SAFEGUARDING CONCERNS - A Tasmanian teacher's review of the Department of Education Children and Young people's (DECYP) Year 11 and 12 Respectful Relations and Consent Resources in Tasmanian Schools

Recently, having undertaken professional learning in safeguarding and on the newly released (2024) Respectful Relations and ConsentYear 11-12 resource resources created for teachers, I began to reflect on my practice and ask questions about the resource: how would such activities be delivered in a college campus setting for year 11 and 12 students? What tertiary qualifications in sociology or psychology did the author have if any, to not realise what they were writing in this government resource was inappropriate?

How would consent be garnered from students and parents to participate in such activities? 

Why was there no glossary in relation to terms surrounding identity in the resource, when so many activities depended on this knowledge?

Why were some activities plainly inappropriate and unethical for students (and adults) to undertake, resembling more like cognitive behaviour therapy sessions, than classroom activities for high school students? The writers of this resource pronounce its content is primarily student lead, but is this truly wise and evidence based?

Why wasn’t someone saying anything about this Tasmanian Government resource?

Boundaries Crossed in Invisible Ink

It’s been recently decided that the activities inside the Respectful Relations Year 11 and 12 document DECYP Resources will be imbedded into the compulsory’Support Group’ classes, which all students must attend at Tasmanian colleges. In this way, parental/caregiver permission and scrutiny is bypassed.

Senior staff will pick and choose from the resource, delivering content via a variety of means.

Safeguarding Concerns

Safeguarding concerns abound, in relation to this RRE 11/12 document and its teaching strategies, particularly in relation to the extreme nature of some of its content.

I acknowledge the Tasmanian Commissioner for Children and Young People’s report 2022 (Report 2022)does request – as students have been surveyed – more teaching should occur around consent and safeguarding, however, my concerns relate to the means by which this is done under the umbrella of DECYP's safeguarding policy and through the RRE11/12 document itself. My comments therefore are in relation to this and its relationship to the National Principles of Child Safe Organisations, which all Tasmanian schools allegedly adhere to, notably, principles 7 which states - Staff and volunteers are equipped with the knowledge, skills and awareness to keep children and young people safe through ongoing education and training

And principles 2 and 3 -

“Children and young people are informed about their rights, participate in decisions affecting them and are taken seriously”

and in in relation to families - principle 3 has as Key action areas: “3.1 Families participate in decisions affecting their child.

3.2 The organisation engages and openly communicates with families and the community about its child safe approach and relevant information is accessible.

3.3 Families and communities have a say in the development and review of the organisation’s policies and practices.

3.4 Parents, caregivers and the community are informed about the organisation’s operations and governance."–National_Principles_for_Child_Safe_

No opportunities for parents and students to preview program – parents left in the dark

Given these national safeguarding principles (2,3 and 7 in particular) and the fact the RRE 11/12 document does contain quite sensitive topics around sexuality and violent behaviours, I began to wonder if students and parents/caregivers would be given an opportunity to access and read the RRE 11/12 document’s content, well before it was delivered by teachers in classrooms. Would they be given a choice to undertake its activities or withdraw? And given schools increasing population of migrant students (some of conservative faiths), and students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) - which I note is often characterized by a difficulty in recognising nonverbal cues, such as interpreting body language, facial features and tone of voice,  - is it sufficient teachers are given little guidance regarding the assessment and effect of the content or how to discuss content with caregivers?

Subverting student boundaries and undermining their ability to give informed consent - the blatant irony of it all

I began to wonder if it was not undermining a student's ability to give consent to participate in such activities, when these activities would be imbedded into compulsory 'support group/home-group’ classes which used to be about work readiness and school community building activities.

Absurdly, the DECYP document itself suggests the opportunity for students to consent, is only presented to them, just before the material is delivered, presumably whilst the student is surrounded by their peers, just before the class or during. The RRE11/12 document states,

“The trigger warnings provided include an invitation for those students who do not wish to participate in the lesson to excuse themselves. Always ensure there is an alternative supervised space available for students and provide a wellbeing check- in with those who excuse themselves in case they require further support” p13

Consent Teaching Strategies via First Person Role Plays

I thought it commendable the RRE 11/12 document tackled the nuances of respect and consent in a variety of situations and legalities. However, much of the teaching strategies to support students to understand these concepts of consent leave students on their own, with no oversight or guidance regarding discussions, outcomes or definitions (pp 35, 36 and 37).

It is stated the booklet puts forward hypothetical scenarios, but many involve drama-like, role-play activities, personal discussion and the hearing/reading of true stories. The activities are delivered in a manner that are parallel to cognitive behaviour therapy in their outlay and progression, asking students to vicariously experience sexual consent via role-plays, guided through hypotheticals and then conducted to 'wrap up' the situation in a 'positive way'. The resource never details what this 'way' actually is however.

