When politics outshine pedagogy – The struggle to prioritize the improvement of
comprehensive sexuality education
Beatrice Koehler-Derrick
Brooklyn College – CUNY
May 6th, 2010
Advisor – Dr. Christian Grov
SCP 85 – Jillian Cavanaugh
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
Imagine that you receive a call from the principal of your son‘s elementary school
reporting that your child was caught kissing a girl in the library. How would you react? Suppose,
instead, that as a high school teacher, you hear a rumor that two of your brightest freshmen
students were caught having sex in a bathroom stall. For most people, examples like these strike
a nerve that seems to tell us that, we, as adults, know how to deal with attraction, and children do
not. We are repulsed—we cringe—at stories or scenes in popular media that remind us of a time
when we, too, were fumbling our way towards an understanding of our sexuality.
The emergence of sexuality education came about, in part, to address our shared
understanding that sexual exploration and experimentation during adolescence is inevitable for
almost everyone. In the late 1980s, the perceived need for sexuality education increased across
the US as the spread of HIV began to alarm policy makers (Guttmacher Institute, 2010). Today,
almost all schools offer some form of sexuality education (ibid).
However, the sexuality education programs offered in the US are clearly failing our
students. American teenagers are much more likely than their peers in other industrialized
countries to become pregnant before the age of 18 (Darroch et al, 2001a), experience a sexually
transmitted infection (Panchaud et al., 2000; Weinstock et al., 2004; Darroch et al., 2001b), and
contract HIV (UNAIDS/WHO, 2009), problems I argue, that could be ameliorated if we
prioritized the quality instruction of comprehensive sexuality education (CSE). Comprehensive
sexuality education, just one type of curricula among many implemented here in the US, has
been shown to accomplish what it is designed to offer students: a delayed onset of sexual
activity, increased contraception use, fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer cases of sexually
transmitted infection (SIECUS, 2007). In fact, research has shown that students in the US who
are taught CSE become sexually active later in life, have fewer sexual partners, and have sex less
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
frequently than peers who receive other types of sexuality education (Dodge et al., 2008;
Bleakley, Hennessy, & Fishbein, 2006).
To ensure these goals are met by the instruction of CSE, I propose a three fold approach.
First, we need to prioritize the teaching of CSE in public schools. This includes convincing
state/local elected politicians and school board officials that more classroom time must be
allotted for CSE instruction and teachers need to be able to receive continued training and
support. A stringent review process examining student retention of CSE's most important—
indeed, life-saving—lessons is also an important element to prioritizing CSE in public schools.
Secondly, we must illuminate how extremely difficult it is for future educators interested
in teaching CSE to get the specialized training and preparation they need. While nine universities
in the US offer graduate degrees focused on human sexuality within other disciplines
(psychology, public health, counseling, research, etc), only one undergraduate program in
Montreal and one doctoral program in rural Pennsylvania offer degrees specializing in sexuality
education (AASCT, 2004). We cannot act soon enough to fill this incredible gap in education
programs across the country.
Lastly, if we are indeed invested in fixing our country's status as most sexually unhealthy
among economically developed countries, we must no longer accept the dearth of pedagogical
research exploring how best to teach CSE. What teaching methods improve retention of CSE
material? What can CSE teachers do to increase student participation and discussion? What
techniques might limit immature outbursts in the classroom or alleviate student (and teacher)
discomfort? Addressing these pedagogical inquiries relating to sexuality education has long been
overshadowed by research on the sexual health benefits students receive from CSE's inclusive
course content as compared to abstinence-only programs, a type of curricula that teaches
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
abstinence as the only option for unmarried individuals and does not discuss contraception at all
unless emphasizing contraceptive methods‘ potential for failure (SIECUS, 2007). I argue now
that we have sufficient evidence that CSE is one of the best approaches to sexuality education,
what are we doing to improve it?
By studying the (neglected) role of CSE in public schools, teacher training programs in
colleges, and academic journals we can begin to see what action is necessary if we are dedicated
to improving the sexual health of our population, starting with our young people. Improving the
quality of comprehensive sexuality education is a goal that has been lost in the politics of how
school courses are organized and prioritized, what universities offer future teachers in the way of
specialization, and where pedagogical research has stagnated. These areas of neglect come at
great cost to the sexual health of successive generations, including the one seated in classrooms
today. Renewed interest in evaluating and ensuring the quality of CSE is not just called for; it is
desperately needed.
Why should we care about sexuality education, at all?
Before defining and giving background on CSE, before exploring what needs to happen
to prioritize its implementation, we must understand why we need a change. Do Americans really
differ that much from Canadians, Europeans or the Japanese in terms of sexual health? Yes, we
do. The United States leads the world‘s economically developed countries in incidence of
HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted infection (STI), and teenage pregnancy as the following section
will discuss in detail. We have much work ahead of us to improve the sexual health of all
Americans.
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
How do we compare with other economically developed countries in rates of sexually
transmitted infection? In a study published in 2000 that compared 14 countries from North
America and Europe on STI incidence (number of occurrences diagnosed per 100,000 people),
American adolescents aged 15-19 in the US ranked first or almost first for high rates of syphilis,
gonorrhea, and Chlamydia (Panchaud et al., 2000; Weinstock et al., 2004; Darroch et al., 2001b).
These sexually transmitted infections are not just life-altering and if untreated, life-threatening;
they are also expensive. The US government spends at least $15.9 billion dollars annually on
direct medical costs associated with STI (Chesson et al., 2004). Although American 15–24 yearolds only make up one-quarter of the sexually active population, they account for nearly half of
all new STIs each year (Weinstock et al., 2004). To comprehend where this money is going, as
well as to give context to the cross-country STI rate comparisons mentioned in the study above,
let‘s take a moment to focus on Chlamydia in the United States.
Chlamydia is a bacterial infection, easily treatable with antibiotics and close to 100%
preventable by using condoms consistently and correctly (The Center for Disease Control and
Prevention [CDC], 2007). Chlamydia is one of the most common STIs because it often produces
very mild to no symptoms. However, left untreated, Chlamydia can lead to infertility in women
and sterility in men (ibid). Cross-country comparisons of Chlamydia incidence were gathered
from published and unpublished governmental documents, scientific journal articles and other
medical data to carefully adjust for underreporting. While the United Kingdom experienced an
estimated 1996 rate of 232 per 100,000 adolescents aged 15-20 diagnosed with Chlamydia, the
incidence rate for the same year in the US was 1,131 per 100,000 (Panchaud et al., 2000). This
means that American teenagers were five times more likely to become infected with Chlamydia
than their English peers and, just across the English Channel, 20 times more likely to be
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
diagnosed with Chlamydia than French teenagers of the same age range (ibid). If we truly care
about our young people, these disparities in sexually transmitted infection should outrage and
motivate us to prioritize CSE in public schools.
