Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I welcome Dr Áine Aventin to the Committee. She is a senior lecturer in sexual and reproductive health at Queen's University Belfast. I invite you to make a presentation of up to 10 minutes — it does not have to go the full 10 minutes — after which we will move to questions and answers. Each member will have around five minutes for each enquiry. I ask members to keep to their questions as far as possible, and I ask Dr Aventin to make sure that she answers succinctly, so that we can get through all the enquiries that members will, undoubtedly, have. Thank you for giving up your time: it is over to you.

Dr Áine Aventin (Queen's University Belfast): Thank you very much. I am delighted to talk to you this afternoon about engaging parents in relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in Northern Ireland. I will begin by giving you a little bit of background about me and my experience in this field, after which I will focus on why it is important to engage parents in RSE. I will present some evidence from two Northern Ireland-based research studies — the JACK trial and the healthy young adult relationships (HYAR) study — and I will finish off with some recommendations and questions for consideration.

I am a social psychologist by background. I have been in the School of Nursing and Midwifery for many years, but I am a specialist in the development and evaluation of RSE programmes. I have been engaged in many different research projects in that area over the past 10 years.

I will talk a little bit about why we should focus on engaging parents in RSE. School-based RSE takes a multi-pronged approach, which involves not just young people but parents and the wider community. There is global research that suggests that that is the most successful type of school-based RSE that we have. It also recognises the central role that parents play in their children's lives. It will not be surprising to you that they have a key influence in helping young people to make healthy decisions about their relationships and their sexual behaviour.

Research also shows us that RSE programmes that involve parents improve parent-child communication about relationships and sexuality and increase safer sexual behaviours among young people. Fundamentally, young people and parents want to communicate with each other about relationships, sex and sexuality. In the current context, however, where we are now, we find that teenagers generally report that they rarely or never speak to their parents about sex, and many parents report feeling ill-prepared to initiate conversations with their children.

I will move on to evidence from the first research study, the JACK trial, which took place in Northern Ireland. It was led by Professor Maria Lohan from Queen's. I will not go into the broader findings, because I believe that Maria is coming to talk to you about that study in more detail in the coming weeks. The JACK trial was an evaluation of film-based RSE programmes, and it was co-designed with key stakeholders and was piloted in Northern Ireland. We culturally adapted that version for use in Scotland, England and Wales, and we conducted an evaluation of 66 schools across GB and Northern Ireland. The programme is designed to reduce unintended pregnancy and to promote positive sexual health for young people aged 14 to 16. As part of the programme, we developed parent components. They included an optional parent-child homework exercise, which was designed to initiate communication between the parent and child about what was happening in the programme in the school. There were educational materials for parents, which included two animated films. All those things were co-designed and provided online for the parents to access for free. As members will hear in a minute, we found it very difficult to engage parents with the materials. We conducted an embedded process evaluation as part of the trial to help us to look at some of the barriers to and facilitators of engaging parents.

We used lots of different types of data in the trial to look at parent engagement. As the components were online, we were able to look at website analytics, which revealed that only 27% of the parents engaged with the programme materials. We then sent out a survey to find out why parents did or did not engage in that kind of thing. We had a very low response rate. We sent the survey to around 4,000, and only 134 responded. Of those who responded, 50% had engaged with the JACK materials. Of those who did not engage, 68% said that they did not engage because they did not know about the materials, which may mean that they were not sent them by the school, or they might not have seen them; 14% said that they forgot; 11% said that they did not have time; and 4% said that it did not interest them.

Another interesting finding was that only 38% of teachers implemented the parent-child homework exercise. When we spoke to them about that, they said that that was because they assumed or knew that young people would not do it because it would be totally off-putting for them to do it with their parents. Some of the teachers thought that it might result in backlash from parents, were they to bring that kind of thing to their attention.

An interesting finding in what parents and young people reported was that 34% of parents who completed the survey said that they had completed the homework exercise with their child, but, when we spoke to the young people, only 13% said that they had done so. That was the average across the four countries, but Northern Ireland was the highest, at 17%, which is still low. Slightly more girls than boys completed the exercise, and there was very little engagement, overall, from fathers. We invited mothers and fathers, but only one father took part in an interview, and only two responded to the survey.