Unethically, some activities conducted via student role-play and face to face discussions in small groups, are using students’ emerging knowledge around the legalities of sex and consent, which is a completely inappropriate teaching strategy for this content and cohort,

“Extend the activity by asking students to role-play the discussion that could take place between Max and Sam as they decide whether they both want to have sex. Ask volunteers to swap roles to demonstrate different courses of action for each character.” P 36

With a trauma informed practice guiding teachers currently, I had to wonder how will teachers navigate this content and implement safeguarding and trauma informed strategies like ‘interrupting’ or ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘follow ups’ when the students break into small groups and we as teachers are not physically present to oversee each small group conversation? How much training should the Art, Maths or Hospitality teacher actually have to navigate this content, or to know how to handle the questions and emotional outfall these scenarios might prompt from students?

Unethical Teaching Practices - defying student boundaries

It’s my concern that most adults would find role playing this topic, in any workplace environment with their colleagues, completely inappropriate, let alone if they were teenagers, who are often self-conscious and developmentally vulnerable. Arguably it places students in precarious situations where they may inadvertently sexually harass others.

Furthermore, I am concerned about the extension activity to the above, which outlines on page 36-

“Ask groups to write two scripts – one in which affirmative consent is sought by Max and given by Sam and one in which affirmative consent is sought by Max and denied by Sam.”

The activities are then bizarrely progressed into -

“Putting it into practice Check for understanding: Arrange three groups. Explain that you are going to tell an unfolding story, stopping at critical points for groups to discuss and reflect on the different characters’ thoughts, actions and decisions. Explain that different groups will assign different genders to the characters: * Group 1: Morgan and Alex both identify as male * Group 2: Morgan and Alex both identify as female * Group 3: Morgan identifies as male, Alex identifies as female Read each part of the story, giving groups time to discuss the questions as you go”P36

And then the scenario starts with part 1

“Part 1: Alex, aged 15 and Morgan, aged 17 have been in a relationship for three months and it is getting serious. They both have strong feelings for each other and spend a lot of time together. They have been intimate but have not gone as far as having sexual intercourse. Alex has never had sex before. Morgan has had sex once before in a previous relationship and Alex is aware of this.” P 36

At the end of the class the RRE 11/12 astonishingly says students are ‘brought back together’ p37.

 These types of activities undermine safeguarding and its not okay to ask students to perceive how characters who 'identify' as presumably something different to their biological body would handle particular scenarios.

Basic Understanding of Adolescent Development Hijacked

Teachers were trained to be cognisant of childhood and adolescent development theories such as those put forward by Piaget and Kohlberg  , Cooley and Erik Erickson .

Instead what we have here is the author, undermining and disregarding the adolescent phase of students, which psychologist Erik Erickson deemed was a stage of  ‘Crisis of identity ‘. The author instead writes classroom activities using role plays resembling cognitive behaviour therapy, getting students to act out different genders and identities within scenarios which are complex and create extreme vulnerabilities and stressors in students. It becomes apparent the author of DECYP’s text, a DECYP consultant has no tertiary qualifications in sociology or psychology. 

Lack of clarity around terminology - is it deliberate?

Furthermore, for students with ASD and from other cultures (or even from schools that are faith based) – the concept of the characters discussing such decision making, in a role play in the classroom in front of their peers and with peers they may hardly know, is inappropriate and misguided. As well as this, the concept of the characters ‘identifying’ as male or female, or ‘non-binary’, is never clarified in the document with no glossary provided and therefore needs clarification, in order for safeguarding to be understood thoroughly.

‘Draw the Line’ Scenarios defy ethical teaching practices

In relation to safeguarding and the national principles (2 and 3), I am concerned about the ‘Draw the Line’section at the end of the RRE11/12 document, detailing sexual assaults. I’m questioning our skill set as teachers, to teach this in an informed manner, with the abilities to debrief students if the content triggers them, given teachers are already time poor.

Should parents not know about handouts like the ‘Draw the Line Scenario', at the back of the RRE11/12 document, which describes young people, having viewed strangulation during sex, after watching porn, discussing the possibility of trying it too and its potential consequences? 

This strangulation scenario is then opened up for class discussion, with the emphasis being on the legalities of strangulation during sex and less about porn and its portrayal of women and no mention whatsoever that viewing porn is illegal for those under 18. (No page number given in RRE11/12 booklet).

How will such content be framed and delivered in any meaningful way during a support group/home group of 45 minutes?

I’m wondering, does it open teachers up to malfeasance to use our discretion about using such material, and is our current training in ‘Good Teaching – Trauma Informed Practice’ sufficient to simply check-in on students and follow up responses? Ethically, is this particular content appropriate for teens or in any workspace setting and does it sit more appropriately in a therapeutic counselling workshop?