Living in a country whose population has more STI cases than almost any other
economically developed nation is additionally problematic because populations with untreated
STIs are more susceptible to contracting HIV (CDC, 2008). While STI rates alone cannot fully
explain the prevalence of HIV and AIDS in the United States, it is clear from cross-country
analysis that CSE educators have an uphill battle before them. Data collected by the
UNAIDS/WHO Working Group on Global HIV/AIDS and STI Surveillance revealed that in
2007 the percent of adults (aged 15-49) living with HIV in the G-8 countries were as follows:
Percent of Adults (aged 15-49)
G-8 Country
Living with HIV in 2007
Russian Federation
1.1%
US
0.6 %
France
0.4%
Canada
0.4%
Italy
0.4%
United Kingdom
0.2%
Germany
0.1%
Japan
Unavailable
(Table compiled from UNAIDS/WHO reports, by country, 2009)
Having the second-highest percentage rate (which, at first glance may seem small to the
undiscerning eye yet constitutes more than 1,100,000 people) among G-8 countries should serve
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
as an acute reminder that we have far to go before we can declare the so-called War on AIDS
won within our national borders. At last count, most states require schools to cover basic
information about HIV (Guttmacher Institute, 2010) but anecdotal evidence suggests these
lessons are given in five minute spurts prior to regular classroom instruction. Prioritizing CSE
and ensuring it is well-taught would integrate HIV awareness into a broader discussion of
sexuality; infinitely preferable to having an Algebra teacher nervously state, ―You can't catch
HIV by giving a hug to someone who is HIV positive‖ before beginning his/her lesson for the
day.
Like STI incidence, data comparing teenage pregnancy rates across economically
developed countries do not shed positive light on the US, either. In a 2001 study, 22% percent of
American women reported having had a child before age 20, while only 15% of women in the
UK, 11% of women in Canada, 6% of women in France, and 4% of women in Sweden reported
the same experience (Darroch et al, 2001a). So why should having the most adolescent
pregnancies disturb us? For one, babies born to mothers in their teens are significantly more at
risk to be born underweight, to be born preterm and/or to experience respiratory distress
syndrome among other complications (Wilson et al., 1994). Teenage pregnancies also have their
socioeconomic implications. Adolescent mothers are more likely to leave high school before
graduating and to have less earning potential than women who wait until they are older to have
children (ibid).
Perhaps one of the strongest reasons we should be concerned with the US‘s high
rates of teenage pregnancy—and whether or not sexuality education programs are doing
enough to help lower these numbers—is because a vast majority of them are unintended
or unplanned. A 2006 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that 100% of the 29,000
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
pregnancies experienced that year by girls younger than 15 years old were unintended; 82% of
the 811,000 pregnancies experienced by 15-19 year olds were also unintended (Finer &
Henshaw, 2006). Leading the developed world in rates of teenage pregnancy (or STIs, or
HIV/AIDS) is not a position we should aspire to keep.
Unpacking the difference between CSE and other sexuality education approaches: Which
will solve our sexual health problems?
Backgrounds, Definitions and Conditions
Now that we know what challenges lie ahead of us—why we should care about
implementing a type of sexuality education that works—I will give the Sexuality Information
and Education Council of the United States‘ [SIECUS] definition of comprehensive sexuality
education which is comparable to what is offered, and working, in Europe. This definition of
CSE counters many of the myths that abound about CSE in the US. I will also compare and
contrast SIECUS‘ definition of CSE with a program many people consider to be its polar
opposite: abstinence-only-until-marriage. After reviewing the evidence for yourself, I hope you
will be convinced that SIECUS‘ definition of CSE is what our young people need to receive if
we are going to change our status as first for sexual unhealthy industrialized nations.
This section will also help to untangle the complicated chain of political command that
decides what children will learn in sexuality education courses in different states and different
school districts. Why does controversy remain intertwined with sexuality education instruction?
Is it possible to isolate the ―silver bullet‖ of sexuality education curricula, able to solve our high
rates of teenage pregnancy, STI, and HIV? All of these topics are important to comprehend
before discussing how and why CSE‘s role needs to improve in public schools, schools of
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
education, and academic journals.
Recently, Fox News ran a story whose headline read: "Group Argues for Extensive Sex
Ed for Kids as Young as 10." A news anchor interviewed Michelle Turner, president of a group
called Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, who, with furrowed brow, insisted children at age
10 should be learning the "proper names of certain parts of their bodies, certainly not about
masturbation" (MacCallum, 2010). "They want to teach these young kids that masturbation is
pleasurable,‖ said Turner. ―If they could read better, maybe they'd be better able to read the
instructions on a condom box and not need a teacher to teach them how to use one," she
concluded while her host giggled into the commercial break.
Clips like this one communicate a strong image that CSE has had to contend with:
sexuality educators who push for a more comprehensive approach are seen as shoving sexually
explicit or inappropriate information into the minds of innocent children. In spite of this
commonly held misconception, few understand that making sexuality education comprehensive
means covering abstinence, contraception, and a host of other material related to sexuality. CSE
curricula are designed to achieve four main goals:
―To provide accurate information about human sexuality
To provide an opportunity for young people to develop and understand their
values, attitudes, and insights about sexuality
To help young people develop relationships and interpersonal skills, and
To help young people exercise responsibility regarding sexual relationships,
which includes addressing abstinence, pressures to become prematurely
involved in sexual intercourse, and the use of contraception and other sexual
health measures‖
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
(SIECUS, 2007; bullet points in original).
As you can see, CSE's goals do not solely align themselves to address the problems that arise
from hasty or irresponsible sexual behavior. Instead of just teaching about unsafe sex and how to
avoid it, CSE focuses on the more wide-reaching topic of sexuality, which includes but is not
limited to the following themes: how we derive pleasure, emotional intimacy between humans,
body image, rape/incest and sexual harassment, sexual health and reproduction, sex in the media,
and sexual identity (Schroeder, 2009). This wide range of topics is even wider if you consider
that CSE, as defined by SIECUS, starts in Kindergarten and continues until 12th grade, using ageappropriate lessons to convey important messages about sexuality. Dr. Mary Calderone, founder
of SIECUS, may have put it best when she stated, ―sex is what you do; sexuality is who you are‖
(ibid). For this exact reason, the abbreviation "sex education" is intentionally avoided in this
paper and ―sexuality education‖ is used in its place.
In her FOX interview, Michelle Turner argues that children‘s sexuality educations would
be better left in the hands of individual parents. What she may not realize, however, is that
parents are inevitably a part of children‘s sexuality educations from a very young age. We begin
learning about sexuality while watching adults embrace or kiss or by noticing that mothers have
breasts but sisters may not. In grade school, we learn that boys are "supposed" to like girls and
vice versa and that those who do not act in accordance with the behaviors deemed appropriate for
separate genders are teased and bullied. In middle and high school, we are surrounded by talk of
sex and sexiness; those of us coming of age in the internet-age encounter sex and sexuality in
Facebook photo albums, ―tweets‖ and blogs, as well as in television shows and movies. In short,
our understanding of sexuality is constantly evolving, with or without parental guidance or
instruction. In best practice, CSE would be a natural extension of what we have learned about
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
sexuality as individuals, creating a safe classroom atmosphere where the wide reaching themes
of sexuality could be discussed as they pertain to family, community, cultural, religious, legal,
and political value systems (Schroeder, 2009).
