sex education in schools policies

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.

State Laws on Medical Accuracy in Sex or HIV Education

STATUTES	SUMMARY
Arizona	Each school district may provide instruction on HIV/AIDS. At minimum the instruction shall be medically accurate, age-appropriate, promote abstinence, discourage drug abuse and dispel myths regarding the transmission of HIV.
California	Each school districts shall ensure all pupils in grades 7 to 12 receive comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education from trained instructors. Each student shall receive instruction at least once in junior high school or middle school and at least once in high school. The information must be age-appropriate, medically accurate and objective. A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sex education earlier than grade seven may provide age-appropriate and medically accurate information.
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. &	Establishes the Colorado comprehensive health education program. Human sexuality instruction is not required, but a school district that offers a human sexuality curriculum shall be comprehensive and maintain content standards for the curriculum that are based on scientific research. Curriculum content standards shall be age-appropriate, medically accurate, encourage parental involvement and family communication, and promote the development of healthy relationships.
Hawaii	Sex education programs funded by the state shall provide medically accurate and factual information that is age appropriate and includes education on abstinence, contraception, and methods of disease prevention to prevent unintended pregnancy and STIs, including HIV. Medically accurate is defined as verified or supported by research conducted in compliance with accepted scientific methods and recognized as accurate and objective by professional organizations and agencies with expertise in the relevant field, such as the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Illinois &	Human growth and development and family life responsibilities, including evidence-based and medically accurate information regarding sexual abstinence until marriage and prevention and control of disease, including instruction in grades 6 through 12 on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS is included as a major educational area as a basis for curricula in all elementary and secondary schools in the state. All schools that provide sex education courses are required to be developmentally and age appropriate, medically accurate, evidence-based and complete. Comprehensive sex education offered in grades six through 12 must include instruction on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and diseases. Parents can opt out.
Iowa	Each school board shall provide age-appropriate and research-based instruction in human growth and development including instruction regarding human sexuality, self-esteem, stress management, interpersonal relationships, domestic abuse, HPV and the availability of a vaccine to prevent HPV, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome in grades one through 12. Research-based includes information recognized as medically accurate and objective by leading professional organizations and agencies with relevant expertise in the field.
Louisiana	Any public elementary school or secondary school in Louisiana may, but is not required to, offer instruction in subject matter designated as “sex education”. “Sex education” shall mean the dissemination of factual biological or pathological information that is related to the human reproductive system and may include the study of sexually transmitted disease, pregnancy, childbirth, puberty, menstruation and menopause, as well as the dissemination of factual information about parental responsibilities under the child support laws of the state.
Maine	Defines "comprehensive family life education" as education from kindergarten to grade 12 regarding human development and sexuality, including education on family planning and sexually transmitted diseases, that is medically accurate and age appropriate, respects community values and encourages parental communication, develops skills in communication, contributes to healthy relationships, promotes responsible behavior with an emphasis on abstinence, addresses the use of contraception, promotes responsibility and involvement regarding sexuality and teaches skills for responsible decision making regarding sexuality.
Michigan	The superintendent of a school district shall cooperate with the Department of Public Health to provide teacher training and provide medically accurate materials for instruction of children about HIV/AIDS.
Minnesota	The commissioner of education and the commissioner of health shall assist school districts to develop a plan to prevent or reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Districts must have a program that has technically accurate information and curriculum.
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. &	Any course materials and instructions related to human sexuality and STIs shall be medically and factually accurate. The department of health and senior services shall prepare public education and awareness plans and programs for the general public, and the department of elementary and secondary education shall prepare educational programs for public schools, regarding means of transmission and prevention and treatment of the HIV virus. Beginning with students in the sixth grade, materials and instructions shall also stress that STIs are serious, possible health hazards of sexual activity. The educational programs shall stress moral responsibility in and restraint from sexual activity and avoidance of controlled substance use whereby HIV can be transmitted. Students shall be presented with the latest medically factual and age-specific information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception.
New Jersey*	Family life education curriculum must be aligned with the most recent version of the New Jersey Core curriculum Content Standards which requires that instructional material be current, medically accurate and supported by extensive research.
North Carolina	Each local school administrative until shall provide a reproductive health and safety education program beginning in the 7th grade. Instruction must provide factually accurate biological or pathological information that is related to the human reproductive system. Materials used must be age appropriate, objective and based upon scientific research that is peer reviewed and accepted by professional and credentialed experts in the field of sexual health education.
Oklahoma	The State Department of Education shall develop curriculum and materials for AIDS prevention education in conjunction with the State Department of Health. A school district may also develop its own AIDS prevention education curriculum and materials. Any curriculum and materials developed for use in the public schools shall be approved for medical accuracy by the State Department of Health. The State Department of Health and the State Department of Education shall update AIDS education curriculum material as newly discovered medical facts make it necessary.
Oregon	Each school district shall provide age-appropriate human sexuality education courses in all public elementary and secondary schools as an integral part of the health education curriculum. Curriculum must also be medically accurate, comprehensive, and include information about responsible sexual behaviors and hygienic practices that eliminate or reduce the risks of pregnancy and the risks of exposure to HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and other STIs. Information about those risks shall be presented in a manner designed to allay fears concerning risks that are scientifically groundless.
Rhode Island	The department of elementary and secondary education shall, pursuant to rules promulgated by the commissioner of elementary and secondary education and the director of the department of health, establish comprehensive AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) instruction, which shall provide students with accurate information and instruction on AIDS transmission and prevention, and which course shall also address abstinence from sexual activity as the preferred means of prevention, as a basic education program requirement.
Tennessee	Requires local education agencies to develop and implement a family life education program if the teen pregnancy rate in any county exceeds 19.5 pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 11 through 18. Requires curriculum be age-appropriate and provide factually and medically accurate information. Prohibits instruction and distribution of materials that promote “gateway sexual activity.” Requires that parents or guardians be notified in advance of a family life program, allowed to examine instruction materials, and provide written consent for a student to opt-out of family life education.
Texas	The department shall develop model education programs to be available to educate the public about AIDS and HIV infection. The programs must be scientifically accurate and factually correct.
Utah**	The State Office of Education must approve all sexuality education programs through the State Instructional Material Commission. Programs must be medically accurate.
Virginia***	A local curriculum plan shall use as a reference the Family Life Education Standards of Learning objectives approved by the Board of Education and shall provide age-appropriate, medically-accurate instruction in relation to students’ developmental stages and abilities, and reproduction-related topics.
Washington	Every public school that offers sexual health education must assure that sexual health education is medically and scientifically accurate, age-appropriate, appropriate for students regardless of gender, race, disability status, or sexual orientation, and includes information about abstinence and other methods of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. All sexual health information, instruction, and materials must be medically and scientifically accurate. Abstinence may not be taught to the exclusion of other materials and instruction on contraceptives and disease prevention.
Wisconsin	A school board may provide an instructional program in human growth and development in grades kindergarten through 12. The program shall be medically accurate and age-appropriate and provide medically accurate information about HPV and HIV.

*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

• What’s the State of Sex Education In the U.S.?
• For Educators
• What is Sex Education?
• What Are the Goals of Sex Education?
• Digital Tools
• Promotores de Salud

There’s broad public support for sex education, but many young people aren’t receiving the sex education they need and deserve.

Who Supports Sex Education?

Sex education is widely supported by the vast majority of people in the U nited States. In Planned Parenthood’s most recent poll  on sex education, 84 percent of parents supported having sex education taught in middle school, and 96 percent of parents supported having sex education taught in high school. Parents support sex education covering a wide range of topics in age-appropriate ways from elementary through high school, including self-esteem, healthy relationships and peer pressure, how to stay safe online including how to deal with pornography, anti-bullying, and consent and setting boundaries. The vast majority of parents support teaching topics like STIs, birth control, sexual orientation and gender identity, and pregnancy options including abortion in high school. Other national, state and local polls on sex education have shown similarly high levels of support.

Sex education is supported by numerous health and medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. More than 150 organizations are members of the National Coalition to Support Comprehensive Sexuality Education.

Federal & State Policy Related to Sex Education

Sex education programming varies widely across the United States. Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia mandate some kind of sex education and/or HIV education. 

Although almost every state has some guidance on how and when sex education should be taught, decisions are often left up to individual school districts, creating a patchwork of inconsistent policies and practices within states. The sex education someone receives can come down to what school district they live in or which school they attend.

Planned Parenthood advocates for federal funding that supports sex education, such as the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPPP) and the Division of Adolescent and School Health . Planned Parenthood also advocates for better sex education policies, practices, and funding at the state and local levels.

What Sex Education Do Teens Get in the US?

The gap between the sex education students need and what they actually get is wide. According to the 2018 CDC School Health Profiles , fewer than half of high schools and less than a fifth of middle schools teach all 20 topics recommended by the CDC as essential components of sex education. These topics range from basic information on how HIV and other STIs are transmitted — and how to prevent infections — to critical communication and decision-making skills.

A  study published by the Guttmacher Institute found that adolescents were less likely to report receiving sex education on key topics in 2015–2019 than they were in 1995  Overall, in 2015–2019, only half of adolescents reported receiving sex education that met the minimum standard articulated in Healthy People 2030. Among teens reporting penis-in-vagina sex, fewer than half (43% of females and 47% of males) received this instruction before they had sex for the first time. Despite these declines in formal education, there was no increase in the proportion of teens who discussed these sex education topics with their parents.

Help us improve - how could this information be more helpful?

How did this information help you?

Please don't check this box if you are a human.

Book an Appointment

Please enter your age and the first day of your last period for more accurate abortion options. Your information is private and anonymous.

Or call 1-800-230-7526

This website uses cookies

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors use cookies and other tools to collect, store, monitor, and analyze information about your interaction with our site to improve performance, analyze your use of our sites and assist in our marketing efforts. You may opt out of the use of these cookies and other tools at any time by visiting Cookie Settings . By clicking “Allow All Cookies” you consent to our collection and use of such data, and our Terms of Use . For more information, see our Privacy Notice .

