direct and indirect sources of influence and experience regarding sex and relationships. We – the third-sector experts, the young people, and I – aim to help schools consider, and perhaps re-think, the role of educators and pupils in engendering empowering RSE that engages with the realities and diversity of young people’s lives and that facilitates pupil participation, discussion, and reflection. We advance a vision for RSE as helping young people learn, develop, and practise the skills required for navigating the ecosystem of sociosexual life, develop healthy self-concepts, and make empowered choices that support and respect their own and one another’s rights, health, and wellbeing. We argue that RSE should include, but go beyond, facts and information to help young people:

• Develop self-awareness, emotional literacy, and maturity.

• Make space for and respect their own and one another’s identities and experiences.

• Become ‘allies’ to one another in which they can cope with and ultimately respect difference and develop commonalities and shared interests.

• Understand themselves as part of local and global communities and treat themselves and one another with dignity.

Several themes emerged from the workshops, pertaining to (i) the ‘ecosystem’ of young people’s sociosexual lives and development; (ii) judgment and shame within and beyond the classroom; (iii) safe, constructive, and inclusive teaching and learning; and (iv) inclusivity and cultural sensitivity, to which this article now turns.

The ‘ecosystem’ of young people’s sociosexual lives and development

From the outset, the third-sector experts and I conceived of RSE as a space in which young people – one way or the other – learn about and are exposed to different ideas and information about sex and relationships. When we asked the young people about the other ways they learn about and experience sex and relationships, their reflections were wide-ranging and we explored what, who, and where else is significant to them and, in turn, how best to position RSE within the broader ecosystem. Discussions suggested various forms of direct and vicarious, near and distal experiential learning and influence through peers, media, and others. An interesting discussion unfolded, for example, about UK Member of Parliament, Matt Hancock, who, at the time, had recently been captured on covert recordings having intimate relations with an aid. While the political fall-out from the incident was dominating the headlines, the young people wanted to talk about what the coverage conveyed about gender, intimacy, and (in)fidelity.

We all discussed how RSE can feel dis-embedded from wider contexts and seeks to ‘correct’ what is often framed, explicitly or implicitly, as inferior and/or problematic influences over young people. Scholars refer to the ‘ignored curriculum’, or young people’s informal and experiential learning (Gougeon, 2009), which may be marginalised in RSE that positions itself as objective and facts-based unlike the subjective mis/disinformation deemed to proliferate in other contexts. Spencer et al. (2008, p. 350) argue that RSE should, instead, be grounded in experiences and situated realities, including ‘ … the “places” in which young people’s sexual relationships and experiences are negotiated as well as the relations of power within these different contexts.’ These contexts may be structural, for example, relating to gender or sexual identity, or institutional, for example in terms of access to information or services. A contextualised approach may help to ‘de-abstract’ RSE including through acknowledging history, culture, and other places from which values emerge (Lamb, 2010) in which sex and relationships are conceived of as relational and interconnected (Cense, 2019; Miedema et al., 2020; Rasmussen, 2012).

We thus believe that RSE should engage with situated contexts and, what Buckingham (1998) terms, young people’s cultural reference points. These reference points include digital media depictions and sources of information and influence regarding sex and relationships, whereby media can help bring the topics to life rather than being a problem (Albury, 2013). Young people identified peers, parents (and other caregivers), the media, the school curriculum and school rules, and wider social, cultural, and political discourses as meaningful and influential. We acknowledge the challenge entailed in grappling with these intersecting spheres of learning and influence, but the young people wanted and valued RSE that does so.

The young people said that information and ‘facts’ should be conveyed in ways that draw upon and connect with the realities of their lives and that help them develop the skills and critical awareness to navigate the ecosystem. We collaboratively devised a list of benefits and risks within different parts of the ecosystem. The young people described wanting RSE that can help them identify these risks and benefits and, in turn, reflect on their experiences and make mindful choices whereby they develop critical awareness of how their subjectivities and decisions are shaped by intersecting sources of influence.

