Working together on RSHE: Co-creating a values-led approach

Euan
Jul 16
15 min read

People in various emotional states read documents labeled "Sex Education" or "RSHE" in indoor settings, showing surprise, confusion, and amusement.

A Changing Landscape for RSHE in Schools

Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) in England is evolving. In July 2025, the Department for Education (DfE) released updated statutory guidance that puts a new emphasis on tackling misogyny and oft-mentioned “incel” culture in secondary schools. The guidance calls for lessons that challenge toxic myths from the online “manosphere” while promoting positive role models for boys, without stigmatising boys for being boys. (Noting this is different from making light of behaviour with the phrase "boys will be boys".) This push comes amid evidence that misogynistic attitudes among youth have reached “epidemic” levels: over half of secondary pupils surveyed reported hearing misogynistic comments in the past week. As Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson explains, the aim is to “equip kids to develop positive attitudes from the get-go, building their resilience to harmful content in an age-appropriate way, right from the start of school”. Alongside addressing new risks like incel ideology, the 2025 guidance doubles down on ensuring parents can access RSHE materials. Schools must let parents view any curriculum resources on request and cannot hide behind copyright or contracts.

Amid these developments, one thing remains clear: we all want to keep children safe, healthy, and prepared for the realities of modern life. Achieving that goal is not solely about what schools teach, it is also about how schools and families work together. In my years as a school leader, I have often asked myself: are we truly partnering with parents, or only ticking the usual boxes? When it comes to RSHE, this question feels more urgent than ever. How can parents and schools collaborate in shaping a curriculum that reflects shared values, meets diverse community needs, and still fulfils statutory requirements? In this article, I’ll explore a path toward co-creating RSHE policy and curriculum with parents. A path that respects everyone’s role and keeps students’ best interests at heart.

Statutory Responsibilities: Clarity on Parents’ Rights and Roles

First, it is important to understand the framework we’re working within. Under English law, certain aspects of RSHE are compulsory. Relationships Education is mandatory for all primary pupils, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) is mandatory for all secondary pupils, and Health Education is mandatory in state-funded schools. Parents do not have a blanket veto over this content. In fact, the latest DfE guidance explicitly states that parents cannot withdraw their children from relationships or health education, nor from any lessons that form part of the national curriculum for science (which includes topics like puberty and human reproduction). The only flexibility is that parents may request to withdraw their child from some or all of the dedicated “sex education” lessons in secondary school outside the science curriculum. Even this depends on the head teacher’s agreement and certain age-related conditions. In short, parents cannot cherry-pick which statutory RSHE content their child receives.

At the same time, schools must involve and inform parents in important ways. Every school is required to have an RSE policy, and schools “must consult parents when developing and reviewing” that policy. The new 2025 guidance encourages openness with parents about RSHE. It suggests that schools pro-actively engage parents by discussing what will be taught and why, inviting questions or concerns, and even supporting parents with tips on talking to their children at home about sensitive topics. Schools are expected to share resources and lesson materials with parents freely (via a secure parent portal or on request), so that parents are not kept in the dark. However, transparency does not equate to parental control over the curriculum. The guidance makes it clear that “parents are not able to veto curriculum content,” even as it affirms the importance of listening to parents’ views and ensuring parents “see what their children are being taught” in sensitive areas. In practice, this means schools should be upfront and collaborative with families, while retaining the responsibility to deliver a broad, balanced RSHE curriculum that complies with legal expectations and prepares students for modern life in Britain.

Understanding these ground rules helps set expectations on both sides. Parents cannot override the science of human reproduction or insist a school skips LGBTQ+ topics, for example. Likewise, schools must not ignore the values and concerns expressed by parents. The key challenge is to find a working balance: how can schools actively invite parent involvement and feedback without abandoning the inclusive, evidence-based curriculum that pupils require?

