Sex and relationships education (SRE) is a non-statutory subject in the English school system, in spite of ongoing lobbying and repeated calls for it to be made compulsory. In this context, each school is responsible for determining what SRE it will deliver. Research suggests that SRE could help primary school-aged children to critically engage with their own physical and emotional development, with communication, consent, sexuality and gender identity, but recent reports suggest that SRE remains poor in many primaries.

This paper draws on my PhD research, in which I employ the argumentative approach to explore how three primary schools – all located in the same mid-sized, English city – deliberated and decided upon their own specific programme for sex and relationships education. I focus on the knowledge(s) that were acknowledged and valued in this process, and how institutional structures exerted influence to legitimize, or problematize, normative expectations of what children learn. My research participants included principals, teachers, parent leaders, pupils and external consultants.

While data analysis is ongoing, emerging patterns point to the significance of embedded historical pathways, such as the (now defunct) national Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, in informing SRE programmes and reinforcing the centrality of heterosexual relationships and reproduction in SRE; of the parent as a primary client of SRE; and of the physical curriculum as a foundation for decision making about SRE.

Allan, A., Atkinson, E., Brace, E., DePalma, R. and Hemingway, J., 2008. Speaking the Unspeakable in forbidden places: addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality in the primary school, Sex Education, 8 (3), pp. 315-328. Alldred, P. and David, M.E., 2007. Get Real about Sex: The Politics and Practice of Sex Education, New York, US; Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Ball, S.J., 2013. The Education Debate, Bristol: Policy Press. Beck, J., 2013. Powerful knowledge, esoteric knowledge, curriculum knowledge, Cambridge Journal of Education, 43 (2), pp.177-193. Burch, P., 2006. The new educational privatisation: Educational contracting and high stakes accountability, Teachers College Record, 108 (12), pp. 2582-2610. Cullen, F. and Sandy, L., 2009. Lesbian Cinderella and other stories: telling tales and researching sexualities equalities in primary school. Sex Education, 9(2), pp.141–154. Berelowitz, S., Clifton, J., Firimin, C., Gulyurtlu, S. and Edwards, G., 2013. Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Gangs and Groups. Department for Education (2014d) Statutory Guidance: National curriculum in England: framework for key stages 1 to 4. Dryzek. J.S. and Hendriks, C.M., 2012. Fostering Deliberation in the Forum and Beyond. In: F. Fischer and H. Gottweiss, eds., The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Durham; London: Duke University Press. Elliott, J., 1998. The Curriculum Experiment: Meeting the Challenge of Social Change, Buckingham and Bristol: Open University Press. Fischer, F. and Forester, J., eds., 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. London: Duke University Press. Forrest, S., Strange, V., Oakley, A. and Team, T.R.S., 2004. What do young people want from sex education? The results of a needs assessment from a peer‐led sex education programme. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 6(4), pp.337–354. Hammersley, M., 2002. Educational research: Policymaking and practice. London, Paul Chapman Publishing. Lather, P., 1991. Getting smart : feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. Critical social thought. New York; London: Routledge. Young, M., 2013. Powerful knowledge: an analytically useful concept or just a ‘sexy sounding term’? A response to John Beck’s ‘Powerful knowledge, esoteric knowledge, curriculum knowledge’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(2), pp.195–198.