In fact, SIECUS envisions CSE to "complement and augment the sexuality education
children receive from their families, religious and community groups, and health care
professionals [...] respect[ing] the diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community"
(Schroeder, 2009). Perhaps more effort would be put into improving and ensuring the quality of
CSE if this aspect of its definition was advertised and understood more widely. Instead, CSE
continues to be misinterpreted and wrongfully suspected of pushing children towards sexual
activity and away from abstinence and parental values. In fact, CSE has been shown across
numerous studies not to accelerate the onset of sexual activity but instead to postpone it (Dodge
et al., 2008; Bleakley, Hennessy, & Fishbein, 2006). Other research studies suggesting positive
outcomes of CSE instruction will follow our discussion of what constitutes as abstinence-onlyuntil-marriage programs.
Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs became popular thanks to congressional
support in the mid 1990s (Hauser, 2004). In 1996, Congress passed into law Section 510(b) of
Title V of the Social Security Act, which set aside $250 million dollars over five years for state
initiatives to promote abstinence until marriage as the only acceptable standard of behavior for
young people (104th Congress, 1996; Hauser, 2004). Remarkably, every state but California
participated in the program for the first five years of its implementation (Hauser, 2004). In order
to qualify for Title V federal funding, Congress stipulated that abstinence programs should
satisfy the following eight statutory requirements:
―1. [Abstinence programs should have] as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and
health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
2. [Abstinence programs should teach] abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected
standard for all school age children
3. [Abstinence programs should teach] that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid
out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
4. [Abstinence programs should teach] that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of
marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
5. [Abstinence programs should teach] that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to
have harmful psychological and physical effects;
6. [Abstinence programs should teach] that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful
consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;
7. [Abstinence programs should teach] young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and
drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
8. [Abstinence programs should teach] the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in
sexual activity.‖ (104th Congress, 1996)
Proponents of this type of program feel that providing students with information about the health
benefits of condoms or contraception would be the same as giving students a ―pass‖ to have
premarital sex (Hauser, 2004). In other words—as its name would suggest—abstinence is
presented as the only option before marriage; no information about contraception should be
given unless stressing the potential for these methods to fail (Hauser, 2004; SIECUS, 2007;
Boonstra, 2010).
What support is there that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs work to address
teenage pregnancy, STIs and HIV infection? A substantial body of research has shown that
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs do not delay the onset of sexual activity or ensure that
contraceptives are used when teens do begin to have sex (Boonstra, 2010). One particularly
strong study, mandated and funded $8 million by Congress, spent six years following a group of
2,000 teens from four states who were enrolled in federally funded abstinence-only-until-
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
marriage programs (Trenholm et al., 2007). These four states were considered by state officials
and abstinence education experts to be especially promising (Boonstra, 2010; Trenholm et al.,
2007). However, the results showed that these four ―promising‖ abstinence-only programs were
having zero effect on student behavior: individuals who received abstinence-only instruction
were no more likely than a control group to abstain from sexual activity, no more or less likely to
use contraception when having sex for the first time, and no more or less likely to become
pregnant or catch a STI (Trenholm et al., 2007).
However, abstinence has been shown to work at impacting sexual health problems when
taught without a moralistic and religious tone (Boonstra, 2010), which is prevalent throughout
Congress‘ eight requirements for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, as exemplified
above. A study published in early 2010 found that a ―theory-based‖ abstinence program
intervention aimed at very young, African-American adolescents did successfully delay sexual
initiation among participants in the program (Boonstra, 2010; Jemmott et al., 2010). However,
the authors of this study took great pains to point out that the abstinence program they adopted
for this study was ―a far cry from and would not have met the restrictive federal criteria for
programs that […] were eligible for federal [Title V] abstinence-only-until-marriage funding‖
(Boonstra, 2010, p. 5). The abstinence program in this study did not promote abstinence until
marriage, but instead encouraged students to wait until they were older and could handle the
consequences of sex (ibid). Also, according to the study‘s authors, ―‗the intervention did not
contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The
training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy
of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected‘‖ (Jemmott et al.,
2010 as quoted in Boonstra, 2010). I find it particularly valuable—and strengthening for my
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
argument—that it was necessary to make a large shift in the pedagogical approach to abstinencestressing programs before the outcomes sought after were achieved. Imagine what positive
outcomes could result from making the same pedagogical improvements to CSE across this
country.
Another recent research finding highlighting the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only
programs began by matching hundreds of young adults by using more than 100 different factors
including religion and attitudes about sex (Rosenbaum, 2009). After matching these young
people, researcher Janet Rosenbaum looked to see if participants who had reported signing a
virginity pledge in 1996 (as was and still is popular in abstinence-only-until-marriage
programming) behaved differently in sexual practice, contraception use, and STI status from
matched participants who did not pledge. Pledgers and non-pledgers did not differ in the number
of STIs or lifetime sexual partners—premarital or otherwise—nor did they start having sex at
different ages, or engage in more or less anal and oral sex (Rosenbaum, 2009). Of greater
concern was the fact that pledgers were less likely than non-pledgers to report having used birth
control or contraception in the past year or at the time of last sexual intercourse (ibid). Other
studies have shown that sexually inexperienced students who receive CSE are significantly more
likely than sexually inexperienced students taught abstinence-only-until-marriage to use
protection when they begin having sex (Boonstra, 2010).
—<< <>
>>—
Think back to the FOX News interview discussed earlier featuring Michelle Turner,
president of a group convinced they must fight to keep CSE from teaching kids to masturbate
(which hopefully you will realize now, if you hadn‘t already, is no one‘s intention). Many
Americans make the mistake of oversimplifying the debate over sexuality education as boiling
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
down to two simplified options: either you think parents should be in charge of deciding how
their children learn about sex or you think schools should decide what is learned in sexuality
education classes. According to Turner, parents must decide if they will sit back while their
children learn how to use condoms, or if instead, they will stand unified and reclaim their right to
teach their own children about sex, demanding teachers teach students how to read, not how to
put a condom correctly on a banana. What Turner neglects to realize is that schools' sexuality
education programs do not and cannot delegate all the power to so-called perverted teachers or
to so-called protective parents.
Instead, what is taught in sexuality education classes is decided upon by multiple players
in many different arenas: the President and his administration decide which types of sexuality
education programs will receive federal funding and stipulate what criteria will make programs
eligible or ineligible for said funding (SIECUS, 2007). Elected officials at the State level decide
whether or not to take federal funding and create laws of their own which influence sexuality
education's course content (ibid). School board members and district superintendents—interested
in appeasing the wishes (and votes) of parents—can sway school administrators and sexuality
education teachers one direction or the other in regards to emphasizing or leaving our topics in
sexuality education curricula. Lastly, sexuality education teachers play an invaluable role in
selecting which material is taught and influencing student's experience with the material by
deciding how to teach it.
