How we quality assure our work

Quality assurance is of paramount importance to us here at School of Sexuality Education. We believe our model - an external charity providing relationships and sex(uality) education - currently offers one of the best ways to provide this. Here’s why:

1. RSE is broad and needs multiple experts

Relationships and sex education is a huge subject area, ranging from consent and healthy relationships to puberty and sexual health. It also requires some unique pedagogical approaches, as the RSE classroom is distinct from other learning environments. 

Our team comprises qualified teachers, doctors, those with a background in the sexual and domestic violence response sector, refugee support, psychology and youth work. Many of our team work part-time alongside other relevant work such as completing PhDs in RSE-related research. We also work with world-leading academics in gender and education.

Our curriculum is co-designed by this team of experts, meaning all of the subject areas we cover are accurate and based on best-practice approaches. It’s also informed by input from our youth advisory panel, and ongoing feedback from young people during our workshops.

Image by Deeanna J

2. Our programme development process is an iterative one

We have a suite of workshops that our team is trained up to deliver. They then go into schools, deliver these same lessons repeatedly, and then come back together as a group to reflect on what’s working well and what needs improvement.

Not only does this mean that they become highly competent at delivering our workshops in a succinct and engaging way, but it also means that our curriculum is being constantly reviewed according to student, teacher and team feedback.

3. We're observed by multiple teachers, in multiple schools, multiple times a week

Teachers are always present during our workshops. This means they can provide feedback either directly to us, or to our lead school contact. Often, a member of our team will deliver the same workshops to five different classes across a day, meaning five different teachers see the lesson and can discuss together afterwards.

This provides a level of scrutiny that it would be unusual to see replicated in a regular school set-up. Meanwhile, we have a re-booking rate of 85%, indicative of the approval of teachers that see us in action!

Alongside this, we also have an internal observation system, whereby we regularly observe and provide feedback to colleagues to help them continually develop their classroom practice.

4. We have greater capacity to discuss, reflect and develop.

Unlike an in-house member of staff, who will often be asked to deliver RSE alongside their main subject specialism, our team is solely dedicated to thinking about, discussing and reflecting on relationships and sex education. This level of immersion results in enhanced teaching confidence, knowledge and creativity of practice.

5. We hire facilitators with existing expertise and provide them with ongoing training

We specifically hire those with both a passion for RSE and existing experience in a relevant subject area - for example, medicine, teaching, counselling or youth work. We then provide them with training and shadowing before they begin teaching. 

This means that young people will always be taught by someone who is unflappable, knowledgeable and is passionate about the aims of RSE.

Speak to one of our unembarrassable team members to find out how our work can support you.

Tackling the rise of deepfake use among young people: why we need actual solutions, not ‘tech abstinence’

Recently, the Guardian published a story on the worrying rise of deepfake pornography and nudes in schools affecting predominantly young girls in schools. With the rise and accessibility of tech, we should be talking about the rise in deepfakes in schools and the very real harms it creates. 

School of Sexuality Education’s CEO, Dolly Padalia was quoted in the article and shared an incident of harm that happened in school. While it’s important to highlight the scale of harm, it’s also important to take a nuanced look beyond dramatic headlines. We must critically evaluate any solutions posed to tackle the issue of image-based sexual abuse in young people, including suggestions to ban phones for children or the introduction of new laws. As solutions go, we should be looking at how education can be used as a tool to combat sexual violence. 

Image by Evie K

We can’t depend on the law and policing to “fix” the problem

It is tempting (and a common approach) to tell young people not to share any nudes because it is illegal, but when we frame the law in this manner, we create a culture of victim blaming and inadvertently make it less likely for young people to come forward and seek support from adults by making them feel shame for using technology, or taking a nude, in the first place.

Sure, laws and policing may have their place, but can we solely rely on them? Especially when our current laws are failing to hold social media companies responsible and police are regularly found to be misogynistic, and have little success in solving cases of sexual violence. 

It was also striking how the article spoke about the confusion teachers felt about tackling harm from deepfakes — do we use exclusions or restorative justice approaches? Perhaps restorative justice is worth exploring seriously in our school system. An approach that centres the voices of victim-survivors can empower them to move forward, rather than expecting young people to go back into the classroom with the perpetrators of harm, who can be fellow pupils or even friends, and continue as normal.

Phone bans are not a solution 

As adults who want to protect young people, imposing a ban might make us feel better, but does it work? Let’s take the most popular policy proposal floating around in the UK at the moment: Phone bans in schools. One of the largest studies of its kind  in the UK found that school phone bans had no impact on sleep, behaviour or overall phone use compared to schools without a ban. 

