Observations on the Implementation of Relationships, Sex, and Health Education (RSHE), Which Include LGBT Themes in an English Primary School

Abstract

The latest Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education, and Health Education (RSHE) Draft Guidance seeks to reduce the inclusion of LGBT themes in English schools. Additionally, the Gender Questioning Draft Guidance for Schools and Colleges and the Cass Review overlook the rights of trans and non-binary young people, further intensifying the heated debates surrounding their lives. In response, the author draws upon research conducted in a primary school in Greater London in 2021, when statutory RSHE, including LGBT content, was first introduced. The research aimed to understand how teachers felt about teaching RSHE and to collaborate with them to enhance pupil learning within and beyond the RSHE curriculum. This paper critiques lesson observations and teachers’ reflections on their lessons using a Framework for Sexuality Education and Queer Theory. The researcher’s call to rethink how RSHE is taught should not be taken to mean it should not be taught. To the contrary, the findings suggest a need for the school to broaden its curriculum, teaching methods, and strategies to become a truly ‘LGBT-inclusive’ environment. However, the paper also illuminates the apprehensions these primary school teachers experienced, which in turn influenced pedagogical decisions. The article concludes by recommending specific whole-school approaches and effective pedagogical practices for RSHE in the school, which could be beneficial to other primary school settings. Effective teaching of LGBT themes requires clear support for educators, especially within the complexity of a primary school setting and given the changing political and social climate.

1. Introduction

Many countries around the world, including Australia, Canada, China, Nepal, the Netherlands, Oman, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Thailand, the US, and the UK, have implemented Relationships and Sex Education in their education systems. Relationships Education, Relationships, and Sex Education Health Education Regulations, under the Children and Social Work Act (DfE 2017a), made Relationships Education compulsory for all pupils receiving primary education in England. It also made Health Education mandatory in all schools, except Independent schools, where Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (PSHE) remains statutory. Relationships, Sex, and Health Education (RSHE) Guidance (DfE 2019) establishes that parents can no longer withdraw their child from either Relationships Education, which includes LGBT content or Health Education. Primary schools are free to decide whether and what Sex Education they cover. It is from Sex Education (apart from the content set out in the National Curriculum (NC) for Science, Appendix C) that parents and carers have the right to withdraw their child from, with DfE stating that ‘parents should have the right to teach this themselves in a way that is consistent with their values’ (DfE 2017b, p. 4).

DfE (2019) guidance places the responsibilities (and risk) onto schools (i.e., senior leadership, wider school staff, and governors) to decide how to meet pupils’ individual needs (referencing pupils’ faith backgrounds, pupils with Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND), age, and maturity); prepare them for adult life; and comply with legal duties (Equality Act 2010, Fundamental British Values (FBV) (DfE 2014a, 2014b), Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), and SEND Code of Practice (DfE 2014c)). Identifying and responding to individual pupils’ needs in relation to RSHE, alongside delivering an ‘age-appropriate’ curriculum (a term open to interpretation), may be more challenging in practice. The term ‘LGBT’ itself, referred to in the guidance, fails to recognise the full ‘queer’ spectrum and does not account for the existence of multiple identities. The term ‘LGBT’, however, has been used throughout this article to mirror the terminology used in guidance.

Statutory regulations were set to ensure curriculum time for Relationships and Health Education from September 2020 (DfE 2017b), but the closure of schools following the outbreak of COVID-19 delayed its start until Summer 2021. Although the new compulsory inclusion of RSHE could be deemed positive, this alone may not raise the subject status or resolve concerns about quality or assessment (Ofsted 2013; Pound et al. 2017; Terrence Higgins Trust 2016; Wearmouth and Lindley 2021). As of 2025, in England, although compulsory, RSHE is still excluded from the National Curriculum. Thus, knowledge is not tested, content is not regulated, and no specific training for teachers is stated or required (DfE 2013). The lack of substantial direction within DfE (2019) guidance is therefore concerning, given that teachers may feel unprepared to teach RSHE (Sex Education Forum 2018). Guidance (DfE 2019) simply outlines what pupils should learn through lessons by the end of primary school (Appendix A and Appendix B), without specifying effective pedagogies or providing any guidance for broader school strategies. This does offer schools the flexibility to design a curriculum that meets their contextual needs and allows them to build upon previous good practice (DfE 2017b; National Foundation for Educational Research 2018). It may also mean, though, that adult fears concerning what is ‘age-appropriate’ are prioritised rather than responding to pupils’ voices, needs, and rights.

In 2024, the Conservative Government published new draft (non-statutory) Guidance (DfE 2024a) concerning Relationships, Sex, and Health Education (RSHE). Regarding LGBT content, the new guidance suggested that the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment should not be discussed during primary education. The guidance (DfE 2024a) stated that primary schools should have discretion over whether to teach about sexual orientation or families with same-sex parents. It stated that schools should be clear that an individual must be eighteen before legally reassigning their gender and that schools should not teach about gender identity. A consultation period initiated by the DfE followed the publication of the Draft Guidance (DfE 2024a), inviting individuals and organisations to provide their views on the proposed changes.

The long-awaited Gender Questioning Draft (non-statutory) Guidance for Schools and Colleges (DfE 2023) arguably leaves educational institutions that follow guidance, acting unlawfully in relation to the Equality Act (2010) and Teachers’ Standards (DfE 2011). The Gender Questioning Draft Guidance (DfE 2023) states that schools are not obligated to allow a child to transition socially and that schools should follow ‘watchful waiting’, ensuring that parents/carers are involved. This approach acknowledges that it may well put the child at risk, albeit in very rare situations, which is a debatable conclusion. A similar consultation period followed the release of this Draft Guidance, which has since closed. The Cass Review (2024), which reviewed trans healthcare interventions for individuals under eighteen, further oppressed young trans lives by denying their access to puberty blockers and raising warnings about social transitioning (Horton 2024). On 16 April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act (2010) refers to ‘biological sex’, and this, combined with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (2025) interim guidance, has worrying implications for trans and gender-diverse young pupils in schools, potentially restricting their access to facilities and services that align with their gender identity. At the time of writing, the Labour Government Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, as of June 2025, has yet to offer any clear direction on what will be made statutory in RSHE or indicate how trans and non-binary pupils will be supported in schools.

