No Outsiders.
The Legal Basis for Sex and Relationship Education (SRE).
In 2019, protests erupted outside Parkfield School in Birmingham following the introduction of No Outsiders, a teaching program designed to promote inclusive SRE (Sex and Relationships Education) and health education. The No Outsiders program was developed by award-winning teacher Andrew Moffat MBE, who has received recognition from the Varkey Foundation and other educational charities. After months of negative publicity, these protests were halted by a High Court injunction, and the No Outsiders program continued.
Since the repeal of Section 28, it has become legally permissible for teachers to discuss issues such as homosexuality and other previously controversial topics. Before this repeal, such discussions would have been considered unacceptable in the classroom. Following this shift, a series of legislative changes were introduced, making SRE and health education mandatory in most schools.
Over the past three decades, primary legislation has mandated SRE and health education for various reasons. This legislation has been further supported by government guidelines on statutory interpretation. Once the 1996 Education Act was enacted, state schools in England were required to offer SRE lessons with parental consent—typically through signed permission forms. In some cases, parents were required to actively inform the school of their intention to withdraw their children from these lessons. This provision allowed parents to disengage from aspects of the curriculum they found objectionable.
After the 2010 Equality Act, public authorities, including schools, were placed under a legal duty to reduce inequality of outcomes among marginalized groups. This created a strong ethos of radical equality within public institutions. Schools, in particular, began implementing teaching materials—such as No Outsiders—that reflected the spirit and values of the 2010 Equality Act.
In 2017, Parliament passed the Children and Social Work Act, which limited parents' rights to withdraw children from SRE lessons and made SRE compulsory in all schools. Prior to this act, independent schools were not required to teach SRE or health education, giving parents the option to send their children to schools that aligned more closely with their values. Additionally, parents retained the right to withdraw their children from certain lessons.
Current Department for Education guidance requires schools to work collaboratively with parents, faith groups, and the local community when designing SRE and health education policies. Therefore, such policies should reflect the values and needs of the communities they serve.
Despite parents now having limited rights to withdraw their children from relationships and health education, they still retain the right to withdraw them from sex education lessons. According to Department for Education guidelines:
“Parents have the right to request that their child be withdrawn from some or all of sex education.” [5]
This right can be utilized by religious or dissident parents to reduce what they may see as state indoctrination. However, withdrawing children from sex education may not be enough. If like-minded parents are able to organize effectively, they could influence the content of SRE and health education in ways that are less objectionable to them.
To be successful, religious and dissident organizations should consider developing their own compliant SRE and health education materials. This would make it easier for schools to adopt alternative approaches without violating legal requirements. Since designing a curriculum from scratch is time-consuming, schools often prefer pre-designed programs. A well-organized minority of parents could help ensure that school policies are compatible with their beliefs.
Parents can also use provisions under the 2010 Equality Act, which require schools to consider the religious and philosophical beliefs of students. As the guidelines state:
“Schools with a religious character may teach the distinctive faith perspective on relationships, and balanced debate may take place about issues that are seen as contentious.” [6]
Parents providing formal feedback during policy development makes it harder for schools to dismiss their concerns. This may not always be easy—especially where teachers are affiliated with activist organizations such as Stonewall or Mermaids—but not all teachers share such affiliations, and some may sympathize with religious or dissident perspectives.
If parents remain organized over time, some schools may become more resistant to what these parents perceive as state-driven indoctrination.
In 2013, after complaints from religious parents, the No Outsiders program was dropped from Chilwell Croft Academy, and Andrew Moffat resigned. Six years later, in 2019, after new legislation was passed, the program was introduced again at Parkfield Community School, where 98% of the students were devout Muslims. The resulting protests received negative media coverage, with parents painted as homophobic and bigoted. Teachers also reported feeling victimized and unsafe, which further contributed to the High Court injunction that barred parents from protesting near the school. [8]
These protests ultimately failed—the No Outsiders program remains in place. This demonstrates that protests, particularly near schools or sensitive sites, are ineffective and carry serious legal and reputational risks. Protests often result in bad media coverage, which can discourage effective local action. Worse still, negative publicity may be used to manufacture public consent for controversial policies by demonizing opposition. This seems to have occurred in the case of the No Outsiders program.
Instead of protesting, filing formal complaints has historically been a more effective strategy. Formal complaints carry less risk of triggering media attention or legal action and make it harder for schools to ignore parental concerns. Media coverage should be avoided, as it typically pressures schools to side against religious or dissident parents, who are likely to be portrayed as bigots. As a general rule: all media attention is bad attention for dissident parents.
Effective defensive action is possible if it is well-planned and competently executed. Dissidents can achieve significant results by working within the system. In the modern world, it is nearly impossible to disengage completely from the system, so it must be strategically navigated.
A successful dissident movement will require both individuals who can work within the system (e.g., legal professionals, policymakers) and those who can operate outside it. For instance, establishing a home-schooling collective would require support from lawmakers and lawyers to protect parental rights. Without such support, the state could ban or heavily regulate home-schooling.
References
1988 Local Government Act, Section 28
1996 Education Act
2010 Equality Act, Section 1(1)
2017 Children and Social Work Act, Sections 34–35
Department for Education (2019). Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE), and Health Education. Section 4
Ibid, Section 21
Nazia Parveen, "School defends LGBT lessons after religious parents complain" (2019), The Guardian
Kevin Rawlinson, "High court bans Birmingham school protests against LGBT lessons" (2019), The Guardian
Edward Bernays, The Engineering of Consent (1947)
The typical RW position against SRE is not wanting it taught. In the age where little timmy can be instead educated by pornhub even if its after he leaves the house.
Obviously pornography is not better than even SRE. So you are going to want some sort of SRE might as well be your SRE.