Understanding this complex network of curricula can be difficult. To make this matrix of
decision-making easier to understand, let's take a closer look at how sexuality education
curricula are influenced in New York City, the nation's largest public school system. President
Obama and his administration have already influenced what New York students will experience
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
in their sexuality education classes this year. The recently revealed 2010 fiscal budget stated that
it would eliminate funding for "community-based" abstinence-only programs—which thrived
with Title V‘s inception and later with $131 million in support from the Bush administration
(USA TODAY, 2004)—and instead will grant $50 million to "evidence-based" teen-pregnancy
prevention programs, which will adopt a more comprehensive approach (Whitehouse.gov, 2010).
The Obama administration will consider a program or curriculum ―evidence-based‖ if it has been
"proven effective through rigorous evaluation to reduce teenage pregnancy, behavioral risk
factors underlying teenage pregnancy, or other associated risk factors" (Boonstra, 2010).
On a state level, New York will benefit from Obama's shift in federal support for
evidence-based programs because they already require abstinence, contraception, and ageappropriate HIV information to be taught to students. These requirements are state-mandated so
therefore a public school that may not want to discuss HIV/AIDS has no choice but to cover it
(SIECUS, 2007). On a school level, teachers, administrators and principals may work together
(without breaking any rules set forth by NYC's Department of Education or by the State) to
address sexual health in their own unique way. For example, during the 2008-2009 school year,
Baruch College Campus High School seniors formed a "sex ed crew" that, after receiving
training, used advisory period every morning to provide supplementary sexuality education to
freshmen who would attend sexuality education class every afternoon (Baruch, 2009).
Additionally, concerned parents and other advocates for youth in New York may become a
collective voice supporting or opposing any of the decisions outlined above. Indeed, sexuality
education curricula are extremely flexible if the right pressure is applied in the right place. With
unified support, improving and prioritizing CSE is very possible.
As shown above, influences vary tremendously from one school district to another. Most
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
sexuality education programs in the US fall somewhere along a continuum that stretches from
CSE, as SIECUS defines it, to abstinence-only-until-marriage, as Congress‘ 1996 statutory
requirements defines it (SIECUS, 2007). A school district in San Francisco, for example, could
state that it teaches CSE while, in reality, students only receive two or three weeks of sexuality
education and teachers are asked not to discuss homosexuality during lessons on contraception.
Midway across the country, a school principal in Detroit could decide that, although her home
State enforces abstinence-only-until-marriage, her students will discuss the benefits of getting
tested for STIs. This considerable variability in sexuality education‘s content should curb the
vitriol between CSE and abstinence-only-until-marriage proponents, but, instead, the shouting
matches continue as if a chasm separated all schools into either abstinence-preaching, gaybashing, need-a-reality-check institutions or condom-dispensing, abortion-pushing,
masturbation-encouraging love fests. The sexuality education experiences in this country are in
fact much more diverse.
The variability of sexuality education courses can be confusing for proponents of CSE
who, as I have done, quote studies supporting the effectiveness of CSE yet acknowledge that
different researchers use definitions of CSE which may not match SIECUS‘s definition of CSE
(i.e. starting in Kindergarten and continuing through 12th grade, using age appropriate lessons to
discuss everything from abstinence to homosexuality, rape to abortion, and relationship
communication skills to personal hygiene) (SIECUS, 2007). For example, some researchers
consider a program to qualify as ―comprehensive sexuality education‖ if high school students are
merely taught contraception in addition to abstinence (ibid). If this is the minimum standard for a
program to qualify as CSE in some research studies—and still students who receive these basic
contraception-plus-abstinence curriculums are behaving more sexually responsible than their
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
peers who receive other less inclusive curricula like abstinence-only-until-marriage—we can be
reasonably sure that much progress in adolescent sexual health would be possible if schools
adopted CSE as SIECUS defines it; programs which reach a wide audience of students and
provide an even wider array of lessons relating to sexuality.
Next, I will discuss the implementation of CSE needs to be reconsidered and prioritized. I
will examine how the variability of CSE programs in the US has made it extremely difficult to
understand how different course curricula interact with factors like classroom time allotment and
teacher support to cumulate in positive sexual health outcomes. Which aspects of CSE
instruction need to be standardized if we are to see much needed improvements in adolescent
reproductive health? What aspects of CSE should become commonplace from one side of the
country to the other? What elements of CSE might parents and students alike come to expect
public schools to offer? The answers to these and other questions combine to show us what needs
to be done to prioritize CSE in public schools, the first of three proposed methods of action to
improve the quality of CSE in the US.
Reading, Writing, and Comprehensive Sexuality Education – Understanding how
prioritizing and standardizing CSE in public schools would help improve it
Part of the recent dialog on education reform in the United States has been focused on
how students in the United States are lagging behind in math and science comprehension
compared to other industrialized nations. In a 2009 comparison of academic performance
between Group of Eight (G-8) countries—including the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom—fourth graders in the US ranked fourth
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
in average mathematics proficiency scores (behind Japan, the Russian Federation, and England)
and seventh in average science proficiency scores (behind every G-8 country except Scotland)
(Miller et al., 2009). The fear that seems to be driving the call for an improvement in the quality
of math and science teaching practices is that if we do not act now—if we do not encourage
schools to build science annexes or convert classrooms to chemistry labs or teach students to
embrace mathematics—we will fall behind while the rest of the world operates better business,
engineers more innovative technologies, and makes lucrative breakthroughs in areas like cancerresearch.
As President Obama encourages us to aggressively reform education in order ―catch up‖
on math and science proficiency (Parsons, 2010), we should wonder why a similar call to reform
the way CSE is taught is missing from our national agenda. There are many reasons why this is
so. Legislation has long battled over whether sexuality education should be a familial or
governmental responsibility (Kempner, 2003) even though, as the data cited earlier shows, the
US rates of teenage pregnancy, STIs and HIV/AIDS have a whole lot of ―catching up‖ to do with
the low rates of many of our international neighbors. As shown earlier, presidential
administrations have been willing to financially support different types of curricula; the Bush
administration made lucrative contributions to the abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula (USA
TODAY, 2004) and the Obama administration is now financially supporting ―evidence-based‖
programs to combat high rates of teenage pregnancy (Whitehouse.gov, 2010). However, former
President Bush and President Obama was/are not willing to federally mandate sexuality
education for all public school students as leaders in France, England and other European
countries have had no reservations about doing (International Planned Parenthood Foundation
[IPPF], 2006). Given how dire our sexual health situation is in the US, especially among young
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
people, we should question the US federal government‘s decision to intentionally avoid
declaring sexual health a governmental (read: public school) responsibility, subject to regulation
and standardization.
Comprehensive sexuality education has been shown to be a critical intervention in
lowering STIs and numbers of teenage pregnancy in countries like France, England, Sweden, the
Netherlands, and Denmark (Walters & Hayes, 2007), but it is important to note that laws in these
countries stipulate that CSE instruction should begin in grade school and continue to the end of
high school for all students (IPPF, 2004). These countries also have passed laws which outline an
extensive list of topics CSE must cover as well as a list of requirements for those hired to teach it
(ibid). Constrastingly, no bills in the United States have been passed at a federal level which seek
to regulate what grade levels American public school students receive sexuality education, what
minimum level of training should be a prerequisite for sexuality education teachers, or how
much classroom time should be allotted during the week and throughout the school year for
sexuality education instruction. If our federal government passed legislation supporting SIECUS‘
(and Europe‘s) vision for CSE programs, we would see a very rapid improvement in US sexual
health. However, we cannot passively wait for this day to come.