The genie is out of the bottle now, so it’s highly unlikely society will return to a time without smartphones and AI. Even in a world where complete smartphone bans could be enforced for under-18s, eventually, they will need to learn to interact with these technologies in a healthy way. Bans may only work to delay the inevitable rather than provide any meaningful solutions to the issue of misogyny and sexual violence in our society.

And is it fair to remove access to phones for young people when this technology can give them a voice, access to information and maybe even a sense of safety, just because other people are trying to harm them? We should be targeting the people who do harm, and the companies that allow them to. 

Adults need support too

In response to The Guardian, the government dutifully rolled out a spokesperson from the Department for Education to give platitudes about “new funded resources to help teachers explain the law and harms relating to online content.” So far, we’ve been unable to find any information on which, if any, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) providers were consulted in the creation of these resources, or even where, when or how teachers can access these. 

Of course, we welcome the government putting more funding into the education system, but we need clear commitments to fund educational approaches that centre young people’s needs. This could include high-quality teacher training, and even workshops for parents, so adults are better equipped to understand the tech landscape and support young people without judgement. 

Educational solutions

As RSE practitioners working with young people, we tackle these issues head-on in schools. We facilitate discussion to help young people make the link between gendered norms and sexual violence, we challenge victim-blaming narratives that normalise harm, and we encourage young people to be active-bystanders in a range of situations, from being in a group chat to witnessing harassment enacted by a friend. 

We also remind young people to trust their feelings about situations that make them feel uncomfortable, and to seek help from adults who, in turn, should take them seriously and offer help and support. All young people should have access to high quality RSE that covers topics like sexual health, consent, media analysis and healthy relationships that emphasise compassion and kindness, to prevent harm from happening.

The Guardian article ends its piece by highlighting how a young person knew to seek support from an adult after learning about online safety in a PSHE lesson, with the simple statement that “education works.” And we agree. 

For more information about our work, email info@schoolofsexed.org.

Sexuality education as a human right: from moral panic to empowerment through education

A blog post by Lisa L B, following their master’s thesis

Human rights-based sexuality education is a fundamental right of children and young people, with significant implications for their health, wellbeing, and overall quality of life. It is critical because it facilitates access to other basic rights like healthcare, education, safety, equality, and freedom from discrimination. 

Over the last few years inclusive sexuality education, meant to encompass the experiences of LGBTQ+ people (here as an umbrella term for different sexual orientations and gender identities), has been increasingly demonised in UK media and politics, and framed as “transgender indoctrination” and a threat to children’s safety and well-being (Marshall, 2024; Setty, Ringrose and Hunt, 2024). In 2024, the Conservative government published a Draft Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education (RSHE) Guidance, intending an update to the statutory guidance, outlining the national legal requirements that schools must follow for RSHE. The draft proposed age restrictions on certain topics and a ban on discussions of “gender identity.” 

My master’s thesis analysed the draft policy, situating it within a broader context of growing opposition to inclusive education and global rise of anti-gender movements that threaten to roll back hard-won sexual and reproductive rights for young people. The research combined policy analysis and interviews with RSHE practitioners. I used the “What’s the Problem Represented to Be?” (WPR) framework (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016) - a method that helps uncover hidden assumptions and power dynamics behind policies, and to evaluate its effect on people’s lives. 

Image by Evie K

I found that, by failing to position young people as rights-holders, the policy is likely to increase stigma around sexuality-related topics and further marginalise LGBTQ+ identities and relationships, thereby causing harm rather than preventing it. Echoing concerns of civil society experts, including School of Sexuality Education’s response to the draft guidance, my study shows that the policy is not fit for purpose. 

I wrote my thesis using the then RSE guidance draft, which was opened to public consultation. Since this time, the final Statutory RSHE Guidance has been published (July 2025). While the final version differs from the draft I originally studied, my findings remain relevant and a timely reminder that we need a children’s rights perspective in RSHE. Many of the points experts were critical of have indeed been included in what is now the statutory guidance.

So, what do we mean by human rights-based sexuality education?

It is also commonly referred to as Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) and generally understood as a positive approach that promotes scientifically accurate, age-appropriate, rights-based, and comprehensive information (UNESCO et al., 2018; UNESCO, 2024). “Comprehensive” means that it goes beyond basic reproductive biology and contraception to include topics like relationships, consent, power and gender norms.

