sex education in schools controversy

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer

Sex Education in America: the Good, the Bad, the Ugly

Please try again

The debate over the best way to teach sexual health in the U.S. continues to rage on, but student voice is often left out of the conversation when schools are deciding on what to teach. So Myles and PBS NewsHour Student Reporters from Oakland Military Institute investigate the pros and cons of the various approaches to sex ed and talk to students to find out how they feel about their sexual health education.

TEACHERS: Guide your students to practice civil discourse about current topics and get practice writing CER (claim, evidence, reasoning) responses.  Explore lesson supports.

What is comprehensive sex education?

Comprehensive sex education teaches that not having sex is the best way to avoid STIs and unintended pregnancies, but it also includes medically accurate information about STI prevention, reproductive health, as well as discussions about healthy relationships, consent, gender identity, LGBTQ issues and more. What is sexual risk avoidance education? Sexual risk avoidance education is also known as abstinence only or abstinence-leaning education. It generally teaches that not having sex is the only morally acceptable, safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy and STIs — some programs don’t talk about birth control or condoms– unless it is to emphasize failure rates.

What are the main arguments for comprehensive sex education?

“Comprehensive sex ed” is based on the idea that public health improves when students have a right to learn about their sexuality and to make responsible decisions about it. Research shows it works to reduce teen pregnancies, delay when teens become sexually active and reduce the number of sexual partners teens have.

What are the main arguments against comprehensive sex education?

Some people, particularly parents and religious groups, take issue with comprehensive sex ed because they believe it goes against their cultural or religious values, and think that it can have a corrupting influence on kids. They say that by providing teens with this kind of information you are endorsing and encouraging sex and risk taking. Some opponents also argue that this type of information should be left up to parents to teach their kids about and shouldn’t be taught in schools.

State Laws and Policies Across the US (SIECUS) 

STDs Adolescents and Young Adults (CDC) 

Myths and Facts about Comprehensive Sex Education (Advocates for Youth)

Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy (Journal of Adolescent Health)

Abstinence-Only-Until Marriage: An Updated Review of US Policies and Programs and Their Impact (Journal of Adolescent Health) 

Sexual Risk Avoidance Education: What you need to know (ASCEND) 

We partnered with PBS NewsHour Student Reporting Labs for this episode. Check out their journalism resources for students: https://studentreportinglabs.org/

To learn more about how we use your information, please read our privacy policy.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

As States Resist Federal Gender Rules, Schools Are Caught in the Middle

Conservative state governments are forbidding school districts from doing what the Department of Education says they must, under new Title IX regulations on students’ gender identity.

By Amy Harmon

New civil rights regulations released last month by the Biden administration presented school districts across the nation with a clear choice: Either adopt policies that allow transgender students to use the bathrooms, wear the uniforms and be called by the pronouns that correspond with their gender identity, or risk losing federal funding.

But several Republican-led states have responded with an equally clear message for their schools: Steer clear of such policies.

The clashing state and federal directives have put school officials in a difficult spot, education officials said. School boards may face federal investigations, litigation from parents, threats of a state takeover or lost funding.

“No matter which way a school district goes, they’re going to possibly draw a lawsuit from someone in disagreement, whether that’s a federal regulator or a private person who doesn’t agree with how the district handled it,” said Sonja Trainor, managing director for school law at the National School Boards Association. “A lot of schools are going to be in no man’s land.”

The dispute centers on Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding. The new regulations from the Biden administration interpret “discrimination on the basis of sex” to include discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes and gender identity. The regulations did not address whether transgender students should be able to play on school sports teams corresponding to their gender identity. A second rule on that question is expected later.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, told reporters when the new regulations were announced in April.

But in four separate lawsuits, filed in federal courts in Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and Kentucky, attorneys general in more than a dozen states are trying to block the regulations from going to effect in August as planned.

And lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal organization, have filed a challenge on behalf of the Rapides Parish School Board in Louisiana.

“We would not want to put ourselves in a position where the federal government would take funding away because we follow the original purpose of Title IX,” Jeff Powell, the district superintendent, said in a statement. “We want students in our district to have privacy and safety when they access sex-specific facilities.”

Most school districts across the country receive federal funds for special education programs, and schools serving high concentrations of low-income families get federal support. But they get much more funding from state governments and, in some cases, local property taxes. Most school boards are directly answerable to their states.

“Schools are trying to ensure that kids are safe and that they have access to educational services,” said Francisco M. Negron Jr., founder of K12 Counsel, a school law advocacy and policy firm. “When there’s inconsistency in the law, it’s unsettling and it’s distracting.”

Several Republican-led states have passed laws that forbid transgender students to use school bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. Gov. Brad Little of Idaho signed a bill last month that bars teachers from referring to a student by a name or pronoun that does not align with the student’s birth sex without parental consent.

Education officials in at least five states — Oklahoma, Florida , Louisiana , Montana and South Carolina — have urged school boards to maintain policies that “recognize the distinction between sex and gender identity,” as Elsie Arntzen, Montana’s superintendent of public instruction, put it in her letter to school leaders in the state.

For now, the new federal regulations supersede any state law or directive from a state official on the issue. But one or more federal judges, legal experts said, could issue an order blocking the regulations from taking effect locally or nationally while the lawsuits make their way through the courts. And the issue may ultimately reach the Supreme Court, which has so far declined to weigh in on how Title IX should be interpreted with regard to gender identity.

The new regulations are premised in part on the Biden administration’s interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark 2020 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that discrimination based on transgender status necessarily entails treating individuals differently because of their sex.

But in the lawsuits, Republican-led states argue that the Department of Education exceeded its authority by issuing regulations that expand the definition of what constitutes sex discrimination. They point out that the Bostock decision was about workplace discrimination, and that Title IX includes specific exceptions for separating the sexes in certain educational situations, like sports teams. That shows, they argue, that Title IX was intended to recognize biological differences between males and females, not to address gender identity.

And some Republican governors are not waiting for the courts to act.

“I am instructing the Texas Education Agency to ignore your illegal dictate,” Gov. Greg Abbott wrote in a letter to President Biden this week.

And Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas signed an executive order on Thursday stating that schools in her state would continue to enforce restrictions on which bathrooms and pronouns transgender students are allowed to use.

“My message to Joe Biden and the federal government,” Ms. Sanders said at a news conference, “is we will not comply.”

Amy Harmon covers how shifting conceptions of gender affect everyday life in the United States. More about Amy Harmon

Campaigns to Undermine Sexuality Education in the Public Schools

The Need For And Benefits Of Comprehensive Sexuality Education

Children and teenagers confront a barrage of information and situations related to sexuality. Guidance from families and schools is key in fostering teenagers’ healthy sexual development and responsible behavior. Far more adolescents are sexually active now than was the case in recent decades. Fifty-six percent of boys and 50 percent of girls aged 15-19 report having had sexual intercourse. Every year, nearly one million teenage girls become pregnant, and about 80 percent of those pregnancies are unintended. 1 Rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS infection, are on the rise among teenagers. Comprehensive sexuality education can be critical in giving young people the information and skills they need to make responsible decisions and to protect themselves. By “comprehensive sexuality education,” we mean a thorough, accurate curriculum that examines such subjects as human development, relationships, personal skills, sexual behavior and health, and society and culture.

The ACLU believes that the full exercise of reproductive rights depends on having access to complete information. Moreover, efforts to limit information about sexuality constitute censorship and run counter to the American tradition of encouraging the free flow of ideas.

Current Status Of Sexuality Education In American Public Schools

Many states sponsor some form of sexuality education through laws, regulations, or recommendations. At present, 19 states require that schools provide sexuality education, and 34 states require instruction about sexually transmitted diseases and/or HIV/AIDS. 2 Although these statistics suggest that sexuality education is widespread in American schools, the quality and comprehensiveness of this education vary considerably. In some places, teachers of sexuality education are prohibited from mentioning topics such as intercourse, masturbation, abortion, homosexuality, or condoms. Only five percent of American students receive truly comprehensive sexuality education. 3

Groups That Seek To Undermine Comprehensive Sexuality Education

Despite widespread parental support for sexuality education in public schools, these programs sometimes engender concerted opposition. Some of the opposition may come from people who have inadequate information or misinformation about the programs; their concerns are usually allayed through education about the content and aims of the program.

However, other opposition comes from groups that are opposed in principle to comprehensive sexuality education in public schools. They argue that such education usurps parental rights and encourages “immoral” premarital sexual promiscuity in the young. National organizations that have publicly criticized comprehensive sexuality education in the schools include Focus on the Family, Citizens for Excellence in Education, the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the American Life League, the Eagle Forum, Parents Roundtable, the Christian Coalition, the

National Coalition for Abstinence Education, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, the Educational Guidance Institute, the National Monitor of Education, and the Research Council on Ethnopsychology.

People who organize opposition to sexuality education in local communities may be affiliated with these organizations. The local groups they organize may have names such as “Citizens Advocating Responsible Education,” “Concerned Parents/Taxpayers,” or “Coalition for Excellence in Education.” 4 These local groups employ a wide variety of tactics, from censoring library books to attempting to pack school boards in order to control curricular decisions.

Attempts To Ban Or Derail Comprehensive Sexuality Education Curricula

Opponents of comprehensive sexuality education may attempt to ban it outright or to derail curricula that are thorough in their treatment of sexuality, reproduction, and HIV/AIDS. Hundreds of school districts across the nation have confronted organized opposition to such programs. Although most school districts give parents the opportunity to exclude their children from participation in sexuality education programs, many opponents seek to block comprehensive programs for everyone.