1.1. Challenges for Teachers Raising LGBT Themes in the Primary RSHE Curriculum

The inclusion of LGBT families and identities within Relationships Education (Appendix A) has met some resistance. A root cause of this resistance is the belief that teaching and discussing LGBT identities promotes such identities (Allen et al. 2014; Anderson 2009; Barnes and Carlile 2018; Brickell 2000). Section 28 (Local Government Act 1988) was one notorious manifestation of this view. Section 28 prohibited local authorities, rather than schools specifically, from calling attention to homosexuality, although headteachers erred on the side of caution. Despite a repeal in 2003, it remains influential (Dellenty 2019; Lee 2019; Sauntson 2020). Its legacy leaves some teachers uncertain about whether they are allowed to teach about LGBT identities, and only a small proportion of teachers who taught under Section 28 open about their LGBTQ+ identities in school (Lee 2019). Balancing religious rights alongside LGBT rights is also a delicate matter, since both characteristics are equally protected by law (Equality Act 2010). Concerns raised by faith groups in Birmingham, however, were deemed a ‘misinterpretation’ of Relationships and Health Education, which conveys the existence of LGBT families rather than advocating for them (Parveen 2019; Nottingham 2020).

Given that teachers are obliged to take account of the views of multiple stakeholders in planning the RSHE curriculum and lessons, a minority of oppositional stances and/or teachers’ perceived fears of repercussions (mainly from parents and carers) could potentially silence certain discussions completely or trigger more tentative teaching strategies (DfE 2017b; Malins 2016; Mason 2010; Nixon 2009; No Outsiders Project Team 2010; Stonewall 2019). This necessitates explicit support from schools’ senior management towards RSHE and for staff teaching it. Schools are already obligated to involve parents and carers (DfE 2020), and research suggests that this may lead to greater support for the subject and increased trust in the school’s approach to it (Alldred et al. 2016).

1.2. Effective Teaching of RSHE, Including LGBT Themes in Primary Schools

The value of RSHE delivered within schools remains dependent upon pupils being allowed to lead the way and teachers (both pre- and in-service) receiving sufficient training, particularly around gender and sexuality (Bragg et al. 2018; Leonardi and Staley 2018; van Leent 2017). In terms of who might be best placed to deliver RSHE, given its private, sensitive, and apparent ‘dangerous’ demands, Allen (2009) revealed it was the ‘qualities’ exhibited by the educator (knowledge, experience, confidence, taking the role seriously, being on the same level as pupils, and not breaching pupils’ confidentiality) that were valued, rather than necessarily ‘who’ it was.

It appears that a specific climate and pedagogy are necessary in RSHE lessons to enable pupils to express their anxieties and curiosities. Kirby (2019, 2020), however, observed primary-aged children looking physically and emotionally uncomfortable, with difficult emotions expected to remain outside the classroom. Quinlivan (2018) used an incident to illustrate how affective failures will inevitably emerge in sexuality education but may also be utilised. Whilst looking at images of male models selling underwear, one male pupil, who constantly displayed his heterosexuality, turned to another male pupil in the class who did not exercise the same heterosexual status and remarked, “Oh, I bet you think he’s really hot!”. Quinlivan initially narrowly defined this as a bullying incident, which shaped her immediate response, including identifying the bully and the victim and following the established bullying procedures. This, however, consolidated normative masculinity, rather than tackling the dynamics of hetero and gender normalcy underlying the incident. Reflecting upon this incident later, Quinlivan raised the possibilities of engaging with sex and gender politics, including hetero- and gender-normative understandings of ‘success’.

Books featuring non-heterosexual and non-gender-confirming characters utilised in the primary classroom have been critiqued. For example, Cullen and Sandy (2009) identified how children’s reading of these characters differed from those of authors and educators due to the complexity of their own subjectivity. This offered the potential for children to interpret contrary to the official narrative, ‘queering’ straight texts and ‘straightening’ queer texts. Cullen and Sandy also describe how certain books were censored by adults, either because they wished to ‘protect’ children or out of a belief that cultural inferences would be incomprehensible to them. Whilst this highlights the limitations of using texts within the ubiquity of the heteronormative primary classroom, it may aid in making these identities legible to young people (Cumming-Potvin and Martino 2014). This may be particularly true if the teacher does not have a lived experience or personal connections to draw upon (Ryan et al. 2013).

Queer geographies expose how everyday repetition of heterosexual relationships becomes normalised to such an extent that space is not assumed sexual at all. For example, Hall (2020) observed the contradiction between formal (classroom) and informal spaces (corridors, toilets, and playgrounds). Within the classroom, children accepted that gender and sexuality equality were to be expected. This was contrary to the informal spaces in which children were compelled to mark and re-establish (hetero) gender/sexuality in order to be viable social subjects. This illustrates the limits of a liberal education programme, particularly when pupils move from the formal to the hidden curriculum, and calls for institutional practices that legitimise normative gender/(hetero)sexuality to be recognised and critiqued.

1.3. Readdressing Strategies to Promote LGBT Equality in Primary Schools

Government policy has prioritised tackling the prevalence and the heightened risk of bullying that LGBT pupils face, although funding has been withdrawn (Hunte 2020). Solely addressing homophobic/transphobic bullying as an unaccompanied strategy in school, however, is inadequate (Formby 2015; McBride and Neary 2021; Ringrose and Renold 2010; Ringrose and Rawlings 2015). This approach silences safe sex discussions, portrays LGBT youth as ‘tragic’ and inevitably passive victims, deterring them further from coming out and placing the responsibility on them as individuals needing help, diverting attention away from critiquing wider school practices that generate it. Instead, Payne and Smith (2013) argued that schools need to examine how gender is policed by peers and within the school institution itself, thereby disrupting patterns of power, privilege, and marginalisation.

Instead of aiming to impart a definitive truth about the other, lessons should serve as a catalyst and resource for pupils to utilise as they learn more (Kumashiro 2000). Educators need to help pupils understand and critique social inequalities as well as unlearn what has previously been considered normal or normative. A theme that strongly emerged from Carlile’s (2019) research was teachers’ surprise that pupils (often holding religious beliefs) could think critically and sensitively about LGBT inclusion.

The DfE (2019) mandatory guidance marks the first change to RSHE in England in nearly twenty years and includes a notable addition of LGBT content. The responsibility for the RSHE curriculum and the teaching of RSHE lies with schools. This research aimed to appreciate how teachers feel positioned and work alongside them to enhance pupil learning within and beyond the RSHE curriculum.