When the third-sector experts and I asked the young people about their memories of RSE, many described it as poor, limited in scope, infrequent, negative, and risk averse, with missed opportunities to develop knowledge, skills, and critical awareness. When asked about what RSE should be like, they wrote words such as ‘unbiased’, ‘inclusive’, ‘experimental’, ‘welcoming’, ‘relatable’, ‘exciting’, and ‘informative.’ Some shared examples of good experiences, for example pertaining to opportunities for open, balanced, and respectful discussion, often facilitated by outside experts. They were, likewise, critical of negative and risk averse RSE. They described such RSE as ‘awkward’, ‘a closed space’, ‘rushed’, ‘non-accepting’, ‘scary’, ‘taboo’, and so on. They were, however, concerned about ‘too much openness’, both regarding potential safeguarding responses and the implications for peer dynamics. They also recounted ‘bad experiences of RSE’, for example when pupils are unable ‘to accept the opinions of others and debates becoming disrespectful’, ‘very short session used gross/scary images … Everyone was laughing and it was extremely awkward and uninformative’, and ‘the same lessons on the basic things … strung out over the course of the year through worksheets/posters.’

These perspectives align with research findings regarding young people’s preference for interactive and participatory methods (e.g. Hirst, 2004; Pound et al., 2017; Unis & Sällström, 2020). Studies find that young people’s ‘expressed needs’ (Forrest et al., 2004) – what they say they want from RSE – relate to interest, relevance, and the ability to actively participate, ask questions, and be respected as learners (Allen, 2005; Macintyre et al., 2015; O’Higgins & Gabhainn, 2010). Active and participatory approaches that position young people as legitimate experts about their lives and the issues that affect them can help to convey the material and engage learners (Buston & Wight, 2004; Hirst, 2004). Jarpe-Ratner and Marshall (2021, p. 11) found that students express ‘a desire for more student-centred, engaging lessons as well as more time for discussion and dialogue’ and ‘a more positive, asset-based approach as well as more explicit discussion of inequity, identity exploration, and acknowledgment of intersectional identities and the role they play in sexuality.’ Other scholars likewise argue that young people should not just be lectured to but should be part of defining problems and finding solutions (Cameron Lewis & Allen, 2013).

UK research found that young people want to learn about what positive relationships involve, as opposed to just negative relationships, and for adults to share their experiences of these types of relationships (McGeeney & Hanson, 2017). In another UK study about online relationships, participants believed that education should include clear descriptions of what constitutes healthy online relationships and that it should not suggest that online relationships are inherently harmful or problematic (Project deShame, 2021). The participants preferred an informal and conversational atmosphere, rather than a lecture-style approach.

Addressing the ecosystem of youth sociosexual life and development thus requires a balanced and positive approach that engages with young people’s perspectives and experiences via active and participatory learning. Information and facts are required for supporting knowledge in an integrated approach that then addresses skills and social norms. This aligns with social science conceptualisations of RSE (Rogow & Haberland, 2005) that address learning and development within a social and cultural context (Wight, 2011); norms and attitudes (Walcott et al., 2011); sites of power and contestation (Ingham, 2005); and the ‘cultural and symbolic realm’ of young people’s lives (Paiva, 2005, p. 356). It involves exploring power relations and the ‘whys’ of behaviour and experience, rather than just didactic learning that tells young people what is and is not acceptable.

Such approaches may help address why knowledge does not determine actions and experiences (Wight, 2011); young people may know something but feel unable or unwilling to act accordingly. Adult-centric knowledge may, furthermore, feel disconnected from what they need to navigate these complexities. Evidence shows that knowledge may shape behaviour over time (Kippax and Stephenson, 2005) and can engender self-reflection and -exploration (Unis & Sällström, 2020) but RSE is competing with other influences and might be difficult to recall and apply in day-to-day contexts (Wight et al., 2002). RSE thus needs to address these contexts.

Judgment and shame within and beyond the classroom

The project identified that the complexities of the ecosystem relate to judgment and shame in young people’s peer contexts. In our workshops, we critically reflected on why young people may judge and shame one another and discussed the challenges in figuring out identity and sense of self, which may entail scrutiny, judgment, and policing of self and others. Some young people spoke about how individuals sometimes ‘can’t win whatever you do’, while local power dynamics (which reflect wider socio-structural inequities) create differential patterns of risk of shame and judgment, even for the same behaviour. We discussed how RSE should make space for feelings of vulnerability and confusion and help young people reflect.