Their fundamental indictment is that such curricula “usurp parental authority.” Opponents criticize comprehensive sexuality education curricula on many grounds, not all of them connected in obvious ways to sexuality. In particular, their complaints cite certain features of the curricula: naming anatomical parts, journal writing, promoting self-esteem, role-playing, “psychotherapeutic approaches” to education, non-directive education, and outcome-based education.

Promotion Of “Abstinence-Only” Curricula

Groups that seek to undermine comprehensive sexuality education frequently promote alternative sex education curricula such as: Sex Respect; Facing Reality; Me, My World, My Future; Sexuality, Commitment and Family; Choosing the Best; Families, Decision-Making and Human Development; Responsible Sexual Values Program; Safe Sex; and Reasonable Reasons to Wait. Called “abstinence-only” curricula, these programs instill fear and shame to discourage teenagers from engaging in sexual activity. They generally provide little information that can help sexually active teenagers protect themselves from pregnancy or disease. These curricula are laden with scientific and medical inaccuracies, sexist and racist stereotypes, and religious prescriptions for proper behavior and values. 5 Focused on delivering a “single unmistakable message,” the abstinence-only curricula censor important information about human sexuality.

Federal Support for Abstinence-Only Education

The proponents of abstinence-only curricula got a big boost from the enactment of the 1996 welfare law, 42 U.S.C. § 710, which included a $50 million-per-year, five-year-long appropriation of funding for abstinence-only education. The funding is administered by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau and its state analogues. States have to contribute three “matching” dollars for every four federal dollars they receive. The combined federal and state funding can be used for various purposes such as media campaigns, programs in public schools, or programs outside of public schools. To be eligible for this funding, programs must focus exclusively on “teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity.” Programs that emphasize abstinence but also discuss contraception and other means of protection are not eligible.

Restrictive “Stress Abstinence” Legislation

State laws and regulations requiring schools to “stress abstinence” in their sexuality education courses have proliferated in recent years. Because abstinence from sexual activity is the only 100 percent foolproof way of avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, comprehensive sexuality education programs appropriately stress abstinence. All instruction about alternative preventive measures begins from the premise that abstinence is the best prevention.

However, some of the new laws and regulations seek to stress abstinence to the exclusion of all other information. Some even seek to impose a “word-count and stopwatch” approach, which would specify how much time must be devoted to abstinence in every class session. This attempt to micro-manage the classroom is counterproductive because it crowds out other needed information and stops genuine education from taking place. Teachers cannot truly educate if they are given a script to read and told that they cannot deviate from it to discuss open-ended questions that students ask. Such laws and regulations can also require school districts to incur heavy costs in replacing curricular materials already in use, draining schools of scarce financial resources.

The ACLU Opposes Campaigns To Undermine Comprehensive Sexuality Education

Efforts to derail comprehensive sexuality education or to impose abstinence-only curricula violate civil liberties. The ACLU opposes the use of curricula designed to suppress critical information that teenagers need to protect their health and control their lives. The ACLU also opposes the use of curricula whose content reflects bias on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, marital status, race, and class.

How To Combat Campaigns Against Comprehensive Sexuality Education

1) Organizing Community Support: One of the best ways to support comprehensive sexuality education is through a statewide or local coalition. Health educators, school board members, school administrators, parents, health professionals, clergy, and students should work together to establish and protect comprehensive sexuality education programs. They should obtain the information that will enable them to argue forcefully that comprehensive sexuality education can be a major influence in persuading teenagers to postpone sexual activity and to protect themselves from disease and premature pregnancy. 6 Parents or other knowledgeable individuals should be monitoring each school district and reporting to the coalition when action is needed.

2) Selection Of Curricular Materials: It is crucial to know which curricula are thorough and accurate, and which ones are based on distortion and the inculcation of fear. In contrast to abstinence-only curricula, there are also some “abstinence-based” curricula that emphasize abstinence but also provide comprehensive information about contraception and other methods of protection and, in addition, offer valuable instruction in communication, negotiation, and refusal skills. 7 Although schools cannot use the new federal abstinence-only money to fund any curriculum that covers contraception, some schools already have these curricula in place. Where these curricula are presently in use, you should ensure their continuation, and you should encourage other schools to adopt them with non-federal funds.

3) Keeping Abstinence-Only Programs Out Of Public Schools: Contact your state’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau and find out who is administering and awarding the federal abstinence-only funding. Write to these officials or committee members and explain why you do not want to see abstinence-only programs in the public schools. Urge them to channel the funding to programs and media campaigns outside the schools. Such programs and campaigns are preferable to allowing abstinence-only programs to become entrenched in the public school system.

4) Public Education: Supporters of comprehensive sexuality education have the vital task of supplying the public with correct information about the content and goals of sexuality education programs and countering opponents’ charges or disinformation. Letters to the editor, presentations to editorial boards, appearances on radio and cable TV, public forums, open houses, and voter guides are among the most effective means of cultivating public support for comprehensive sexuality education.

5) School Board Elections: Although the ACLU is nonpartisan and never opposes or supports candidates for electoral office, school board elections are occasions for public discussion and education on civil liberties issues. School board members often make the ultimate decisions about curricula, and some candidates run stealth campaigns in which their positions do not surface. Do not let this happen in your community. Take steps to ensure full public disclosure and debate by all candidates of their positions on sexuality education.

6) Legal Challenges: Several legal challenges have been brought against the use of abstinence-only curricula. In 1991 the ACLU of Wisconsin assisted parents who tried unsuccessfully to get the Department of Public Instruction to halt the use of Sex Respect in the East Troy school district. In 1992 six families and Planned Parenthood of Northeast Florida challenged the Duval County School Board’s use of Me, My World, My Future because it violated a state law requiring comprehensive sexuality education. The plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit in 1996 after the school board adopted a new comprehensive sexuality education curriculum for kindergarten through 12th grade. Parents in Shreveport, Louisiana, had partial success in their lawsuit to challenge the use of Sex Respect and Facing Reality in junior and senior high school. In 1994 the state court of appeals enjoined the use of certain passages in the curricula that were held to violate state law governing sexuality education.

Some Of The National Organizations That Support Comprehensive Sexuality Education For All Children And Youth By The Year 2000

The American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Public Health Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of County and City Health Officials, National Council on Family Relations, National School Boards Association, Office of Family Ministries and Human Sexuality of the National Council of Churches, United States Conference of Mayors, and YWCA of the U.S.A. are among the many advocates for comprehensive sexuality education.

1 THE ALAN GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE, THE HENRY J. KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, AND THE NATIONAL PRESS FOUNDATION, “Teen Sex, Contraception and Pregnancy,” Fact Sheet, 1998.

2 Patricia Donovan, “School-Based Sexuality Education: The Issues and Challenges,” Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1998, p.189.

3 SEXUALITY INFORMATION AND EDUCATION COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES (SIECUS), “Responding to Arguments against Comprehensive Sexuality Education,” Community Action Kit, 1997.

4 PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY, “The Religious Right and School Boards: The 1992-93 School Year,” Executive Summary, p. 9.

5 Leslie M. Kantor, “Scared Chaste? Fear-Based Educational Curricula,” SIECUS Report, December 1992/January 1993, pp. 1-15.

6 SIECUS, Community Action Kit, 1997.

7 “Abstinence-Based Programs That Work,” SIECUS Report, December 1992/January 1993, p. 12.

Related Issues

• Reproductive Freedom

Stay Informed

Every month, you'll receive regular roundups of the most important civil rights and civil liberties developments. Remember: a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

Sex Ed Is Negative, Sexist and Out of Touch: Study

A ll of the deep embarrassment you felt during sex-education class is still reddening the faces of kids all over the world. A new study has found that in at least 10 different countries, kids hate the way they’re being taught about sex in school.

In the study published in the journal BMJ Open , researchers pored over 55 qualitative studies that examined the views of young people — mostly ages 12 to 18 — who’d received sex-and-relationship education at school in the U.S., UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Iran, Brazil and Sweden between 1990 and 2015.

Even across all of those different countries and a 25-year time span, kids’ views were remarkably consistent: sex ed sucks.

The problems, researchers found, were numerous. “Everything we got in our class had a really clinical feel,” said one student. ‘They don’t mention anything about same-sex relationships,” said another. A group of students recalled their PE teacher Miss Plum, who was so uncomfortable giving her own presentation that she cried during it.

Still, the researchers were able to identify the two biggest issues with sex education. The first: schools don’t acknowledge that sex is a special subject that, unlike a standard English or math class, requires a bit more finesse to teach effectively. “They don’t take into account that sex is a potentially embarrassing and anxiety provoking topic,” writes study author Pandora Pound, a research fellow in public-health research methodology at the University of Bristol in the U.K., in an email to TIME. “The result can be awkward, painful and unsatisfactory for all involved.”

The second major problem was that schools seemed to deny that their students were sexually active, which made the information out of touch with reality, irrelevant and overly skewed toward heterosexual intercourse, the researchers say. There was little practical information: telling students about community-health services, for example, what to do if they got pregnant or the pros and cons of different kinds of birth control. Teachers also presented the information as overly scientific, with hardly a nod to pleasure and desire; female pleasure, specifically, was rarely mentioned.

But one of the worst parts of sex ed for students was that it was too often delivered by their teachers. “They describe it as ‘cringey’ and embarrassing to have their teachers speaking about sex and relationships,” Pound says.

The best way to improve sex education, Pound says, is to relieve embarrassed schoolteachers of their duties by having someone else do the topic justice. “[It] needs to be delivered by experts who are sex positive, who enjoy their work and who are in a position to maintain clear boundaries with students,” Pound says. “We need to get the delivery right — otherwise young people will disengage.”