2. Materials and Methods

This qualitative study examines how primary school teachers respond to and reflect upon RSHE themes in their specific teaching context when the subject’s inclusion had just become mandatory and as hate crimes towards the LGBT community in the wider society continue to rise (Chao-Fong 2021; Home Office 2024). Relationships, Sex, and Health Education offers the potential for vital work to be done where gender, sexuality, and relationship themes can be explored, alongside other subjects and informal events that embrace the whole school community (DePalma and Atkinson 2009; Luke 2006; Rycroft-Smith and Andre 2020). Ethnographic methods are well-suited to research in collaboration with teachers, observing how they teach and interact. Discussions with teachers encouraged critical reflection and offered an opportunity for teachers (and the researcher) to see the familiar in new ways and become ‘braver’ in adopting queer pedagogies to make the curriculum more inclusive and, ultimately, more effective (Mason 2010; Nemi Neto 2018; Sauntson 2020). This research provides a valuable understanding of the effectiveness of pedagogical approaches, the barriers encountered, and potential solutions in a single case study school. It addresses the specific need for this type of research, as underscored in the DfE’s (2024b) report on the implementation of RSHE guidance in schools.

The researcher accessed a primary school where they were already known as a governor, given that the research involved themes that may have hindered access (Allen et al. 2014; Donelson and Rogers 2004). The researcher, however, reiterated their role as a researcher rather than as a governor to all teachers. It was hoped this would alleviate teachers’ feelings of either being obligated to take part or avoiding participation completely. Care was taken to anonymise the school and the identity of participating teachers. The school’s anonymity was further guaranteed by postponing the publication of this paper until after the researcher’s tenure as a governor.

Park School (pseudonym) is a multicultural mixed-gender community school in Greater London, England, occupying a Grade II-listed building with a specific Special Educational Needs (SEN) unit. With 450 pupils (aged 2–11) on roll and two classes in each year group, it is considered a primary school that is bigger than average. It has a majority Muslim population, a high proportion (69%) of English as an Additional Language (EAL) learners, and 26% of pupils (above the national average) receiving Free School Meals (FSMs). The curriculum and resources for RSHE are supplied by an external provider, ‘Dimensions Curriculum’, and align with the National Curriculum. The purchased package includes a curriculum plan, PowerPoint slides, and individual lesson plan worksheets with defined learning objectives, activities, and assessment questions.

All teachers at Park School received an email, which explained the purpose of the research and what it involved: pre-lesson interviews, lesson observations, and post-lesson reflective discussions. This paper focuses on the lesson observations and post-lesson reflective discussions with teachers. Five non-LGBT female class teachers volunteered to participate and, accordingly, invited the researcher into their classroom. Among them, they offered a diversity of ages, ethnicities, and teaching experience (from 5 to 35 years). Some participating class teachers held additional responsibilities, including as Foundation Curriculum Leader, Head of RSHE, and Head of Mathematics. All participating class teachers had previously taught RSHE and were currently teaching in Key Stage 2 (Years 3–6, pupils aged 7–11). One participating class teacher was not timetabled to teach RSHE in the summer term of 2021, and therefore, her RSHE lessons are not included in the findings. The researcher developed a level of mutual trust over time and provided a safe space for teachers to reflect and to situate the research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ teachers (Hatch 2002). The growing rapport between the researcher and teachers allowed the researcher to offer an ‘external dissenting voice’ to teachers’ reflections (Bristol and Ponte 2013).

The researcher already had a good appreciation of Park School as a governor of three years, having visited the school several times over that period. For this research, and as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, the researcher spent a total of six days during the second half of the 2021 summer term observing a variety of curriculum lessons taught to Years 3, 4, 5, and 6. This included (11) RSHE lessons (including (5) lessons taught to Year 6, two girls were formally removed by their parents from the Sex Education lesson) and additional lessons (Mathematics (3), English (3), Physical Education (PE) (2), and Science (1)), as well as (2) assemblies. An observation protocol was followed, which focused on the classroom’s culture, routines, arrangements, teaching methods, language/questions used, engagement/resistance/embarrassment (gestures and facial expressions), and behavioural management. Informal discussions between the individual teacher and researcher lasted up to 15 minutes following their observed lesson. Discussions were guided by three prompts from the researcher: 1. “Tell me about your lesson”, 2. “If you taught this lesson again what would you repeat and what would you change?”, and 3. “How might you feel supported to teach RSE and/or make changes (if any)?”. Rather than these research methods simply capturing data, they offered a means by which the researcher/participants could start in the ‘speculative middle’ and become ‘entangled (in)tension’ and ‘activating thoughts’, thus provoking a heightened sense of new questions (and realities), which were not previously known or spoken of (Springay and Truman 2018).

Discourse analysis reveals how language constructs power relations and social identities and aligns with the relativist and social constructivist perspective taken (Potter and Wetherell 1987). Field notes and transcripts of post-lesson discussions were analysed using discourse analysis. Jones’ (2011) 28 Discourse Framework to Sexuality Education (an umbrella term for Relationships Education and Sex Education) supported the analysis of the discourse and pedagogy employed (

Table 1. Framework to Sexuality Education (Jones 2011).

Orientation	Discourse	Pedagogy
Conservative Transmitting dominant sexualities	1. Storks and Fairies 2. None/Non Approach 3. Physical Hygiene 4. Sexuality Morality 5. Birds and Bees 6. Biological Science 7. Abstinence until marriage 8. Christian/Ex-gay redemption	Authoritarian without pupil agency. Storytelling/metaphors. Segregated sexes. Secrecy/shame/sin. Private reflection. Christian texts.
Liberal Teaching sexuality skills and knowledge for personal choice and development	9. Sexual Liberationist 10. Comprehensive Sex Education 11. Sexual Risk 12. Sexual Readiness 13. Effective Relationships 14. Controversial Issues 15. Liberal Feminist	Sex, gender, and sexuality in fixed bipolar opposition. Diversity still exists. Pupil agency with teachers acting as facilitators. Individual and group work. Debates, role plays, and Q&A.
Critical Facilitating integrated student action based on alternative sexuality principles. Readdressing marginalised sexualities.	16. Socialist/Sexual Politics 17. Radical Freudian 18. Radical Feminist 19. Anti-discrimination 20. Inclusive/Social Justice 21. Safe/Supportive Spaces 22. Gay Liberationist 23. Postcolonial	Allows pupils to respond to society’s privileging of particular sexualities. Viewing alternative texts. Guest speakers from marginalised groups. Activism.
Postmodern Theoretically exploring sex, gender, and sexuality frameworks and positions.	24. Poststructuralist 25. Postidentity Feminist 26. Multicultural Education 27. Diversity Education 28. Queer	Pupils deconstruct and co-construct hegemonic/assumptions of truth and time. Teachers use conceptual tricks.

