Sex Education Models in Public Schools: Annotated Bibliography

Introduction to Sex Education Models

One of the most divisive topics in education is undoubtedly the debate over the degree to which sexual health education should be incorporated into public schools. The topic attracts a great deal of impassioned argument from perspectives at either end of the spectrum, ranging from advocacy for leaving sexual education entirely to the family domain to the inclusion of contraceptive instruction in order to promote healthy sexual behaviors.

While opposition to including sexual health education in the public school curriculum is not entirely faith-based, the resurgence of the religious right wing in the United States has resulted in much of the anti-sexual health education theory and rhetoric carrying overtly Christian overtones. Advocacy for the inclusion of sexual education does not rest on as cohesive a philosophical stance; arguments in its favor range from proposed medical benefits to the defense of students' First Amendment rights to access to a full range of educational topics.

Many scientific research studies have been conducted, financed by a number of different political and educational institutions, in order to more accurately assess the impact of various sexual education models upon students. Broadly defined, there are roughly four categories of sexual education models currently employed in American schools. The first is a model in which human sexuality is not discussed at all, or in which only marriage and relationship dynamics are discussed to the exclusion of human sexuality. The second type is the abstinence-only model, in which discussion of sexuality occurs only in the context of emphasizing that sex should not take place outside of heterosexual marriage. The third type emphasizes abstinence but includes some discussion of contraception options and STI statistics, though no material resources are offered and abstinence is heavily promoted as the ideal. The fourth broadly defined category offers comprehensive contraceptive information and often material resources, including condom access. In this model, abstinence is typically mentioned as one valid personal choice alongside safer sex practices, and a de-stigmatized approach is taken to inquiries and information regarding abortion, STI risk reduction, and homosexuality.

Each of these methodologies has been studied in the context of efficacy and sociocultural impact upon students' individual sexual health knowledge and health outcomes. One particular area of interest in sexual health research is whether comprehensive sexual health instruction increases or reduces rates of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy. This is also a frequent area of inquiry regarding abstinence-only education, which has been challenged as unrealistic by many social science researchers (Mabray and Labauvre 2002). From a scientific and human rights perspective, a substantial body of research advocates the greater success of comprehensive sexual health education over abstinence-only education in reducing rates of teen and premarital pregnancy as well as sexually transmitted infections.

The utility and efficacy of sexual education programs that employ pedagogy beyond abstinence-only instruction in lowering pregnancy rates among sexually active students has been an area of research undertaken by many social scientists. One recent meta-study examines the differential outcomes of abstinence-only, abstinence-promoting, and multidimensional sexual education models. The authors conclude that in a population that is already sexually active, comprehensive approaches to human sexuality education are more appropriate and effective in reducing pregnancy rates (Mabray and Labauvre 2002). The authors advance a "multidimensional" model that could be employed to address teens regardless of sexual activity status or personal and cultural sexual beliefs:

Interrogating Philosophical Tensions

"The proposed model, a multidimensional approach to adolescent sexual education, is not only appropriate for abstinent teens, but it also addresses those who are or have been sexually active. As opposed to the current abstinent-only approaches that focus on the pre-teen, this proposed model addresses 12–16-year-olds. This approach involves, among other things, the education of teens and parents, addresses physical and emotional needs and goal setting, and institutes a community service element (Mabray and Labauvre 2002: 1)."

Beyond delineating types of sexual education offered in public schools, some research has been conducted to interrogate and define trends in attitudes toward sexual health education and to assess the impact of these philosophies upon cultural attitudes toward sexual education research. A paper published in the Journal of Moral Education in 1995 examined the underlying philosophical perspectives framing the creation and dissemination of five distinct attitudes toward sexual health education availability in public schools. The five categories of sex education rhetoric were identified as: "school sex education should not occur; school sex education should promote physical health; school sex education should promote personal autonomy; school sex education should promote responsible sexual behaviour; school sex education should take place within a religious framework (Reiss 1995: 1)." The paper's concluding argument is that teachers best serve students by adopting "a position which combines elements of affirmative and procedural neutrality (Reiss 1995: 1)." This paper was notable in attempting to bridge the polar ends of the philosophical spectrum by publishing an apologia of sexual health education in a morality- and religion-based educational journal (Reiss 1995).