More Must-Reads From TIME

• What Student Photojournalists Saw at the Campus Protests
• How Far Trump Would Go
• Why Maternity Care Is Underpaid
• Saving Seconds Is Better Than Hours
• Welcome to the Golden Age of Ryan Gosling
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Mandy Oaklander at [email protected]

The People, Ideas, and Things Journal

Sex Education in Public Schools

Sex education permeates the public school system, but in its current form it is failing to adequately teach students about sex and sexuality. Rates of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections are far too high, particularly among LGBT+ students. Teenagers are uninformed or misinformed about many issues concerning their bodies and turn to alternative forms of sex education, which are usually not very accurate or informative. There is not currently a nationwide standard for sex education. This article discusses the shortcomings of the United States’ present sex education norms—particularly as they relate to abstinence-only sex education programs and the ability of the programs already in place to include queer students—explores the opinions of advocates from multiple sides of the issue (from comprehensive sex education to abstinence-only programs to the complete abolishment of sex education in public schools), and ultimately presents the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS) and their National Sexuality Education Standards as a viable option for pushing toward the objective of nationwide, comprehensive, and inclusive sex education in public schools. The goal of this article is to start a conversation about the current state of sex education in public schools and the best way to reform sex education moving forward. Sex education permeates the public school system, but in its current form it is failing to adequately teach students about sex and sexuality. Rates of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections are far too high, particularly among LGBT+ students. Teenagers are uninformed or misinformed about many issues concerning their bodies and turn to alternative forms of sex education, which are usually not very accurate or informative. There is not currently a nationwide standard for sex education. This article discusses the shortcomings of the United States’ present sex education norms—particularly as they relate to abstinence-only sex education programs and the ability of the programs already in place to include queer students—explores the opinions of advocates from multiple sides of the issue (from comprehensive sex education to abstinence-only programs to the complete abolishment of sex education in public schools), and ultimately presents the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS) and their National Sexuality Education Standards as a viable option for pushing toward the objective of nationwide, comprehensive, and inclusive sex education in public schools. The goal of this article is to start a conversation about the current state of sex education in public schools and the best way to reform sex education moving forward.

Nearly everyone who attended public high school suffered through some form of sex education. The image of a little old lady or a football coach standing at the front of a classroom and struggling over the words “penis” and “vagina” is seared into our brains, if we haven’t suppressed the memories entirely. But how much did we really learn and retain in sex education? How many of us walked away feeling completely confident in our understanding of the human body and how sex worked, not just biologically but socially? I would argue not many. Currently, sex education in public schools is failing to adequately teach students about sex and sexuality. While most people agree that sex education needs to be improved, not many can agree on how that should happen. This article will discuss two main shortcomings of public school sex education, briefly explore several differing opinions on how sex education should be taught in schools, and present SIECUS’ National Sexuality Education Standards as a viable option for sex education reform moving forward.

Sex education in public schools across America is largely abstinence-only. According to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization funded in part by Planned Parenthood and claiming to “advance sexual and reproductive health and rights,” nineteen states’ laws require abstinence-only sex education in public schools. The Guttmacher Institute further reports that twenty-nine states do not require sex education at all, and thirty-seven do not require sex education curriculum to be medically accurate. This means that a large portion of American students is not receiving formal sex education; they are forced to rely on what their parents may or may not teach them and what they learn from the Internet. Of the students who do receive sex education in schools, a large number are getting inaccurate information about their bodies. In nearly half of US states—the ones that require abstinence-only sex education—students are not getting any information on contraception or how to stay safe when they eventually do have sex (Guttmacher).

Abstinence-only sex education programs are meant to delay the age at which teenagers start having sex in order to reduce teenage pregnancy. However, according to Advocates for Youth—an organization that strives to help young people make informed decisions about sex and their bodies largely through sex education programs—they do not work. The organization cites several studies throughout America that have conclusively shown that abstinence-only sex education programs do not delay the age at which teenagers start having sex, but they do decrease the regularity with which students correctly use contraception, increasing their risk for sexually transmitted infection and unwanted pregnancy (“The Truth”). Advocates for Youth claims that 95 percent of American adults between the ages of eighteen and forty-four reported having sex before marriage, indicating that abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education is not only ineffective but irrelevant to the majority of Americans.

Another obsolescence of sex education in American public schools is its inability to include every student—specifically the queer ones. Many states do not discuss gender identity or sexual orientation in their sex education programs, and Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina go so far as to require only negative information about same-sex relationships to be taught in schools, if they are mentioned at all (Guttmacher). Because they do not have access to accurate sex education, LGBT+ students are only half as likely to use birth control during sexual intercourse compared to their straight peers, and lesbian and gay teenagers are defying expectations by being three times as likely to have been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant than their straight peers, and there is not a solid explanation as to why. LGBT+ students are also much more likely to use alcohol or drugs before sexual encounters (Kattari). Queer students do not know and are not being taught how to have sex at all, much less safe sex, leading to higher rates of sexually transmitted infection and unwanted pregnancy—the very things sex education is meant to prevent in the first place.

The lack of queer representation in public school sex education leads to several negative social effects, including increased harassment of LGBT+ students. Robert McGarry, director of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), discusses ways in which sex education programs typically exclude LGBT+ students. Most commonly, he says, their existence is simply ignored. These programs “[present] heterosexuality as the absolute norm and the only conceivable option for students” (McGarry 28). This refusal of public school curriculums to acknowledge queer people in sex education leads to LGBT+ students’ inability to have healthy sexual relationships or to stay safe within relationships. Tanya McNeill, a faculty member of Wellesley College, argues that, by ignoring or even demonizing queer people, sex education programs are promoting a damaging heteronormativity in schools. She claims that they are encouraging straight students to hold a negative view of their queer peers or to fear them (840). This stigmatization also leads to a greater degree of bullying outside the classroom.

According to the GLSEN National School Climate Survey, 63 percent of queer teenagers said that they did not feel safe at school because of their sexual orientation (qtd in “Sex and Schools” 32). Almost all queer teens reported regularly hearing “gay” used as a pejorative. Eighty-two percent of LGBT+ teens reported being verbally harassed, nearly 40 percent reported being physically harassed, and nearly 20 percent of queer teens reported being physically assaulted at school in the past year (“Sex and Schools” 33). Fortunately, students felt much safer at schools with inclusive sex education; less than half of queer students felt unsafe at schools with inclusive curriculum, compared to two thirds at other schools (McNeill 840). Schools should be safe environments for all students to learn in without fearing for their physical safety, and while inclusive sex education will not completely eliminate social inequality for queer people, it can be a step toward safer schools.

Most people would agree that sex education in its current state is not ideal. One would be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks that sex education is perfect exactly the way it is. Arguments form when solutions are presented to the current state of sex education in schools. Everyone has differing opinions, from taking sex education out of public schools entirely to reforming the process to be included at every grade level. Much of the debate seems to be a clash between proponents of abstinence-only sex education and advocates of comprehensive sex education, with a small section of people with seemingly radically different ideas.

For example, blogger and parent Matt Walsh believes that sex education should be taken out of schools entirely. In Walsh’s view, “Sex is just too big a topic. There’s too much there. It’s too important. The schools cannot handle it, either way, and they shouldn’t try.” In other words, Walsh believes that public schools have proven incapable of adequately teaching the complicated topic of sex education, and every parent wants their child to learn different things, so sex education should not exist in public schools at all.

While I agree that schools are currently not doing a good job of teaching students what they need to know about sex, I do not think that getting rid of standardized sex education is a viable option. If students could not learn about sex education in schools, it would be entirely up to each individual parent to educate their child about sex. Excluding the fact that many students do not have parents or have working parents whom they do not see every day, this leads to awkward conversations, which people tend to avoid or put off indefinitely. Parents can be misinformed or ignorant just as often as their children, and the information sex education provides is constantly changing as new information is found, new drugs and forms of contraception come into being, and rates of sexually transmitted infections fluctuate. This option is also still exclusive of queer students, because many LGBT+ teenagers are not out to their parents or do not feel comfortable asking their (typically straight) parents about same-sex relationships. This is not to say that parents should not talk to their students about sex; parents are a valuable supplement to a student’s sex education, but they are a supplement, and standardized, comprehensive public school sex education is still a necessity.

Another option, provided by the Alliance for Healthy Youth, is the sex education program RSVP, which stands for “Responsible Social Values Program.” RSVP is an abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education program geared toward middle school children. Its goals are to “help students avoid premarital sexual activity, alcohol and other drug use, and promote healthy decision making” (Alliance 7). RSVP equates sex before marriage with alcohol and illegal drug use, claiming that it can lead to loss of income, jail time, addiction, failed relationships, illness, or death. This fear-based teaching style strives to scare students into not having sex before (heterosexual) marriage, telling them that premarital sex will cause them to lose friends (presumably because their friends will think less of them for having sex) and essentially painting sex as a gateway drug that leads to loose morals and STIs. The program also has no information on same-sex relationships, continuing to exclude queer students from sex education.

Though abstinence-only sex education programs have been proven ineffective, they are still a part of the conversation. When researching the debate over sex education in America, it seems that there are two equal camps—about half want abstinence-only sex education, and about half want a more comprehensive approach. The Advocates for Youth, however, report that only about 15 percent of parents want their children to be enrolled in abstinence-only sex education programs with no discussion of contraception. Advocates for Youth also reports that an overwhelming number of Americans (83 percent) think that students should be taught how to put on a condom in public school sex education classes. About 71 percent of Americans think that teenagers need to know where they can get birth control pills (“The Truth”). This data shows that, though some parents still push for abstinence-only curriculum, the majority of Americans want more out of their sex education.