The young people reflected on depictions, judgments, and assumptions across the ecosystem about what is and is not ‘normal.’ They shared perceptions regarding how young people have extensive access to information and depictions of sex and relationships, which means they may have an awareness of and language about the topics but nevertheless feel confused and disconcerted. The young people considered it important for RSE to include reflection on what is considered normal and the implications for themselves and one another. We all reflected on the goals of RSE. Is it about immediate behaviour change? Or can it also encompass deeper development of self-awareness, critical thinking, and the ability to cope with difference?

In the workshops, we discussed how judgment and shame can manifest in RSE classrooms. Building on their critique of negative and risk averse RSE, the young people identified examples of shame-based pedagogy (see Albury, 2017), including regarding nude image sharing, sexually transmitted infections/diseases (STIs/STDs), drugs, and contraception. They felt that framings of risk and stigma can be harmful and prevent young people seeking help and developing healthy and positive self-concepts and outlooks. They wanted RSE to name and challenge judgment and shame and be emancipatory through offering a just and equitable vision for sociosexual life. They felt that RSE should involve discussing and exploring ideas about sex and relationships and how these are scrutinised and policed across the ecosystem.

We each felt that starting with anonymous contributions and then, perhaps, friendship pair and/or small group discussions where young people may feel more at ease sharing their perspectives may be an effective approach. Whole class discussions can then provide an opportunity to learn about what others think and feel in order to break down assumptions and divisions. The young people felt that everyone need not be the same or assimilate in terms of their identities and choices. Instead, they wanted to explore how judgment and shame restricts the possibilities for identity and experience by reinforcing normative expectations and standards. Their priority was for acceptance of difference, in others and oneself.

As part of these discussions, we all critically engaged with the idea of ‘sex positivity.’ In their review, Pound et al. (2017) concluded that RSE should be ‘sex positive’ and acknowledge the pleasures of sex and young people’s autonomy. It is not always straightforward, however, and interpretations of pleasure and danger in RSE teaching vary between young people (Gordon & Ellingson, 2006). ‘Sex positive’ narratives can, furthermore, position pleasure as an ideal despite the feelings of ambivalence and the social contexts in which pleasure is given meaning and rights to pleasure upheld or denied (Lamb, 2010; Tolman, 2012). We all likewise felt that being sexually open and/or active does not inherently equate to empowerment. We discussed how this may be normalising and can entail a lack of respect for privacy and boundaries, including between peers and within RSE classrooms. We agreed that we instead wanted to emphasise inclusivity and respect for difference, whereby all sexual subjectivities are legitimised. While the young people did not want negative and risk averse education, they wanted to explore the ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘ugly’ sides of sex and relationships, including the challenges they may have had or may encounter or experience, for example, jealousy, affairs, separations, and so on.

In later workshops, we all discussed how RSE that positions learners as agentic and autonomous can help young people develop critical awareness in ways that they can take back to the ecosystem to make changes. We discussed the role of peers as ‘bystanders’ who play a powerful role in creating, sustaining, and transforming meaning and norms. We want to enable young people to have positive outlooks on this role but eschew just emphasising ‘calling out’ or ‘reporting’ bad behaviour, which, we all felt, is a somewhat unrealistic, or at least limited, approach and may reinforce division. We discussed how RSE could instead address social norms and empower young people to think critically about the structures of reward and punishment in peer culture. We did not want to just shift blame and shame elsewhere, but, instead, ‘call people in’ and identify opportunities to explore new ways of being and treating one another. We were mindful of avoiding condescension and instead wanted to advocate positioning young people as equals who all have something to contribute and learn.

Safe, inclusive, and meaningful teaching and learning

Our agreed-upon vision for RSE involves pupils actively identifying problems and developing solutions. We are mindful, however, of it being safe, inclusive, and meaningful for all young people. The young people did not think highly of teachers who dictate or control the learning process. They spoke favourably about outside experts and peer-delivered education because they remembered this involving more open and participatory learning (see Dobson et al., 2017 for a critical discussion of peer-delivered RSE). They felt that teachers have biases, values, and attitudes that affect how they teach RSE and remembered that some clearly did not want to teach RSE at all. Similar concerns have been identified in other studies, for example regarding the importance of teacher willingness, openness, and ease, as well as attitudes toward taking a positive and inclusive approach to learners (Pound et al., 2017).