). The framework moves from a Conservative to Liberal, Critical, and Postmodern orientations, each encompassing a combination of assumptions about sexuality and sexuality education. Critical and Postmodern orientations are shown to be underrepresented in sexuality education. For this research, Queer Theory, encouraging pupils to deconstruct and co-construct hegemonic assumptions, underpinned how RSHE could be(come) more inclusive and effective.

Queer Theory recognises sexuality and identity as fluid, fragmented, and dynamic (Jagose 1996). Using Queer Theory as a theoretical tool helped to expose heteronormativity, the assumption of heterosexuality and cisnormativity, within the institution and beyond. The researcher attempted to ‘Think with (Queer) Theory’ to ‘plug’ into the data, working ‘within and against interpretivism’ to make new connections (Jackson and Mazzei 2012, p. vii). Specifically, the researcher engaged with the Theory of the Panopticon (Foucault 1977), highlighting how teachers and pupils end up self-monitoring their own actions through fear that they might not be acceptable to others. The researcher also drew upon the Theory of Performativity (Butler 2006), which illustrates that gender is not determined by who we are but rather by what we do repeatedly. The researcher questions the gendered norms, within teachers’ discourse and teaching resources, that regulate and normalise people, thus revealing the policing of the ‘heterosexual matrix’ (i.e., regulating a fixed sex, in bipolar opposition upon which society builds a stable gender that determines desire towards the opposite or same sex).

3. Findings

The findings draw upon all the lessons and assemblies observed by the researcher but focus on the culture, routines, arrangements, teaching methods, language, body language, and behavioural management of RSHE lessons. Extracts from seven RSHE lessons across Years 4, 5, and 6 are provided as vignettes and include the puberty, ‘Sex Education’, and transgender lessons that are only taught to Year 6. A summary accompanies lesson extracts, utilising the Framework to Sexuality Education (Jones 2011) to help analyse the discourse and pedagogy involved. Queer Theory underpins how RSHE may be(come) more inclusive and effective, and the researcher engages with Foucault’s (1977) ‘panopticon’, to illustrate how teachers’ and pupils’ monitor their own actions, and with Butler’s (2006) ‘performativity’, to reveal how the ‘heterosexual matrix’ is enforced. Additionally, details of teachers’ reflections of RSHE lessons are included in the findings and support the recommendations offered in the Discussion section, aimed at enhancing the inclusivity and effectiveness of RSHE lessons at Park School.

3.1. Comforts and Discomforts in RSHE Lessons

The culture and routines of RSHE lessons closely resembled Mathematics, English, and Science lessons observed; that is, pupils were engaged and valued the subject, generally sitting in their allocated class seats. Authority and attention remained with the teacher, who often followed a conservative pedagogy with limited pupil agency (Jones 2011). Teachers, who led storytelling and the dialogue, positioned themselves at the front (standing or seated) and occasionally circulated the room to steer pupils’ group discussions and assess individual work. Open questions asked by the teacher encouraged pupils to raise their hands, and some tasks were directed toward a small group of pupils to have them work together, offering the possibility of a more liberal pedagogy to pupils (Jones 2011). However, the teacher selected which pupils could speak to the whole class, with limited time assigned to tasks, and the teacher often interjected to ensure pupils remained on task, all resembling the social order noted by Kirby (2019, 2020).

Extract from RSHE lesson—‘Two Sides to Every Story’, Year 5, Classroom A:

Teacher (d) asks softly “where have you heard the saying ‘two sides to every story’ before?” Teacher (d) then instructs the class to have a 2-minute discussion as a table before one person from each table will share their ideas with the class. Teacher (d) stops activity after 2-minutes to ask pupils to raise their hand to share an idea. Teacher (d) clarifies everyone else should be listening. Two pupils raise their hand. Teacher (d) selects a pupil who does not have their hand raised, pupil remains silent.

Teacher (d) offers own reflection of arguing with their siblings. A few pupils then raise hands and offer similar stories (when selected by teacher).

Teacher (d) offers a scenario of a boy kicking a ball over the wall which an adult assumes he deliberately did, the boy denies it, teacher asks “Is he lying … how will you find out the truth … the whole picture?” Teacher (d) answers question with a statement “by asking the boy”.

Teacher (d) asks “Those of you who have siblings or do not, think of a time when you didn’t feel heard?... Share with your groups”. Pupils discuss in table groups. Teacher (d) moves to the middle of class and back to seat. “Who would like to share, hands up”. Seven pupils want to share. Teacher (d) states “No names of adults or children at school”. Some of the pupils who have raised hands are selected, all talk about siblings. Teacher (d) then looks at feelings “Are you sad when you are not able to say your side of the story?” and then how a right/wrong judgement might be made.

Teachers wanted to reassure pupils and uphold their authority in all lessons by offering fixed, clear, and definitive truths and fallacies. In the extract above, the teacher adopts an authoritarian pedagogy (Jones 2011), answering her own question, ‘how will you find out the truth?’, by ‘asking the boy’ rather than allowing time to call upon the pupils’ own views. Pupils who offered verbal responses to the second question took the teacher’s distinct direction to offer a time when they were not heard by their sibling(s). At this point, pupils were allowed to bring their lives into the lesson, which contrasted confusingly for pupils later, when the teacher enforced that adults’ and pupils’ names should not be shared, which, inadvertently, may have discouraged pupils from sharing any of their school experiences. Scenarios, which were given out later for pupils to read, included gendered stereotypes, which were not critiqued and, consequently, endorsed a heterosexual matrix.

When one teacher (in the extract below) attempted to give pupils greater independence to complete a group task, she initially removed herself to the back of the room. Pupils appeared unfamiliar with this approach, perhaps due to COVID-19 restrictions, which had stopped group work for a period of time. Uncertain pupils drew the teacher back into the task in the role of mediator by openly questioning the parameters of the rules; however, this also highlighted that the role of facilitator (necessary for a more liberal pedagogical approach) was not fulfilled completely.

Extract from RSHE lesson— ‘Working collaboratively: Build it up’, Year 4, Classroom C:

Teacher (c) asks “What did collaboratively mean when we did this earlier. Hands up”.

“Getting a task done by working in a group” a pupil selected offers.

Teacher (c) uses his/he when referring to football and working together as eleven players in a team.“ But Ronaldo …” asks a child [which is missed by the teacher].

Teacher (c) positioned at the front of the class continues “the goal is to make the tallest winning structure … you have seven minutes to plan the structure in your groups”…

Teacher (c) moves to back of the room, standing next to the Teaching Assistant (TA) and researcher. Half-way through the task pupils start to run out of equipment. Teacher considers whether to hand out more equipment. TA encourages teacher (c) not to hand out more. Pupils start to recognise one group has a very tall structure.