Finally, we have the Future of Sex Education (FoSE), a partnership between Advocates for Youth, Answer, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) that developed National Sexuality Education Standards, a comprehensive and inclusive sex education curriculum. FoSE’s plan has seven key concepts: Anatomy and Physiology; Puberty and Adolescent Development; Identity; Pregnancy and Reproduction; Sexually Transmitted Diseases and HIV; Healthy Relationships; and Personal Safety (10). Each concept adheres to the National Health Education Standards already in place (11), and each builds on itself over the course of a student’s school career starting in kindergarten. Essentially, this curriculum teaches students about what happens in their bodies physically/biologically, and teaches them what a healthy, non-abusive relationship looks like (this topic covers friendships as well as romantic relationships). The curriculum also discusses queerness, specifically in the Identity section. It teaches students that people identify in different ways and teaches the difference between sexual orientation, sexual identity, gender, and biological sex. These are all important topics that, if McNeill is to be believed, can reduce bullying and stigmatization of queer people.

One important aspect of the Future of Sex Education’s curriculum is that it adheres to SEICUS’ Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education. SEICUS developed national guidelines to determine whether or not a sex education program is comprehensive. These guidelines require sex education to start at the latest by second grade, preferably starting in kindergarten, and continuing through the end of high school. The guidelines concentrate on six key concepts: Human Development, Relationships, Personal Skills, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Health, and Society and Culture. SIECUS offers a good compromise between the three aforementioned conflicting views because they do not specify what must be taught in sex education classes or how they should be taught. Instead, they offer simple guidelines that push for comprehensive sex education while acknowledging RSVP’s focus on abstinence. They concede that abstinence “is the most effective method of preventing pregnancy and STD/HIV” (20). SIECUS also recognizes Walsh’s claim that sex is an incredibly moralistic topic, admitting that there are certain values inherent in the guidelines, but that they try to reflect the value s of the country as a whole. Additionally, the guidelines are meant to be tailored to each community as they are implemented (21).

SIECUS is not perfect. It does push for comprehensive, inclusive, and medically accurate sex education, but there is a lot of wiggle room, and it is not nationally implemented. Our country’s public schools are still burdened with those little old ladies and football coaches struggling to teach children about sex, and people are still advocating for old systems that do not work. SEICUS is a good start, though, and a step in the direction of universally available sex education. I will conclude with a hope that SIECUS and I share: “all children and youth will benefit from comprehensive sexuality education, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socio-economic status, or disability” (SIECUS 21). The topic of sex education should not be scary or taboo. We need to start a conversation about it because, ultimately, that conversation will benefit us all.

Alliance for Healthy Youth. “Responsible Social Values Program [Kit].” Alliance for Healthy Youth, 2011. Web. 23 March 2016.

Future of Sex Education. “National Sexuality Education Standards.” Future of Sex Education, 2011. Web. 23 March 2014.

Guttmacher Institute. “State Laws in Brief.” Guttmacher Institute, 1 March 2016. Web. 8 April 2016.

Kattari, Leo. “Left Out: LGBTIQ Inclusivity in Sex Education.” Colorado Youth Matter (2013). Web. 7 February 2016.

McGarry, Robert. “Build a Curriculum that Includes Everyone: Ensuring that Schools are More Accepting of LGBT Students and Issues Requires More than Passing Mentions of Diversity in Sex Education Classes.” Phi Delta Kappan 94.5 (2013): 27. Web. 7 February 2016.

McNeill, Tanya. “Sex Education and the Promotion of Heteronormativity.” Sexualities 16.7 (2013): 826-46. Web. 7 February 2016.

“Sex and Schools: BY THE NUMBERS”. The Phi Delta Kappan 94.5 (2013): 32–33. Web. 7 February 2016.

SIECUS National Guidelines Task Force. “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education.” Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, 2004. Web. 23 March 2016.

“The Truth About Abstinence-Only Programs.” Advocates for Youth, 2007. Web. 9 April 2016.

Walsh, Matt. “No Thanks, Public Schools. I Don’t Need You To Teach My Kids About Sex.” The Blaze. 11 Dec 2014. Web. 23 March 2016.

Tessa Palmer

Tags: education LGBT sexuality

Recent Posts

• Next story  Some Interpretations are More Equal Than Others: Misinterpreting George Orwell’s Animal Farm
• Previous story  Seeing Black and White

The Mental Health Gap: Addressing Racial Disparities in Mental Health Care at Predominantly White Universities

A color-tural experience: the role of color in the emperor’s new ​​groove, malaria: difficulties contributing to eradication efforts within central africa, navigating navigation: assessing the relationship between airline elasticities and price setting, milk to mylk: the growing popularity of plant-based milk alternatives.

art athletics biology climate college community culture disease economics education elections food football gaming gender genetics health history HIV law literature media medicine music North Carolina nutrition philosophy poetry policy politics psychology public health regulation religion rhetoric sex sexuality social society sports statistics students technology urban violence

Summary State Policies on Sex Education in Schools

Why is sexual education taught in schools.

A 2017 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  survey  indicates that nearly 40 percent of all high school students report they have had sex, and 9.7 percent of high school students have had sex with four or more partners during their lifetime. Among students who had sex in the three months prior to the survey, 54 percent reported condom use and 30 percent reported using birth control pills, an intrauterine device (IUD), implant, shot or ring during their last sexual encounter.

The birth rate for women aged 15-19 years was  18.8 per 1,000 women  in 2017, a drop of 7 percent from 2016. According to CDC, reasons for the decline are not entirely clear, but evidence points to a higher number of teens abstaining from sexual activity and an increased use of birth control in teens who are sexually active. Though the teen birth rate has declined to its lowest levels since data collection began, the United States still has the highest teen birth rate in the industrialized world.

Certain social and economic costs can result from teen pregnancy. Teenage mothers are less likely to finish high school and are more likely than their peers to live in poverty, depend on public assistance, and be in poor health. Their children are more likely to suffer health and cognitive disadvantages, come in contact with the child welfare and correctional systems, live in poverty, drop out of high school and become teen parents themselves. These costs add up, according to The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, which estimates that teen childbearing costs taxpayers at least $9.4 billion annually. Between 1991 and 2015, the teen birth rate dropped 64%, resulting in approximately  $4.4 billion  in public savings in one year alone.

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) disproportionately affect adolescents due to a variety of behavioral, biological and cultural reasons. Young people ages 15 to 24 represent  25 percent  of the sexually active population, but acquire half of all new STIs, or about 10 million new cases a year. Though many cases of STIs continue to go  undiagnosed and unreported , one in four sexually-active adolescent females is reported to have an STI.

Human papillomavirus  is the most common STI and some estimates find that up to 35 percent of teens ages 14 to 19 have HPV. The rate of reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and primary and secondary syphilis increased among those aged 15-24 years old between 2017-2018. Rates of reported chlamydia cases are consistently highest among women aged 15-24 years, and rates of reported gonorrhea cases are consistently highest among men aged 15-24 years. A CDC analysis reveals the annual number of new STIs is roughly equal among young women and young men. However, women are more likely to experience long-term health complications from untreated STIs and adolescent females may have increased susceptibility to infection due to biological reasons.

The estimated direct medical costs for treating people with STIs are nearly $16 billion annually, with costs associated with HIV infection accounting for more than 81% of the total cost. In 2017, approximately  21 percent  of new HIV diagnoses were among young people ages 13 to 24 years.

Sex Education and States

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.

As of October 1, 2020:

• Thirty states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education, 28 of which mandate both sex education and HIV education.
• Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV.
• Twenty-two states require that if provided, sex and/or HIV education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of “medically accurate" vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from “published authorities upon which medical professionals rely.” (See table on medically accuracy laws.)

Many states define parents’ rights concerning sexual education:

• Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia require school districts to notify parents that sexual or HIV education will be provided.
• Five states require parental consent before a child can receive instruction.
• Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia allow parents to opt-out on behalf of their children.

*Medical accuracy is not specifically outlined in state statue, rather it is required by the New Jersey Department of Education, Comprehensive Health and Physical Education Student Learning Standards.

** Medical accuracy requirement is pursuant to rule R277-474 of the Utah Administrative Code.

***Medical accuracy is not outlined in state statute, rather it is included in the Virginia Department of Education Standards of Learning Document for Family Life Resources.

Source: NCSL, 2019; Guttmacher Institute, 2019; Powered by StateNet

Related Resources

Health costs, coverage and delivery state legislation, state public health legislation database, ems legislative database, contact ncsl.

For more information on this topic, use this form to reach NCSL staff.

• What is your role? Legislator Legislative Staff Other
• Is this a press or media inquiry? No Yes
• Admin Email

Rethinking Schools

The History of Sexuality Education

By Priscilla Pardini

The 1960s saw the beginning of the current wave of controversy over sex ed in U.S. schools. But as early as 1912, the National Education Association called for teacher training programs in sexuality education.

In 1940, the U.S. Public Health Service strongly advocated sexuality education in the schools, labeling it an “urgent need.” In 1953, the American School Health Association launched a nationwide program in family life education. Two years later, the American Medical Association, in conjunction with the NEA, published five pamphlets that were commonly referred to as “the sex education series” for schools.

Support for sexuality education among public health officials and educators did not sway opponents, however. And for the last 30 years, battles have raged between conservatives and health advocates over the merits — and format — of sexuality education in public schools.

The first wave of organized opposition, from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, took the form of attacks aimed at barring any form of sex ed in school. Sex education programs were described by the Christian Crusade and other conservative groups as “smut” and “raw sex.” The John Birch Society termed the effort to teach about sexuality “a filthy Communist plot.” Phyllis Schlafly, leader of the far-right Eagle Forum, argued that sexuality education resulted in an increase in sexual activity among teens.