Cookie Settings

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors, use cookies, pixels, and other tracking technologies to collect, store, monitor, and process certain information about you when you access and use our services, read our emails, or otherwise engage with us. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device. We use that information to make the site work, analyze performance and traffic on our website, to provide a more personalized web experience, and assist in our marketing efforts. We also share information with our social media, advertising, and analytics partners. You can change your default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of required cookies when utilizing our site; this includes necessary cookies that help our site to function (such as remembering your cookie preference settings). For more information, please see our Privacy Notice .

We use online advertising to promote our mission and help constituents find our services. Marketing pixels help us measure the success of our campaigns.

Performance

We use qualitative data, including session replay, to learn about your user experience and improve our products and services.

We use web analytics to help us understand user engagement with our website, trends, and overall reach of our products.

Center for American Progress

Sex Education Standards Across the States

• Report    PDF (111 KB)

State sex education standards are not adequate to prepare students for life after high school graduation.

Restoring Social Trust in Democracy, Strengthening Health, Education, Education, K-12, Health, State and Local Policy, Trump Administration +4 More

Media Contact

Mishka espey.

Senior Manager, Media Relations

[email protected]

Sarah Nadeau

Associate Director, Media Relations

Government Affairs

Madeline shepherd.

Director, Federal Affairs

This issue brief contains a correction.

On April 20, 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Program—a grant program created by the Obama administration in 2010 to reduce teen pregnancy rates in the United States—will provide funding only to organizations promoting abstinence-only approaches. 1 Until this point, the TPP Program funded evidence-based prevention initiatives—including education on contraception, dating violence, and the value of healthy relationships. 2 It likely contributed to a substantial decrease in teen pregnancy rates from 2007 until 2015, with a record decrease of 9 percent between 2013 and 2014. 3

While the American public is demanding ways to tackle teen pregnancy and other issues such as unhealthy relationships, 4 the federal government is reducing access to critical intervention tools—an important one being comprehensive sex education. Sex education across the country is being underutilized and even misused. Adolescents receive information about sex and sexuality from a multitude of sources, including the media, school, religious organizations, family, and peers. And as the sources of sex education become even more diverse and are presented in ways that may be inconsistent, confusing, or misleading, educators must leverage these sources and align messaging to help young people determine how best to engage in positive, healthy relationships.

State sex education standards in public schools vary widely. According to a study from the National Institutes of Health, only about half of adolescents receive school instruction about contraception before they first have sex. 5 Only 20 states require information on condoms or contraception, and only 20 states and the District of Columbia require sex and/or HIV education to be medically, factually, and technically accurate. 6 Meanwhile, 27 states require lessons that stress abstinence, and 18 states require instruction that teaches students to engage in sexual activity only within marriage. 7

This issue brief describes the current state of sex education standards, with a particular focus on the inclusion of consent and the development of healthy relationships in states’ instruction standards.

Stay informed on K-12 Education Policy

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The current state of consent in sex education

The Center for American Progress analyzed state laws in the 24 states—and the District of Columbia—that mandate sex education in public schools and found that few states address the topics of consent and healthy relationships in sex education. 8

According to state laws and education standards, only 11 states and the District of Columbia mention the terms “healthy relationships,” “sexual assault,” or “consent” in their sex education programs.* This means that the majority of U.S. public school students do not receive instruction through their state’s sex education program on how to identify healthy and unhealthy relationship behaviors.

Rhode Island, 9 West Virginia, 10 and the District of Columbia 11 provide clear and detailed state standards that address aspects of sexual health and clearly categorize topic areas by age group. The District of Columbia Office of Public Instruction, for example, requires schools to teach how “individual bodies are different” in third grade, how “talking … about sexuality can be helpful” in fourth grade, and how people “have sexual feelings and the need for love, affection, and physical intimacy” in sixth grade. These standards address age-appropriate topics related to sexuality and sexual relationships that students may be beginning to explore.

While Hawaii, 12 Maine, 13 Maryland, 14 New Mexico, 15 North Carolina, 16 and Vermont 17 do not specify such curriculum requirements, they have recently changed their health standards to address either consent or healthy relationships. Hawaii, for example, revised its sexual health education standards in 2016 from abstinence-only education to a curriculum that helps students “form healthy relationships that are based on mutual respect and affection and are free from violence, coercion and intimidation” and “[e]ncourages student[s] to communicate … about sexuality.”

Yet, the majority of the states examined in this brief—Delaware, 18 Georgia, 19 Iowa, 20 Kentucky, 21 Minnesota, 22 Mississippi, 23 Nevada, 24  North Dakota, 25 Ohio, 26 South Carolina, 27 and Utah 28 —provide educators with little guidance on which subjects sex education curricula should address. While some of these states’ health education standards make quick mention of pregnancy prevention and/or methods to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), they provide little detail on a suggested curriculum, make no mention of the development of healthy relationships, and do not separate standards by age. Delaware’s only description of sex education is that health education should include “sexuality education and an HIV prevention program that stresses the benefits of abstinence from high risk behaviors.” While Montana 29 and Tennessee 30 separate educational standards by grade, both states require instruction limited only to abstinence-only education and STDs. Limited sex education requirements allow instruction in these states to vary drastically from school to school.

Moving toward comprehensive sex education

California, New Jersey, and Oregon, meanwhile, have served as model examples of teaching healthy relationships as part of sex education. All three states require educators to use materials that are medically accurate and include instruction related to healthy relationships or consent. The California Healthy Youth Act, for example, was enacted in 2016. It requires instruction on adolescent growth and development, body image, gender, sexual orientation, relationships, marriage, and family, as well as how to “have healthy, positive, and safe relationships and behaviors.” 31 New Jersey’s state standards were revised in 2014 to require instruction promoting “discussion or understanding in regard to human sexual behavior, sexual feelings and sexual values.” 32 Additional state standards mandate education about sexual assault prevention and dating violence.

In 2009, years before New Jersey’s revised state standards and the California Healthy Youth Act, Oregon set a high bar by implementing standards that require comprehensive sex education in public schools. The law emphasizes “the characteristics of the emotional, physical and psychological aspects of a healthy relationship” 33 and uses language that stresses consent, such as “mutually monogamous relationships”; includes instruction on how to “communicate relational, sexual and reproductive boundaries”; and encourages students to have more open conversations about sexuality and identity and to respond to sexual violence. In 2016, Oregon updated its standards to include specific mention of consent and establishing personal boundaries, beginning in kindergarten. 34

Not only do the comprehensive state regulations in New Jersey, California, and Oregon ensure that sex education is uniform and consistent across school districts, 35 they also go beyond the technical components of sex education to encourage students to have more open conversations about sexuality. Perhaps not surprisingly, California, Oregon, and New Jersey have lower teen pregnancy rates than the national average—by 3 percent, 4 percent, and 11 percent respectively, although additional educational and socioeconomic factors could also contribute to their low rates. 36

Following these states’ lead, a number of reforms are gaining traction in state legislatures:

• On January 2, 2018, the Kentucky Legislature introduced legislation requiring instruction on the “development of relationship and communication skills necessary to form healthy relationships free of violence, coercion, and intimidation.” 37
• On January 3, 2018, the Rhode Island Legislature introduced a bill that would encourage schools to teach consent in sexual education classes. 38
• On January 23, 2018, the Missouri Legislature introduced a bill that would amend the state’s sexual education programs to include instruction on consent for schools that choose to teach sex education. 39
• On January 25, the Idaho Legislature proposed legislation to redefine sex education as “the development of healthy relationships” in districts that choose to teach sex education. 40
• On February 27, 2018, the Minnesota Senate introduced a bill that would require instruction on developing “skills in communication, decision making, and conflict resolution” and “healthy relationships and prevention of sexual violence.” 41
• On March 18, 2018, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill to require the instruction of affirmative consent as “unambiguous and voluntary agreement” in sex education courses. 42

However, bills that would have required consent-based sex education failed to pass in four states: Massachusetts, 43 Mississippi, 44 Utah, 45 and Virginia. 46

State and local policymakers should modernize and rethink sex education programs in public schools to help better prepare students for the complex world in which they live. Through new legislation and updated state standards, policymakers should encourage sex education requirements that include instruction on healthy relationships, communication, intimacy, consent, and sexual assault prevention. Without formal and comprehensive sex education that includes this information, states are missing a prime opportunity to arm young people with quality information that would help them make safe, healthy choices. Such choices have the potential to have positive impacts on students’ emotional well-being and future relationships.

Sarah Shapiro is a research assistant for K-12 Education at the Center for American Progress. Catherine Brown is the vice president of Education Policy at the Center .

*Correction, May 10, 2019: This issue brief has been corrected to accurately state the sex education standards for New Mexico and Rhode Island.