Teachers vary in their ability and willingness to deliver RSE that aligns with principles for good practice, including comparatively so with external specialists who may be more at ease with open discussion and can build rapport while being apart from institutional structures of the school. The young people discussed the need to think differently about the role of educators and pupils. They wanted pupils to have a voice and contribute their perspectives and experiences and for teachers to act as facilitators for pupils to learn and think for themselves. They were critical of just educating about ‘facts’ and felt that some topics may not have easy answers and ‘reality’ may be more complex.

These perspectives relate to the integrated approach addressing knowledge, skills, and social norms discussed above. For example, regarding contraception, the young people said that they want to know about options, how they work, and how to access them. They felt, however, that it is also important to develop communication skills to discuss contraception use in relationships and to build confidence to advocate for oneself. Education about contraception also needs to address the normative socio-cultural contexts that shape young people’s expectations about and willingness to use contraception. Similar sentiments were expressed about facts-based approaches across other topics, for example teaching about sexual consent (Setty, 2022).

Examples of suggestions from young people regarding how educators can engender holistic and participatory RSE were:

… practical and physical discussions/tasks rather than simply listening to the teacher talk

… resources for … online spaces where we can educate ourselves

… teachers to be utterly unbiased and non-judgmental when answering any questions

… teachers need to be careful leading the conversations; they are mediators and facilitators of sometimes complex issues, and they need to take their opinion out of it

… it’s great when teachers say, if I don’t know how to answer this question, I will go away and find some sources to help you

They felt that for pupils, meanwhile, matters such as the following should be addressed:

… immaturity and embarrassment can be a barrier

… share views and thoughts without being shut down, then discuss and explore the issues

… maturity and discussing difficult topics and willingness and openness to share ideas and experiences

… distinction between wanting to learn and further the discussion vs. just putting it out there

… shame and fear of judgment

… for pupils to feel safe in their peer group to ask real questions and feel comfortable having these conversations

… students discuss similar experiences together more, so that they recognise they are not on their own with their experiences

Our workshop discussions addressed the complexities of the ecosystem and the young people wanted to explore the pressures and tensions they experience. They felt that RSE should address the debates and discourses about issues connected to sex and relationships. They were, however, mindful that these issues can be ‘real’ for young people, and it is important to ensure that RSE classrooms are safe and inclusive. It needs to be ‘trauma-informed’ (Fava & Bay-Cheng, 2013) and responsive to pupils’ experiences. Some may have had traumatic experiences connected to the topics (Forrest et al., 2004).

Essentially, RSE needs to grapple with complex issues and the different perspectives, needs, personalities, and experiences in the room. In the workshops, we discussed how it takes a lot to participate in discussions about complex, sensitive, and sometimes very personally relevant topics. It involves skills, including perspective-taking, understanding what constitutes constructive discussion, critical thinking, critical self-reflection, listening, and openness. We believe it is important for RSE to involve skill development. Educators have an important role in creating this space and ensuring that everyone is treated fairly and with dignity. They need to be open and comfortable while controlling the class and managing discussions safely (Allen, 2005; Buston & Wight, 2004; Strange et al., 2003; Unis & Sällström, 2020). There is potentially a specific need to manage gender dynamics, including how boys may behave disruptively and inhibit girls, perhaps because of anxiety about participating and perceptions that the content does not engage with what is important to them (Hilton, 2001; Limmer, 2010; Measor, 2004; Strange et al., 2003). It is also important to note that some young people are gender non-conforming and/or may not identify as ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ and, therefore, RSE should avoid making assumptions about pupils’ needs.

We acknowledge that all this may be challenging but without working through different opinions, ideas, and experiences it will be impossible to bridge divides and develop tolerance and mutual insight. Hence, for example, we concluded that while it may seem easier to deliver RSE to boys and girls separately, doing so does not resolve deeper issues regarding young people’s ability to understand and cope with one another’s perspectives nor does it address the needs of non-binary pupils. We developed suggestions during the workshops, including initial lessons dedicated to skill development for participation and gathering insights into pupils’ perspectives before tackling topics. Perspectives could be shared anonymously and would help teachers understand the range of views and address these in lessons. In the guidance, we frame it as about developing emotional literacy and maturity, for both personal and collective benefit in young people’s peer relations.