We were interested in that and wanted to further explore the barriers and facilitators for parents, bearing in mind that it was all co-designed with parents and young people to begin with. The barriers to engaging parents that emerged from the findings of interviews and focus groups with parents, young people, teachers and RSE policy experts as being: lack of time or interest on the part of parents; some parents fearing that to speak to their children about these things would be to condone sexual activity; religious belief and cultural norms not being aligned with comprehensive RSE; lack of knowledge leading to lack of confidence on the part of parents; lack of awareness on the part of parents about the important role that they play; and a lack of RSE training and support for teachers to engage parents. Facilitators for engaging parents emerged as being: early, sustained and gradual RSE being necessary; provision of brief, accessible RSE materials for parents; and the promotion of RSE as a joint parent-school responsibility was seen as being important.

The second study was on healthy young adult relationships and was led by Susan Lagdon from Ulster University (UU). Susan will speak to the Committee in the coming weeks, but I led the parent component of the study and will talk to you about that. It was an intervention development study involving co-design and educational intervention on healthy relationships for young adults aged 16 to 20. It was designed to be delivered in community settings rather than in schools, and it involved the young people, very closely, as co-researchers. There was a focus on healthy relationships, including intimate partner violence and coercive control. The final report on that study will be published in the coming weeks.

I will outline some of the parent views on relationships education. We found that the parents that we spoke to did not clearly understand the term "coercive control" or the concept of unhealthy relationships. While they expressed concerns about the issues, many of them felt uncomfortable or ill-equipped to discuss healthy and unhealthy relationships with their children. They felt ill-equipped to deal with the generational gap that they thought was created by technology and social media. They wanted education for young people. They also wanted support from schools and the wider community in relation to this, and they really wanted education for parents and young people on these topics.

Again, we looked at the barriers and facilitators. This was really more about anticipated barriers and facilitators moving forward, because it was a development project — in moving forward to implementation, what issues might come up? In interviews with parents and young people, findings echoed those of the JACK trial: lack of time and interest, parent perceptions that "They do not need this kind of education". Some parents brought up the possibility that parents may be aware, or asking themselves, whether they indeed modelled unhealthy relationships at home, which would make it difficult for them to have these conversations with their children.

Facilitators talked about the provision of brief interventions across different settings and modalities. There was also talk about the need to start off simple: teaching parents how to communicate with young people in the first place, internet safety, consent and that kind of thing. The need to promote public awareness of these issues among health professionals, schools, the general public, the media and things like that came across strongly.

A central point emerging from all this is that, although parents want to be involved in RSE — they say that they do — the majority of them do not do so when given the opportunity. We have seen that there could be many possible barriers and reasons behind this. Of course, this does not mean that we do not try to engage them; it merely means that we have to keep trying to find ways to do so.

From this research, I have outlined a number of recommendations. First, we must engage parents as co-educators at primary level, with the idea that conversations around this whole area would become more natural and less strained as the young people reached adolescence. We should provide evidence-based RSE materials for parents that do not require a large time commitment from them. We should promote RSE as a joint parent/school responsibility and promote parent/child communication about their religious and cultural values and beliefs as they relate to RSE. We should provide adequate RSE training and support for teachers to support them to engage parents, and promote public awareness of healthy and unhealthy relationships.

Finally then, there are some questions for consideration. These are questions that can be answered, or considered at least, by researchers, policymakers and practitioners in order to move forward in where we are with RSE in Northern Ireland at the moment. Are we adequately supporting parents to engage in age-appropriate communication with their children about relationships and sexuality from an early age? How can we further support teachers to engage with parents on sensitive issues like RSE? Are we promoting RSE as a joint responsibility? Are we engaging parents in the development of RSE resources? If parents withdraw their children from school-based RSE, how can we ensure that those children are provided with adequate evidence-based RSE? Are there adequate evidence-based RSE resources to meet the needs of faith-based schools, and are there adequate culturally appropriate evidence-based RSE resources?