Instead, organized pressure can and should be applied to state and local governments,
school boards, and individual principals and teachers who collectively have the power to
implement SIECUS‘ vision for CSE and make sure it is prioritized and emphasized one
classroom, one school, one district/county and one state at a time. This section will explore the
little that we do know about the status of sexuality education in this country, almost all of which
tells us that CSE is not prioritized or standardized in public schools. How might teaching
methods and behavioral outcomes improve if CSE teachers constantly recieved the message that
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
administrators, parents, and students value and prioritize their work? A nationwide shift towards
prioritizing CSE in public schools is badly needed as we attempt to improve our collective sexual
health.
Before going into an in-depth discussion of various aspects of CSE‘s role in schools, it
might help to first categorize these aspects. The following ―Five Ws + one H‖ are what I propose
be asked of any school (or a sample of schools, collectively, since no extensive research has been
conducted in this area) to get a more accurate picture of how sexuality education (comprehensive
or otherwise) is being implemented and experienced:
Who teaches sexuality education? What training did they recieve to qualify for this
Who
position? What academic discipline do they come from? Which group/grade of students
is being taught sexuality education?
What
What content is being covered by the curriculum? What decision making power does the
teacher have in changing or modifying this curriculum?
Where are sexuality education classes located? In an auditorium with the whole 7th
Where
grade present? In smaller classroom settings? How does one school‘s sexuality
education program compare with other public schools in the same district?
When
Why
How much time is allotted during the day for sexuality education classroom sessions?
How often do these sessions occur during the week, month and school year?
Why is the school offering sexuality education? Do state or city laws require it?
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
How are CSE teachers getting material across to their students? What is the educator‘s
How
preferred method of teaching? Who periodically observes these classes and asks
important questions about method, style, and student retention of material?
The little that we know nationally about sexuality education within each of these conceptual
guidelines emphasizes, time and again, how neglected the discipline is in public school
curriculums. How would our country‘s answers to the above questions change if CSE was
federally mandated and truly prioritized? With this in mind, let‘s have a look at the ―when,‖
―who,‖ ―where,‖ and ―what/how/why‖ of sexuality education in schools today.
It is safe to say that almost all CSE programs in the US stray from SIECUS‘ definition
requiring sexuality be taught from Kindergarten to 12th grade. We know that CSE programs in
the US are often integrated into health classes (Darroch et al., 2000), yet one study found that
only 10 percent of elementary schools, 28 percent of middle schools and 55 percent of high
schools require health courses to be separate, independent courses (CDC as quoted in Center for
Health Improvement, 2010). Another study found that health education courses required for
students last for only one semester in 44 percent of all middle and high schools and for one
whole year in 20 percent of these schools (Center for Health Improvement, 2010). Given the
overwhelming breadth of subject material health teachers are already asked to cover (i.e.
everything from physiology, exercise and nutrition to drugs/alcohol, depression and suicide), we
can be relatively sure that students are not receiving very comprehensive instruction on sexuality.
Indeed, while 77 to 100 percent of high schools required students to take at least one class in
health education prior to graduation, only four states—Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey and
Oregon—have required health education courses to be conducted from 6th to 12th grade in 100%
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
of their schools (ibid).
Time devoted to CSE in America falls short (within the semester and throughout
students‘ school careers) of what is needed in order to accomplish lower rates of STIs, teenage
pregnancy and HIV. It is my belief that, hoping to replicate the success of CSE‘s implementation
in Europe, watered-down versions of CSE (i.e. contraception + abstinence, as one version) have
been reintroduced over the last 10 years in middle and high schools across the United States
under the auspices that if CSE is working in other industrialized countries, it should work in
ours. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the typical American public school student
spends no more than two months in their entire school career talking about sexuality in CSE.
This is a ridiculously short amount of time to devote to such an important topic; something
European goverments clearly understand. If we want to reach the low rates of sexual health
problems that Europeans enjoy, we cannot ignore how much of an impact time allocation makes.
Prioritizing CSE in our school districts, states, and country would mean insisting adequate time
be set aside for CSE instruction.
In a field where so much argument arises over the content of sexuality education
(distribute condoms or stress abstinence? discuss or disregard homosexuality and bisexuality?) it
seems very strange to me that so little thought is given to how long students will spend in their
sexuality education classes. If a school board decides that CSE is best for their students,
shouldn‘t it follow that teachers be given adequate time to meet as many of CSE‘s goals as
possible? Instead, it is very plausible that somewhere in the US right now, tension is mounting as
enraged parents fight to convince their school board to implement contraception-plus-abstinence
instead of abstinence-only, while 30 minutes away in the next town over, truly comprehensive
CSE has been selected as the required curricula yet no battles are being waged over the shoddy
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
time allotment CSE teachers have been given to work with.
Speaking of the teachers, themselves, we do not have a concrete sense of who teaches
sexuality education (CSE or any other type of curricula) across the US nor what most of these
teachers specialize in during undergraduate or graduate school. We also do not know a great deal
about what levels of training sexuality education teachers have received or continue to receive.
The sparse amount of data that does exist on teacher-preparation and background is not
promising. In a 1999 study funded by the Guttmacher Institute, surveys were given to secondary
school teachers who taught one of four subjects that ―usually include sexuality education‖
(Darroch et al., 2000, p. 205):
1. Family and consumer science (i.e. home economics)
2. Biology
3. Health education, and
4. Physical education.
School nurses were also surveyed. As this study demonstrates, sexuality educators come from
extremely diverse backgrounds. Indeed, ask young people, friends and family who was/is in
charge of teaching them about puberty or sex and anecdotal evidence will suggest that band
teachers, guidance counselors, and sports coaches may all be asked to teach this subject. Just
about anyone can be a sexuality education teacher.
As you will recall from our earlier discussion of what sets CSE apart from other types of
sex education, teaching ―sexuality‖ is a lot more complex and nuanced than only teaching
students about contraception and/or abstinence. If we are to prioritize CSE in accordance with
this definition, we must create a stricter, standardized set of qualification criteria for CSE
teachers. Also part of this move to standardize CSE should be the stipulation that classroom size
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
remain small. It is challenging enough to get students to open up and talk about sex, in the first
place; a classroom of 30 of their peers is not going to help this situation, nor is holding sexuality
education in a gymnasium or auditorium as happens in some schools.
Additionally, we must come up with some kind of ―yardstick‖ to asses how well CSE
teachers are getting material across to their students. One possibility is that veteran CSE teachers
and other experts might periodically observe those with less experience to help these teachers see
how their teaching method and style may be helping and/or hurting student retention of material.
No such system of evaluation and assessment currently exists in public schools.