Efforts to curtail sex ed enjoyed only limited success, however. Sex education programs in public schools proliferated, in large part due to newly emerging evidence that such programs didn’t promote sex but in fact helped delay sexual activity and reduce teen pregnancy rates.

By 1983, sexuality education was being taught within the context of more comprehensive family life education programs or human growth and development courses. Such an approach emphasized not only reproduction, but also the importance of self-esteem, responsibility, and decision making. The new courses covered not only contraception, but also topics such as family finances and parenting skills.

In the mid 1980s, the AIDS epidemic irrevocably changed sexuality education. In 1986, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop issued a report calling for comprehensive AIDS and sexuality education in public schools, beginning as early as the third grade. “There is now no doubt that we need sex education in schools and that it [should] include information on heterosexual and homosexual relationships,” Koop wrote in his report. “The need is critical and the price of neglect is high.”

But if Koop’s report helped promote sexuality education, it also forced the Religious Right to rethink its opposition strategies. Even the most conservative of sex-ed opponents now found it difficult to justify a total ban on the topic. Instead, the Right responded with a new tactic: fear-based, abstinence-only sexuality education.

Included in:

Volume 12, No.4

Summer 1998.

Watch CBS News

America's sex ed controversy: Can you teach consent?

By Cydney Adams

April 28, 2019 / 7:44 AM EDT / CBS News

Watch the new  CBSN Originals documentary "Sex. Consent. Education." in the video player above.

When Amy Fortier-Brown took a sex education class in high school, she learned how to avoid getting pregnant and how to protect herself from STDs. Before that, she learned abstinence in her middle school health classes. She doesn't remember learning anything about consent, sexual assault or what to do if it happened to you until college.

But by then, she says, it was too late. She'd been assaulted by someone she was dating in high school.

In recent years, the issue of consent — what it means, and how it is given — has become a cultural topic of conversation. Significant increases in the number of reported sexual assaults on college campuses and the #MeToo movement have left many wondering, how can we prevent these situations from happening in the first place?

Some believe a different approach to sex education could help. There is no federal regulation mandating sex ed or what should be taught. Each state is left to decide on its own guidelines and what the curriculum should be. Individual school districts then choose how to implement that curriculum.

Only 24 states and Washington, D.C. have laws on the books mandating sex ed be taught in public schools. Communities in the rest of the country have varying degrees of regulations. In some districts sex ed isn't taught at all, and when it is, the content of what is taught can vary widely. Some students might be instructed on abstinence until marriage, where others might learn about STDs and condoms. Many get a mixture of both.

Either way, incorporating an understanding of consent into those lessons hasn't always been the norm. States across the country are now considering changing that. Maryland and Colorado, for example, recently passed laws requiring a more comprehensive approach that includes conversations about consent and sexual assault.

"Because it's not talked about, kids don't know what exactly consent is," said Alicia Gill, an educator with a non-profit clinic called Life Choices in Dyersberg, Tennessee. Her main goal is to promote abstinence as the best choice, but she educates students about sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, and dating violence prevention as well.

In her lessons, she teaches that consent must be enthusiastic and freely given — and that it can be  revoked. "We really, really like to drill that into them so they know it's OK to change your mind. It's OK to say yes, then in the heat of the moment, change your mind."

Colleges and universities are also looking for ways to decrease the number of assaults happening when young adults go away to school. From 2005 to 2015, the number of reported sexual offenses increased 198 percent, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. 

"About 50 percent of all of the assaults on campus are going to happen in the person's first month of their first semester of college," said Fortier-Brown, who is now a senior at the University of Maine, Farmington. "We can stop that, or we can at least mitigate that by, A) educating people on what consent is, but B) educating people on how to protect themselves. Because unfortunately that's a part of it."

One popular trend is for schools to present a skit or seminar about consent during freshman orientation. Some schools require students to take an online tutorial. Experts, however, say that's not enough. 

"I think where we haven't figured out yet, on college campuses, how to do this education. Everyone is all over the map," Donna Freitas, author of "Consent on Campus: A Manifesto," told CBS News. "We need to create ongoing spaces. There's not even a human sexuality course you can take at most universities."

Fortier-Brown is trying to address that problem at her school. After a sexual assault scandal rocked their campus, she and other activists took a number of proposals to the school administration, including a request for a health class that would address the gap in sex education.

But she and many experts in the field believe this education needs to start well before college, to create a foundation of knowledge long before young people have to navigate their first romantic relationship or sexual experience .

"In kindergarten, you would talk about concepts," said Chitra Panjabi, the former president and CEO of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

"Consent looks like being able to say, if you don't want to be touched, you can tell someone, 'I don't want to be touched.' Or that you have to respect someone when they say that to you. You know, by the time you look at 8th grade or even 12th grade, what those concepts mean will be fleshed out out within the context of sexual health and sexuality education more broadly, that's age and developmentally appropriate."

Cydney Adams is a senior manager of social media for CBS News. She is also a digital producer focusing on culture and social issues.

More from CBS News

Can you increase your HELOC limit? 2 ways to do it

Bird flu risk to humans is low, but "things can change," doctor says

How much does it cost to file for bankruptcy?

RFK Jr. says he suffered from a parasitic brain worm and mercury poisoning

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Opinion Front

Sex Education in Schools Pros and Cons

Whether sex education in schools has more pros or cons is a never ending debate. Let's read arguments for both, pros and cons, in this article and hopefully you'll be able to take a stand.

Whether sex education in schools has more pros or cons is a never ending debate. Let’s read arguments for both, pros and cons, in this article and hopefully you’ll be able to take a stand.

Sex education is one of the most controversial issues in education, that has been hovering over educational institutions since ages. It is probably the most debated topic, that will always have a divided opinion. Some people will always agree and some will always disagree. Try though everyone may, it is almost impossible to shrug off the responsibility of informing students about its importance. Problems like teen pregnancy and STDs rise due to unsafe sex, and one of the best ways to avoid it, is by educating the students about it. Let us see some pros and cons of sex education in schools in this OpinionFront article.

Most of us limit the scope of sex education by taking it at its face value. It is not just about sex. It involves other delicate issues like sexual health, sexual reproduction, sexuality and others that parents often feel awkward to talk about with their children. Hence, it becomes the responsibility and the duty of schools to take up this topic, and inform and educate the students about it as much as they can. However, this is almost never taken in the right spirit by parents and students themselves. They begin deliberation on the pros and cons of sex education in schools, and form an attitude towards it based on what they think is right. Let us see some of these arguments and then decide for ourselves.

Statistics show that more than 50% of American teenagers lose their virginity by the age of 17. It also shows that sex education in schools is well accepted by only 7% of American parents. The other 93% still consider it a taboo to talk about sex to their children, and resort to making up the ever popular stories of birds and bees. But do they stop for a moment and think that it is not the presence of sex education in schools, but its absence that has made the rate of teen pregnancy go up to such a high level? Given below are some more arguments for sex education.

Stress on Abstinence Most schools that do provide sex education, have an ‘abstinence is the best solution’ approach to it. They stress on abstinence as the perfect way to be totally free from any problems whatsoever, related to sex and sexuality. Which actually makes sense. We all believe that prevention is better than cure, so why not just wait for the right age to engage in sexual activity. The two most important things that you need to be sexually active, namely the mind and the body, are not fully matured when kids are in school. It puts them in grave danger, physically and psychologically. Hence stressing the importance of restraint and abstinence through sex education is a great advantage.

Birth Control Schools that don’t use the abstinence approach, prefer to go the ‘safe sex’ way. They have accepted the fact that the sexual activities of teenagers and even pre-teens cannot be controlled by a mere class taken in school. They know that the students have other resources thanks to the various forms and forums of information that are available today. So the schools would rather give them tips on how to engage in safe sex, by using appropriate birth control measures if they are sexually active, than preaching abstinence. They train them on using different methods of birth control, and also the dangers of teenage pregnancy.

Information about STDs It is only through education in schools, that students will get proper and honest information about sexually transmitted diseases. The grave dangers that these diseases pose to them, the physical and mental torture that they may have to go through if they fall prey to an STD, not to mention the social stigma associated with them, are well explained. This instills in the students a sense of responsibility that creeps out of fear for their health and life. As a result they behave more responsibly.

Though the pros may seem like very valid reasons to vouch for it, there are certain people who believe that sex is better left to be understood by teenagers themselves if at all, or worse, through unreliable sources. Hence, they strongly oppose the idea of sex education in schools. Let us see some of the arguments against it now.

Lack of Sincerity It is often seen that sex education is not taken seriously. Students tend to look at it as a subject of ridicule, and either don’t attend the classes, or if made compulsory, either engage in snickering and giggling, throughout. They seem to be aware of much more than the person who’s teaching them about it, thanks to numerous movies, sitcoms, and other media, propagating sex as a style statement. The sensationalizing of sex in school has reached such a level that teens will engage in sex, just to prove how ‘cool’ and ‘popular’ they can be. There’s little that sex ed can do for them. And it’s not just the students, but the faculty too. If they really want to take education about sex to a whole new level of understanding and importance, then they should have more than the customary classes that they do, and hire people who are trained and well informed to teach the students about it.

Religious Beliefs and Sentiments Many groups of people believe that when it comes to sex education, the cons outweigh the pros, for one very simple reason. They believe, beyond a doubt, that their children should not be exposed to something as crude as sex, in their school days because their religion does not permit it. It goes against their religious beliefs and sentiments, and they do not accept it, on principle. It becomes very difficult to argue with people when they bring religion to the forefront. And so, many schools prefer to leave this sensitive issue untouched.