That is everything from me, thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you very much. That was a really helpful presentation. It is good to get a very clear parent focus on this evidence session. When we have discussed issues around the parents' role in this, it can very quickly, on this subject matter, descend into a tit for tat around the child's rights versus parents' rights and opt-outs versus no opt-outs. It can be a bit of a zero-sum game sometimes: it does not really move us on. Something that is really setting out the benefits of parental engagement in RSE, and how it can be done better, is a really positive contribution to our considerations.

On that basis, I will start with a question on the back of the research that you have been involved in and your experience in this. If a school is developing resources around RSE or a new RSE policy, what advice would you give it as to how to best engage parents in a positive and effective way with the RSE provision in that school?

Dr Aventin: All of the work that we do in research involves stakeholder groups — groups of parents and groups of young people — and it is really a matter of sitting down and having ideas for what you want to present first. Sometimes, when we ask people what they want without giving them something to look at so that we can ask, "Would this be appropriate?", it can be more difficult. If the school has an idea of the kinds of things that it wants to present and then sits down with groups of parents and goes through them, that is a really good starting point. It should not be tokenistic, that is another point. Sometimes, we can bring in one or two parents and think that that covers everyone, but we know that, even within a single school, there will be different needs and different values and beliefs. It is time-consuming; I am not saying that it is easy. I know that schools are busy as it is, but it is important to make sure that we consult different groups of parents as much as possible in the early stages.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. You mentioned that schools are busy, and we are very conscious that, if we were to act on every recommendation that came before the Committee, we would probably pile an absolutely unsustainable workload on teaching professionals. We are aware of that. We are also conscious that parents are busy, and that may be partly why there was not as much engagement as you might have liked. As a parent, I know that, sometimes, keeping body and soul together is about all you can manage with the kids in the evening when you get in. Is there any merit in engaging parents in an in-person session, rather than something that is done at home? Is there any evidence about engaging parents in person, separately from their kids, to help to prepare them, or in joint sessions with the children? Is a one-off session like that likely to be helpful?

Dr Aventin: There is a variety of options. When we developed the JACK intervention, we did a feasibility study and a pilot study in Northern Ireland. We piloted it in eight schools of different types and types of management across Northern Ireland. I was in the early days of my research career at that time, and I was out in the schools, talking to teachers and parents. We knew from other research that there were different pathways, such as engaging parents in person by themselves and engaging them along with young people. We talked about the options with our stakeholders, and the consensus was on not bringing in children and young people with their parents but bringing parents in by themselves. That is what we did in the feasibility study. We set up hour-long information sessions and invited parents to come in. Across the schools, only 7% of the parents attended, all of them mothers. We got feedback about why parents did not attend, and that was about the same things, such as lack of time, other commitments and fear of embarrassment.

International studies on work outside schools, mostly in community settings, that brought parents and children together have shown really promising results. That is why we went to the online side of things for the main trial. Our feedback was that that might be less time-consuming for parents. The increase from 7% to 27% is positive overall, but, obviously, it is still not ideal.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is all really helpful. I have one last question before I open it up to members. It is about opt-outs. It is not to seek a view on whether they are good, bad or indifferent — feel free to share that if you want — but about when an opt-out request is made to a school principal, be that a request to opt out where there is not a statutory right to opt out, perhaps, or where the statutory right has been introduced. How do you suggest that a school should respond to that. What is the most helpful and positive way that a school can engage with a parent who makes that request?

Dr Aventin: First, before that happens, there should be communication from the school to parents about what it is covering. Often, once the materials are made transparent and parents understand what is happening, that takes away some of the fear. Fear is not always the reason, but, for parents who fear what their children are receiving, that goes some way towards alleviating any worries that parents may have. That is a good first step. If that has been done, and parents still want to remove their children, that needs to be respected in the current situation here.

I mentioned in my presentation a need to ensure that we provide those parents with the resources that they need to provide the education themselves. My understanding of the broader picture of education in Northern Ireland is that parents can remove their children from education altogether but that they are still legally required to provide them with a full education at home. There are checks by the Education Authority (EA) to make sure that that is done. So, my question is this: what can the school provide parents with if they exercise the right to remove the child from RSE? How can we ensure that the young person is receiving the education that they are entitled to? I do not know whether that exists yet, and that is one of my questions. Will the parents deliver whatever they want themselves? Is that evidence-based? There is a risk because the young person will not be receiving the same education.