Pupil shouts “It won’t stand!” Another pupil shouts ‘It would be the biggest building if it stood!’ Another pupil asks “Can we use the table?”. ‘No’ says teacher (c) “that would be cheating!” “You can’t touch it” says a pupil.“ They are literally cheating” exclaims another pupil.Teacher (c) says “You’re not coping, it’s magpie’ing”. Another child says to another group “Focus on yourself!”. Noise rises. “Thank you!” exclaims teacher (c) and moves to front of class.

At the start of the lesson, the teacher talked about the merits of working as a team using an example of 11 (male) players in football. This gender stereotyping may have been partly responsible for why the one all-girls’ group lost complete interest in the task and girls in the co-ed group sabotaged the tower that was essentially built by the boys. Interestingly, the merits of working as a team are challenged by a pupil, ‘But Ronaldo …’; however, it is missed by the teacher, and she continues urging the competitive nature of the task ‘to make the tallest winning structure’, as opposed to supporting the task’s collaborative potential. RSHE lessons were only 45 min in length, shorter than the Mathematics, English, and Science lessons observed. As a result, teachers often hurried to try to cover the RSHE content, often stating to pupils that they lacked time. Although teachers encouraged a competitive culture, to keep within time structures and promote acceptable behaviours, when competition led to an unacceptable level of noise, the teacher (above) re-established her authority.

3.2. The Management of Puberty and Sex Education Lessons

All five Year 6 RSHE lessons were left until the penultimate week of the summer term. The two lessons that addressed puberty and conception were segregated by sex (as well as adjacent lessons to facilitate rotation), again demonstrating a conservative orientation to sexuality education (Jones 2011). The two female Year 6 class teachers shared the lead, adopting a confident and buoyant persona, perhaps to balance their preconception of pupils’ hesitancy and embarrassment, but reinforcing a discomfort surrounding the discussion of puberty and bodies. ‘It’s ok to giggle … don’t worry … don’t panic … you can’t control puberty … it’s not scary …’ were repeated in lessons for both classes, as were the classroom rules.

Extract from RSHE lesson—‘Changing Bodies’, Year 6 (boys only), Classroom E:

Teacher (a) holds up first sheet with ‘penis’ written on it and appears to choose not to say word. Teacher (a) then holds up other sheets and confidently and neutrally articulates “breasts” and “vagina”.

Teacher (a) “We hear “this is too embarrassing … we don’t want to do this” … prepare you for secondary school. We [class teachers] will learn something too—can be—inappropriate. We know you know … we will move on quickly so no one group comes up with all words”.

Task explained by teacher (a) 2nd and 3rd time, activity reinforced.

Teacher (b) reassures pupils “Don’t worry” and folds arms.

Teacher (a) “Last question [name] … Do you want me to come over?”. Pupil nods.

Teacher (a) rotates, teacher (b) stays with one group.

Noise rises. Teacher (b) “5, 4, 3, 2, 1 thank you [name] you need to stay here … boys rotate please … sorry. Stop. [name]’s group, you’re over here”.

Teacher (b) “I’m just going to stand behind you”, teacher (b) watches as they write and then leans forward, putting arms on desk.

Boys giggle at previous words written, several boys now writing ideas in each group.

Teacher (a) raises hand to get attention “Interesting suggestions on sheets, I haven’t learnt anything new”.

In the boys’ class, teachers used gendered language, referring to the group as ‘boys’. Body parts were neutrally expressed by the teacher, but, notably, ‘penis’ was left unspoken. Interestingly, teachers referred only to the vagina rather than distinguishing the vulva. Teachers set the defensive tone that it may be viewed as ‘too embarrassing … we don’t want to do this … inappropriate … but it is important to prepare you for secondary school’. The second teacher’s protective behaviour, i.e., folding her arms, did not match her verbal reassurance, ‘don’t worry’. One teacher confidently encouraged pupils, ‘We know you know,’ ‘no one group comes up with all the words,’ but later reflected with pupils that her assumptions were incorrect, ‘I haven’t learned anything new.’ There was a sense of surveillance from the teacher wanting to ‘stand behind’ and manage the pupils’ behaviours by leaning forward. Instructions given by teachers in this lesson were frequently repeated and laid down stronger parameters for tasks and behaviours than in the girls’ lesson, such as ‘treat it as sensibly as you can’, which upheld gendered expectations (Butler 2006).

There was an insecurity in the room; one boy self-monitored their actions (Foucault 1977) in front of the critical gaze of the class (‘I’m going to expose myself here … I used to like Peppa Pig’), and while some boys smirked, the teacher reacted by reassuring the boy who spoke rather than addressing prevailing perceptions of masculinity. Later, none of the boys commented on the final question posed, ‘Do you feel self-conscious about your body?’. The class was praised by the teachers in terms of ‘… it [puberty] is hard to learn about’. One teacher reflected afterwards that it ‘went well … we’ve had tears before’ and was sensitive to the fact that some boys had already started puberty (including a boy who was taken out of the classroom to speak privately to the teacher).

Extract from RSHE lesson—‘Changing Bodies’, Year 6 (girls only):

Group addressed as “Girls, we have talked about this”.

Group considered (and were expected by teacher to consider) final question about being body conscious. One pupil offers “spots”, another pupil “hair on arms”.

Teacher (a) “Can’t stop growing it’s natural”.

Teacher (b) responds to girl who has just talked about having eczema “I have eczema. We can be our worst enemy. We think everyone will notice it. Really brave of you to share”.

Teachers standing at front. Teacher (a) “Be sensitive that you might not be sensitive to things/remarks that others are”. Teacher (b) fiddling with their lanyard.

Teacher (a) reformulates the pupil’s comments as sibling rivalry and advises the pupil to talk to parents and tell them.

Teacher (a) holds up template and models ideas (no embarrassment from girls observed). “When you’re ready get started”.

Teacher (b) sat on floor talking with table group about periods.

Teacher (a) softly “3, 2, 1 eyes this way”. Lots of pupils’ questions asked and answered.

One girl asks “Do periods every stop?” to which Teacher (a) responds “It will be answered tomorrow”.