Misinterpretation of ‘Education’ As opposed to ‘abstinence only’ education, when schools propagate safe sex, they run the risk of having their information misinterpreted by the students. We will all agree that we can listen to hours and hours of lecturing about any topic, but finally do exactly what we want. Unfortunately, it is the same with sex education. Students may listen to the lecturers going on and on about safe sex, but in the end, engage in unsafe sex. They will justify saying that they learned about it in school, and that if teachers did not want them to engage in sexual activities, they never should have brought up the topic in the first place. Curiosity can make them take foolish steps which they will undoubtedly regret later.

As you can see, the possibility of a consensus on the debate about whether or not sex education in schools is a acceptable or not is something that will take a while to happen. Until then, all we can do is hope that the children realize their responsibilities towards their bodies and towards their minds.

Like it? Share it!

Get Updates Right to Your Inbox

Further insights.

Privacy Overview

Educ 300: Education Reform, Past and Present

an undergraduate course with Professor Jack Dougherty at Trinity College, Hartford CT

Curriculum Changes of Sex Education Through The Years

The topic of sex education in school has always brought up heated debates since the early 1900’s. There has been much controversy over time on what to teach, who should teach, the moral of sex education in the classroom and the religions aspects and beliefs of the families that attend the school. Throughout time we have seen a change in the way sex education is taught in pubic schools. The focus of this paper is to shed light on the content shift in sex education classes to determine why the change occurred. How have the views of sex education in schools created a shift in the learning content from teaching about marriage and family life to pregnancy and STD prevention?

Around the 1950s and 1960s the focus of sex education was towards the marriage and family life style, the anatomy of the human bodies and the roles of family members. As we progress over time towards the 1990’s and today we can see that the focus of sex education has taken a shift in a different direction. In today’s public school system sex education classes now focus more on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and contracting sexually transmitted diseases. (Finkel, M. L., & Finkel, S. 1985) We see the shift from marriage and family focus to a focus on the individual and their personal preventive health. Prior to the education curriculum of the 1980’s there was a deeper religious impact on the sex education curriculum in school systems in the United States. (Lamb, S. 2013)

In the early 1900’s to the 1940’s the curriculum of sex education focused on the scientific facts of the sexual reproduction system. In the curriculum they put a focus of sex in the natural world. They used animals to portray sex as a powerful interaction between two living creatures and that it deserves respect. When sex education was being taught there were no human depictions being used as examples. They taught sex in this way so the students were still able to learn but they were not intimidated by the possible picture contents of having to see a picture of actual people engaging in intercourse. This curriculum soon changed around 1947 to help the students learn more about moral laws and the customs of society, and to better connect sex to their own lives instead of the animals in nature. The new draft of the curriculum would be focused on educating the students for personal growth and family living. This new change in the curriculum wanted to also help students to focus more on “wholesome decisions.”(Lamb, S. 2013) The moral laws that the students learned about in their sex education class consisted of making an informed decision. The teachers would present the students with questions such as, should young girls be learning about sex? Should they be able to make the decision as to whether or not to have sex or to remain in celibacy? (Lamb, S. 2013). In the mid 1960’s Sex education changed yet again, this time it was named “family life and sex education” and when implemented into high school curriculums it included a portion about ethics and was more student-centered focusing on their discussion. This new curriculum that was more “student-centered” would allow the students to have discussion about topics of sex education and also debates about the issues that came along with it. At this point in time the teachers were not allowed to express their personal opinions about sex and marital status. The teachers had to remain “morally neutral” and they were not allowed to make any comments or take a stand on any issues about sex. The focus was on the students and some topics that arose were homosexuality, contraception, and heterosexual intercourse (Lamb, S. 2013).

According to Finkel and Finkel (1985) the main topics of sex education is the prevention of pregnancies and venereal diseases. Other items on the agenda include teaching high school students responsibility for their actions, how to handle peer pressure, gender roles, personal hygiene, birth control, human reproduction and lastly knowledge of sexually transmitted diseases. (Finkel et al. 1985) In their study they discuss The Family Living/Sex Education curriculum that was established in 1967 for the school system of New York City, which would include all students in kindergarten through the 12 th grade. Finkel writes, “Since the first publication of this curriculum, there have been rapid social changes in society.” (Finkel et al. 1985) The social changes in society that can be mentioned from the 1940’s to this point in time are the dynamics of families that have changed, the opening of a Planned Parenthood organization and changes in a person’s sexual orientation and status. In his quote we see that there was a needed change in the curriculum to adjust it to the developing society. The curriculum mentioned above targeted high school students that were in the New York City public school system in the 1980’s.

In the 1980’s according to Peter Scales, the focus of sex education was to make people sexually literate. This process would happen in sex education programs across the nation. Scales states, “To be sexually literate…is to possess the basic sexual information and skills to thrive in a modern world; a comprehensive knowledge of sex and sexuality; the ability to understand alternative sides of a sexual issue; tolerance for ambiguity and paradox…”(Scales, P. C.1989). In this quote we can see that the views in sex are changing in society and there is a greater acceptance for sex education. Society is coming to terms that the role of sex in their lives is changing and that people need to be educated on the new views and perspectives on sex education. If society is more open to accepting sex, then schools should be more open to teaching about it.

As we move to the 1990’s the focus of sex education takes a drastic change. We see this change because of the HIV/AIDS that has surfaced. The sex education programs are now focusing more on prevention education rather than the moral feelings and marital status for engaging in sex. According to Schalet, in 1998 federal funding shifted to focus more on prevention education, sexually transmitted diseases, the benefits of condoms and contraception, and shifted away from the abstinence only movement. (Schalet et al. 2014)

The changes that we see occurring in the curriculum of sex education are results of an ever-changing society. We moved away from the notion of teaching kids that the only way that it was proper to engage in sexual activities was to be married. According to Susan Rose there have been findings that state, just because schools are not teaching students about sex, does not meant that they would not engage and experiment with it. By educating the students there is a better chance that they will not become another statistic of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Works Cited

Carter, J. B. (2001). Birds, Bees, and Venereal Disease: Toward an Intellectual History of Sex Education. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 10 (2), 213.

Finkel, M. L., & Finkel, S. (1985). Sex Education in High School. Society , 23 (1), 48–52.

Groen, M. (2009). A Right Turn on the Left Coast. American Educational History Journal , 36 (1/2), 23–35.

Lamb, S. (2013). Just the Facts? The Separation of Sex Education from Moral Education. Educational Theory , 63 (5), 443–460. http://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12034

Mehlman, N. (2007). Sex Ed… and the Reds? Reconsidering the Anaheim Battle over Sex Education, 1962–1969. History of Education Quarterly , 47 (2), 203–232. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5959.2007.00089.x

Mucher, S. S. (2001). School Reform, the First Amendment, and Civility in the 1990s: The Construction of A Statement of Principles for Religion and Public Education. Journal of Church & State , 43 (2), 319.

Rose, S. (2005). Going Too Far? Sex, Sin and Social Policy. Social Forces (University of North Carolina Press) , 84 (2), 1207–1232. http://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0032

Scales, P. C. (1989). Overcoming future barriers to sexuality education. Theory Into Practice , 28 , 172–176. http://doi.org/10.1080/00405848909543399

Schalet, A., Santelli, J., Russell, S. [email protected], Halpern, C., Miller, S., Pickering, S., … Hoenig, J. (2014, October). Invited Commentary: Broadening the Evidence for Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Education in the United States. Journal of Youth & Adolescence , pp. 1595–1610.

Seaholm, M. (2013). Sex Goes to School: Girls and Sex Education before the 1960s. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 22 (1), 168–171.

Stover, D. (2007). Should We Be Teaching Sex Education or Sexual Abstinence? Education Digest , 72 (5), 41–48.

One thought on “Curriculum Changes of Sex Education Through The Years”

Cristina, this essay raises a thoughtful question about how the content of sex education classes have changed over time. But the time period of your essay is unclear: the first sentence suggests from 1990s to the present, while the second paragraph suggests it’s from the 1950s to the present, and the third paragraph goes all the way back to the early 1900s. Also, the wording of your research question mistakenly attempts to insert the answer inside the question. An alternative way to write your question might have been: “How has the content of sex education in US schools changed from decade X to today?”

The thesis paragraph argues that sex education in the 1950s/60s focused on marriage, family roles, and human anatomy, while sex education today concentrates on preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. That’s a reasonable argument, though only a descriptive one. A richer thesis also would interpret why this shift happened. Religion is briefly mentioned here, but not as part of a causal argument.

The body paragraphs have potential, but need a stronger organization and more depth to support the thesis. For example, the long third paragraph should have been divided into two parts (pre vs post-1960s). Also, to convince us that the 1960s focused on family life, you could have included more direct evidence beyond Lamb 2013, such as the 1967 sex education curriculum materials we analyzed in class. The section on sex education “today” was not persuasive, because it relied primarily on Finkel and Finkel, a source written in 1985, which was over 30 years ago.

Comments are closed.