Parents must be made aware of the risks of removing the child, because the chances are that the young person will hear about what was taught in the class from their peers, and that can be distorted and not the information that was received in the class, or they can look for the information from other sources. Some parents will provide that education to their children. Do schools have a broad responsibility to ensure that that happens? I do not have an answer.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. There is a theme coming through that the Department or EA need to better equip schools to engage with parents. Schools and teachers may not feel that they have the resources to manage those conversations positively. We can continue to consider that. I will open it up to members. Deputy Chair, do you want to come in?

Mr Sheehan: Thank you, Áine. We had a round-table event last night, where young people gave their views on RSE. To confirm your findings, of the five young people at my table, four said that they would not talk to their parents about sex or relationships. During some of the evidence sessions in Committee, witnesses have said that they are willing to present scientific facts to children about RSE on issues such as relationships and abortion, but they also have to bring their moral framework or ethos into those conversations. The difficulty is that most of our schools have a Christian ethos that sees single-sex relationships, abortion and contraception as wrong. If that is reflected in the religious or cultural views of the children's parents, how do you square that circle, to give children information that is not partisan or based on a particular view of the world?

Dr Aventin: First and foremost, there is no simple, easy answer, as I am sure you are all aware. I can relate back to our research with JACK. There is a paper included on what we did to include faith-based and non-faith-based schools in our study, and the way in which we considered that when developing the intervention. There are lots of variables to consider. The approach that we took was to design a programme to give basic education to address the topic and signpost young people to websites and local services that we had fact-checked and knew were appropriate, and it meant that the young people could look for information in places that we knew were safe for them. We consulted different types of schools, and some of the faith-based schools said, "We cannot bring that material to our board. We cannot bring that material to our parents. We cannot use the website you have suggested", even though it was a legitimate website.

For example, we did not include a website that talked about different types of contraception, but we mentioned contraception as part of the education. We had little pocket cards with websites printed on them that the young people could take away. In consultation with the faith-based schools, we developed different cards with websites printed on them that they thought were appropriate and suitable for the ethos of their schools.

Sometimes, we think that it is either black or white, but there is a middle ground if we sit down and talk to people. There is no point in developing a whole intervention or programme and then expecting people to deliver it. That middle ground is important, because, if you want people to engage and deliver a programme with fidelity, you have to try your best to make sure that it is suitable to their needs, while trying to provide the education that you need to provide. That is not easy, but I think that, with sensitive consideration, it can be achieved.

As part of our research, we often get feedback. We set out a programme that should be delivered in a certain way, especially in the context of a trial where you are trying to keep everything the same so that you can evaluate it, but young people have reported back that teachers added things that they should not have added because of their own beliefs. It is very difficult.

Mr Sheehan: Áine, on that point about teachers adding their own views when they should not have, in your engagement with teachers, did they speak about the training or lack of training that they received to deliver an RSE curriculum?

Dr Aventin: Teachers used to joke that the last person to come into the school gets RSE. The young teachers who were just starting out in the school would get landed with RSE, and they would not have had adequate training. I know that that has improved, even in the past five years, and things are moving on in that regard, but, absolutely, there is not enough training or support for teachers. Just giving it to somebody who does not want to take it is never going to be a good thing, because not everybody is the type of person who is able to deliver that kind of sensitive information, especially if they have not had the training that enables them to do so. I definitely think that there are inadequacies there.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for that.

Mr Brooks: I may have misheard, but did you mention at the start that there is a paper on how you shaped your engagement with faith-based schools?

Dr Aventin: I sent through a paper. Its focus is on how you put schools into a trial, but some of the information in it is relevant to how we engage schools in RSE. I am the lead author, and it is called, 'Recruiting faith and non-faith-based schools'. I definitely sent that through.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Clerk, is that tabled?

The Committee Clerk: No, it is not tabled today.