The (female) teachers teaching the larger proportion of girls in the Year 6 group were visibly more relaxed, with both teachers using a softer voice tone and one teacher arranging books at the start of the lesson. Puberty was explained as ‘…it’s natural…’. The teachers took up equal positions in table group discussions, sitting in a pupil’s chair and offering personal anecdotes. There was a shared camaraderie of experience ‘Girls we have talked about this’, ‘We can be …’. The open discussion forum lasted longer, with more questions from the class. Pupils’ responses were emotional and personal, although, at times, teachers again attempted to remove this from the room, reframing an example given of dominance by an older brother to sibling rivalry. One question asked by a girl, ‘Do periods ever stop?’ was judged by a teacher to relate to fertility and thus would be answered ‘… tomorrow’, highlighting the confusion left for the two girls formally removed from the subsequent Sex Education lesson. There was an assumption from one teacher that the last question on body consciousness would be considered by the class of girls, stating, ‘We can be our own worst enemy’. The class was referred to as ‘ladies’ and congratulated for being mature and respectful.

The subsequent lesson (the ‘Sex Education’ lesson) was taught the following day to the girls first, with the boys in PE before they rotated. The lesson format closely followed the quiz slides (taken from the purchased curriculum already shared virtually with parents), which was fast-paced (one question referring to sexual orientation, one referring to homophobia, and two to conception). Bisexuality only appeared as an answer on the slide rather than being referred to explicitly, and biphobia was not addressed. Celibacy was barely defined as not being a sexual orientation. In reflections, teachers expressed that they anticipated resistance to LGB relationships due to previous responses from parents and felt they reacted to resistance in line with school values.

Extract from RHSE lesson—‘Sex Education’, Year 6 (girls only), Classroom D:

Q4 on slide and recited by teacher (a) “Which of these is not a sanitary product? Hands up for A … B … C … D” (pupils’ hands offered for three of responses, two of which were incorrect).

Teacher (a) holds up sanitary towel, opens it up and offers “I feel like an air hostess”. Explains the part that is sticky gets put on underwear. Adds further explanation of needing to change it throughout the day otherwise not hygienic. Teacher (a) “I’ll show you—this is my personal pouch—I always carry extra sanitary products. Once you have started a period—keep a pouch in your school bag—looks like a pencil case—no one will know”. Teacher (a) goes on to show how pouch can be kept under waist band discretely when a girl goes to the toilet. Explains girls can use the ‘other toilets’ which have a sanitary bin, girls should not flush products.

Girls’ hands are up.

Teacher (b) “I’ll read this slide and then answer your questions”.

[LATER]

Q6 on slide and recited by teacher (b) ‘What is homophobia?’

Girls raise hands before multiple choice answers revealed. One girl asked, offers “someone who doesn’t support LGBT”. Multiple-choice options shown, teacher (a) “is it a fear of spiders?” (girls laugh) and correct answer revealed ‘hate and abuse towards gay people’.

Pupil offers some people dislike it because of religious reasons, teacher (a) responds “Absolutely fine but we need to respect their decision. If everyone liked the same thing it would be boring. Even if we don’t believe in them. Religious viewpoint absolutely fine, you might have conversations at home about them. We live in a community however and we need to go about our day”. Teacher (a) offers overt examples of homophobic behaviour … “we actually dealt with an issue today ‘so gay’ said in the playground …which is really offensive”.

Teacher (b) “Can we come back to questions at the end, we need to get through slides”. Next multiple question shown and recited by teacher. Three hands raised and correct answer offered by pupil.

Teacher (b) says “We are going to talk about sex. We know this might be unacceptable … you can giggle”.

Teacher (a) “Shhhhh.”

Teacher (b) “Just because you have become a sexual person doesn’t mean you are ready to have sex. When a man and woman have sex ….”

In the girls’ lesson, teachers again took up bubbly characters, confidently working alongside one another, suggesting silly answers to the multiple-choice quiz, laughing and demonstrating how to open up a sanitary towel, although still perpetuating the shame and secrecy of a conservative pedagogy (Jones 2011) around hiding them in a personal pouch.

Homophobia was initially accepted by a pupil as ‘someone who does not support LGBT’, and whilst homophobia was not tolerated by the teacher or from her pupils, the teacher responded to a pupil that a dislike of homosexuality due to religious reasons was ‘absolutely fine’. Homophobia was also defined by the teacher in terms of overt acts or voicing opinions rather than similar acts of microaggression, an attitude, or an opinion internalised by an individual. It seemed an opportunity was missed to engage with and support pupils holding religious beliefs to think critically and sensitively around LGB inclusion (Carlile 2019), some of whom may come or already identify as LGB. Parents’ resistance at home towards the LGB community was portrayed as being separate from the school community, and such views were then prioritised over LGB pupils, LGB families, LGB staff, and their allies at school. Pupils (some of whom may be LGB) may have valued the opportunity of considering this tension, albeit recognising the growing acceptance of many religious groups towards the LGBT community. The teacher’s acceptance of resistance towards the LGBT community based upon religious viewpoints seemed to be a self-censorship (Foucault 1977) of their acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community, a stance that, expressed explicitly, might initiate an oppositional response by some parents. This noticeably contrasted with the teacher’s position and expected attitude of pupils towards the racism witnessed towards a young black English player, Bukayo Saka, missing a penalty at the end of the Euros 2020 Finals, which was later addressed during assembly in the same classroom.

Teachers framed talking about sex as possibly ‘unacceptable’. The act of sex was only referred to as heteronormative ‘when a man and a woman’, reinforcing a dominant sexuality and conservative approach, which then solely defined the discussion around the legal age of consent and protection. The first six slide questions during the boys’ lesson referred to men’s sex hormones and organs, excluding any details of women’s sex hormones and organs (the opposite was true in the girls’ lesson). The multiple-choice quiz was also covered at a faster pace in the boys’ lesson, although this allowed time for teachers to engage and work with individual groups and provided time for pupils to write down anonymous questions, demonstrating a liberal pedagogy (Jones 2011).

Extract from RHSE lesson—‘Sex Education’, Year 6 (boys only), Classroom E:

[Q5 question and answer about sexual orientation shown]. Teacher (a) “Does it matter if someone chooses if they are attracted to others?”

“No” the class responds.

Teacher (a) highlights “families may disagree, that’s ok but we treat others with respect. Why is being called gay a bad thing? I am aware [name] you have been talking all the way through, not impressed”.

Q6 on slide and recited by teacher (a) “What is homophobia?”

Boy gives incorrect answer. Teacher (a) checks understanding of class through questions. Overt behaviour explained as homophobia and ‘that’s so gay’ analogy explained as offensive. “We need to respect other people and their choices, we are part of a community. We will learn more about LGBT community tomorrow, we need to live respectfully, other people’s business is their business”.

[LATER]

Pupil asks, “Can we start writing?” (Boy who had head on desk).

Teacher (b) can be heard saying “dangerous to be kicked in that area” with the front table.