UK Edition Change

• UK Politics
• News Videos
• Paris 2024 Olympics
• Rugby Union
• Sport Videos
• John Rentoul
• Mary Dejevsky
• Andrew Grice
• Sean O’Grady
• Photography
• Theatre & Dance
• Culture Videos
• Fitness & Wellbeing
• Food & Drink
• Health & Families
• Royal Family
• Electric Vehicles
• Car Insurance Deals
• Lifestyle Videos
• UK Hotel Reviews
• News & Advice
• Simon Calder
• Australia & New Zealand
• South America
• C. America & Caribbean
• Middle East
• Politics Explained
• News Analysis
• Today’s Edition
• Home & Garden
• Broadband deals
• Fashion & Beauty
• Travel & Outdoors
• Sports & Fitness
• Sustainable Living
• Climate Videos
• Solar Panels
• Behind The Headlines
• On The Ground
• Decomplicated
• You Ask The Questions
• Binge Watch
• Travel Smart
• Watch on your TV
• Crosswords & Puzzles
• Most Commented
• Newsletters
• Ask Me Anything
• Virtual Events
• Betting Sites
• Online Casinos
• Wine Offers

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in

Sex education in schools to be reviewed amid concerns over ‘inappropriate’ lessons

Department for education asked to ‘ensure schools are not teaching inappropriate or contested content’, article bookmarked.

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

Sign up for a full digest of all the best opinions of the week in our Voices Dispatches email

Sign up to our free weekly voices newsletter, thanks for signing up to the voices dispatches email.

The government is set to bring forward a review of how Relationships and Sex Education is being taught in schools, following concerns that children are being exposed to “inappropriate” content.

Rishi Sunak said he has asked the Department for Education (DfE) to “ensure that schools are not teaching inappropriate or contested content” in Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE).

Mr Sunak told Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday: “Our priority should always be the safety and wellbeing of children and schools should also make curriculum content and materials available to parents.

“As a result of all of this, we are bringing forward a review of RSHE statutory guidance and we will start our consultation as soon as possible.”

His pledge came after Conservative MP Miriam Cates said pupils were being subjected to relationships and sex education classes that are “age inappropriate, extreme, sexualising and inaccurate”.

Ms Cates, MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, called on Mr Sunak to commission an independent inquiry to “end inappropriate sex education”.

She told the Commons: “Graphic lessons on oral sex, how to choke your partner safely and 72 genders. This is what passes for relationships and sex education in British schools.

“Across the country, children are being subjected to lessons that are age inappropriate, extreme, sexualising and inaccurate, often using resources from unregulated organisations that are actively campaigning to undermine parents.

“This is not a victory for equality, it is a catastrophe for childhood.”

The prime minister’s official spokesman said: “We believe children should be supported to make informed decisions and those need to be factually based and age appropriate.

• Children ‘slipping into poverty’ due to cost-of-living crisis, warns charity

“So the PM has asked for the Department of Education to look at some of the issues raised by the MPs in the letter to him to make sure all schools are compliant with existing guidance.”

He stressed “clear guidance” already exists on external speakers and resources “and that’s something that we want the review to look at”.

The DfE will also conduct a consultation later this year, he said.

James Bowen, director of policy for school leaders’ union NAHT, said: “It is hard to be anything other than deeply concerned by this announcement.

“The overwhelming majority of schools are doing nothing more than following the Government’s own statutory guidance when it comes to relationships and sex education.

“It is worth remembering that the current curriculum was subject to extensive consultation before it was introduced.

“We have seen no evidence to suggest there is a widespread problem with pupils being presented with age-inappropriate materials and if this were the situation, we would expect it to have been picked up on a case-by-case basis.

“There is a real concern that this is a politically motivated review, rather than one based on the reality of what is happening in the vast majority of schools up and down the country.

“Our appeal to government is to ensure this review is now handled with the care, sensitivity and impartiality it requires and to listen carefully to the most important voices – those of education professionals and pupils.”

Geoff Barton , general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: “The vast majority of schools are incredibly cautious and sensible about the teaching of Relationships and Sex Education and we disagree with the sweeping generalisation and inflammatory rhetoric from Miriam Cates in the Commons.”

He added: “We welcome the review of Relationships and Sex Education as part of an ongoing process of ensuring that schools and teachers are well-supported in delivering this topic, but our understanding is that this review has been on the cards for some time as one would expect given that this is a relatively new and very important part of the curriculum.”

Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.

New to The Independent?

Or if you would prefer:

Want an ad-free experience?

Hi {{indy.fullName}}

• My Independent Premium
• Account details
• Help centre

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Efforts to restrict rights for LGBTQ youth

Florida's governor signs controversial law opponents dubbed 'don't say gay'.

Jaclyn Diaz

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, seen here on Feb. 24, signed a bill into law Monday that restricts the education of LGBTQ topics in the state's public schools. Joe Raedle/Getty Images hide caption

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, seen here on Feb. 24, signed a bill into law Monday that restricts the education of LGBTQ topics in the state's public schools.

Public school teachers in Florida are banned from holding classroom instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity after Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed the controversial "Parental Rights in Education" bill.

The bill, which some opponents have called "Don't Say Gay," was signed by DeSantis on Monday. It reads , "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Supporters of the legislation say it's meant to allow parents to determine when and in what way to introduce LGBTQ topics to their children. It also gives parents an option to sue a school district if the policy is violated.

During a press conference ahead of signing the law, DeSantis said teaching kindergarten-aged kids that "they can be whatever they want to be" was "inappropriate" for children.

He said, "It's not something that's appropriate for any place, but especially not in Florida."

Florida Senate passes a controversial schools bill labeled 'Don't Say Gay' by critics

The "Don't Say Gay" moniker comes from critics of the measure who blast this idea and insist this policy will hurt LGBTQ children.

DeSantis and other supporters gathered for the bill signing called this messaging "sloganeering" and referred to efforts to educate students about LGBTQ issues as part of "woke gender ideology."

DeSantis remains defiant in the face of criticism

Protestors stand in front of Florida State Senator Ileana Garcia's office after the passage of the Parental Rights in Education bill on March 9. Joe Raedle/Getty Images hide caption

Protestors stand in front of Florida State Senator Ileana Garcia's office after the passage of the Parental Rights in Education bill on March 9.

Studies have shown that LGBTQ youth already face higher health and suicide risks than their cisgender or straight peers. When those kids are given access to spaces that affirm their gender identity, they report lower rates of suicide attempts, according to The Trevor Project.

The Trevor Project condemned the signing of the bill saying the bill erases "LGBTQ identity, history, and culture — as well as LGBTQ students themselves."

The group also critiqued the policy's parental notification requirements. The law requires parents to be the first to be notified of any health or support services offered to their kids in school and allows them the chance to deny those services on behalf of their children.

The Trevor Project says these provisions, "appear to undermine LGBTQ support in schools and include vague parental notification requirements, which could effectively require teachers to 'out' LGBTQ students to their legal guardians without their consent, regardless of whether they are supportive."

Amit Paley, CEO & Executive Director of The Trevor Project, said in a statement that, "While I am saddened to see this harmful bill signed into law, I am inspired by the outpouring of support for LGBTQ students we have seen from parents, teachers, celebrities, and their peers. Social support is vital for suicide prevention, and I want to remind LGBTQ youth in Florida and across the country that you are not alone."

Leading up to the bill's signing, critics, which include The Walt Disney Company , lambasted Florida lawmakers for the legislation.

On Monday, a spokesperson said in a statement that the company hopes the law is repealed or struck down in court.

"Florida's HB 1557, also known as the 'Don't Say Gay' bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law," the statement read. "Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that."

But DeSantis was defiant in the face of critics, "I don't care what Hollywood says. I don't care what big corporations say. Here I stand. I am not backing down." The law takes effect July 1.

The legislation was also the target of jokes at Sunday night's Academy Awards ceremony.

Correction March 29, 2022

An earlier version of this story incorrectly attributed a quote from the bill's preamble to the bill itself. The quote has been replaced with a quote from the bill.

• LGBTQ rights

Has single-sex education had its day? Jen Hogan and Finn McRedmond debate

More schools are moving towards co-education, and research suggests teenagers are in favour of it. but do they really know what’s best for them.

File photograph: A group of girls from the Dungannon High School sit in a classroom and listen to their teacher read, County Tyrone, Ireland, circa 1950. Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Finn McRedmond: No. The move towards co-ed is bad news for teenage girls

St Joseph of Cluny is the latest casualty in Ireland’s slow but inexorable march to eradicating single-sex education. The all-girls Catholic school in Dublin has announced that it will admit boys from 2025, citing the incredibly woolly and intentionally vague “demands of families and wider society” as its reason. I left my all-girls school in 2013, and only a decade later it also capitulated to these so-called “demands of wider society”. This phenomenon – increasing in pace – is not just a failure to understand the inherent value of tradition (though this is still a serious charge). It’s bad news for teenage girls.

But first, a common case for coeducational schools: it’s what the teenagers want! In fact, a recent report from the ESRI found some striking evidence. Students, whether enrolled at single-sex or co-ed school, largely favoured the idea of mixed education. And, 61 per cent of students want all schools in the country to be co-ed. Tough numbers to dispute, I suppose. It’s a particularly compelling argument because teenagers have famously always known what’s best for them.

Perhaps it is needlessly Victorian to jettison the will of teenagers entirely. But there are, of course, loads of things we do not let them do no matter how much they want to – drinking, smoking, driving among the more obvious candidates. A serious and credible education policy would prioritise first the will of the schools and then the desires of the parents. The 2022 proposal from the Irish Labour Party – that would see all single-sex primary schools turn coeducational within ten years, and at secondary level within 15 years – is a mode of top-down illiberalism any sane society ought to resist.

Proponents for mixed schooling often make a tenuous appeal to the importance of socialising the genders from an early age. If men and women need to spend their entire life interacting why not teach them the basic principles early on? School is more than academic achievement, it’s a cultural development programme, society writ large benefits when teenage boys and teenage girls know how to get along, so the argument goes.

Are we being priced out of family events in hotels?