Gender Identity - confusion reins

‘Gender identity’ remains a contested ideological concept that has no evidence. Despite this, Tasmanian year 11-12 colleges use the ‘gender unicorn’ diagram in homegroup sessions:

Photos courtesy of Rosny College - Hobart
Though defined in the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act, (like religious faith is a protected characteristic), gender identity is not understood or accepted by the community at large, and is separate from the concept of gender stereotypes, yet these terms are intermingled in this DECYP resource, often in the same paragraph, 

“How do these stereotypes impact people who do not conform to these stereotypes, for example those who identify as non-binary or a gender that is different from their assigned sex at birth? Encourage discussion about people of different gender identities and how society’s tendency to expect people to conform to traditional gender norms (societal expectations and beliefs that prescribe expected roles, behaviours, and attributes based on one’s gender assigned at birth) and fit into gender binaries (male/female) can be challenging for people whose gender identity falls elsewhere. Ask students to consider how we can celebrate difference and diversity in gender identities, rather than discriminate against people who do not conform to gender binaries.” P26 

The document’s conflation and intermingling of terms like ‘gender identity’ (p26) inside of its discussion of ‘harmful gender stereotypes’ is misleading and confusing to students. As teachers we need to know and teach terms like ‘gender identity’ and ‘non-binary’ as being extremely different to the concept of gender stereotypes, yet this DECYP document presents them as the same. 

The terms ‘gender identity’ and ‘non-binary’ are used throughout the RRE 11/12 booklet, but are never defined yet students are asked throughput the booklet to reflect on how decision making might be different, based on certain ‘gender identities’ or if the character is ‘non-binary’, or identifies as ‘male or female’. Examples in the DECYP resource booklet are:

‘Sam’s character identifies as female’.... p 35
‘Would the response be different if Jessie identified as male or female? Why? p 50
“How do these stereotypes impact people who do not conform to these stereotypes, for example those who identify as non-binary or a gender that is different from their assigned sex at birth.” p26
“Sam’s character identifies as male vs. female (e.g. both may be intrigued to try having sex, concerned about pleasing their partner, wondering if the partner will agree to use a condom, or worried about the risk of an STI, but a female may be worried about an unplanned pregnancy). “p35

To underscore then, how will students enter into these discussions if these terms are not defined in the booklet? 

How will they understand safeguarding concepts as outlined in the booklet’s scenarios if students have ASD or are from multicultural backgrounds? 

If we take as a given many students with ASD present with -

“A difficulty recognizing nonverbal cues, such as interpreting other people's facial expressions, body postures or tone of voice” – Is it then not crucial these terms are defined and taught clearly prior? Where will teachers find the time to do this?

Should teachers therefore, use the definition of ‘gender identity’ found in the glossary of the Department of Education’s newly released kindergarten, Respectful Relations Early Years document, where it states:

“Who has what? A note about gender. It’s common for children to have questions about genitals and how bodies look different for boys and girls. While the simplestanswer is that girls have vulvas and vaginas, and boys have a penis and testicles, that answer isn’t true for every child. Boy, girl, man, and woman are words that describe gender identity, and some people with the gender identities “boy” or “man” have vulvas, and some with the gender identity “girl” or “woman” have penises/testicles. Your genitals don’t make you a boy or a girl” p 55 Early Years Resource

Or do teachers try to unpack with students the definition in the Tasmanian Anti -Discrimination Act?

“Gender identity means the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual including gender expression (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth, and may include being transgender or transsexual”

act-1998-046 (legislation.tas.gov.au)

For the wellbeing and safeguarding of students, should teachers be entering into any ‘affirmation of a declared gender’ (role play or no role play) when that gender is not in alignment with their biological sex given the whole concept of a ‘gender identity’ is under political, medical and legal scrutiny? 

Article: Doctor Michelle Telfer’s ‘Australian Gender Affirming Guidelines’ Discredited

For students’ own autonomous safeguarding, clarification of ‘gender identity’ is particularly important for culturally diverse students and those with ASD, as they may believe designated and symbolized single sex spaces - like toilets and change-rooms - are genuinely for those of whose ‘gender identity’ aligns with their biological sex. 

However, as these definitions of ‘gender identity’ describe, and as the RRE 11/12booklet indicates by its scenarios, this can no longer be assumed by students.

Without such workable definitions, safeguarding is undermined.

Lastly, and to extend this discussion on the clarification of terminology, for the purposes of safeguarding, in the context of the RRE 11/12, the booklet states-

“Statistics, however, tell us that women are more likely to experience coercive control and other non-physical types of abuse perpetrated by men. In Australia around 1 in 4 women (23%) have experienced coercive control by a partner. This compares to around 16% of men.” P41

If we understand the term ‘gender identity’ as it is used in the RRE11/12 booklet and defined by the Department, how do we approach the statistics in this paragraph with students? I’m confused as to whether it is putting forward that people who ‘identify’ as women are more at risk of domestic violence or those who are biological females, given the overall context of the RRE11/12 document?

Should I look to a cross-cultural perspective to inform me and my students about what it means to be born as female in places like India or China. 

To be born a woman in India. Foeticide and infanticide: origins, consequences and solutions

It’s interesting also the reality of people with a disability and indigenous women are not highlighted in this text, yet they are more likely to experience sexual assault/domestic violence. I note there are no role-plays about being disabled or indigenous, nor much discussion around how consent and safeguarding intersects with racism and disability.

RESOURCE:

Respectful Relationships Education Teaching and Learning Package: Years 11 – 12  (PDF, 4.1MB) – New release (March 2024)

Video: An analysis of gender ideology and indoctrination as opposed to education in schools

Further reading How ideology trumps evidence