Why Collaboration Matters for RSHE Success

Some might ask, if the government sets the curriculum and parents can’t opt out of most of it, why do schools need to involve parents at all? The answer is that RSHE is most effective when it is a collaborative effort between school and home. Yes, schools provide factual, age-appropriate lessons on everything from friendships and consent to mental health and online safety. But parents and carers are their children’s “prime educators … on many of these matters”, as the DfE’s earlier guidance acknowledged. The attitudes and messages young people get at home will significantly shape how they interpret and apply what they learn in RSHE. When schools and families are on the same page, students get consistency and reinforcement; when they’re at odds, students receive mixed messages or may dismiss one source or the other.

Fortunately, research suggests that most parents support the aims of school-based RSHE. They want schools to cover these topics. A recent study surveying parents in England and Wales found “significant parental support for school-based RSHE, alongside some concerns”. Many parents do want tricky issues like relationships and sex to be taught in the safe, structured environment of school. At the same time, that study and others highlight a crucial gap: parents often feel unprepared or uncomfortable talking about these topics at home. Rudoe and Ponsford (2024) reported that uncertainty and embarrassment hinder a lot of parent–child conversations about sex and relationships, which in turn “indicat[es] the need for schools to strengthen school-parent partnership in this area”. In other words, parents are generally on board with RSHE at school, but they may need guidance and encouragement to continue those conversations with their children after school. If a teenage boy learns in class about sexual consent or respecting women, will that lesson be echoed at home, or will it be a taboo subject? The answer may depend on whether the school has proactively helped parents understand the curriculum and empowered them to discuss it. As the researchers concluded, schools should “encourage parents to talk to their children at home in tandem with what is being taught in school”. That is, build a partnership so learning does not stop when the lesson ends.

Collaboration also builds trust. RSHE can touch on deeply personal values and cultural or religious beliefs. If schools unilaterally impose a curriculum without dialogue, some parents may grow suspicious or hostile. That reaction might be rooted in misunderstanding, but it can be very real. We saw this a few years ago in England when misinformation about sex education content fueled parent protests outside schools. By contrast, schools that take time to explain the RSHE content and its purpose can reduce misunderstandings and ease concerns. Parents who feel consulted and informed are more likely to be supportive.

Finally, broad community buy-in is essential if we want RSHE to achieve its goals. Making a subject statutory is one step, but effective implementation requires a culture shift in many schools. A 2024 qualitative study on the rollout of compulsory RSE found that simply mandating the subject wasn’t enough to guarantee a “step-change” in quality. Factors like teacher confidence, student engagement, and support from leadership all influenced how well RSE was delivered. In that mix, parent support (or opposition) can be a make-or-break factor. If a subset of vocal parents resists certain lessons, it can put pressure on teachers and school leaders, sometimes to the point of diluting or delaying important content. On the other hand, if parents are allies in the process, repeating and reinforcing the messages at home, RSHE is more likely to succeed. Supportive families strengthen the subject, especially on sensitive issues like sexual violence, pornography or LGBTQ+ inclusion. The main point here is that RSHE cannot deliver what it promises, like respect, empathy, and healthy relationships, without help from home.

From Token Involvement to True Partnership

If collaboration is so important, what does it actually look like? Often, schools equate “parental engagement” with a checklist of conventional activities: information evenings, newsletters, parent–teacher conferences, surveys about policy. These are all useful tools, but they don not automatically add up to meaningful partnership. Many times, they are one-way communications or perfunctory consultations. As I wrote in a recent post, “we host information evenings, send newsletters… but how often do these practices create genuine, two-way relationships with the families in our care?”. It’s easy to fall into a pattern of doing what has always been done, fulfilling the bare minimum requirements or satisfying accreditation checks, without genuinely involving parents or using their insights.