The aim of this approach is not only to improve overall health, but also to promote empowerment and civic engagement. It is grounded in the notion that for sexuality education to meaningfully support and protect the rights of all children and young people, it must be inclusive and incorporate critical reflection on intersecting systems of power and privilege. This requires youth-centred and participatory pedagogies (teaching strategies or approaches to teaching). In practice, this can involve interactive learning activities, such as group discussions and opportunities for critical reflection, that build on students’ existing knowledge, experiences, and environments. This way of teaching helps make learning more engaging, relevant, and supportive of critical thinking (Berglas, Constantine, and Ozer, 2014). 

Human rights-based sexuality education requires the recognition of young people’s sexual rights (Berglas, Constantine and Ozer, 2014), meaning that everyone should have the freedom and ability to make informed choices about their own sexual and reproductive lives, while respecting the choices of others (Miller et al., 2015). The approach is underpinned by the assumption that young people are developing agency and the capacity to exercise their sexual rights in their own best interest as long as they receive the right information and support. 

Young people’s right to human rights-based sexuality education is firmly grounded in international law. It is established by treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations, 1966), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (United Nations, 1979), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989). As a signatory to these treaties, the UK government has a legal obligation to uphold and protect this right. 

What did I find? 

I identified the age restrictions and the proposed ban on discussions of gender identity as the two main changes in the 2024 draft. My findings also highlight the underlying assumptions behind these proposals and their potential effects.

• First, young people are not positioned as rights-holders. The draft is based on the assumption that children and young people are innocent, vulnerable, and not developmentally ready to engage with certain topics. This positions children as passive learners rather than active and capable rights-holders. In this way, the proposed age restrictions are likely to foster a culture of silence and stigma around sex-related topics and questions in schools, ultimately undermining the preventative safeguarding function of RSHE.

• Second, the ban on teaching about gender identity is directly harmful to trans, non-binary, and gender-diverse young people, while also making rights-based RSHE harder to deliver. The draft assumes that gender is binary and biologically determined, framing teaching about gender identity as “controversial” and potentially harmful. This framing fuels the idea that such topics might “influence” children to question their gender. In turn, it reinforces the belief that everyone should conform to cisgender and heterosexual norms, i.e. cisheteronormativity, while erasing trans and non-binary youth and limiting efforts to tackle bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

• In contrast, the practitioners I interviewed viewed young people as sexual subjects and rights-holders. They all stressed the importance of intersectionality and inclusive teaching. They asserted that banning discussions of gender identity will not only harm trans and non-binary students, but that it will also make it difficult to teach about overlapping issues such as gendered stereotypes, sexism, gender-based violence, and the rise of online misogyny.

In summary, the 2024 Draft RSHE Guidance does not position young people as rights-holders. It risks reinforcing stigma around sex and sexuality, while upholding cisheteronormativity and discrimination. The 2025 RSHE Guidance, on which it is based, perpetuates these same problems. 

Image by Evie K

It also reflects a broader political shift in which social justice initiatives are reframed as extreme or dangerous. In this context, LGBTQ+ inclusive RSHE in England has been portrayed as a threat to childhood innocence, with the 2024 Draft RSHE Guidance positioned as a “normal” or “commonsense” response.

Ultimately, the direction taken with the new RSHE Guidance risks harming young people and undermining inclusive, rights-based education.

The case for a human rights perspective in RSHE  

The lack of a children’s rights perspective identified in my findings aligns with previous research (Daly & Heah, 2023; Heah, 2024; Pilcher, 2005; Setty & Dobson, 2023). Studies show that sexuality education in England has historically been framed primarily as a public health issue rather than as a matter of children’s individual rights (Daly & Heah, 2023). At the same time, considerable emphasis has been placed on parents’ rights to make decisions about their child’s education (Pilcher, 2005).
The way we talk about, understand, and relate to children and young people, often in implicit ways, has a direct impact on policy and how RSHE is delivered in practice, with very real consequences for young people's health and wellbeing (Heah, 2024). 

Treating childhood and adolescence as nonsexual or pre-sexual phases reinforces the idea that young people are incapable and incompetent when it comes to sex and relationships. As a result, their right to participation, as outlined in the UNCRC, will not be meaningfully extended to them (Moore, 2013). 