Another reason evaluation and support from veteran CSE teachers should be
commonplace in schools is because CSE teachers who are given permission by adminstrators to
address a wide range of topics on sexuality may spend more time on ―easy topics‖ (i.e. puberty,
stages of pregnancy, etc.) and less time on ―hard topics‖ (i.e. bi and homosexuality, abortion,
divorce, molestation, rape etc.). Obviously, the flexibility teachers have in omiting, adding, or
changing material depends both on who occasionally observes them and what teachers‘ common
understanding of CSE‘s purpose is. Teachers will be omit and change more material if principals,
administrators, and local or state officials have not provided teachers with useful materials which
make it abundantly clear what should be taught, why these subjects should be taught, and how
they should be taught to reap the most positive results.
Teachers will also omit and change more material if they feel their professional life could
be at stake. In Wisconsin, schools are not required to provide sexuality education but—as of
March 11th, 2010—those schools that do will be required to offer a curricula very reminiscent of
SIECUS‘ CSE (minus the wide range of student ages). However, a District Attorny from a poor,
rural area of Wisconsin has recently sent schools a letter that says health teachers who teach
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
students how to properly use contraceptives will be considered contributing to the delinquency of
a minor (since students under 18 are not legally allowed to have sex with one another, according
to Wisconsin law), a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars and a $10,000
fine (Richmond, 2010). In Wisconsin and elsewhere, it is essential that sexuality education
teachers feel supported, especially when truly comprehensive coverage of sexuality is asked of
them.
Now that some of the politically more contentious aspects of CSE have been discussed, it
might be helpful to understand what sexuality topics most American students are learning. The
CDC‘s Division of Adolescent and School Health found that in 2006, 87 percent of US high
schools required health curriculums to stress abstinence as the most effective way to avoid
pregnancy, STIs and HIV (CDC, 2006). Slightly fewer schools—82 percent—taught about risks
associated with having multiple sexual partners (ibid). The study found that 79 percent of US
high school health curricula taught about dating and relationships while 77 percent of schools
taught students reproductive anatomy and what physiological changes come about with puberty.
Sixty-nine percent of schools taught about marriage and commitment but only 48 percent taught
about sexual identity and sexual orientation. A remarkably small 39 percent of schools taught
students how to correctly use a condom. While all of these percentages are interesting, they do
not inform us how many students are being taught diverse topics in the same classroom; we still
don‘t know how many students are receiving truly comprehensive sexuality education.
Data collected by state are a little more illuminating. As of March 2010, 35 states and the
District of Columbia mandate that students learn about STIs and HIV transmission; 23 of these
states simultaneously mandate a more broad-sweeping sexuality-education (Guttmacher Institute,
2010). While many states require that abstinence be stressed in either sexuality education or
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
STI/HIV information sessions, not one state requires that contraception be stressed; only 17
states require that contraception be discussed (ibid). Even when teachers are given adequate
school time to cover the wide breadth of topics on sexuality as SIECUS and others suggest, 37
states allow parents to opt out of having their children attend CSE (ibid), an option many
European countries don‘t offer parents (IPPF, 2006). While contraception-plus-abstinence
programs have been shown to be effective in the United States (Dodge et al., 2008), ―true‖ CSE
programs have not reached anywhere close to their full potential in our country.
If international math and science score discrepancies can raise US interest in the
improvement of these two subjects‘ instruction, so, too, could increased awareness about
sexuality education‘s compromised position in public schools—coupled with the reminder of
how sexually unhealthy we are with the rest of the world—spark a national movement to
regulate and ensure the quality of CSE for future generations. Such a movement would demand
higher standards for CSE teachers to meet in order to be hired. It would require a clever and
comprehensive way of testing how well students were learning and retaining CSE material. More
time would have to be allotted across the school year as well as across grade levels for CSE
instruction. Such a movement would need to create stricter rules, enforced at state and school
district levels, to ensure teachers adhered to curricula content.
While it may be hard to picture such a movement rising from the American population
(many of whom don‘t bother to vote in presidential elections), consider how many adults you
know who accept the fact that most young people will become sexually active before the age of
21. Studies have shown, time and again, that an overwhelming majority of parents and childless
adults favor providing teenagers with information about contraception and birth control methods
in addition to explaining where teenagers can purchase these items (Dorroch, et al., 2001b).
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
Support exists for a much needed push towards prioritizing CSE. Going forward, our country
will either choose to make the discipline of truly comprehensive CSE a prioritized staple of the
public school experience (as academic topics like math or English are) or continue to allow
sexuality education programs to remain peripherally important, taught by some unlucky soul
picked out of a hat in a teacher-meeting, held for an hour a week for one semester in which
topics are half-heartedly addressed to a classroom packed with squirming students who blush and
giggle but otherwise don‘t take the class seriously. CSE must ―crossover‖ to being a prioritized
subject if we are going to improve the sexual health of future generations.
Training the Next Generation of CSE Teachers
As discussed in the previous section, sexuality education teachers come from diverse
backgrounds and levels of preparation. Given the complex and often controversial topics
included in SIECUS‘ definition of CSE, what level of training or expertise might be considered
sufficient for teaching CSE if our country adopted SIECUS‘ curricular specifications? While the
answer may vary from school district to school district, the benchmark is most likely not set too
high
consumer science teachers, both football coaches and biology
teachers are all equally likely to be handed the CSE baton. I am not arguing that teachers from
these diverse backgrounds are all inherently unprepared and clueless. It is perfectly possible that
the football coach in one town may lead a better lesson on HIV/AIDS than the health teacher in
the next town. Instead of focusing on the individual merit of individual teachers, we should be
working towards creating high standards for CSE teachers while simultaneously insisting that
schools of education offer a concentration in sexuality education for prospective CSE teachers.
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
These are mutually beneficiary concepts; schools of education would profit from preparing
quality CSE teachers if there was a demand for them in school districts all across the country.
Conversely, CSE teachers would benefit from improved instruction and training in the art of
teaching controversial and sensitive subjects like molestation, harassment, and abortion if such
courses and programs were offered by schools of education.
To illustrate the lack of options for future sexuality education teachers, I took the 2009
list of US News‘ top ten graduate programs for education and researched which, if any, offered a
master of education with a specialization in sexuality education: none did. Only two programs,
Columbia University‘s Teachers College and University of Texas-Austin, offer a master degree in
health education that includes courses on sexuality education. As discussed at the beginning of
this paper, the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors & Therapists lists nine
universities in the US which offer graduate degrees focused on human sexuality within other
disciplines (psychology, public health, counseling, research, etc.) but only one undergraduate
program in Montreal and one doctoral program in rural Pennsylvania which offer degrees
specializing in sexuality education (AASCT, 2004). A more comprehensive look at all schools
(both undergraduate and graduate) offering degrees in education is beyond the scope of this
paper, but if the AASCT listing is fairly accurate, it means we are not doing too well in offering
CSE teachers the opportunity to better themselves as educators.