Another paper also attempted to cross this philosophical divide within the context of British sexual health education. This paper exposes some of the unique cultural challenges of British sexual health education while offering general arguments for interrogating the insight into culture that sexual health education provides to social scientists and cultural critics. The author critically appraised sexual health education in the United Kingdom and the way in which the government's role in directing its formation and implementation has affected its efficacy and betrayed underlying philosophical inconsistencies. The public school system in that context does not allow for any discussion of spirituality pertaining to human or personal sexual development. The author takes a Christian perspective in analyzing the potentially beneficial effects of incorporating some element of spiritual and religious teaching into sexual health curriculum (Thatcher 2001).

A 2008 article from Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning examines the role of sexual education in the formation of sexual ideals in adolescents — ideals that endure over the course of a lifetime. The authors argue that sexual education can be an important and powerful psychosocial force in establishing healthy sexual ideals that frame behavior and attitudes toward sexuality throughout life. The paper defines sexual ideals within the context of sexual education as the concept of best practices and favorable conditions for the healthy and safe expression of sexuality. The authors argue for the importance of incorporating sex education into the public school curriculum on the philosophical basis that:

Psychosocial Importance of Sexual Education

"The main aim of schools is to assist students to become educated persons and well-functioning citizens of a liberal democracy. This means that, inter alia, schools have a duty to provide sex education, because this is part of the prudent and moral baggage that students need. They need to know the dos and don'ts and not only know but also feel committed to the moral principles concerning sexual behaviour, which should minimally be the principle of mutual consent to having sex (de Ruyter and Spiecker 2008)."

The authors of a 2007 paper published in the American Journal of Sexuality Education examine the psychosocial implications of abstinence-only sexual health education upon students' conceptions of selfhood in civic contexts. Specifically, the rhetoric of abstinence-centric pedagogy is interrogated to reveal the message sent to students about "responsible citizenship." This form of sexual health education emphasizes the importance of heteronormativity to full participation in social and civic life. Those falling outside this norm risk being othered and ostracized, as the educational paradigm privileges and reinforces the power of those conforming to perceived sexual mores: "While all sexuality education offers students lessons in 'good sexual citizenship,' abstinence-only-until-marriage education reserves the rights and responsibilities of membership and belonging for those who are willing or able to conform to expectations of heterosexual marriage and excludes those whose sexual lives are routinely cast as suspect and excessive by the prevailing rhetoric (Fields and Hirschman 2007)." The paper offers a form of cultural critique of American sexuality as implied through the sexual educational standards of the most politically restrictive sexual health system, in a manner theorized by Thatcher.

Through a critical feminist lens, Lenskyj examines Canadian sex education in order to challenge the conservative political forces opposing progressive, comprehensive sexual health education. The article posits that there are two major contributing forces in the development of adolescent female sexuality: "male sexual violence and compulsory heterosexuality (Lenskyj 1990: 1)." The author argues that a curriculum and pedagogy lacking an explicitly anti-sexist and non-heteronormative orientation harms the development of female sexuality and undermines women's social status:

"The problems resulting from unprotected heterosexual intercourse — pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases — have a central place in most existing sex education programs, evidence of the generally reactive rather than proactive approach. Yet even in teaching the mechanics of contraception, a program that fails to recognize power relations between the sexes is unlikely to succeed. In many adolescent sub-cultures, as elsewhere in society, a double standard exists; it is the women who are expected to take sole responsibility for birth control, and yet if they take oral contraceptives or have an intra-uterine device (IUD) they are seen as 'sluts' because it appears that they are expecting to have sex… (Lenskyj 1990: 221)."

The political objectives of sex education must be reconsidered, according to this author, in order to create lasting change in the harmful sexual attitudes affecting the status of women in Canadian society. Lenskyj summarizes her pedagogical recommendations for a feminist revision of the Canadian sexual education curriculum:

"The curriculum would take into account the social context in which males as a group have power and privilege, and females do not; therefore it would be woman-centered, rather than gender-neutral. It would recognize that girls and women are affected in distinct and significant ways by such issues as contraception, pregnancy, abortion, homophobia, and male sexual violence in all its forms (Lenskyj 1990: 228)."

Conclusion

The argument supporting the standardization of comprehensive sexual education in American schools has been made from a variety of salient perspectives, including the psychosocial, the preservation of human rights, public health, and evidence-based health outcomes. The cultural stigma in the United States surrounding the discussion of human sexuality — especially regarding controversial political issues such as contraception, abortion, abstinence, and homosexuality — has been a significant barrier in the effort to provide students with comprehensive sexual education. There is hope, however, that an increasing body of scholarly and scientific research identifying multiple positive personal and social benefits of comprehensive sexual health education will incentivize progress, leading to broader sexual health education access for American public school students.