• Jessie Hellmann, “Trump admin announces abstinence-focused overhaul of teen pregnancy program,” The Hill, April 20, 2018, available at http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/384208-trump-admin-announces-abstinence-focused-overhaul-of-teen-pregnancy .
• Laura Santhanam, “Why the federal Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program’s fate is uncertain,” Public Broadcasting Service, March 22, 2018, available at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/why-the-federal-teen-pregnancy-prevention-programs-fate-is-uncertain .
• Joyce A. Martin and others, “National Vital Statistics Reports: Births: Final Data for 2016,” National Vital Statistics System 67 (1) (2018), available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_01.pdf .  
• C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, “Strong Public Support for Innovative Programs To Prevent Teen Pregnancy,” January 6, 2011, available at https://mottpoll.org/reports-surveys/strong-public-support-innovative-programs-prevent-teen-pregnancy .
• Laura Duberstein Lindberg, Isaac Maddow-Zimet, and Heather Boonstra, “Changes in Adolescents’ Receipt of Sex Education, 2006–2013,”  The Journal of Adolescent Health 58 (6) (2016): 621–627.
• Sources are on file with the author. See Center for American Progress, “The State of Consent in Schools: Content Covered in States’ Sex Education Curricula, complete list of courses,” available at https://americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/03/SexEducationBrief-Fig-Sources.pdf (last accessed March 2018).
• Rhode Island Department of Health and Rhode Island Department of Education, “Adolescent Sexual Health: 2016–2020 Rhode Island Profile” (2016), available at http://www.health.ri.gov/publications/healthprofiles/AdolescentSexualHealth.pdf .
• West Virginia Department of Education, “21st Century Health Education 5-12 Content Standards and Objectives,” available at http://wvde.state.wv.us/healthyschools/documents/HealthEducation.CSO.12.8.11.RD.doc (last accessed March 2018).
• Robert C. Bobb, Robert and Deborah A. Gist, “Health Education Standards” (Washington: D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education, 2008), available at https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/health9-10.pdf .
• Hawaii Public Schools, “Policy 103.5: Sexual Health Education,” available at http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/Health%20and%20Nutrition/BOE103_5_061615.pdf (last accessed March 2018).
• Maine Department of Education, “Maine’s Health Education Standards,” available at http://www.maine.gov/doe/physicaled/standards/standards.rtf (last accessed March 2018).
• Maryland State Board of Education, “Code of Maryland Regulations (Last Updated: July 29,2016), Chapter 13A.04.18. Program in Comprehensive Health Education,” available at http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/13a.04.18.01 (last accessed March 2018).
• Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States, “New Mexico State Profile Fiscal Year 2010,” available at  http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=1314  (last accessed March 2018).
• NC Youth Connected, “Sex Education and Schools,” available at http://www.ncyouthconnected.org/about-sex-education-and-schools/ (last accessed March 2018).
• Vermont General Assembly, “Title 16: Education, Chapter 001: Administration Generally, Subchapter 007: Comprehensive Health Education,” available at https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/16/001/00131 (last accessed March 2018).
• Delaware General Assembly, “Health and Safety: 851 K to 12 Comprehensive Health Education Program,” available at http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/800/851.shtml#TopOfPage (last accessed March 2018).
• Georgia Department of Education, “Georgia Performance Standards for Health Education” (2009), available at https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/GPS%20Support%20Docs/Health_Education_2-11-2010.pdf .
• Iowa Legislature, “279.50: Human growth and development instruction” (2017), available at https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/279.50.pdf .
• Kentucky Department of Education, “Health Education/Practical Living,” December 8, 2017, available at https://education.ky.gov/curriculum/CSH/wholechild/Pages/Health-Education.aspx .
• Minnesota Women’s Consortium, “Sex Education in Minnesota,” available at http://www.mnwomen.org/research-and-resources/sex-education-in-minnesota/ (last accessed March 2018).
• Justia US Law, “2013 Mississippi Code Title 37 – Education, Chapter 13 – Curriculum; School Year and Attendance: Sex and Abstinence Education,” available at https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-37/chapter-13/sex-and-abstinence-education/section-37-13-171 (last accessed March 2018).
• Immunize Nevada, “The Nevada Teen Health and Safety Coalition: Advocating for better sex education in Nevada,” available at https://www.immunizenevada.org/sites/default/files/NTHSC%20Handouts.pdf (last accessed March 2018).
• North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, “Health Education Curriculum Content – Abstinence,” available at https://www.nd.gov/dpi/uploads/31/Abstinence.pdf (last accessed March 2018).
• Bob Taft and J. Nick Baird, “Requirements For Abstinence Education in Ohio,” Ohio Department of Health Abstinence Education Program, available at http://www.odh.ohio.gov/-/media/ODH/ASSETS/Files/do/abstinence-education/ohiolaw.pdf?la=en (last accessed March 2018).
• South Carolina Legislature, “Title 59, Chapter 32: Comprehensive Health Education Program,” available at http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t59c032.php (last accessed March 2018).
• Utah Office of Administrative Rules, “Rule R277-474. School Instruction and Human Sexuality,” available at https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r277/r277-474.htm (last accessed March 2018).
• Montana Office of Public Instruction Health Enhancement and Safety Division, “Montana Health Enhancement Content Standards (Health and Physical Education), Grade by Grade,” (2016), available at https://opi.mt.gov/Portals/182/Page%20Files/Health%20%26%20Physical%20Education/16HEStandards_byGrade.pdf .
• Tennessee State Board of Education, “Tennessee Health Education Standards 6-8,” available at https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/standards/pe/std_pe_health_gr_6_8.pdf (last accessed March 2018).
• California Department of Education, “Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Instruction,” available at https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/ (last accessed March 2018).
• New Jersey Department of Education, “New Jersey Student Learning Standards for Comprehensive Health and Physical Education” (2014), available at http://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2014/chpe/standards.pdf .
• Oregon Department of Health and Human Services, “Human Sexuality Education,” January 25, 2013, available at http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/CHILDREN/MFMC/Documents/Oregon%20Administrative%20Rule%20581-022-1440%20Human%20Sexuality%20Education.pdf .
• Oregon Department of Education, “Oregon Health Education Standards and Performance Indicators, Grades K-12” (2016), available at http://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/standards/health/Documents/2016ORHEStandards.pdf .
• Sarah Combellick and Claire Brindis, “Uneven Progress: Sex Education in California Public Schools,” (San Francisco: Bixby Center for Global and Reproductive Health and University of California, San Francisco, 2011), available at https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/uneven_progress_full_report.pdf .
• Department of Health and Human Services Office of Adolescent Health, “Trends in Teen Pregnancy and Childbearing: Teen Births,” available at https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-development/reproductive-health-and-teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-and-childbearing/trends/index.html (last accessed March 2018).
• Kentucky State Legislature, “An act relating to instruction in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and related matters,” Kentucky H.B. 80 (2018), available at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/18RS/HB80/bill.pdf .
• Rhode Island State Legislature, “An Act Relating to Education—Curriculum,” Rhode Island H.B. 7044 (2018), available at http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText18/HouseText18/H7044A.pdf .
• Missouri State Legislature, “An act to repeal section 170.015, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to human sexuality education,” Missouri H.B. 2234 (2018), available at https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills181/hlrbillspdf/6028H.03C.pdf .
• Idaho State Legislature, “An act relating to sex education,” Idaho H.B. 579 (2018), available at https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0579.pdf .
• Minnesota State Legislature, “A bill for an act relating to education,” Minnesota S.B. 1468 (2017), available at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF1468&version=0&session=ls90&session_year=2017&session_number=0&format=pdf .
• Maryland General Assembly, “An act concerning Education – Family Life and Human Sexuality Curriculum – Boundaries and Consent,” Maryland H.B. 251 (2017), available at http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/hb/hb0251f.pdf .
• Massachusetts State Legislature, “An Act relative to healthy youth,” Massachusetts H.B. 3754 (2016), available at https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/H3754 .
• Mississippi State Legislature, “Women’s Economic Security Act,” Mississippi H.B. 756 (2016), available at https://legiscan.com/MS/votes/HB756/2016 .
• Utah State Legislature, “Reproductive Health Amendments,” Utah H.B. 246 (2016), available at https://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/HB0246.html .
• Virginia Legislative Information System, “High school family life education curricula; law and meaning of consent,” Virginia H.B. 44 (2017), available at https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?181+sum+HB44 .

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here . American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Sarah Shapiro

Research Assistant

Catherine Brown

Senior Fellow

Stay informed on the most pressing issues of our time.

General Articles

SIECUS Updates Sex Ed State Law and Policy Chart

For Immediate Release: September 2, 2021

Washington, DC – This week, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change updated and published its 2021 Sex Ed State Law and Policy Chart . The publication examines current requirements, or lack thereof, regarding sex education instruction nationwide.  With only 33 states and the District of Columbia mandating sex education, 38 states mandating HIV education, and 34 states stressing abstinence-based programming over comprehensive sex education or HIV/STI instruction, there is ample room for error and harm in teaching young people about the topics that inform their sexual and reproductive health and future.  

Key findings from the publication include:

• 33 states and the District of Columbia mandate sex education.
• 38 states mandate HIV education.
• 34 states require schools to stress abstinence when sex education or HIV/STI instruction is provided.
• 16 states require instruction on condoms or contraception when sex education or HIV/STI instruction is provided.
• 13 states do not require sex education or HIV/STI instruction to be any of the following: age-appropriate, medically accurate, culturally responsive, or evidence-based/evidence-informed.
• Only 13 states require sex education or HIV/STI instruction to include information on consent.
• Only 9 states require culturally responsive sex education and HIV/STI instruction.
• 10 states have policies that include affirming sexual orientation instruction on LGBTQ identities or discussion of sexual health for LGBTQ youth.
• 8 states explicitly require instruction that discriminates against LGBTQ people. 

### SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change has served as the national voice for sex education for more than 55 years, asserting that sexuality is a fundamental part of being human, one worth of dignity and respect. Through policy, advocacy, education, and strategic communications efforts, SIECUS advances sex education as a vehicle for social change-working toward a world where all people can access and enjoy sexual and reproductive freedom as they define it for themselves. 

Sign Up for Email Updates

Interested in receiving the latest updates from SIECUS? Join our email list today.

The State of Sex Ed in America

• Posted November 8, 2018
• By Jill Anderson

With the rise of #MeToo, consent — what it means, how to recognize when it is or isn't being given, how to effectively voice it — has been one of the most talked about topics of the year. And with it has come the question of how and when to educate children about consent. Similar to sex education, consent education is not yet universal in schools in the United States. In fact, according to a report released this year by the Center for American Progress (CAP), only 24 states and the District of Columbia mandate sex education in public schools, and even fewer states include consent.

“Sex ed is often scattershot and many of the students don’t have access to sex ed at all,” says Catherine Brown, the vice president of education policy at CAP, who coauthored the report released this spring, “and when they do, it is often fear-based and all the things that can go wrong.”

Sex education in America is still often taught as abstinence-only, despite decades of research showing that this approach results in higher teen pregnancy rates and STDs. Absent a more complete sex education — or any at all — children often learn from peers, siblings, or the internet, says Brown, opening the way for misinformation and a lack of understanding of what is and isn’t appropriate when it comes to respect in sexual relationships. Students need to be prepared for the world we live in and become part of a broader conversation about “communication, intimacy, desire, and healthy relationships,” she says. 

Although the federal government has moved to reduce access to intervention tools such as sex education, the good news, Brown says, is that many states, fueled by the #MeToo movement, are taking initiative to make change. “#MeToo is the catalyst for better consent and sex ed in schools and states around the country,” Brown says, citing Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, and Maryland as states that have updated laws to include consent.

In this edition of the Harvard EdCast, Brown provides insight into sex education standards around the U.S. and the movement to change them.