Teacher (a) “You might not have questions yet, have a think. I can guarantee we’ve heard it before”. Teacher (a) deals with “stigma of talking about this”.

Boy (with head on desk previously) asks teacher (b) as she comes round to his group. “What is a testicle?” Teacher (b) remains with group talking about condoms and consent.

“I enjoy teaching it” Teacher (b) clarifies to the table group of pupils she is with “Sex can be to create a baby or for enjoyment … We get all kinds of questions”.

Boy (who had head on desk) “Do you have to put your penis inside? Is it simple?” Teacher answers ‘You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do’.

Teacher (a) ‘3, 2, 1 … my class back to normal places. Questions in there’.

Boy (with head previously on desk asks another question)—Teacher (b) “We can step outside …”

An inaccurate statement concerning someone ‘choosing if they are attracted to others’ was made by the teacher, and the message relayed through questioning pupils was confusing and contradictory. Being gay does not matter, but ‘… being called gay is a bad thing’, and whilst ‘… we treat others with respect’, it was accepted that families might disagree. There was also a concealment placed upon homosexuality as ‘other people’s business is their business’, although sex (with no reference to non-heterosexual sex) was identified as ‘making a baby or for pleasure’. Notably, no pupil correctly identified verbally what homophobia was. Teachers responded to the reluctance of boys asking questions with ‘we’ve heard it all before’, ‘I enjoy teaching it’, and ‘we get all kind of questions’, which led to one boy asking, ‘what is a testicle?’. Later, one pupil’s question was cut off by the teacher with ‘you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do’, which did not clarify what ‘sex’ actually involves and did not challenge the idea that sex only constitutes heterosexual vaginal intercourse. Sexual readiness, which indicates a liberal pedagogy (Jones 2011), also highlighted a need to protect pupils, in terms of age alone, rather than considering mutual consent and feeling safe with a partner.

3.3. The Uncertainty of the Standalone ‘Transgender’ Lesson

The final 45-minute lesson allowed ‘transgender/transvestite’ to be considered; however, it presented transgender as a narrow single essentialist label/identity, as opposed to the intersection of multiple identities (including sexuality). The lesson again closely followed the purchased curriculum slides.

Extract from RSHE lesson—‘Transgender/Transvestite’, Year 6 (all pupils), Classroom D, co-ed class:

Teacher (b) “Throughout history we have seen evidence that people felt they were in the wrong body. Are you aware of any celebrities who are trans?”

Boy offers “James Charles”, teacher looks puzzled, trainee teacher calmly and quietly explains he is cis male and gay.

Another pupil offers that a close family member is trans.

Teacher (b) suggests “We are taking off our blinkers. We are realising different perspectives exist”.

Another pupil offers “Caitlyn Jenner”. Teacher (b) reflects on the age she became Caitlyn, “Why do people perhaps not say anything?” Pupil offers “worried to”.

Teacher (b) continues “We are becoming … our naivety is being taken away … we are becoming more inclusive”.

Same pupil who spoke about a close family member offers example that people may be non-binary.

Teacher (b) “We are going to pause hands” and moves on to talk about “transvestites”. Teacher (b) continues there is no such thing as appropriate clothes for a sex. Relates to herself as a tomboy—talks about stereotypical views. “[Names a male pupil] can wear a skirt”. Pupils smile/smirk but are respectfully silent. Another pupil offers knowledge of drag shows. Trainee teacher offers further information. Another pupil says, “this might sound weird but in heels he looked really great”.

Teacher (b) “I can’t force my opinion on you … I can share my opinion. We can’t have transphobia in the classroom. You can disagree but you can’t voice that opinion”

[LATER]

Pupil asks if your actual body changes if you become trans? Teacher explains some trans have surgery and some don’t.

“What do you call a teacher if they become non-binary?” Pupil asks. Teacher (b) offers MX pronouns or ask them.

Pupil asks can you still have a child? Teacher explains surrogate (with IVF).

Another pupil offers the possibility of adoption and the teacher agrees.

Transgender identities were framed around prejudice, ‘why do people not say anything’, alongside the age at which Caitlyn transitioned, as opposed to using a critical pedagogy (Jones 2011) to highlight the privilege of being cisgender or the joy surrounding being trans. The teacher generalised the whole trans community as being ‘born in the wrong body’ and later added that only some choose to have surgery. The teacher used the term ‘transvestite’ rather than the more acceptable term ‘cross-dresser’. Whilst the teacher critically challenged the presumption of ‘girls’ and ‘boys’ clothing, the comment devalued the identity of a cross-dresser, which was being considered at the time. Exploring societal acceptance of girls being ‘tomboys’ not extending to boys displaying deemed female mannerisms could have helped deconstruct the heterosexual matrix (Butler 2006) using a Postmodern orientation.

Whilst the teacher felt pupils were ‘taking off their blinkers’ and ‘becoming more inclusive’, pupils’ responses highlighted their knowledge, interest in drag show culture, and prior acceptance ‘… in heels he looked really good’. At least one pupil had a family member who identified as transgender, although the teacher related it to a celebrity icon. The teacher stated implicitly, ‘we can’t tolerate transphobia in the classroom’, although teachers should not ‘force their own view’ (Foucault 1977), or perhaps, they were concerned that they would be viewed as ‘promoting an identity’. Thus, alternative viewpoints were accepted, as long as they were not vocalised. A trainee teacher, who clearly held greater knowledge, remained in a subordinate role. The teacher did not engage with the final slide question, ‘Is gender defined by the body or mind?’. There was also a missed opportunity to engage with why a gay male celebrity may have been perceived as transgender.

4. Discussion

Lesson observations highlighted that gender norms are still being powerfully reinforced, including through the use of gendered stereotypes in discourse and resources and by segregating lessons by sex. A reflection made by a teacher that these lessons could not be segregated if they had a ‘gender-neutral’ pupil highlighted the assumed impossibility that pupils in the classroom could be or may come to identify in this way if they were not already known to be. Teachers were not aware of their self-fulfilling expectations of girls (assuming a homogeneous group), their own gendered performance (and that of pupils’) (Butler 2006), differing teaching styles, expectations, and content between single-sex lessons, which may have added to this. At the same time, the impact of gender norms on pupils’ non-engagement in tasks and pupils’ feelings of vulnerability when they did not conform to gender norms was not challenged. The smirking and vulnerability felt in the all-boys Sex Education class and the impossibility of a boy wearing a skirt highlighted that gendered norms needed to be challenged much earlier in their school years. Content that referred explicitly to ‘sex’ remained heteronormative and did not pick up on pupils’ existing knowledge and curiosity. Time, the purchased curriculum, teachers’ knowledge, and the reluctance of teachers who self-monitored their actions (Foucault 1977) limited the exploration of sexuality and pupils’ questions.