The human rights perspective reminds us that we need to listen to and involve young people in RSHE. Today, most are increasingly aware of the gendered and sexualised world around them, largely because of their (near) unlimited access to news, information, and sexual content online. They often have a clear idea of the RSHE they want and need, but are rarely consulted (Renold et al., 2023). In response, we must create space for a shift in power between students and teachers, adopting more participatory and critical approaches to teaching and pedagogy. When young people are actively involved in shaping their education, it is far more likely to be relevant and meaningful for all students.

Finally, a human rights perspective functions as an important accountability mechanism, reminding us of the UK government’s responsibility under international law to protect and fulfil the right to rights-based RSHE.

What now?

While the final Statutory RSHE Guidance have scrapped the age restrictions that were set out in the draft version, it is still excluding of trans, non-binary, intersex, asexual and gender non-conforming students, putting them at risk of further marginalisation and discrimination. Some LGBTQ+ rights groups are calling for the removal and immediate revision of the guidance for those exact reasons, although the feasibility of such a call to action is yet to be seen. In the meantime, School of Sexuality Education say they urge both educators and parents to do everything they can to advocate for young peoples’ rights within the current framework. Every child and young person should have equal access to rights-based sexuality education that genuinely puts their best interests at heart.  

Further information: 

Lisa is a postgraduate from Sweden with a joint master’s degree in Human Rights Policy and Practice from the University of Gothenburg, the University of Deusto, the University of Roehampton, and the Arctic University of Norway. Her work focuses on human rights and sexuality education, with a particular interest in feminist, intersectional, and rights-based approaches to development, advocacy, and policy. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Global Studies and has developed her academic perspective alongside work in civil society, engaging in advocacy and volunteer roles.

You can read my full thesis here.

References: 

Bacchi, C. and Goodwin, S. (2016) Poststructural policy analysis: a guide to practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central (Accessed: April 9 2025).

Berglas, N.F., Constantine, N.A. and Ozer, E.J. (2014) ‘A rights-based approach to sexuality education: conceptualization, clarification and challenges’, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 46(2), pp. 63–72.

Cammaerts, B. (2022) ‘The abnormalisation of social justice: the “anti-woke culture war” discourse in the UK’, Discourse and Society, 33(6), pp. 730–743. Available here

Daly, A.C. and Heah, R. (2023) ‘Mandatory relationships and sex education (RSE) in England—educators’ views on children’s rights’, Youth, 3(3), pp. 1013–1029. Available here

Heah, R. (2024) ‘Theorising relationships and sex education (RSE) as a children’s rights issue using a Foucauldian lens’. Available here

Marshall, H. (2024) ‘Beyond panic: navigating the tides of change in relationships and sex education’, Sex Education, 25(3), pp. 324-340. Available here

Miller, A. M., Kismödi, E., Cottingham, J., and Gruskin, S. (2015) ‘Sexual rights as human rights: a guide to authoritative sources and principles for applying human rights to sexuality and sexual health’, Reproductive Health Matters, 23(46), pp. 16–30. Available here

Moore, A. (2013) ‘For adults only? Young people and (non)participation in sexual decision making’, Global Studies of Childhood, 3(2), pp. 163–172. Available here

Pilcher, J. (2005) ‘School sex education: policy and practice in England 1870 to 2000’, Sex Education, 5(2), pp. 153–170. Available here

Renold, E., Bragg, S., Gill, C., Hollis, V., Margolis, R., McGeeney, E., Milne, B., Ringrose, J., Timperley, V., and Young, H. (2023) “We have to educate ourselves”: how young people are learning about relationships, sex and sexuality. London: NSPCC. Available here (Accessed: 2 May 2025).

Setty, E. and Dobson, E. (2023) ‘Department for Education Statutory Guidance for Relationships and Sex Education in England: A Rights-Based Approach?’, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 52(1), pp. 79–93. Available here

Setty, E., Ringrose, J. and Hunt, J. (2024) ‘From “harmful sexual behaviour” to “harmful sexual culture”: addressing school-related sexual and gender-based violence among young people in England through “post-digital sexual citizenship”’, Gender and Education, 36(5), pp. 434–452. Available here

UNESCO (2024) Comprehensive sexuality education: for healthy, informed and empowered learners. Available here (Accessed: 7 February 2025).

UNESCO, UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women and WHO (2018) International technical guidance on sexuality education: An evidence-informed approach. Paris: UNESCO. Available here (Accessed: 7 February 2025).

United Nations (1966) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). New York: United Nations General Assembly. Available here (Accessed: 29 April 2025).

United Nations (1979) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Available here (Accessed: 29 April 2025).

United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). New York: United Nations General Assembly. Available here (Accessed: 29 April 2025).