Mr Brooks: If we have it, can it be shared with members?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): If that could be circulated to members, that would be helpful.

The Committee Clerk: Yes.

Dr Aventin: We looked at all the schools that we approached in Northern Ireland, the different types of schools, why they said that they did not want to take part and why parents excluded their children. There is useful information in the paper in relation to all that.

Mr Brooks: I appreciate that.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Áine. That was very informative. In the survey, there was low engagement from boys, and only one father engaged. Is there any reason why males are not getting involved?

Dr Aventin: The surveys were sent out from us via the school. I have two sons, and I am the person who is on the contact list for their school. One possibility is that the text message, email or whatever the school sent went to the mothers, and the fathers never received it. Other than that, it goes back to the historical thing of mothers taking responsibility for sex education. When we speak to young people, they generally say that they speak to their mothers more. That is different for girls and boys, but even boys say that they speak to their mothers more about these issues than to their fathers. There are probably gendered roles in relation to whose job it is in a male/female family to deal with these things. It is really just speculation, but that is my theory on what was going on there.

Mr Baker: My concern is how young men are taught about relationships. In the North, we have probably the worst record in the West when it comes to violence against young girls and women. I suppose that it is about what we can do better on the relationship side.

Dr Aventin: The trial is called JACK because it is based on a film called 'If I Were Jack', which addresses some of the issues that you mentioned. That intervention was around unintended pregnancy and positive sexual health. It was originally developed for young men, but it is delivered to young women in the classroom as well. The idea behind it is to encourage conversations on the roles and responsibilities of young men in all this, because that has been much neglected. However little RSE there used to be, say, 10 years ago, there was very little designed for young men specifically. When Maria Lohan comes, she will be able to talk to you more about all that. She does a lot of work around gender. That was the key aim of that resource. It was really welcomed by young men and young women. It got them thinking about us all having equal responsibility in relation to these things.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): If no other member wants to come in, I will ask one other question. It is related to some of the outcomes of the research that you shared but also our conversations with young people at an event that we held yesterday evening. A strong message coming from the young people was that they want material that is unbiased. I know that it is difficult to unpick what such material would actually look like, but they seemed quite clear that they wanted, as far as possible, to receive fact-based material that allows them to make up their own minds on what are appropriate choices. I hope that I am not putting words in the young people's mouths, but that was my impression of the feedback from the discussion. However, a concern seemed to come through in your research that parents or schools were, perhaps, reluctant to deliver some material because they did not want to be seen to be condoning certain types of behaviour or choices.

Can you give us a sense of how you might balance that? Is it your sense that the aim of effective RSE would largely be to provide information? Should there be a value base to any of this?

Dr Aventin: Information has to be the fundamental basis of it. Young people are so savvy, and you learn so much from them. I think of what I was like when I was 14 compared with the young people who I speak to now. They have access to all this information. They are better equipped to look at information and know whether somebody is trying to put their values on it, and they do not appreciate that. Certainly, our approach would be to deliver fact-based stuff. For me, that is the core of it. That is where your standardised approach comes from — providing the facts. Then, within that, there is room for discussion on values and beliefs.

When we developed that lovely short animation for parents with parents, we talked to them about teachable moments. I often say to parents that RSE is a perfect opportunity for a teachable moment. If you know what is happening in the school, you can say to your child, "I know that you were learning about contraception today. What did you learn about it?". That is an opportunity for a teachable moment. At that point, the parent can share their values and beliefs in relation to it. It is about looking for opportunities to discuss those things with our children. Fact-based RSE in schools leaves open opportunities for discussion in the home on values and beliefs that should be respected, included and taught to young people.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): So much of this comes back to how equipped teachers feel to even pick up on those teachable moments. That is the challenge. Recently, I spoke to a teacher whose specialism is drama. They talked about how they view the performing arts as the perfect vehicle to deliver some of the RSE material. When they are working on a piece and reflecting on why a character in a production behaves in a certain way and makes certain choices, it can open up conversations around healthy relationships, consent and those sorts of issues. It is important that teachers feel equipped.

Mr Brooks: It is important —

Dr Aventin: There are so many excellent teachers doing this really, really well.