About the Harvard EdCast

The Harvard EdCast is a weekly podcast featuring brief conversations with education leaders and innovative thinkers from across the country and around the world.  Hosted by Jill Anderson, the EdCast is a dynamic space for discourse  about problems and transformative solutions in education, shining a light on the compelling people, policies, practices, and ideas shaping the field. Find the EdCast on iTunes , Soundcloud , and Stitcher . 

An education podcast that keeps the focus simple: what makes a difference for learners, educators, parents, and communities

Related Articles

Dr. Ruth Talks Sex and Ed

Equality or Equity?

Parental Rights or Politics?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The State of Sex Education in the United States

Kelli stidham hall.

Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

Jessica McDermott Sales

Kelli a. komro, john santelli.

Department of Population & Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York

For more than four decades, sex education has been a critically important but contentious public health and policy issue in the United States [ 1 – 5 ]. Rising concern about nonmarital adolescent pregnancy beginning in the 1960s and the pandemic of HIV/AIDS after 1981 shaped the need for and acceptance of formal instruction for adolescents on life-saving topics such as contraception, condoms, and sexually transmitted infections. With widespread implementation of school and community-based programs in the late 1980s and early 1990s, adolescents’ receipt of sex education improved greatly between 1988 and 1995 [ 6 ]. In the late 1990s, as part of the “welfare reform,” abstinence only until marriage (AOUM) sex education was adopted by the U.S. government as a singular approach to adolescent sexual and reproductive health [ 7 , 8 ]. AOUM was funded within a variety of domestic and foreign aid programs, with 49 of 50 states accepting federal funds to promote AOUM in the classroom [ 7 , 8 ]. Since then, rigorous research has documented both the lack of efficacy of AOUM in delaying sexual initiation, reducing sexual risk behaviors, or improving reproductive health outcomes and the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education in increasing condom and contraceptive use and decreasing pregnancy rates [ 7 – 12 ]. Today, despite great advancements in the science, implementation of a truly modern, equitable, evidence-based model of comprehensive sex education remains precluded by sociocultural, political, and systems barriers operating in profound ways across multiple levels of adolescents’ environments [ 4 , 7 , 8 , 12 – 14 ].

At the federal level, the U.S. congress has continued to substantially fund AOUM, and in FY 2016, funding was increased to $85 million per year [ 3 ]. This budget was approved despite President Obama’s attempts to end the program after 10 years of opposition and concern from medical and public health professionals, sexuality educators, and the human rights community that AOUM withholds information about condoms and contraception, promotes religious ideologies and gender stereotypes, and stigmatizes adolescents with nonheteronormative sexual identities [ 7 – 9 , 11 – 13 ]. Other federal funding priorities have moved positively toward more medically accurate and evidence-based programs, including teen pregnancy prevention programs [ 1 , 3 , 12 ]. These programs, although an improvement from AOUM, are not without their challenges though, as they currently operate within a relatively narrow, restrictive scope of “evidence” [ 12 ].

At the state level, individual states, districts, and school boards determine implementation of federal policies and funds. Limited in-class time and resources leave schools to prioritize sex education in competition with academic subjects and other important health topics such as substance use, bullying, and suicide [ 4 , 13 , 14 ]. Without cohesive or consistent implementation processes, a highly diverse “patchwork” of sex education laws and practices exists [ 4 ]. A recent report by the Guttmacher Institute noted that although 37 states require abstinence information be provided (25 that it be stressed), only 33 and 18 require HIV and contraceptive information, respectively [ 1 ]. Regarding content, quality, and inclusivity, 13 states mandate instruction be medically accurate, 26 that it be age appropriate, eight that it not be race/ethnicity or gender bias, eight that it be inclusive of sexual orientation, and two that it not promote religion [ 1 ]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2014 School Health Policies and Practices Study found that high school courses require, on average, 6.2 total hours of instruction on human sexuality, with 4 hours or less on HIV, other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and pregnancy prevention [ 15 ]. Moreover, 69% of high schools notify parents/guardians before students receive such instruction; 87% allow parents/guardians to exclude their children from it [ 15 ]. Without coordinated plans for implementation, credible guidelines, standards, or curricula, appropriate resources, supportive environments, teacher training, and accountability, it is no wonder that state practices are so disparate [ 4 ].

At the societal level, deeply rooted cultural and religious norms around adolescent sexuality have shaped federal and state policies and practices, driving restrictions on comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information, and service delivery in schools and elsewhere [ 12 , 13 ]. Continued public and political debates on the morality of sex outside marriage perpetuate barriers at multiple levels—by misguiding state funding decisions, molding parents’ (mis)understanding of programs, facilitating adolescents’ uptake of biased and inaccurate information in the classroom, and/or preventing their participation in sex education altogether [ 4 , 7 , 8 , 12 – 14 ].

Trends in Adolescents’ Receipt of Sex Education

In this month’s Journal of Adolescent Health , Lindberg et al. [ 16 ] provide further insight into the current state of sex education and the implications of federal and state policies for adolescents in the United States. Using population data from the National Survey of Family Growth, they find reductions in U.S. adolescents’ receipt of formal sex education from schools and other community institutions between 2006–2010 and 2011–2013. These declines continue previous trends from 1995–2002 to 2006–2008, which included increases in receipt of abstinence information and decreases in receipt of birth control information [ 17 – 19 ]. Moreover, the study highlights several additional new concerns. First, important inequities have emerged, the most significant of which are greater declines among girls than boys, rural-urban disparities, declines concentrated among white girls, and low rates among poor adolescents. Second, critical gaps exist in the types of information (practical types on “where to get birth control” and “how to use condoms” were lowest) and the mistiming of information (most adolescents received instruction after sexual debut) received. Finally, although receipt of sex education from parents appears to be stable, rates are low, such that parental-provided information cannot be adequately compensating for gaps in formal instruction.

Paradoxically, the declines in formal sex education from 2006 to 2013 have coincided with sizeable declines in adolescent birth rates and improved rates of contraceptive method use in the United States from 2007 to 2014 [ 20 , 21 ]. These coincident trends suggest that adolescents are receiving information about birth control and condoms elsewhere. Although the National Survey of Family Growth does not provide data on Internet use, Lindberg et al. [ 16 ] suggest that it is likely an important new venue for sex education. Others have commented on the myriad of online sexual and reproductive resources available to adolescents and their increasing use of sites such as Bedsider.org, StayTeen.org, and Scarleteen. [ 2 , 14 , 22 – 24 ].

The Future of Sex Education

Given the insufficient state of sex education in the United States in 2016, existing gaps are opportunities for more ambitious, forward-thinking strategies that cross-cut levels to translate an expanded evidence base into best practices and policies. Clearly, digital and social media are already playing critical roles at the societal level and can serve as platforms for disseminating innovative, scientifically and medically sound models of sex education to diverse groups of adolescents, including sexual minority adolescents [ 14 , 22 – 24 ]. Research, program, and policy efforts are urgently needed to identify effective ways to harness media within classroom, clinic, family household, and community contexts to reach the range of key stakeholders [ 13 , 14 , 22 – 24 ]. As adolescents turn increasingly to the Internet for their sex education, perhaps school-based settings can better serve other unmet needs, such as for comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care, including the full range of contraceptive methods and STI testing and treatment services. [ 15 , 25 ].

At the policy level, President Obama’s budget for FY 2017 reflects a strong commitment to supporting youths’ access to age-appropriate, medically accurate sexual health information, with proposed elimination of AOUM and increased investments in more comprehensive programs [ 3 ]. Whether these priorities will survive an election year and new administration is uncertain. It will also be important to monitor the impact of other health policies, particularly regarding contraception and abortion, which have direct and indirect implications for minors’ rights and access to sexual and reproductive health information and care [ 26 ].

At the state and local program level, models of sex education that are grounded in a broader interdisciplinary body of evidence are warranted [ 4 , 11 – 14 , 27 – 29 ]. The most exciting studies have found programs with rights-based content, positive, youth-centered messages, and use of interactive, participatory learning and skill building are effective in empowering adolescents with the knowledge and tools required for healthy sexual decision-making and behaviors [ 4 , 11 – 14 , 27 – 29 ]. Modern implementation strategies must use complementary modes of communication and delivery, including peers, digital and social media, and gaming, to fully engage young people [ 14 , 22 , 23 , 27 ].

Ultimately, expanded, integrated, multilevel approaches that reach beyond the classroom and capitalize on cutting-edge, youth-friendly technologies are warranted to shift cultural paradigms of sexual health, advance the state of sex education, and improve sexual and reproductive health outcomes for adolescents in the United States.

Acknowledgments

Funding Sources

K.S.H. is supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development #1K01HD080722-01A1.

Contributor Information

Kelli Stidham Hall, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Jessica McDermott Sales, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Kelli A. Komro, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

John Santelli, Department of Population & Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.

The Sex Ed. Battleground Heats Up (Again). Here’s What’s Actually in New Standards

• Share article

When Judy LoBianco first started teaching health education decades ago, she leaned into what she called the “shock value.”

LoBianco, now the supervisor of health and physical education for the Livingston public schools in New Jersey, remembers showing students videos of childbirth and the movie “Super Size Me,” a 2004 documentary about the negative health effects of fast food.

Over the past couple of decades, though, best practice has shifted, LoBianco said—away from trying to scare kids off behavior that carries any risk and toward an approach that emphasizes decisionmaking, risk management, and self-advocacy.

“It’s about building skills and giving them practice,” LoBianco said. “Because when kids feel confident in their skills, they’ll act in more healthy ways.”

But two states that have updated their standards to reflect this research-based shift are now facing pushback from a vocal group of critics.

In Illinois and New Jersey , where changes to health and sex education standards are rolling out this school year, the revisions have sparked outbreaks of fierce, pointed controversy—a backlash that sex education experts say targets LGBTQ youth and deliberately mischaracterizes the standards and their aims.

At school board meetings in New Jersey districts, opponents of the new standards have claimed that they show young children “sexually explicit” material and are “indocrinating” kids into “woke ideology.” In May, several members of the state board of education called for the standards to be reevaluated , a request that the full board and the acting education commissioner denied.

In Illinois, where districts are not required to provide comprehensive sex education, many school systems have chosen not to adopt the new standards.