In the world of community planning, Sherry Arnstein’s famous “Ladder of Participation” is often used to gauge how involved people really are in decision-making. On Arnstein’s ladder, the bottom rungs are essentially non-participation (where authorities purely educate or ‘cure’ the public), the middle rungs are forms of tokenism (informing or consulting people, but with no guarantee their input will influence decisions), and the top rungs are degrees of citizen power (partnership, delegated power, and ultimately citizen control) where stakeholders truly share in decision-making. We can apply this thinking to parents’ role in school decisions. In many cases, schools operate in the lower-to-middle rungs: parents are informed of what will happen, maybe consulted for their opinions, but the decisions are still firmly made by the school. This can lead parents to feel that their involvement is superficial rather than meaningful. Research by education scholar Bonnie Stelmach examining parent committees in schools found that even formal school council structures often “did not dislodge time-honoured barriers” that limited parents’ actual influence on school matters. In Stelmach’s 2016 case studies, school councils were intended to engage parents in school improvement, yet their effect on building parents’ confidence or power in decision-making was negligible. Essentially, these parents had a seat at the table but little real say, which is an example of tokenism in action.

The challenge for schools is to move up the ladder towards genuine partnership. What might “partnership” entail in the context of RSHE? It doesn’t mean that parents take over and dictate curriculum (which isn’t allowed, nor advisable), but it does mean shared responsibility. Partnership is a two-way street: schools still lead on pedagogy and safeguarding duties, but they actively enable parents to contribute their perspectives, expertise, and cultural knowledge in shaping how RSHE is implemented locally. It’s about doing RSHE with parents, not to them. As one school leader wisely noted in response to a recent discussion I hosted, “Educational excellence thrives when leaders empower teachers while fostering meaningful parent partnerships.” We have to balance professional expertise with parental insights. If we fail to involve parents at all, we risk disenfranchising a key stakeholder. Research from Simon Varwell at SPARQS supports this idea, showing that when people feel excluded from educational decisions, it leads to withdrawal or pushback. Varwell reimagines Arnstein’s ladder for the education context and argues that real partnership avoids two extremes: either ignoring parents or facing protests from them. When parents feel genuinely involved, they become allies for positive change.

So how can schools put these principles into practice? Here are a few key elements of moving from token involvement to real collaboration:

Consult early, consult often: Do not wait until after new RSHE plans are drawn up to loop in parents. Involve parent representatives (from diverse backgrounds) when reviewing or drafting your RSE policy and curriculum outline. The law requires parental consultation on the policy. Use that as an opportunity for dialogue, not a tick-box letter home. Early input helps catch legitimate community sensitivities and build buy-in. It is much easier to address concerns before a curriculum roll-out than to deal with backlash after the fact.
Transparency and trust: Make transparency your default. Share not only what topics will be covered, but why they matter for students’ development. Whenever possible, show parents actual teaching materials or resources (in line with the new guidance’s expectation that parents can view all RSHE content). Being open builds trust. Parents are far less likely to imagine the worst (or be swayed by misinformation on social media) if they can see the real lessons and rationales. One practical idea is setting up a parent portal with RSHE curriculum information, or holding an open evening to walk parents through the learning materials. This kind of openness sends the message that the school has nothing to hide and values parents as partners in reinforcing lessons at home.
Listening to the quiet voices: In every school community, there will be a range of viewpoints, and it is often the case that a small number of outspoken parents dominate the conversation. Deliberately seek out those parents who are not already engaged, the ones who skip the meetings or stay silent. They may have unique perspectives or unvoiced reservations. As I often note, “real parent partnerships are not one-size-fits-all. Nuance, trust, listening to the voices that are quietest and co-creating opportunities where all families feel valued are signs of authentic partnerships”. This could mean running a survey in multiple languages, hosting focus groups for different cultural communities, or personally inviting some less-involved parents for a coffee chat about the RSHE plans. When parents see that the school genuinely cares about all families (not only the loudest PTA members), it builds a stronger foundation of respect. Inclusivity in parent outreach is as important as inclusivity in curriculum content. Do you part to ensure parents feel like they matter and like they belong to your community.
Co-create and customise: Co-creation goes a step beyond consultation, where parents and educators design solutions together. For example, if a school is updating how it teaches online safety or consent, it might form a working group including staff, governors, students and parents to contribute ideas or review materials. Parents can help ensure that the curriculum is culturally sensitive and relevant to the realities young people face in that community, specifically. A recent co-design project in England, which worked with young people and third-sector experts, found that an effective RSE programme must address the real “ecosystem” of young people’s lives, including challenging issues like peer pressure, online influences, and social norms that lead to shame or stigma. The project’s workshops yielded insights into making RSE safe, inclusive, and meaningful for all learners, with an emphasis on cultural sensitivity and giving voice to students. This kind of insight (whether from students or parents) can improve curriculum design dramatically. Why not invite parents to share what they perceive as the pressing relationship or health issues affecting local teens? One community might be more worried about vaping and mental health, another about early sexualisation or harassment. Co-creating the RSHE curriculum (within the bounds of the national framework) allows your school to be tuned to the needs of your community, increasing its effectiveness.
Common ground on values: It can be useful to centre discussions on shared values and goals. Virtually all parents, educators, and students can agree on some core aspirations. For instance, that we want our young people to treat others with respect, to be safe from abuse or exploitation, to grow up healthy, and to make informed choices. Emphasising these common values can unite stakeholders even when there are differing beliefs about certain topics. A school might articulate that respect, kindness, honesty, or inclusion are the guiding values of its RSHE programme (indeed the DfE notes characteristics like honesty, courage, kindness and respect as outcomes of good RSHE). If parents see that RSHE is ultimately about instilling values they support, rather than undermining them, they are more likely to actively support it. For example, a parent with religious reservations about sexual content might still agree that ending sexual harassment or teaching children to say no to abuse is necessary. Framing the curriculum in terms of protecting and empowering young people can build a coalition in its favour.
Clarify boundaries (with empathy): Even in a partnership model, there will be moments when schools have to say a polite but firm “no” to certain parental requests. For instance, a few parents might insist that learning about LGBTQ+ families or contraceptives is against their beliefs and should be skipped. But the school has an obligation to cover these as part of a complete RSHE and equality duties. In these cases, partnership means explaining the rationale, addressing concerns, and perhaps agreeing on how the topic will be approached (e.g. previewing the materials with those parents, or assuring discussion of diverse views), rather than simply dismissing the concern. It’s important for parents to know that consultation does not equal veto. As the DfE says, parents can see materials and voice opinions, but they cannot block content required by the curriculum. Schools, for their part, should demonstrate empathy and professionalism: why is this topic included? How will the teacher handle it sensitively? Often, resistance softens when parents feel respected and hear that content will be delivered in an age-appropriate, factual, and non-judgmental way. Even if a parent ultimately disagrees, they are more likely to tolerate the lesson if the process was handled openly and kindly.

Meeting Diverse Needs: A Community-by-Community Approach

No two school communities are exactly alike, and “co-creating RSHE” will naturally take different shapes in different contexts. The core statutory curriculum is nationwide, but beyond that, schools have flexibility to emphasise topics that matter locally. This is an opportunity to draw on parents’ local knowledge. For example, in an inner-city secondary school, parents might be most concerned about issues like sexual harassment on public transport, online pornography, or gang exploitation, so the RSHE programme might put extra focus on personal safety, respect and digital literacy. In some rural or small-town areas where access to services is limited and stigma remains, tackling teenage pregnancy may still be a parental priority. Mental health support where service access is limited may also result in higher prioritisation. A faith-based school community may seek assurance that RSHE will be taught in line with the school’s religious ethos (while still meeting the required content). In these situations, involving faith leaders or faith-minded parents in reviewing materials can help bridge potential gaps. Tensions often arise when parents feel that communication about these sensitive topics is lacking, leading to a perception that they are being deliberately excluded. The new guidance explicitly allows schools with a religious character to deliver the curriculum through their faith perspective as long as the content is fully covered and factual. Engaging parents in those communities is key to navigating the balance between faith values and curriculum requirements.