Colleges and universities would be wise to offer specialized programs for future or
current sexuality educators given that most schools today offer some form of sexuality education
(Guttmacher Institute, 2010). However, as my survey of the top ten schools of education and the
AASCT‘s listing demonstrate, there still is no clear collegiate path for prospective secondaryschool teachers interested in teaching sexuality education (comprehensive or not). This lack of a
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
defined career path for sexuality teachers surely comes from sexuality education not being
prioritized in public schools as discussed in detail earlier, but may also be because CSE is not
included on high-stakes standardized tests.
When a subject makes its way onto high-stakes standardized exams, or if a particular
subject becomes the focal point of educational reform (like math and science have, recently,
under the Obama administration), that subject becomes the ―hot‖ concentration in schools of
education. US New‘s top ten graduate programs for education aim to produce teachers who are
prepared to raise standardized tests scores in particular disciplines; these schools offer
specializations that will make their graduates easily hirable, paid well, and happy to make a good
name for their alma mater. Perhaps all it would take for CSE to become the next ―hot‖
concentration for Education majors would be for public schools (elementary through high
school) to raise the benchmark, if benchmarks exist to begin with, for CSE teacher qualification.
If this is not enough to elicit a response from universities and colleges, we may need to
urge elected officials to place sexuality education comprehension on state proficiency exams.
The debate continues over whether worrying about preparing students for standardized tests is
devastating to teaching quality, but if tests on sexuality education were constructed carefully, it
would be incredibly useful to have a way to gauge how much knowledge students are retaining
from their sexuality education courses. As one example, a portion of a CSE standardized test
might gauge student knowledge of the risks associated with unsafe sex, the symptoms of STIs,
and the importance of HIV testing. Another portion of the testing process could be pre and post
student questionnaires that look to see how self-reported risk-taking behaviors (like unprotected
sex, drinking heavily before having sex, multiple unprotected sexual partners) increase or
decrease after a semester of CSE. These pre and post test might also address students‘ changing
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
views of sexuality (how body image translates to sexual experiences, how to turn down sexual
advances, comfort levels while discussing society‘s interpretations of homosexuality, abortion
and other sexual issues, etc.).
Students who do not show an increase in sexual health knowledge on these tests and
measures might be receiving instruction from a teacher who either does not have the training or
the willpower to make his or her lessons engaging or memorable enough to translate into
retained understanding of concepts, facts, and ideas which relate to sexuality. If teachers with
low student scores are indeed lacking training, hopefully returning to school would be an option.
If, instead, classroom observations reveal that a sexuality teacher has stopped caring if they are
captivating student attention, school administrators could step in offer that teacher one last
chance to improve before finding someone else with the qualifications and dedicated interest in
helping students become sexually more responsible and healthy. Good teachers make for good
learning.
If we want to improve the effectiveness of sexuality education and watch the numbers of
teenage pregnancy and STI incidence drop lower, preparing teachers to teach sexuality education
well is an essential component. College and university administrators have seen the value in
preparing future science teachers to address the creation vs. evolution debate, even though this
juxtaposition inspires much controversy. Comprehensive sexuality education—rife with
debatable subjects like abortion, homosexuality and rape—should not be treated any differently.
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
Improving the Pedagogy of CSE in Public Schools – An Oft Forgotten Point of Focus in
Sexuality Education Journals
For a long time, the academic discourse on sexuality education has focused on proving
how much more effective CSE is than abstinence-only programs. I argue that this quest to once
and for all declare CSE triumphant over all other sexuality education programs has detracted
academic interest from ways to improve the pedagogy of CSE. Not enough researchers are
interested in what effective CSE instruction looks like; too many are interested in proving what
we already know: CSE‘s course content better prepares students to live sexually responsible and
healthy lives than abstinence-only-until-marriage‘s course content (Boonstra, 2010; Hauser,
2004; SIECUS, 2007; Trenholm et al., 2007). That being said, CSE‘s course content, alone—
especially when content is abridged to contraception-plus-abstinence as is often the case in the
United States—is not the ―silver bullet‖ to the United States‘ sexual health problems. Training
CSE teachers classroom management skills may remarkably improve STI and teenage pregnancy
outcomes, but sexuality education researchers are too busy slamming abstinence-only-untilmarriage programs to notice.
From my experience browsing well circulated sexuality education journals like American
Journal of Sexuality Education and Sex Education, a large percentage of the articles are
dedicated to proving the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only. In light of the millions of federal
dollars that poured into abstinence-only programs over the last decade, it makes sense that
researchers feel obligated, time and again, to show how studies that claim abstinence-only works
are flawed and how giant gaps exist between what sexuality educators think their students need
to learn and what they‘re actually allowed to teach young people. Great minds and complex
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
research studies have thrown intellectual support behind the more inclusive content of CSE
subjects, often emphasizing that because CSE teaches abstinence alongside contraceptive
measures, conservative and liberal parents and citizens alike should be pleased and content.
While interesting, these types of studies don‘t further our pedagogical understanding of
sexuality education. Though certain school districts continue to use abstinence-only curricula—
especially in the South and Midwest (Dailard, 2001)—there are also educators struggling to find
a way to teach CSE that keeps students interested, lawsuits away, and learning and retention
high. Improving CSE should not come secondary to proving how ineffective abstinence-only
programs are at lowering disease and unwanted pregnancy.
As President Obama and his administration begin taking money away from abstinenceonly and giving it to programs reminiscent of SIECUS‘ definition for CSE, we should not break
out the champagne and declare victory. CSE supporters‘ biggest, most intimidating opponent is
not the push for abstinence-only-until-marriage...it is our own complacency with the mediocre
way CSE is delivered and assessed in this country.
Where do we go from here?
Conceptual Significance and Practical Implications
People will be not become comfortable talking about sex in the United States, overnight.
Many of us are completely ready to acknowledge that most teenagers will have sex before they
get married yet do not want to think about how that applies to the young people we are related to,
least of all our sons and daughters. We need to break down these walls of tension surrounding
sexuality within our own homes because it is evident that our government is not going to do the
job for us, at least not any time soon. Sexually transmitted infections are not solely being
contracted by reckless teenagers, experimenting with drugs and hanging out with older kids who
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
are a bad influence. Similarly, the HIV/AIDS epidemic in our country is not a problem we can
solve by demonizing individuals as inherently irresponsible people who should have known
better than to put themselves at risk. It is absolutely crucial that we abandon the inaccurate idea
that sexual health problems results from individaul choice, alone. Instead, we must open our eyes
to how entire generations of American teenagers—including the young men and women falling
asleep in class this very minute—are catching diseases and infections that will likely impact their
lives negatively, the severity of which is not something I would want a son or daughter to gamble
with.
Our young people need us to be invested in improving comprehensive sexuality
education. How can we be sure that CSE is accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish? What
factors influence the effectiveness of teaching CSE? Answering—indeed asking—these
questions are an important first step towards improving CSE. Aside from addressing the areas of
neglect I outlined in my analysis of sexuality education‘s practice and place in grade schools and
institutions of higher learning, much research is needed to try and figure out what CSE teaching
techniques affect the greatest change among young adults. What would be possible if the same
passion driving the improvement of special education for developmentally impaired children was
at the core of sexuality education research? With this passion in place, several nationwide shifts
in approaching CSE could occur: CSE could be reinstated in public schools with SIECUS‘ goals
in mind. Teacher training programs for CSE could take off, fueled by an increasing need for
talented and dedicated educators interested in sexual health. Sexuality education journals could
see a huge uptick in submitted articles exploring pedagogical theory and behavioral outcomes.