Over the past year, the outcry has become a talking point for Republican politicians in these states and a headline issue for national conservative media outlets, which have denounced the standards’ gender inclusivity, contending that they introduce children to age-inappropriate material.

This is a moral panic that comes whenever society moves away from this patriarchal, Christian, white supremacist view of the way the world should be.

In a sense, this is a familiar story. Pitched debate about the scope of health classes isn’t a new phenomenon, said Nora Gelperin, the director of sex education and training at Advocates for Youth, a group that works for adolescent sexual and reproductive health.

Gelperin was one of the writers of the National Sex Education Standards , which Illinois has adopted. The national standards also influenced New Jersey’s guidelines.

But now, the focus of this pushback has shifted more forcefully toward anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, she said.

Sex education advocates linked this resistance to the anti-LGBTQ legislation that at least 15 states have considered or passed this legislative session . The most well-known of these laws, Florida’s, prevents teachers from instructing K-3 students about gender or sexuality. Other proposed legislation would limit how teachers can use students’ pronouns, restrict use of materials featuring LGBTQ characters or themes, or regulate clubs for LGBTQ students.

And the outrage about sex education has once again put a spotlight on schools’ instructional choices, a situation that some advocates fear could make educators hesitant to address certain topics altogether.

“I have no problem with someone deciding for their own child, but when you get out there and start hijacking the narrative for everyone else’s kid, that’s dangerous,” said LoBianco.

A shift from risk prevention to a more proactive approach

The changes in Illinois and New Jersey are part of an evolution in the field of sex education, said Eva Goldfarb, a professor of public health at Montclair State University. Goldfarb contributed to the most recent version of the National Sex Education Standards, published in 2020.

The guidelines were developed by the Future of Sex Education Initiative, a partnership between three groups that support comprehensive sex education: Advocates for Youth, Answer, and SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change. This version is an update from the 2011 edition, which 41 percent of school districts said they’d adopted as of 2016 .

In the 1980s and early ‘90s, the big debate in schools was whether teachers should take an abstinence-only approach or whether they should provide information about how to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, Goldfarb said.

In response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, sex education advocates pushed for and won state-level mandates for prevention education, Goldfarb said.

Still, abstinence-only education has a strong foothold in U.S. schools. The federal government has offered funding for abstinence-only sex education since the 1990s , and funding levels increased during the Trump administration.

But research shows that when schools broaden the scope of sex education classes beyond abstinence or risk prevention—to discuss gender roles and identity, normalize sexual diversity, and focus on social and emotional skills—students can see better outcomes. A research review by Goldfarb and her colleague Lisa Lieberman of 30 years of studies found that this kind of approach—now generally known as comprehensive sex education—can lower anti-LGBTQ bullying, improve the skills that support healthy relationships, and reduce intimate partner violence.

“The goal is helping people to have the important, functional knowledge and skills and attitudes to make healthy decisions for themselves, to appreciate and enjoy their own bodies and sexuality, and to appreciate and respect the bodies of others as well,” Goldfarb said.

What does that mean in practice? Take a few examples from the National Sex Education Standards.

The standards still require schools to provide information about how to mitigate risk. By the end of 8th grade, for example, students should be able to identify different forms of contraception and STI prevention as well as develop a plan for eliminating or reducing the risks of sexual activity.

But the standards also aim to teach students how to seek out information and how to develop their own values. Eighth graders are expected to know how to find medically reliable sources on these topics and to identify factors that are important in deciding whether and when to engage in sexual behaviors.

A classroom assignment might ask students to practice research skills that they’ve learned, said LoBianco . For example, she said, she might divide students into groups and assign each to research a different sexually transmitted infection. As they conduct their research, students would have to evaluate the reliability of the sources they find.

The national standards spiral, covering topics like consent and healthy relationships, anatomy and physiology, gender identity and expression, and sexual health throughout successive grade levels. But that doesn’t mean that topics like STIs, sexual identity, and sexual violence are introduced right away.

Instead, the standards aim to build knowledge and skills sequentially. In 2nd grade, for instance, the national standards require that students can list medically accurate names for the body parts, including genitals, and that students can define “bodily autonomy” and personal boundaries.

The standards are learning goals—what students should know and be able to do. Districts and schools select, create, or purchase the curriculum and lessons they use to convey them.

Anti-LGBTQ groups spread ‘hysteria’ about gender identity

Most parents have historically supported sex education that covers these kinds of topics.

In a 2017 survey of Democrats and Republicans , about 90 percent of parents supported classes that cover healthy relationships, STIs, birth control, and abstinence in high school; 78 percent of parents supported these subjects covered in middle school.

Parents in a 2012 study were less sure about elementary sex education but still mostly positive: About 90 percent were in favor of instruction on communication skills, about 65 percent supported anatomy instruction, and about 52 percent supported instruction about gender and sexual identity.

Now, a vocal group of parent activists and commentators has commandeered the national conversation. They claim that schools are “grooming” young children by discussing LGBTQ identity and providing information about sexual health.

The term “grooming” refers to the behavior of sexual predators, who develop inappropriately close relationships with child victims in order to isolate them and reduce the chance that they will report incidents. But as Education Week reported earlier this year , some conservative commentators have weaponized the word to falsely equate discussions about LGBTQ identity with sexual abuse, a development sociologists and others warn is dangerous.

In a recent C-SPAN interview , Tina Descovich, the co-founder of the right-wing group Moms for Liberty, said that the biggest concern reported from local chapters was “the oversexualization of children.”

“The National Sex Education Standards right now, they actually say in K-3 that they want to teach gender ideology, that children … by the time they reach 7 years old, should be able to understand completely that they could be a boy, or a girl, they could be neither or both. And a lot of parents just don’t want that discussed with their youngest children,” Descovich said.

But experts stressed that this is a misreading and that conversations about gender aren’t inherently sexual in nature.

Kids have 24/7, 365 access to information about their sexual health, and if no adult is intervening or providing info, they’re going to seek out information.

The national standards say that 2nd graders should be able to “define gender, gender identity, and gender-role stereotypes,” as well as discuss how people express their gender and how stereotypes might limit behavior. In 5th grade, students are expected to “demonstrate ways to promote dignity and respect for all people.”

What this means in practice, said Goldfarb, is that teachers might explain to the youngest children that there aren’t “girl toys” or “boy toys” and that however kids want to express themselves is OK. The message, she said, is “we all get to feel good about ourselves and our bodies as we are.”

She attributes the “hysteria” she says activists are creating around gender identity to deeper fears about changing social mores and expansions of rights. “This is a moral panic that comes whenever society moves away from this patriarchal, Christian, white supremacist view of the way the world should be,” Goldfarb said.

Parents also regularly cite concerns about language and definitions, said Advocates for Youth’s Gelperin. For example, the national standards require that by 2nd grade, students know the medically correct terms for their genitals. By 8th grade, students should be able to define vaginal, oral, and anal sex.

“I think there’s this worry that if we say the words like ‘penis’ and ‘vulva’ and ‘anus,’ that’s going to be damaging for kids. And that’s just not the case,” Gelperin said. In fact, research suggests that teaching students accurate terms can help prevent child sexual abuse.

And standards for older students, on defining vaginal, oral, and anal sex, aren’t about providing a how-to guide, said LoBianco. Rather, the idea is to give students accurate information from a trusted source so that they’re not relying on Google searches and social media.

“Kids have 24/7, 365 access to information about their sexual health, and if no adult is intervening or providing info, they’re going to seek out information,” LoBianco said.

How some schools are approaching these changes

In LoBianco’s state of New Jersey, only a handful of districts have publicly opposed the standards. Sex education is mandatory, and department of education officials have said that they will penalize districts that don’t teach a curriculum that aligns to the new standards.

But some districts have put in place workarounds.

The East Hanover school district said that it plans to include some new lessons to meet the standards—but they’ll all be taught on the last day of school, according to local news reports .

And while all districts in the state must let parents opt students out of any sex education lessons, the Middletown Township school system is planning to require parents to opt in.

Considering all the controversy “swirling around,” the district wanted to be as transparent as possible with parents, said Kate Farley, the curriculum committee chair on the Middletown board of education.

In April, New Jersey state Sen. Holly Schepisi, a Republican, posted some sample materials on Facebook, saying that “some go so far as unnecessarily sexualizing children further.” The post ignited a media firestorm and brought fresh pushback from GOP state lawmakers.

It illustrated the confusion between standards and curriculum: The lesson plans Schepisi posted aren’t mandatory.

And in Middletown, parents and community members thought that some of the lessons they’d seen would be required. Or, Farley said, they had heard that there was a specific “gender lesson” in 2nd grade or that the district was planning to teach kindergartners about sex. None of that is true, said Farley.

So, the district selected a set of materials for K-5 and posted all of them online for parents to review. “What you see is exactly what you get,” Farley said. “There’s just no room for any sort of question about what their child will be exposed to.”

Given this intense scrutiny and social-media misinformation, Gelperin suggested that schools take a similar approach to transparency, and make information about what curriculum they’ll be using readily available.

Schools can also hold family nights when parents can come in to look at materials and ask questions, she said.

Teachers and school leaders can always come back to the “why,” said LoBianco—that schools are giving students information and skills that they can use to protect themselves and feel confident in their identities.

“When you explain this to the most reasonable of parents, then they start to understand,” LoBianco said. “If there’s one thing that parents want their children to be, it’s healthy and safe.”

A version of this article appeared in the September 07, 2022 edition of Education Week as The Sex Ed. Battleground Heats Up (Again). Here’s What’s Actually in New Standards

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

What does age-appropriate, comprehensive sex ed actually look like?

Lee V. Gaines

Elizabeth Miller

With abortion access changing in many states, advocates for sex education say it's more important than ever.

The case for starting sex ed in kindergarten (hula hoops recommended)

Lee Gaines is from member station WFYI, and Elizabeth Miller is from member station OPB.

Copyright © 2022 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Sex and HIV Education

Beginning in the 1970s, concerns over adolescent pregnancy—and later, HIV/AIDS—galvanized widespread public support for sex education in schools. Most states currently have a policy requiring HIV education, usually in conjunction with broader sex education. Meanwhile, as debate over the relative merits of abstinence-only-until-marriage messages versus more comprehensive approaches has intensified, states have enacted a number of specific content requirements. Growing acknowledgment of young people’s sexuality has popularized instruction on life skills, with most states now requiring instruction on healthy relationships and the prevention of sexual violence.