Another emerging need is addressing online misogyny and extremist narratives targeting youth, which the 2025 curriculum updates have singled out. If DfE data shows more than one third of adolescents have heard comments in school making them worry about girls’ safety, parents are likely worried too. Schools can collaborate with parents to reinforce messages countering these harmful narratives. For instance, a school could host a joint workshop for pupils and parents on recognising and rejecting misogynistic or racist content online. By educating parents on current online trends (like incel forums or toxic influencers), the school empowers families to continue the discussion at home. This is a form of co-learning: the school brings in expert information, and parents contribute their observations of what children are experiencing outside school. Such partnership activities signal to students that the adults in their life are united against hate and are all looking out for their wellbeing.

Importantly, co-creation does not mean tailoring RSHE to appease the most conservative voice in the room. It means finding a way to deliver the same essential knowledge and skills in a manner that resonates with your community. As an example, all schools must teach about LGBTQ+ individuals and families in an age-appropriate way as part of fostering respect and meeting Equality Act obligations. In one community, that might involve inviting an LGBTQ parent to speak about diverse families; in another, it might involve discussing how bullying affects someone perceived as different. The content remains consistent (all students learn that LGBTQ people exist and deserve respect), but the approach can be adapted with community input. Co-creation in this sense is about pedagogy and context, not compromising on core content. Indeed, the goal is to make the curriculum more effective by grounding it in real life and, to a degree, the school's context. When parents, students and staff collaborate, RSHE stops being a dry list of topics and becomes a living conversation relevant to students’ actual social world.

Towards Inclusive, Collaborative School Communities

Ultimately, working together on RSHE is a chance to model the very skills and values we want to impart to young people. If students see their teachers and parents communicating, listening to each other, and jointly guiding the learning process, it teaches them about cooperation, respect, and community. It shows that education is not something that happens in a silo, but is a shared endeavour rooted in trust and mutual support.

As the founder of &Parents, my mission is exactly this: to help create inclusive, collaborative, values-led school communities where relationships, including the parent–school relationship, are a source of strength. We believe that parent–school collaboration doesn’t have to be a struggle; it can be a strength. That means shifting the narrative from blame or “us vs. them” to one of partnership and common purpose. In practical terms, it means investing time and effort into engaging parents beyond the basics, and being willing to share a bit of power and listen deeply. It means supporting parents with knowledge and tools, the same way we support teachers with training, so that everyone is on the same learning journey for the sake of our young people.

The new RSHE guidance in July 2025 provides a timely impetus. With its focus on transparency, expert guidance on complex issues, and tackling the root causes of harms like misogyny, the stage is set for schools to refresh their approach to RSHE. By embracing co-creation and acknowledging what different communities need from RSHE, we can ensure these policies come off the paper and thrive in practice. Parents may not have a legal right to veto the curriculum, but when they are invited to contribute meaningfully, they are far more likely to support and sustain it.

In the end, the measure of success will be seen in our young people: Are they developing the resilience, respect, and healthy relationships we aspire to for them? We have the best chance of saying “yes” if we, as educators and parents, model those qualities in how we work together. Future school years, with the updated RSHE programme, is an opportunity to strengthen that home–school partnership. We should grab this opportunity with both hands and embrace it through cooperation, openness, and the willingness to move beyond what has always been done.

Sources:

Department for Education. Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education Guidance (July 2025).
Weale, S. “Secondary schools in England to tackle ‘incel’ culture and teach positive role models.” The Guardian, 14 July 2025.
Rudoe, N. & Ponsford, R. (2024). “Parental attitudes to school- and home-based RSHE: evidence from a cross-sectional study in England and Wales.” Sex Education, 24(6).
Ponsford, R. et al. (2024). “The implementation of compulsory RSE in English secondary schools: qualitative research in the 2022–23 school year.” Sex Education.
Stelmach, B. (2016). “Parents’ participation on school councils analysed through Arnstein’s ladder of participation.” School Leadership & Management, 36(3).
Setty, E. (2024). “Co-designing guidance for RSE to ‘transform school cultures’ with young people in England.” Pastoral Care in Education, 42(2).
Varwell, S. (2022). “Partnership in pandemic: Re-imagining Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation.” JEIPC, 8(1)journals.studentengagement.org.uk.
MacLean, E. (2025). LinkedIn post, “Are we genuinely connecting with parents or just ticking boxes?”.