To support safe and meaningful active participation, we collaboratively identified distinctions between what is and is not ‘okay.’ For example, the young people felt that feeling ‘insecure’ and ‘vulnerable’, ‘confused’, or ‘uncertain’ about oneself and/or others and to ‘find some spaces and groups safer than others’ is ‘okay.’ They felt that it was ‘okay’ to both open up and not open up, depending on what is deemed helpful and appropriate. One young person felt ‘it is okay to feel overwhelmed by the complexities and challenges of sex and relationships. You aren’t responsible for changing the world but can take responsibility for acting responsibly, ethically, and with integrity.’ They also said it is ‘not okay’, for example, ‘to present your perspective as superior to other people or express incredulity that people could be different’, ‘to shut people down because they are different’, ‘to pry or ask intrusive questions’, ‘to create division between different groups and spaces’, ‘to ignore inequalities in people’s experiences’, or ‘to shame or judge people.’

In a later workshop, we discussed how the ‘consent castle’ (Robot, 2016) (originally developed to educate about sexual consent) could be applied to the RSE. In the model, consent is compared to building a castle: it is important to plan and be careful in the early stages, but then, as the structures become established and more secure, it is possible to feel more confident and at ease, while continuing to check in and address (and ‘repair’) any issues that arise. We all felt this could work in RSE through a staged approach to showing sensitivity and tact in contributions and engagement with discussions when tackling new and challenging topics, with gradually increased feelings of safety and willingness to share and explore contested ideas. The consent castle model views the process as fluid and dynamic whereby even as individuals feel more relaxed and comfortable, there remains the need to address any problems that arise and avoid defensive responses. It is, therefore, not just about individual-level skills and competences but the entire classroom culture, which reflects and feeds back into the wider school culture.

Inclusivity and cultural sensitivity

Diversity of experiences and perspectives meant we all considered it important that RSE is inclusive, sensitive, and gives voice to all learners. We discussed what, exactly, it means to be inclusive and culturally sensitive. The young people did not think that teachers needed all the knowledge or experience and felt that it will never be possible for everyone to always feel represented. Instead, they wanted space for difference. We were, however, concerned about how ideas about identity and culture can be homogenising and can reify people into categories. We did not want it to be about assumptions about identity characteristics or backgrounds, which we considered simplistic and unhelpful. We were also mindful of the longstanding marginalisation of some groups in RSE. Studies identify, for example, that RSE needs to address the perspectives of LGBT+ youth rather than marginalising or omitting them entirely in heteronormative approaches (Bragg et al., 2018; Formby & Donovan, 2020; Hirst, 2004; McGeeney & Hanson, 2017). While DfE guidance upholds young people’s rights and duties under the Equality Act 2010 to be inclusive, teaching about LGBT+ topics is to be delivered at points deemed ‘age appropriate’. The same is not said about heterosexual relationships and so may not fully address the marginalisation of LGBT+ teaching (Setty and Dobson, 2023).

More broadly, we discussed how everyone has an ‘identity’ and a ‘culture’, and RSE should acknowledge the complexities of what makes us ourselves and how we make sense of ourselves, one another, and the world around us. In several workshops, we spoke about the ecosystem and how meanings and influences are fluid and unique for individuals. We conceived of identity and culture as a product of our interpretations; we cannot dictate to others and do not speak for our culture or characteristics, only ourselves. The young people wanted RSE to model and nurture this approach to identity and culture. We spoke about emotional literacy and listening, reflection, and be self-awareness. What can we learn from others? What may be our biases or blind spots?

We recognise that RSE that addresses these questions can be challenging and discomforting but can help with practising the ability to cope with these feelings. The personal nature of identity and experience means, of course, that not all young people may want or feel able to talk about themselves openly (O’Higgins & Gabhainn, 2010; Pound et al., 2017; Selwyn & Powell, 2006). Pupils also need signposting to resources for self-directed, private, and independent engagement with the topics. RSE needs to help young people identify what, where, and who is helpful to them in their sociosexual development journey. Wight (2011, p. 71) identifies that effective RSE ‘[coincides] with critical points in a young person’s own sexual experiences’, which may differ between young people and may not be reflected in curriculum design and delivery. Developing the skills for self-directed and independent learning may help bridge any gaps.