General Requirements for Sex Education and HIV Education (see table 1 of 3)

• 25 states and DC mandate both sex education and HIV education.
• 3 states only mandate sex education.
• 10 states only mandate HIV education.
• 18 states require program content to be medically accurate.
• 26 states and DC require instruction to be appropriate for the students’ age.
• 10 states require the program to provide instruction that is appropriate for a student’s cultural background and that is not biased against any race, sex or ethnicity.
• 4 states prohibit the program from promoting religion.
• 25 states and DC require parental notification that sex education or HIV education will be provided.
• 6 states require parental consent for students to participate in sex education or HIV education.
• 35 states and DC allow parents the option to remove their child from instruction.

Content Requirements When Sex Education is Taught (see table 2 of 3)

• 20 states and DC require that information be provided on contraception.
• 29 states require that abstinence be stressed.
• 10 states and DC require that abstinence be covered.
• 19 states require instruction on the importance of engaging in sexual activity only within marriage to be provided.
• 10 states and DC require inclusive content with regard to sexual orientation.
• 4 states require only negative information to be provided on homosexuality and/or positive emphasis on heterosexuality. One state prohibits instruction on gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation. 17 states and DC require inclusion of information on the negative outcomes of teen sex and pregnancy.

Content Requirements When HIV Education is Taught(see table 2 of 3)

• 19 states require inclusion of information on condoms or contraception.
• 28 states require that abstinence be stressed.
• 9 states and DC require that abstinence be covered.

Life Skills Requirements for Sexual Consent, Relationships and Prevention of Dating and Sexual Violence(see table 3 of 3)

• 31 states and DC require information on healthy relationships to be provided.
• 27 states and DC require instruction on self-control and decision making about sexuality.
• 24 states and DC require provision of information on asserting personal boundaries and refusing unwanted sexual advances.
• 10 states require the importance of consent to sexual activity to be covered.
• 38 states and DC require provision of information on preventing, recognizing and responding to teen dating violence and sexual violence.

For more information

Public policy office, united states.

• HIV & STIs : STATE POLICIES ON HIV & STIs
• Teens : State Policies on Teens
• Northern America : United States

Related Content

Meeting the sexual and reproductive health needs of adolescents in school-based health centers, what is behind the declines in teen pregnancy rates, a rights-based approach to sexuality education: conceptualization, clarification and challenges, key questions for consideration as a new federal teen pregnancy prevention initiative is implemented, sexual initiation, contraceptive use, and pregnancy among young adolescents, federally funded sex education: strengthening and expanding evidence-based programs, visit our state legislation tracker.

and HIV Education
	MANDATED
Alabama		X		X					X
Alaska							X		X
Arizona			HIV	X			X	Sex	HIV
California	X	X	X	X	X	X	X		X
Colorado			X	X	X	X	X		X
Connecticut		X							X
Delaware	X	X
Dist. of Columbia	X	X		X			X		X
Florida	X	X		X					X
Georgia	X	X					X		X
Hawaii	X	X	X	X					X
Idaho									X
Illinois		X	X	X	X	X			X
Indiana		X					X		X
Iowa	X		X	X	X		X		X
Kansas	X
Kentucky	X	X
Louisiana			X			X			X
Maine	X	X	X	X					X
Maryland	X	X					X		X
Massachusetts					X		X		X
Michigan		X					X		X
Minnesota	X	X
Mississippi	X			X			X	X
Missouri		X	X	X			X		X
Montana	X	X		X					X
Nevada	X	X		X			X	X
New Hampshire	X	X					X		X
New Jersey	X	X	X	X	X		X		X
New Mexico	X	X		X					X
New York		X		HIV					HIV
North Carolina	X	X	X	X
North Dakota	X	X
Ohio	X	X							X
Oklahoma		X	HIV				X		X
Oregon	X	X	X	X	X		X		X
Pennsylvania		X		HIV					HIV
Rhode Island	X	X	X	X	X				HIV
South Carolina	X	X		X			X		X
Tennessee	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
Texas				X			X	X
Utah	X	X	X				X	X
Vermont	X	X		X					HIV
Virginia			X	X			X		X
Washington	X	X	X	X	X		X		X
West Virginia	X	X							X
Wisconsin		X					X		X
*    Sex education typically includes discussion of STIs. †    Sex education is not mandatory, but health education is required and it includes medically accurate information on abstinence. Ω   Localities may include topics such as contraception or STIs only with permission from the State Department of Education. Ψ   Sex education is required in a county if the pregnancy rate is at least 19.5 or higher per 1,000 young women aged 15—17. ξ    State also prohibits teachers from responding to students' spontaneous questions in ways that conflict with the law's requirements. β    State required to teach adoption or other alternatives to abortion. Arkansas is required to teach the reasons the state prefers adoption over abortion. ∑   Kentucky prohibits sex education provided before 6th grade and requires parental consent for students in grades 6 and above.

-->

Alabama	X	Stress	X			X	Stress
Arizona		Stress			X		Stress
Arkansas		Stress	X				Stress
California	X	Cover		Inclusive		X	Cover
Colorado	X	Stress		Inclusive	X	X	Cover
Connecticut	X	Cover		Inclusive	X
Delaware	X	Stress		Inclusive		X	Stress
Dist. of Columbia	X	Cover		Inclusive	X		Cover
Florida		Stress	X	Negativeβ	X		Stress
Georgia		Stress	X				Cover
Hawaii	X	Stress				X	Stress
Idaho		Stress
Illinois	X	Stress	X	Inclusive		X	Stress
Indiana		Stress	X		X		Stress
Iowa				Negativeβ
Kentucky		Stress		Prohibited
Louisiana		Stress	X	Negative			Stress
Maine	X	Stress				X	Stress
Maryland	X	Cover		Inclusive		X	Cover
Michigan		Stress	X				Stress
Minnesota							Cover
Mississippi		Stress	X	Negative	X		Stress
Missouri		Stress	X		X		Stress
New Hampshire		Cover					Cover
New Jersey	X	Stress		Inclusive		X	Stress
New Mexico	X	Cover			X	X	Stress
New York							Stress
North Carolina	X	Stress	X		X	X	Stress
North Dakota		Cover	X		X
Ohio		Stress	X		X		Stress
Oklahoma		Stress		ᶲ		X	Stress
Oregon	X	Stress		Inclusive		X	Stress
Pennsylvania							Stress
Rhode Island	X	Stress		Inclusive	X	X	Stress
South Carolina	X	Stress	X				Stress
South Dakota		Cover
Tennessee		Stress	X		X		Stress
Texas	X	Stress	X		X	X	Stress
Utah		Stress	X				Stress
Vermont	X	Cover			X	X	Cover
Virginia	X	Cover	X		X	X	Cover
Washington	X	Stress		Inclusive		X	Stress
West Virginia	X	Cover			X	X	Cover
Wisconsin		Stress	X				Stress
*    Sex education typically includes discussion of STIs. Ω   Localities may include topics such as contraception  or STIs only with permission from the state Department of Education. ᶲ    Mandated HIV education teaches that, among other behaviors, “homosexual activity” is considered to be “responsible for contact with the AIDS virus.” ξ    State also prohibits teachers from responding to students' spontaneous questions in ways that conflict with the law's requirements. β    Iowa prohibits STIs, gender identity, and sexual orientation from being taught before 7th grade. Florida mandates that sex is taught as binary and unchangeable and prohibits teaching sexual orientation pre-kindergarten through 8th grade.

-->

-->

-->

-->

-->

-->

Alabama		X	X		X
Alaska					X
Arizona	X	X	X		X
Arkansas	X	X	X		X
California	X	X	X		X
Colorado	X	X	X	X	X
Connecticut	X	X			X
Delaware	X	X	X	X	X
Dist. of Columbia	X	X	X	X	X
Florida	X	X			X
Georgia			X		X
Hawaii	X	X			X
Idaho	X	X
Illinois	X		X	X	X
Indiana					X
Iowa	X				X
Kentucky	X	X
Louisiana	X	X			X
Maine	X	X			X
Maryland	X	X	X	X	X
Massachusetts	X				X
Michigan		X	X		X
Mississippi					X
Missouri		X	X	X	X
Nebraska	X				X
Nevada		X
New Hampshire					X
New Jersey	X	X	X	X	X
New Mexico	X	X	X		X
North Carolina	X	X	X		X
Ohio	X				X
Oklahoma			X	X
Oregon	X	X	X	X	X
Pennsylvania	X
Rhode Island	X	X	X		X
South Carolina	X		X	X	X
Tennessee	X	X	X		X
Texas	X	X	X		X
Utah			X		X
Vermont	X	X			X
Virginia	X	X	X		X
Washington	X	X	X	X	X
West Virginia	X		X		X
Wisconsin					X
*    Sex education typically includes discussion of STIs.

Get updates on policy issues and more

• Resources & Tools

Take Action

Join the movement of young people working to protect our health and lives

Action Center

For Professionals / Fact Sheets

Addressing Sexual Health in Schools: Policy Considerations

Click here for the [ PDF ] version of Addressing Sexual Health in Schools: Policy Considerations by Danene Sorace, MPP.

Written for Advocates for Youth by Danene Sorace, MPP, this resource is intended to guide educators, administrators, and advocates to assess the sexual health policies and practices in their states, school districts, and schools. It provides research and best practices on policies that address adolescent sexual health through schools.

Use the left sidebar to navigate through the resource.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements preface introduction rationale for sexual health education and access to sexual and reproductive health services why policy is important understanding policy parameters.