Each of these shifts in the role of CSE would a large difference. Together, they could be the
collective movement we need to ensure a healthy sexual future for our children.
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
References
104th Congress. (1996). Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act, Public Law. 104193. Retrieved from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ193.104
AASCT - American Association of Sexuality Educators Counselors & Therapists (2004).
Sexuality programs. In How to become a Sexuality Educator, Sexuality Counselor or Sex
Therapist. Retreived from http://www.aasect.org/profession.asp
Baruch College Campus High School (2009). At-risk health-related services. Comprehensive
education plan, 2008, p. 28. Retrieved from
http://schools.nyc.gov/documents/oaosi/cep/2008-09/cep_M411.pdf
Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., & Fishbein, M. (2006). Public opinion on sex education in U.S.
schools. Archives of Pediatrics and Adotescent Medicine, 160, 1151-1156.
Boonstra, H. D. (2010). Key questions for consideration as a new federal teen pregnancy
prevention initiative is implemented. Guttmacher Policy Review, 13(1): 2–7.
Center for Health Improvement. (2010). Curriculum requirements. In Coordinated School Health
Programs in Health Policy Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.healthpolicyguide.org/doc.asp?id=3732
CDC. (2006). The HIV epidemic and United States students. In Healthy Youth. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/yrbs07_us_hiv.pdf
CDC. (2007). Chlamydia – fact sheet. In Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/std/chlamydia/STDFact-Chlamydia.htm
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
CDC. (2008). The role of STD detection and treatment in HIV prevention - fact sheet. In
HIV/AIDS & STDs in Sexually Transmitted Dieseases. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HIV/STDFact-STD&HIV.htm
Chesson, H.W., Blandford, J. M., Gift, T. L., Tao, G., & Irwin, K. L. (2004). The estimated direct
medical cost of sexually transmitted diseases among American youth, 2000. Perspectives
on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36(1), 11-19.
Dailard, C. (2001). Sex education: Politicians, parents, teachers and teens. The Guttmacher
Report on Public Policy. 4(1). Retrieved from
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/1/gr040109.html
Darroch, J. E., Landry, D. J, & Singh, S. (2000). Changing Emphases in Sexuality Education in
U.S. Public Secondary Schools, 1988-1999. Family Planning Perspectives, 32(5) 204211.
Darroch, J. E., Frost, J. J., & Singh, S. (2001a). Differences in teenage pregnancy rates among
five developed countries: The roles of sexual activity and contraceptive use. Family
Planning Perspectives, 33(6), 244-250.
Darroch, J. E., Frost, J. J., & Singh, S. (2001b). Teenage sexual and reproductive behavior in
developed countries: Can more progress be made?. Occasional Report. New York: The
Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Dodge, B., Zachry, K., Reece, M., Lopez, E. D. S., Herbenick, D., Gant, K., et al. (2008).
Sexuality education in Florida: Content, context, and controversy. American Journal of
Sexuality Education, 3(2), 183.
Guttmacher Institute. (2010, March 1st). State policies in brief: Sex and STI/HIV education. In
Monthly State Updates. Retrieved from
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf
Kempner, M. E. (2003) A controversial decade: 10 years of tracking debates around sexuality
education. SIECUS Report, 31(6). 33-47.
Finer, L. B., & Henshaw, S. K. (2006). Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United
States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38(2), 90–96.
Hauser, D. (2004). Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the
Impact. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth. Retrieved from
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=623&
Itemid=177
IPPF. (2006). Sexuality Education in Europe: A Reference Guide to Policies and Practices,
Brussels: IPPF EN. Retrieved from www.ippfen.org/NR/rdonlyres/7DDD1FA1-6BE4415D-B3C2- 87694F37CD50/0/sexed.pdf
MacCallum, M. (Interviewer) & Turner, M. (Interviewee). (Feb. 9th, 2010). Sex Ed for 10 year
olds? [Interview video file]. Retrieved from Foxnews.com Web site:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4010036/sex-ed-for-10-year-olds
Miller, D.C., Sen, A., Malley, L.B., & Burns, S.D. (2009). Comparative Indicators of Education
in the United States and Other G-8 Countries: 2009. National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
DC.
Parsons, C. (2010, Feb. 23). U.S. students need to play catch-up, Obama says. LA Times.
Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/nation/la-na-obama-education232010feb23
Panchaud, C., Singh, S., Feivelson, D., & Darroch, J.E. (2000). Sexually transmitted diseases
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
among adolescents in developed countries. Family Planning Perspectives, 32(1), 24-32.
Richmond, T. (2010, April 9). DA's sex ed warning befuddles Wis. teachers, kids. AP. Retrieved
from
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7dNpqExs2nxI4O46XVthljXZ_y
AD9EVOV980
Rosenbaum, J. (2009) Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity
Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers. Pediatrics, 123. e110-e120.
SIECUS. (2007). Questions and answers: Sexuality education. In Comprehensive sexuality
education - fact sheets. Retrieved from
http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=521&grandparentI
D=477&parentID=514
Schroeder, E. (2009). What is sexuality education? Definitions and models. In E. Schroeder & J.
Kuriansky (Eds.), Sexuality education – past, present, and future, (Vol. 1). (pp. 3-7).
Westport, CT: Praeger
Trenholm, C., Devaney, B., Fortson, K., Quay, L., Wheeler, J., & Clark, M. (2007). Impacts of
four Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica
Policy Research.
UNAIDS / WHO. (2009). Epidemiological fact sheets on HIV and AIDS, 2008 Update. Search
by country web-feature in Predefined Reports- GlobalHealth Atlas. Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/GlobalAtlas/predefinedReports/EFS2008/index.asp?strSelectedCountry=US
USA TODAY. (2004, November 25). Bush urges more abstinence funds; effectiveness
uncertain. USA TODAY. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-25-abstinence-funding_x.htm
Koehler-Derrick – Prioritizing CSE
Walters, A. S., & Hayes, D. M. (2007). Teaching about sexuality: Balancing contradictory social
messages with professional standards. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 2(2),
27-49.
Weinstock H., Berman, S., & Cates, W. J. (2004). Sexually transmitted diseases among American
youth: incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health, 36(1), 6–10.
Whitehouse.gov (2010). Budget of the United States government, fiscal year 2010. In
Department of Health and Human Services (p. 491). Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hhs.pdf
Wilson, J. B., Ventura, S. J., Koonin, L. M., & Spitz, A. M. (1994). Pregnancy in Adolescence.
FROM DATA TO ACTION - Adolescent Health. CDC‘S Public Health Surveillance for
Women, Infants, and Children. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ProductsPubs/DatatoAction/pdf/adhlth2.pdf