Almost 28 years on, Michelle Smith de Bruin’s Olympic splash continues to make waves

Matt Williams: Leinster and Toulouse prepare for a battle royale in Champions Cup final

The Dublin Portal: When a New Yorker gave them the finger, Dubliners returned the gesture

The best I can do is offer a positive case via the arguments of my school friends, all of whom were aligned on the benefit of their single-sex education —   Finn McRedmond

It’s thoroughly unconvincing. Thirty per cent of boys attend single sex secondary school and 38 per cent of girls. In fact, outside the Arab world Ireland has one of the highest proportion of single-sex schools in the world. Of course, this is among the vestiges of a once highly religious and conservative society. But no matter the reason, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it has kind of worked. Co-ed schools in Ireland are a relatively new invention and frankly, the country is not overrun by maladjusted weirdos (certainly no more than the majority co-educated Britain, for example). It’s wrong to suggest that at least a third of Irish adults are so hobbled by the facts of their teenage education that they do not know how to move through a non-gender segregated world like a normal person. The case for single-sex is entirely self-sustaining and self-evident.

But the best I can do is offer a positive case via the arguments of my schoolfriends, all of whom agreed on the benefit of their single-sex education. It encouraged intellectual ambition that a mixed environment may have beaten out of them; gave license for self-expression that wasn’t forced into shape by the demands of teenage boys around them; provided a safe environment for all the difficulties of female adolescence without the anxiety-inducing gaze of the other sex. Who would take this away from teenage girls?

So in this particular way I cannot avoid the conclusion that single-sex education – at least for girls – is the radical act. And the slow descent into a monoculture of co-ed schools is a rather depressing and retrograde idea.

Jen Hogan: Yes. Single-sex education is an unnatural state in which to raise and educate children

I wasn’t particularly keen on boys in primary school. For one they’d snap my bra strap in sixth class when I’d walk and teased me mercilessly about not having anything to put into that same bra. For another, I spent far too much time sitting at a table with the ones who were always in trouble in class. I earned my place at that table by being giddy and talkative myself. Boys were trouble. I needed to behave less like them.

When the time for secondary school came, my parents decided an all-girls school was the best thing for me and my sisters. Less distraction, they figured. Amazingly, I managed to be equally giddy and talkative in class there. But not distracted by teenage hormones at least. Or by Physics, because the subject wasn’t an option that year. Or by any understanding of boys whatsoever.

And so when I went to college and met some boys I thought “what a curious sort you are”. And after some time spent acclimatising to these curious sorts, I learned that boys and girls could indeed be educated together, just as they could live together and work together. And so the world goes.

I’ve always thought the idea of single-sex schools was bizarre. An unnatural state in which to raise and educate children. It’s divisive by nature, separating children unnecessarily and facilitating the reinforcement of gender stereotypes by virtue of those who surround them.

I don’t just mean academically. Subject choices may have improved largely across the board. But somewhere, in the midst of a very important campaign to ensure girls know that they can be anything they want to be, we forgot to tell boys the same thing. I don’t believe single-sex schools are a good idea for either gender. But they hold boys back in a far different way.

Life can be complicated when you’re a child or teenager trying to find your way in the world. It can be even more complicated if you don’t fit the box of what a girl should be, or how she should behave, what she should like, or what she should aspire to be. The exact same is true of boys. But stepping outside the box is often more acceptable for girls. A girl might be called a tomboy if her interests, behaviour or aspirations are considered more “boy-like” – an affectionate term at worst. A boy who steps outside the box of societal expectations of boys is often subjected to slurs. And so it’s easier to conform, and a far harder experience if you don’t.

Nobody benefits from being educated in an environment where only one sex’s perspective contributes to the classroom conversation —   Jen Hogan

And what do single-sex schools do except perpetuate rigid societal expectations – otherwise why would they exist at all? If we don’t think all boys are essentially the same as one another, and all girls are identical too, then why have schools that cater for children based on their sex alone?

Despite what you might conclude, all seven of my children went and go to their respective single-sex schools, at both primary and secondary level – not out of my desire to have them educated separately, but because our local schools are single-sex schools. Over the course of almost 20 years of being a parent, I’ve spoken to countless others whose children, like mine, mostly happily ran into primary school every day. But I’ve yet to speak to a single one who thought it was important that their sons and daughters went to two separate schools. Or that their children from all-boy or all-girl families should continue in a single-sex setting, where boys and girls didn’t learn to play together. Nobody benefits from being educated in an environment where only one sex’s perspective contributes to the classroom conversation. Equality has more opportunity to flourish when we know each other better.

• Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
• Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
• Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date

IN THIS SECTION

No line can be drawn under the troubles for grieving families, us, uk and germany have sown the shame of their nations in gaza’s blood-drenched soil, limerick’s mayoral election will either be an embarrassing novelty or a brave new world, martyn turner, there’s an obvious solution to the migration row: compatible national identity cards for ireland and britain, bruce springsteen’s first irish gig of 2024: the boss kicks off in belfast with no surrender, then builds a momentous set, asylum seekers’ tents appear on another part of grand canal day after clearance, emergency landing at dublin airport due to hydraulics issue with plane, latest stories, aer lingus weighs up legal action against airport passenger cap, retired defence forces member who ‘groomed’ young daughter jailed for 10 years for sexual abuse, man given indefinite hospital order for ‘senseless’ killing of elderly irish busker in london, russian forces attempting to break ukrainian defensive lines north of kharkiv.

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Information
• Cookie Settings
• Community Standards

• cy fair isd

Board votes to omit 13 chapters with 'controversial' topics from 25 Cy-Fair ISD textbooks

CYPRESS, Texas (KTRK) -- After several hours of discussing staff reductions due to the impending fiscal year 2024-25 budget cuts during the May 6 board meeting , Cy-Fair ISD trustees voted 6-1 to omit 13 chapters from 25 textbooks that will be used next school year.

What happened

School board members were supposed to vote on a list of textbooks to adapt for the 2024-2025 school year. Those books had been approved by the State Board of Education, but board member Dr. Natalie Blasingame introduced an amendment before the vote could take place.

She proposed accepting the list of books but getting rid of certain chapters in them.

Blasingame made the motion to omit chapters from textbooks in the following areas:

• Environmental science
• Earth systems
• Principles of education and training
• Health science theory clinicals

Blasingame said some of the information being omitted went beyond what the state requires the district to teach, adding that some of the information also creates "a perception that humans are bad."

She and other board members cited concerns around "controversial subjects" included in the textbooks, such as climate change, vaccines, COVID-19, depopulation, and "a perspective that humans are bad," Blasingame said.

The only member of the board who voted against it was Trustee Julie Hinaman.

Despite omitting certain chapters, CFISD educators must still cover topics outlined in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, the state's standards for what students should learn in public schools.

To ensure the district meets state standards, district officials must use other resources to write their own curriculum covering these topics, Chief Academic Officer Linda Macias said.

"As far as staff to get it done, we're going to struggle because we have lost a lot of staff at the district office. Our campuses are used to having the curriculum ready, or a lot of it ready by the time school starts," Macias said. "It may be that they're getting two weeks at a time, and then during those two weeks, we're providing the next two weeks (of curriculum)."

The background

This item was on the board's agenda in April, but trustees postponed the vote to allow more time to review the recommended textbooks.

A committee of expert educators reviewed the materials and recommended each book that was considered, Macias said at the April 1 board work session.

Hinaman, the sole trustee to vote against the omissions, questioned whether the district has adequate time and resources to execute this plan amid position reductions and the end of the school year nearing. She said she supported approving the instructional materials exactly as they were recommended.

"I am not clear on why one board member chose to override the recommendations of our highly trained educators who selected these materials for next school year that have been approved by the State Board of Education," she said.

What's next

Macias said developing a classroom curriculum is time-consuming, so it will be more difficult without the textbook resources. Without it, she said educators will likely use other resources they already have or purchase supplementary resources to ensure the state standards are being covered.

"We typically do a very thorough curriculum-writing aspect when we do curriculum," she said. "As Mrs. Hinaman said, we have quite a few less staff to do that, so we are going to have to probably rely more on the campuses or those teachers to go through some of their materials."

The state representative for CFISD, Jon Rosenthal, told Eyewitness News that he will do whatever he can to reverse this, by whatever avenues are available.

ABC13 reached out to Blasingame but has yet to hear back.

Some parents aren't in favor

Ashley Buckner has one child in the district and another one on the way.

"I thought it was a lot of overreach. They're kind of imposing their personal beliefs on what they think our children should learn," Buckner said.

ABC13 asked CFISD how they'll go about omitting these chapters but has yet to hear back. However, board members mentioned removing the chapters and even having new materials written by individuals in-house.

Danica Lloyd with Community Impact Newspapers contributed to this report. For news updates, follow Chaz Miller on Facebook , X and Instagram .

Related Topics

• HARRIS COUNTY
• SCHOOL RESOURCES
• COMMUNITY IMPACT NEWSPAPER
• CY FAIR ISD

Cy-fair Isd

Cy-Fair ISD cutting half of librarian positions due to $138M deficit

Teacher accused of having sex with student at Cy-Fair HS, records show

Cy-Fair ISD theater teacher to star in episode of ABC's 'The Rookie'

See which Houston-area school districts had the most student transfers

Top stories.

Young boy dies after chase with child suspects ends in crash, HPD says

Hitchcock ISD aide's son accused of beating and stabbing her to death

3 jail guards charged after inmate allegedly beaten into coma: Lawyer

Montrose man uses taekwondo skills to defend dog from pitbull

A brief drop in humidity before storms return Mother's Day

• 3 hours ago

Houston's Rice University rises to Ivy League status on Forbes' list

• 2 hours ago

Barrels wheeled out amid 14-hour drug bust allegedly for fentanyl

Rape victim hopes new Houston police chief won't 'turn his back on us'