• Sexual Health Education
• Sexual and Reproductive Health Services

Understanding Local Policy Process Policy Overview: Sexual Health Education

• Parental Notification
• Parental Consent
• Curriculum Review
• Parental Involvement and Family Engagement
• Medical Accuracy and Bias Free
• Instructional Minutes
• Single Sex Classroom Instruction
• Professional Development
• External Organizations and Agencies

Policy Overview: Sexual and Reproductive Health Services

• Parental Rights and Minor Consent
• School Based Health Centers
• School-Linked Health Centers and Other Partnerships
• The Role of School Nurses and Other Personnel
• Condom Availability Policy
• Privacy and Confidentiality

Meeting the Needs of Every Student

• Equity and Non-Discrimination
• Pregnant and/or Parenting Teens
• Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Students
• Bullying and Harassment
• Other Pertinent Laws

This document was supported by the Cooperative Agreement U58DP003188 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Suggested Citation: Sorace, Danene. “Addressing Sexual Health in Schools: Policy Considerations.” Advocates for Youth, 2013.

08.30.2013 Prev Resource

Social Media 101: Connecting Youth to Health and Social Services with Facebook, Twitter, and Text Messaging

Next Resource 10.01.2013

School Health Equity Newsletter February 2013

Sign up for updates, sign up for updates.

• Sex Education Laws and State Attacks

In This Section

• Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs
• How Sex Education is Funded
• How Planned Parenthood Teaches Sex Education
• Advocating for Sex Education in Your Community

Decisions about sex education are usually made at the state and local level — no federal laws dictate what sex education should look like or how it should be taught in schools. 

Almost every state in the U.S. has some guidance around sex education. Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia require that HIV and/or sex education is covered in school. However, there’s no guarantee that the sex education students get is high quality or covers the topics young people need to learn about to stay healthy. 

Of the states that require sex and/or HIV education, fewer than half require it be medically accurate. And more states require sex education to stress abstinence than ensure medical accuracy. Fewer than half of high schools and only a fifth of middle schools are teaching the sexual health topics that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers “essential” for healthy young people. This is unacceptable.

Sex Education Laws Are Decided By State and Local Legislators

Lawmakers in statehouses and city halls are the ones making decisions about what is (and isn’t) taught in school-based sex education. That means they decide whether or not educators can discuss birth control, how educators can talk about LGBTQ+ experiences, and how much educators must stress abstinence.

• While 37 states have laws requiring that abstinence is included in sex education, only 18 states require educators to also share information about birth control.
• Sometimes state and local requirements on sex education are helpful. For example, 18 states require instruction to be medically accurate, and 26 states and the District of Columbia require that it be age-appropriate.

Whether or not sex education is LGBTQ-inclusive is also left up to state and local governments to decide.

• Only ten states require discussion of LGBTQ+ identities and relationships to be inclusive and affirming
• Six southern states either prohibit sex educators from discussing (or even answering questions about) LGBTQ+ identities and relationships, or actually require sex educators to frame LGBTQ+ identities and relationships negatively. These laws further stigmatize LGBTQ+ youth and leave them without the information they need to protect their sexual health, putting them at greater risk for STDs, pregnancy, and unhealthy or abusive relationships.

Here’s what we know for sure: Too many young people aren’t getting the sex education they need and deserve.

While most states have some kind of law or policy about sex education, day-to-day decisions are often left up to individual school districts. This means that students in the same state attending different schools could have totally different sex education experiences.

The Unstable State of Sex Education in the United States

Because sex education laws and policies are developed at the state and local level, sex education is constantly under attack. Politicians have used a variety of tactics to limit access to sex education, promote conservative agendas, and push Planned Parenthood sex educators out of schools. 

These restrictive bills are just a way for politicians to block access to sexual and reproductive health information, education, and services — especially from Planned Parenthood.

Advocate for Sex Education in Your Community!

• Birth Control
• Health Care Equity
• Voting Rights
• Sexual Assault
• Attacks on Access to Care at Planned Parenthood
• State Attacks on Sexual and Reproductive Health
• Federal Courts

Planned Parenthood Clergy Advocacy Board

Clergy Statement on Sex Education

State Attacks on Reproductive Health

Learn how backwards politicians in states across the country are attacking access to reproductive and sexual health care through dangerous bills, regulations, and executive actions.

This website uses cookies

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors use cookies and other tools to collect, store, monitor, and analyze information about your interaction with our site to improve performance, analyze your use of our sites and assist in our marketing efforts. You may opt out of the use of these cookies and other tools at any time by visiting Cookie Settings . By clicking “Allow All Cookies” you consent to our collection and use of such data, and our Terms of Use . For more information, see our Privacy Notice .

Cookie Settings

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors, use cookies, pixels, and other tracking technologies to collect, store, monitor, and process certain information about you when you access and use our services, read our emails, or otherwise engage with us. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device. We use that information to make the site work, analyze performance and traffic on our website, to provide a more personalized web experience, and assist in our marketing efforts. We also share information with our social media, advertising, and analytics partners. You can change your default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of our Necessary Cookies as they are deployed to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting the cookie banner and remembering your settings, to log into your account, to redirect you when you log out, etc.). For more information, please see our Privacy Notice .

We use online advertising to promote our mission and help constituents find our services. Marketing pixels help us measure the success of our campaigns.

Performance

We use qualitative data, including session replay, to learn about your user experience and improve our products and services.

We use web analytics to help us understand user engagement with our website, trends, and overall reach of our products.

Home > School, College, or Department > Honors > Honors Theses > 1298

University Honors Theses

Sex education in american public schools: policy and outcomes.

Alexandra Mattingly , Portland State University Follow

First Advisor

Deborah Harris

Date of Award

Spring 6-2023

Document Type

Degree name.

Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in Public Health Studies: Community Health Promotion and University Honors

Health Studies

Sex instruction -- Research, Sex instruction -- United States, Public schools -- United States, Education and state

10.15760/honors.1329

Sexual Education in American public schools is the subject of a long-standing debate between educators, parents, and policy makers. From the beginning of public schooling in the United States, the role that public schools ought to serve in educating students about sexual health has been unclear. This remains a topic of debate despite the fact that since the 1980s studies have shown consistently that comprehensive sexual education unequivocally leads to lower rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection spread among students. Comprehensive sexual education is sexual education that includes information on safer sexual activity practices as well as information about consent, queer sex, and critical thinking. This is the inverse of the more traditional, conservative, abstinence-only education, which is designed to encourage students to delay sexual activity until after they are married. Abstinence-only education often fails to educate about safer sexual activity practices, due to the fact that in theory, monogamous couples will not need to protect against sexually transmitted infections or pregnancy. To this day, the public school education that a student receives is highly dependent on their geographic location and the local politics of their school district. At the state level, there are clear trends that indicate states with more conservative sexual education policies (i.e. states that do not require sexual education or are lenient with the content included therein) have higher rates of teen pregnancy.

In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).

Persistent Identifier

https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/40144

Recommended Citation

Mattingly, Alexandra, "Sex Education in American Public Schools: Policy and Outcomes" (2023). University Honors Theses. Paper 1298. https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.1329

Since May 25, 2023

Included in

Public Health Education and Promotion Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Featured Collections
• All Authors
• Schools & Colleges
• Dissertations & Theses
• PDXOpen Textbooks
• Conferences
• Collections
• Disciplines
• Faculty Expert Gallery
• Submit Research
• Faculty Profiles
• Terms of Use
• Feedback Form

Home | About | My Account | Accessibility Statement | Portland State University

Privacy Copyright

• Services and Supports /
• Health and Wellness

Sexual Health Education

CPS provides age-appropriate, medically accurate, and comprehensive sexual health education to students in grades PreK-12. The purpose of this education is to build a foundation of knowledge and skills for all students so that they can make the right choices for themselves now and the future.

The CPS sexual health education curriculum is aligned with the National Sexuality Education Standards . Topics and skills include consent and healthy relationships, anatomy and physiology, puberty and adolescent sexual development, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation and identity, sexual health, and interpersonal violence prevention.

CPS Sexual Health Policies

In accordance with the CPS Sexual Health Education Policy :

• Schools teach sexual health education every year in grades PK-12, providing all lessons, topics, and skills outlined in the sexual health education scope and sequence.
• Every school must have two trained instructors who have completed the District's sexual health education instructor training. Schools that have a diverse learner student population must have at least one Special Education instructor trained by the District.
• Schools can bring in outside, pre-approved organizations to provide sexual health education.
• The CPS curriculum is medically accurate, age appropriate, and comprehensive. It is also aligned with the National Sexuality Education Standards  and Erin’s Law.
• Schools must provide at least three forms of notification—at least one in writing—to inform parents/guardians that instruction will take place. Per Illinois state law, parents/guardians have the right to opt out their children.
• The curriculum is LGBTQ+ inclusive.
• The sexual health curriculum is not available to the public. Parents/guardians can meet with the sexual health education instructor at their child(ren)’s school to review specific lessons.

Illinois Laws on Sexual Health Education

CPS’s curriculum is in line with the Illinois law Keeping Youth Safe and Healthy Act, Illinois Public Act 102-0552 . Signed into law  in August 2021, this act requires that when sexual health education is taught, it must be in alignment with the National Sexuality Education Standards , and include information on healthy relationships, anatomy and physiology, puberty and adolescent sexual development, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation and identity, sexual health, and interpersonal violence. The law requires that instruction be medically accurate, age and developmentally appropriate, trauma informed, and inclusive of LGBTQIA+ and pregnant/parenting youth.

CPS’s curriculum is in line with Erin’s Law, or Illinois Public Act 097-1147 , which requires public schools to provide child sexual abuse prevention education for children in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grades. The law requires that schools annually teach children to recognize child sexual abuse, equip them with skills to reduce their vulnerability, and encourage them to report abuse.

Parent/Guardian Notifications

Schools must provide at least three forms of notification to inform parents/guardians of instruction at least two weeks prior to the start of sexual health education, one of these notifications must be in writing. The Scope and Sequence should be included with the notification letter. Parents/guardians may opt their child(ren) out of some or all sexual health education lessons by communicating with the sexual health education instructor.

Every CPS student in grades PreK-12 must receive Personal Health and Safety (in grades PreK-2) or Sexual Health Education (in grades 3-12) yearly unless opted out by a parent or guardian.