Park School refers to itself as ‘LGBT-inclusive’ and to the RSHE curriculum as preparing its children ‘for the sexual relationships they may have in the future’. If the school wants to accomplish this, then an enrichment of the curriculum, pedagogy, and teachers’ confidence is required to facilitate it. Although in interviews, teachers expressed a commitment to a rights-based approach in RSHE and highlighted the value of lessons to facilitate dialogue with pupils, this was not wholly apparent in observed lessons. A lack of confidence is discernible amongst teachers, which is aggravated by ambiguity surrounding what constitutes appropriate professional conduct. Evidence of teachers’ lack of self-confidence included their stated desire to teach their own class, their need to reassure parents, and a reluctance to offer their own opinions to pupils regarding homosexuality and minoritised gender identities.

A fuller range of pedagogical approaches that include Critical and Postmodern orientations is required to recognise pupils’ agency, their pre-existing knowledge, their emotions, and the likely presence of pupils from LGBT families and pupils who are or may come to identify as LGBT. Schools should recognise the diversity of students and provide safe, affirming, and supportive spaces, which will improve the education and experience of all students. The authoritarian pedagogy of teachers was counterproductive to encouraging more equitable and open discussions with pupils. Time and assessment pressures also seemed to restrict discussions and reinforce a competitive approach, inhibiting opportunities for pupils to develop relationships and group-working skills.

There are a number of assumptions that are influencing the current RSHE teaching, including the deemed comprehensiveness of the current curriculum resources. While the ‘purchased’ curriculum gives teachers a sense of security, any enhancement to it is reliant upon the teachers’ own experience, knowledge, and interest. The ‘purchased’ curriculum limits teachers from utilising professional skills to plan and evolve lessons. The curriculum resources, whilst offering comfort to those teachers who hold less content knowledge or greater uncertainty, are an inadequate substitute for teachers’ continued professional development (CPD) to promote Critical and Postmodern pedagogical approaches (Jones 2011) and to learn ‘how’ to represent and discuss a full spectrum of gender identities and sexualities. The term ‘LGBT’, as referred to in RSHE guidance DfE (2019), seems to work against this and does not help schools avoid minorities being ‘othered’ by only referring to negative experiences. The purchased resources are also predominantly organised around whole-class activities, which do not encourage content to be tailored more specifically to local context and individual pupils’ needs (including differing developmental stages, LAC, and SEND). Beliefs also exist concerning ‘what pupils can bear’ (quote from one teacher) and what parents will accept without engaging fully with these groups. These perceptions have shaped delaying Sex Education until Year 6 (despite a number of pupils already starting puberty), rather than leading by example when topics should be discussed to both pupils and their families. Attitudes and fears are silencing certain discussions (Malins 2016; Mason 2010; Nixon 2009; No Outsiders Project Team 2010) and governing single-sex grouping in Sex Education, rather than creating an environment that is accessible to everyone and delivers equal messages to all, including how puberty affects both girls and boys.

4.1. Recommendations to Support Inclusive and Effective RSHE at Park School

• Timetabling a longer RSHE lesson would allow time to address important questions, encourage pupils’ critical thinking, and help counter cis/heteronormative practices, which are more prevalent in the school (Carlile 2019; Hall 2020; Quinlivan 2018).
• Expanding upon previous years’ work, reviewing the same topics, and engaging fully with pupils before lessons to establish existing knowledge (Bragg et al. 2018), rather than trying to react spontaneously or retrospectively, would help address individual pupils’ needs more effectively within the curriculum time and may lessen teacher apprehension.
• Teachers should engage with pupils (including older pupils reflecting back) to determine how they would like RSHE lessons to be delivered. Perhaps there is an opportunity to begin with single-sex teaching in puberty lessons before moving to co-education for Sex Education lessons to allow all perspectives to be heard.
• Teachers should be supported by senior management to engage in CPD for RSHE, particularly in learning ‘how’ to represent and include the full spectrum of gender identities and sexualities in the classroom (Leonardi and Staley 2018; McBride and Neary 2021; van Leent 2017).
• Teachers need to reconsider, with support from CPD, how open current practices and pedagogy in RSHE are to discussions and thus help shift pedagogies from authoritative styles (Kirby 2019, 2020). Openly critiquing playground incidents, for example, may help teachers and pupils challenge the cis/heteronormativity of school structures (Payne and Smith 2013).
• The school could gain support from faith leaders, in terms of how acceptance might be encouraged by different faiths/beliefs to allow different communities to co-exist rather than mildly accepting prejudicial views about the LGBT community, which will inevitably perpetuate homo/bi/transphobic behaviour in schools and beyond. It seems of equal importance to offer a diverse representation of religious groups, allowing a shared LGBT and religious identity to be a possibility rather than not.
• There is further scope to draw from books that are intelligible to children and embrace LGBTQ+ characters (Cumming-Potvin and Martino 2014), LGBT themes in the wider school/curricula, and positive LGBT role models (possibly from an external organisation) (Ryan et al. 2013).
• Time should be facilitated for teachers to plan, critically reflect upon, and develop lessons, and this may be assisted by the Good Practice Guide for Teaching Relationships and Sex(uality) Education (Jenkinson et al. 2020) and Sexuality Education Review and Toolkit (UNESCO 2020).
• The diversity of staff could be utilised further to engage with all age groups and contribute where they can to curriculum design and RSHE teaching. Drawing upon the entire staff’s experience and knowledge seems important to elevate the subject’s profile moving forward.
• Whilst resolving objections from a minority of parents is never easy, there is still room for further collaboration (Alldred et al. 2016), which may help to generate greater support from parents and consolidate learning at home. This might include setting up an ongoing working group involving staff, governors, faith leaders, and parents.

4.2. Limitations

The research is restricted to the context of one primary school in Greater London due to the difficulties that the researcher encountered when trying to access further schools. The pedagogical decisions and post-lesson reflections relate only to four class teachers’ teaching RSHE in this context, who volunteered to take part. Data were gathered following the uncertainty and disruptions of COVID-19 restrictions and when mandatory LGBT content was first introduced, i.e., when tensions relating to its inclusion were still fresh. However, recent UK political guidance relating to RSHE and ‘gender-questioning pupils’, along with media interest, is likely to be raising anxieties once again, particularly in primary schools and especially for teachers discussing transgender identities with their pupils.