This paper compiles research on school-based sexuality education (SBSE) and analyzes its impact on LGBTQ students. Common themes in practice are identified through examination of the history of sex education and current practices, showing that SBSE is not an inclusive environment for LGBTQ students and in many cases is explicitly damaging. Recommendations and actions for inclusive and effective SBSE for LGBTQ students are considered.
Keywords: LGBTQ, sex education, SBSE, history
Sex, Sexuality, and Safety: An Analysis of the Foundations of Sex Education in the United States and their Impact on LGBTQ Students
There is much debate about how school environments impact their students; whether they provide enough stimulation, if class sizes are too large, the nutritional value of school lunches. On average students are in school for nearly seven hours each day, not accounting for additional time spent on school activities like sports and clubs (SASS, 2008). Kids spend a large proportion of their day in a school environment, and the messages they receive there about what is right and wrong, or worthy of accurate information affects them. This is especially true for LGBTQ students who overwhelmingly feel unsafe in classrooms and hear negative messages about LGBTQ identities from parents and teachers on a regular basis (HRC, 2018), particularly in health classes where information about them is often excluded entirely or given in a negative light. School based sexuality education in the U.S. is based in outdated practices that are discriminatory and ineffective, creating a damaging environment for LGBTQ students.
History
There has been much progression in education surrounding sex, sexuality, and identity, the start of which is in some regards unrecognizable to current practices. In others, however, there has been very little progression and the same values that formed the base of praxis early on can be seen in policy and practice today. Sex education began formally in the US in the early 1900s, though it didn’t take hold until after the first World War when STDs became much more prevalent (Cornblatt, 2009; Elia & Eliason, 2010). This early sex education focused partially on the view of sex education as a public health issue, but also as an opportunity to develop young people’s morals. Sex education represented a very specific set of values emphasizing monogamy, heterosexuality, procreative sex.
Gender Roles
While the values that formed school-based sexuality education (SBSE), specifically the emphasis on the identity of a white, middle class, straight, cisgender, nonsexual students, are not inclusive or representative of all the young people who experience their impact on current practices, they have remained consistent in policy and in base values. Any sexual activity was viewed as negative, with the only acceptable context between a married heterosexual couple who were trying to have children. Outlined in early literature surrounding sex education, there are many common themes that carried through regarding gender roles and ideas of what it meant to be a young person in need of education about sex. One such recommendation for sex education programming is that of young people moving towards a heterosexual marriage, though the way boys and girls were to participate in these marriages were very different. Messages directed at girls focused on directing them on how to be a good wife, take care of the household, and bear and raise care of children. Where messages for boys spoke of how to choose a good partner, taking into account many factors such as her beauty, personality, his pride in her, a “feeling of comradeship,” etc. (Edson, 1930), messages for girls did not speak of factors to consider before choosing a partner, but of how “the girl who dreams of her ideal hero, may, with care, be stimulated to make herself more worthy of his coming” (Parker, 1939). Boys were taught to be particular about their partner and take care in choosing a woman to marry, where girls were taught to change themselves so that they might be chosen. The promotion of binary and divisive gender roles has carried through to today’s SBSE, resulting in the continued alienation of young people whose identities lie outside those roles.
LGBTQ Youth in Sex Education
Another component of this early approach that excluded the experience of LGBTQ youth was in terms of education surrounding safe practices for sex and relationship development. Students who presented “sexual deviance” were seen as a threat to heteronormativity, and the approach to sex education that focused on reinforcing heteronormative gender roles continued. (McCarty-Caplan, 2013). Funding for sex education classes and programming in schools became available through the federal government in 1981, under the condition that programs promoted an abstinence only approach and did not allow discussion of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities (McCarty-Caplan, 2013) with the only mention of LGBTQ adult identities as a risk for HIV/AIDS (McNeill, 2013). This federal funding supported three specific programs, all of which were seen to show conflicting and inaccurate information, inconsistent measurement of youth outcomes, and exclusion of the consideration of actual sexual behavior in young people (McCarty-Caplan, 2013).
Current Practices in School Based Sexuality Education
While there are variations in current practices surrounding school-based sexuality education (SBSE), several consistent themes form the basis of practices across the country. The first of these themes, one seen in countless SBSE programs, is that of heteronormalization and the willful exclusion or explicit condemnation of LGBTQ identities. School based sexuality education guidelines are based off of several assumptions of teen sexuality, primarily that it is heterosexual and coital (Bey-Cheng, 2003). In many cases, same sex relationships are simply not mentioned, or at most given a few minutes of attention during one day of the course (Quinlivan & Town, 2010). Socialization from birth promotes heteronormative and binary identities, with boys filling “boy” roles, and girls filling “girl” roles. Gender policing occurs between young people as they find themselves living with the expectations of their gender presentation as is enforced by many adults and authority figures in their lives (Quinlivan & Town, 2010). The explicit promotion of one acceptable way to experience sex and relationships is harmful for young people whose identities differ from those included as the norm.
Abstinence Only Education
Another aspect of school-based sexuality education that was crucial to its formative years and has remained a focus is an abstinence-based approach or abstinence only education (AOE). At the start of sex education in the US, federal funding was provided only for programs that centered around abstinence, and currently 22 states require schools to “stress or cover abstinence if they offer sexuality education” (McNeill, 2013). Schools focus on the idealization of a nonsexual students, basing efforts around preventing sex rather than education surrounding safer sex (Allen, 2005). Despite any data to support its effectiveness, and countless studies that have found that it is detrimental to students’ health, abstinence-based sex education is widespread and critical component in promoting a specific idea of morality to students (Bey-Chang, 2003). Additionally, the basis of federal regulation surrounding sexuality education as abstinence-based reflects the goals of programs such as welfare which “pathologize single mothers” and “disproportionately regulate the reproductive and familial lives of women of color” (McNeill, 2013). The federal government has long been involved in promoting a very explicitly white, middle class, and heterosexual ideal as seen in documents such as the Personal Responsibility Act, the Moynihan Report, and Title V (McNeill, 2013). Abstinence only and abstinence based SBSE exclude and criticize many identities outside a narrow ideal including LGBTQ young people.