There ensue implications of these findings and arguments for the role of digital media in the ecosystem (Setty, 2022). Digital media can facilitate interactivity and participation and offers control, flexibility, and privacy (Barak & Fisher, 2001) but may be troubling for adults who may want to control what young people are accessing and learning (McKee et al., 2018). While typically considered risky for young people, digital media can be more responsive to learners and can challenge dominant narratives and facilitate personal expression, solidarity, and community-building (Manduley et al., 2018). There can be benefits for young people (Oosterhoff et al., 2017) but also a need to support them to navigate and assess the accuracy of online content (Döring, 2021). The diversity of online spaces, including regarding the nature and style of the education, the level and type of interactivity, and the modalities of digital media used, may not, however, be a problem because young people themselves are diverse in their knowledge, experiences, and preferences (Guse et al., 2012). It can also offer opportunities to encounter different opinions and experiences (Attwood et al., 2015).

Finally, our workshops considered inclusive approaches to consulting pupils about RSE in a critically informed manner. Mayo (2011), for example, questions who gets to define what is relevant and of interest. In our workshop discussions, we somewhat endorsed the idea of pupil leadership groups to ensure accountability. We were concerned, however, that these groups might replicate peer power dynamics and may not be genuinely inclusive. We felt they should be accompanied by wider consultative activities whereby no pupil is censored or included or excluded based on judgments about participation rights. While there may be no simple solution to how some pupils may engage more than others, the process of creating a culture of inclusivity, participation, and dialogue is long term. RSE can drive this change but needs to unfold more widely in the school. Low expectations and ambitions for pupil involvement are self-reinforcing and so an optimistic and genuine approach should be taken.

Conclusion

The young people were reflective, engaged, and articulate and thought broadly and inclusively about RSE. Our workshop discussions resulted in a vision and suggestions for RSE that upholds a positive (albeit critically informed) approach to sociosexual life and development that facilitates pupil voice and participation in safe, inclusive, and meaningful ways. Schools in England face challenges regarding RSE, including limited resourcing, status, and esteem of the subject as well as the ongoing politicisation of RSE in public discourse (see Setty and Dobson, 2022). It may, therefore, be difficult to deliver the RSE that young people say they want (Spencer et al., 2008). There are also wider pedagogical paradigms within schools that result in a conflict between pupil-centred approaches and the emphasis on learning outcomes in school curricula, particularly when there is a lack of straight-forward answers or ‘facts’ around taught topics (Spencer et al., 2008). We recommend reflecting on the hoped-for outcomes of RSE and focusing on longer term social and cultural change through knowledge and attitude development (Kippax and Stephenson, 2005). Understanding the mechanisms of pupil engagement and learning requires person-centred methodologies that encapsulate processes of ‘ … subjectification, agency, and participation’ as sexual citizens (Paiva, 2005, p. 348).

Our specific recommendations for RSE pedagogy and curriculum practice and policy are: for schools to design and/or review school policy that draws upon and incorporates principles for policy identified from findings from this co-design project based on an assessment of school context and needs; to consult with pupils to inform curriculum design and teaching methods; to train relevant staff on the principles for designing and delivering RSE; to begin delivery while incorporating the principles for practice identified from the findings of this co-design project, particularly pertaining to the need to address knowledge, skills, and normative contexts in ways that enable pupils to identify the conditions required for safe, healthy, and positive relationships; and to engage in continuous pupil consultation and review/redesign of RSE delivery. We also suggest that national policy and practice guidance is updated to identify and address the specificities and complexities of RSE pedagogy and curriculum design and delivery, distinct from other curriculum topics, with attention to teacher training and the development of best practice for schools to learn from. Our intention is to subject our guidance to further evaluation to identify how best schools and other stakeholders can be supported to design and deliver pupil-led and participatory RSE that we hope can feed into ongoing national and local policy and practice development.

Acknowledgments

I thank the young people for participating in the workshops and for sharing and reflecting so comprehensively and openly about their views and experiences. I am also indebted to the expertise and insight provided by the third-sector experts involved in the project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the ESRC Impact Acceleration Account, University of Surrey .