Apologies. I think someone wanted in.

Mr Brooks: You are all right. Thank you for your presentation; it has been very interesting. The Chair and I were at the same table last night. There is certainly that demand: there were several mentions of "unbiased". I had some trouble when I started thinking about how you can have something that is completely unbiased. While we may disagree on the detail, the Chair and I had some agreement on the need for a discussion, and there seemed to be an appetite round the table for that. Some of these issues — whatever side of the discussion you are on — are contentious around the world, not just in Northern Ireland. To teach them in a vacuum that does not deal with that or allow discussion is not to prepare a child for the world that they are going out into. It is, therefore, important to engage in that, but to engage in a way that allows the different viewpoints to be heard and respected. That was just to reflect what I heard at our table as well.

Dr Aventin: It is really important, because, in my experience, if you do not take that approach with young people, they shut down. That is across the board, with any type of education. If young people feel that they are being dictated to or told what they should think, they do not engage. We see that in different ways. Yes, that is an important point and an important approach to take. It is preparing them. That is what relationships and sexuality education is about. We tend to focus on the sensitive issues relating to sex and sexuality, but it is so much broader than that. It is a lovely subject, and there is so much learning to be had. That kind of engagement and teaching models dealing with the world, when it is done right.

Mr Brooks: As I have said before in the Committee, a lot can be gained by listening to each other rather than going by what we think about each other. Often, both sides of the debate feel that the other is only interested in indoctrinating children with their viewpoint. I do not think that that is true of either side, for the most part.

Dr Aventin: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Michelle, you indicated that you wish to ask a question. I think that I have had clarification that the members who are attending online do not want to come in, but let us know if that changes.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Áine. That was really interesting; it was a really nice presentation. I have a couple of small points. Danny asked about young men, and you talked about gendered roles within households. Do you find that replicated in schools? Are more female teachers delivering RSE than male teachers?

Dr Aventin: In my experience, yes, but I would not say that that is the case across the board. I have met and experienced male teachers who have taught it, and taught it very well. However, yes, for the most part, it is taught by female teachers. That is the case in all these subjects. There are probably more female teachers teaching learning for life and work. I could be wrong on that, but that is my experience.

Mrs Guy: When kids are not getting RSE in school or at home, there is a concern about where they are getting their information. There is a concern about misinformation — online, in particular. Have you guys looked into that as well?

Dr Aventin: We have not looked into it directly, but there is lots of research out there on it. That is probably the reason why we have not needed to look into it. Young people get all their information from their peers. That is probably the way that it has been, historically. Young people talk to each other: "Such and such's brother has done it", and, "Such and such's brother's cousin's has done it". That still exists and, obviously, is not ideal. Then, of course, the internet has changed things dramatically, even in the past 10 years. We know that 50% or more of 13-year-olds will have seen pornography on the internet. That is mind-blowing. Young people experience being sent sexual images and all that. There is a real threat to their safety. That issue has come up as part of it. If a young person has a question that they do not feel they can ask their family or their peers about, they will google it. You can imagine what you will find if you put some of those words related to sex or sexuality into an internet search engine. There are massive concerns around safety if we do not give young people this education in the safety of schools and homes.

Mrs Guy: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is reflective of what is said in repeated parent surveys. Parents do not feel confident navigating the online world, because of the information and the material that young people can access. My concern is that, if we do not get RSE right in school, we will be delegating that responsibility to actors online who may not have our children's best interests at heart. It is absolutely critical that we get it right in schools. That is probably a good point to finish on.

Dr Aventin: It is critical. My experience is that the majority of parents trust schools in what they are doing and trust them to give this information. That could be another reason why there is a lack of engagement. Even though it should be a joint responsibility, a lot of parents trust that their children are getting that education in school and that it is trustworthy education. It is important.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That has been a really helpful contribution to our inquiry. We really need to broaden our understanding of what parental engagement looks like beyond the very binary opt-in/opt-out position and to look at the positive ways in which we can engage parents and the benefits of that. Thank you for your time. We will take all that into account.

Dr Aventin: Perfect. Thank you, all.