Risk and Prevention Based Practice
The third theme that resonates throughout school-based sexuality programs is the basis in risk and prevention. The start of sex education came from the desire to prevent what was then known as venereal disease (VD), now referred to as STIs or STDs. Funding for sex education and evaluations of the effectiveness of programming are based around pregnancy and STD prevention rates. The focus of SBSE on risk and prevention creates an environment based around fear instead of education. Abstinence Only Until Marriage (AOUM) approaches endanger the physical and psychological health as well as the comprehensive education of young people (Santelli et al., 2017). Approaching sex education with an approach that creates fear or mistrust in young people rather than presenting medically and emotionally accurate information about situations that may occur is irresponsible and damaging.
Impact on Students
Though sex education classes may only take up a few hours each week (if that), LGBTQ students spend a significant amount of time in school, an environment that perpetuates the same kind of misinformation, harmful attitudes, and potentially dangerous situations that are found in school-based sexuality education programming. Within schools, LGBTQ students frequently hear their identities disparaged, experience bullying at a higher rate than their heterosexual, cisgender peers, and are physically harassed (Abreu, McEachern, Geddes Hall, & Kenny, 2018). School can be a hostile environment that leads LGBTQ students to higher levels of mental and behavioral issues as well as suicidal ideation (Abreu, McEachern, Geddes Hall, & Kenny, 2018). LGBTQ students are twice as likely to experience bullying as their peers, leading to a myriad of negative outcomes (Dashow, 2017). Primary among these, students who are bullied are five to six times as likely to miss school because of concerns about their safety (CDC, 2013). Schools are frequently a space that cause undue stress and anxiety to LGBTQ students. Though identity is an extremely important topic for elementary and high school aged students, there aren’t many spaces that are made for young people to learn about themselves and explore the spectrum of sexuality and gender. SBSE programming provides the perfect opportunity for schools and teachers to create a space for students to learn about sexuality and gender identity.
Recommendations for Sex Education
Many of the attitudes and requirements about how to approach sexual health education have remained recognizable from their conception over 90 years ago. The focus on preventing sex rather than educating on safer sex, the assumption of heterosexuality, a desire to develop young peoples’ morals, and many additional underlying rules about how sex education can be taught are outdated remnants of a moral panic. School based sex education can be a tool that teaches students about safety, autonomy, consent, and respect, provided programing follows several basic guidelines about creating an inclusive, educative environment.
The first of the guidelines to ensure that sexual health education is truly effective is that programming and curriculum is inclusive. The word inclusive can mean many things; in sex education it primarily means including information about same sex relationships, education surrounding sexuality and gender identity, and ensuring that this information is taught in a neutral light. In a 2013 study, less than five percent of students who identified as LGBTQ experienced positive representations of LGBTQ identities in health class (Advocates for Youth et al., 2015). LGBTQ students who experience inclusive sex education report fewer sexual partners less substance abuse, particularly when the instructor has had professional development regarding sexual health education (Clayton, Brener, Barrios, Jayne, & Jones, 2017). Many LGBTQ youth do not see their identities represented in regard to sexual health, preventing them from learning about safe sex, healthy relationships, and identity exploration. Inclusive curriculum that teaches students about identities that lie outside the expectation of cisgender, heteronormative, and cisnormative young people allows all students to learn the language to respectfully engage with LGBTQ young people and explore unfamiliar identities and ideas.
Another necessity of effective sex education is that it is comprehensive. In practice, the definition of comprehensive sex education is based in the course offering information about contraceptives as opposed to abstinence only messaging, but this is not sufficient for sex education to be truly comprehensive. Adapted from a CDC definition of health education, the Future of Sex Education states that comprehensive sex education should include “a variety of topics including anatomy, physiology, families, personal safety, healthy relationships, pregnancy and birth, sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, contraceptives, sexual orientation, pregnancy options, media literacy, and more” (2016). Comprehensive sex education provides students with information about sex and sexuality, but ventures past that to engage with their health in a broader way. Providing students with information and material that allows them to reflect on sex, sexuality, gender, and countless other topics that impact their journey to healthy relationships and safe sex. Comprehensive sex education must consider the student as whole person, and in addition to teaching students how to say no, must teach them how to say yes.
Though there are many tenants to effective sex education that is inclusive toward LGBTQ students, these two are the most important to consider as a first step. Using language that allows all students to learn more about a wide variety of identities while giving LGBTQ youth the opportunity to see their identity and experiences represented is crucial to improving the efficacy of school-based sexuality education.
Conclusion
Many practices in the United States, particularly in the education system, are based in foundations created generations past. The precedents set for health education are based in standards from the early 1900s, with much unchanged since that time. Ideas about what is appropriate for students, assumptions about how students will relate to material, and practices on how sex and sexuality are taught are outdated and the prevalence of inaccurate information is damaging for students. LGBTQ students face many challenges in the education system, the outdated standards of sex education among them. SBSE as it stands in the US is a harmful environment for LGBTQ students and is in need of transformation to create a truly effective, educative experience.