Sexual Health Education Grade Appropriate Topics and Skills

• Developing communication skills
• Exploring different types of relationships and family structures
• Discussing the similarities and differences between families
• Defining and respecting personal boundaries
• Understanding aspects of identity and respect for others’ identities
• Defining gender, gender roles, and gender role stereotypes
• Identifying medically accurate names of body parts using age-appropriate anatomy images (see examples for Kindergarten and 2nd grade )
• Identifying and preventing sexual abuse
• Identifying trusted adults
• Building effective communication, self-management, and decision-making skills
• Defining bullying and how to respond to it
• The human reproductive system and body part functions
• Puberty changes & personal hygiene
• Defining sex assigned at birth, gender identity, and sexual orientation
• Defining and identifying healthy relationships
• Navigating online safety
• Puberty, anatomy, human reproductive systems, and pregnancy
• Critical thinking, decision making and communication skills
• Consent and setting personal boundaries
• Media literacy and identifying credible sources of health information 
• Analyzing influences of friends, family, technology and society on sexual health behavior
• Identifying healthy, unhealthy, and abusive relationships
• Abstinence, contraception, condom usage, and preventing sexually transmitted infections
• Defining and understanding sex assigned at birth, gender identity, and sexual orientation
• How to locate and access health resources and services
• Expanding critical thinking, decision-making, and communication skills
• Deepening understanding of sex assigned at birth, gender identity, and sexual orientation
• Consent, and preventing and responding to sexual assault
• Abstinence, contraception, condom usage, and sexually transmitted infections prevention
• Media literacy and identifying credible sources of health information
• Identifying student rights to sexual health services and locating health services

Sexual Health Education Resources

• CPS Sexual Health Education Policy
• Scope and Sequence of Sexual Health Education [ ENGLISH | SPANISH | POLISH | CHINESE | URDU | ARABIC | VIETNAMESE | UKRAINIAN | TAGALOG ]
• Implementation Guidance 

Parent/Guardian Resources

• Sexual Health Education Overview for Parents
• Curriculum Connection for Parents (Pre-K to 2nd Grade)
• DON’T PANIC: Talking with Your Middle Schooler about Healthy Relationships and Sexuality
• DON’T PANIC: Talking with Your High Schooler about Healthy Relationships and Sexuality

Sexual Health Education Resource Lists for Parents:

• Grades Pre-K to 2
• Grades 3 to 5
• Grades 6 to 8
• Grade 9 to 12
• Diverse Learners Parent Resources List
• Parent Resources in Non-English Languages
• Family and Community Engagement (FACE)

Additional Resources

• CPS LGBTQ+ Supportive Environments
• Sexual Health Services page

Student Health and Wellness

773-553-KIDS (5437)

[email protected]

42 W. Madison St. Chicago, IL 60602

• Indiana Politics
• Investigations
• Season for Sharing

New Indiana law against sex education in lower grades is too vague, ACLU lawsuit alleges

The ACLU of Indiana sued the state Department of Education Friday on behalf of a teacher who says that a new law concerning how human sexuality is taught in the classroom is too vague and puts her at risk of losing her teaching license.

The lawsuit claims that neither “instruction” nor “human sexuality” is defined in House Bill 1608, which was signed into law last month . The legislation prohibits instruction on human sexuality in prekindergarten through third grade, although teachers unions said at the time that it's not taught in those grades.

The Indianapolis Public Schools teacher involved in the lawsuit, Kayla Smiley, says she has her own classroom library that contains age-appropriate books covering various subjects, with some involving LGBTQ issues. Biographies of Harvey Milk and Elton John are cited as examples.

The lawsuit says that Smiley doesn’t know if these books would qualify as instruction on human sexuality since they mention topics such as same-sex relationships and AIDS.

In addition, the complaint says, Smiley is unclear whether if she hears one of her students use the word “gay” as an insult she is allowed to teach what the word means under this new law.

Hoosier trans youth share their stories: 'I just feel powerless,' one says

The new law says teachers are allowed to respond to students' questions concerning human sexuality, but the complaint asks how many questions teachers can answer and how the law applies to interactions with students outside of a classroom, like in school hallways or at recess.

The suit also alleges that the law infringes on Smiley’s free-speech rights.

“Teachers have a First Amendment right to express themselves as private citizens outside of the classroom, including in the school’s hallways, playground, or before and after school, but the vagueness of this law would certainly have a chilling effect on those rights,” Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana, said in a press release.

The new law , which goes into effect July 1, also requires schools to notify a parent if their child requests to go by a different name or pronouns. Some LGBTQ advocates say this risks “outing” kids to their parents, putting them at risk for an unsafe home environment.

This is the second lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Indiana concerning legislation passed this year that targets the rights of LGBTQ people. The group also filed a lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 480 , which bans gender-affirming health care procedures for transgender minors.

More: These new Indiana laws affect transgender and other LGBTQ Hoosiers

State Rep. Michelle Davis, R-Whiteland, who authored House Bill 1608, would not provide further comment due to the pending litigation, a spokesperson said.

Contact the reporter at 317-618-5807 or  [email protected] .

This story is made possible by Report for America and Glick Philanthropies. As part of its work in Marion County, Glick Philanthropies partners with organizations focused on closing access and achievement gaps in education. 

Report for America is a program of The GroundTruth Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening local newsrooms. Report for America provides funding for up to half of the reporter’s salary during their time with us, and IndyStar is fundraising the remainder.  

To learn more about how you can support IndyStar’s partnership with Report for America and to make a donation, visit  indystar.com/RFA .

Translate Our Website

This Google ™ translation feature provided on the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) website is for informational purposes only.

The LAO is unable to guarantee the accuracy of this translation and is therefore not liable for any inaccurate information resulting from the translation application tool.

Choose your language:

Ballot pages.

• Initiative Fiscal Analyses (pre-ballot)
• Proposition Analyses
• Ballot Measures by Type: 1974 to Present
• Ballot Bonds
• Summary of General Obligation Bonds—Election Results 1986 to Present (Excel File)
• Related LAO Publications

A.G. File No. 2023-019

Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have reviewed the proposed measure (A.G. File No. 23-0019, Amendment #1) related to students using school, college, and university sex-segregated facilities and participating in athletic programs and activities based on their gender identity.

Sex, Gender, and Gender Identity. Sex generally refers to a person being biologically male, female, or intersex. The attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with these biological designations are generally known as gender. Gender identity generally refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else. For example, transgender females identify as female but were assigned male at birth, while transgender males identify as males but were assigned female at birth. Also, gender nonbinary persons identify as both male and female, somewhere in between male and female, or neither male or female.

Student Records and Data. Public K-12 schools are required to maintain official student records which include basic student information, including legal name and sex. Typically, public K-12 schools receive this information from forms filled out by parents or legal guardians or government-issued documents. Changes to official student records generally require parental consent and/or the submission of appropriate legal documents. Parents or legal guardians have a right to access all official student records. In addition to official student records, the California Department of Education collects student data from public K-12 schools to comply with state and federal reporting requirements. Beginning in 2019-20, public K-12 schools could report a student’s gender as either male, female, or nonbinary. There is no state requirement for private K-12 schools to collect certain student information. Colleges and universities also collect information on a student’s gender.

Transgender and Nonbinary Persons. While there is limited data on the number of transgender and nonbinary persons in California, the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law estimates about 200,000 of the state’s 33 million population aged 13 years and over (less than 1 percent) identify as transgender. Below, we provide data reported by California schools, colleges, and universities on the gender of students and staff. This data is collected somewhat differently by segment. (We were not able to find data on the number of transgender and nonbinary athletes in California schools, colleges, and universities.)

• K-12 Schools. About 5,000 of the state’s 5.9 million public school students (less than 1 percent) were recorded as nonbinary in the state-maintained data system in 2022-23. Additionally, less than 1 percent of classified staff identified as nonbinary in 2021-22. (Classified staff consist of a variety of non-teaching staff, such as instructional aides, custodians, office clerks, and school nutrition staff. We were not able to find data on the gender identity of other school staff.)
• California Community Colleges (CCC). Less than 1 percent of CCC students, faculty, and staff identified as gender nonbinary in fall 2022.
• California State University (CSU). While there is limited data on the number of transgender and nonbinary students across all CSU schools, some individual CSU schools reported having less than 1 percent of enrolled transgender, gender nonbinary, or students whose gender expression does not adhere to traditional gender norms (or gender non-conforming students) in fall 2022. Additionally, less than 30 CSU employees identified as nonbinary in fall 2019.
• University of California (UC). About 2 percent of enrolled students identified as transgender, gender nonbinary, or gender non-conforming in fall 2022. (We were unable to find data on the number of UC employees who are transgender or nonbinary.)

State Law Regarding Gender Identity in K-12 Schools. State law includes provisions prohibiting discrimination based on sex, gender, gender identity, and gender expression. For example, existing state law requires that students in public K-12 schools be permitted to participate in athletic teams and competitions and use facilities consistent with their gender identity, regardless of what sex is listed on the student’s official school record. Additionally, existing state law requires public and private schools serving grades 1 to 12 provide and maintain at least one all-gender restroom on or before July 1, 2026.

Facility and Athletic Policies in California Colleges and Universities. State law requires all single-user toilet facilities in any place of state or local government agency to be identified as all-gender toilet facilities, which aligns with California college and university policies. Additionally, while not required by state law, general policy of colleges and universities is to allow students to use facilities based on their gender identity. Athletic policies for colleges and universities typically are based on state and federal antidiscrimination laws and policies and guidance issued by the national and/or regional college and university athletic organizations. Currently, colleges and universities allow transgender students to participate in athletic programs and activities based on their gender identity under certain conditions, which may vary by athletic program or activity.

Federal Law Regarding Gender Discrimination on School, College, and University Campuses. Federal law prohibits schools, colleges, and universities from discriminating against individuals based on their sex, with various exemptions. For example, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and associated regulations allow schools, colleges, and universities receiving federal funds to maintain separate facilities, including restrooms and locker rooms, on the basis of sex. The U.S. Department of Education currently interprets Title IX as also prohibiting federally funded schools, colleges, and universities from discriminating based on gender identity. This means students, parents, employees, and other persons can submit a Title IX complaint if they experience gender-based discrimination in educational programs or activities. For example, the federal government has stated that limiting use of school restrooms or participating in school athletics based on biological sex rather than gender identity could trigger a Title IX complaint. (Currently, 20 states—not including California—are temporarily exempt from the gender-based interpretation of Title IX due to pending litigation.) In the fall of 2023, the federal government is expected to release new Title IX regulations on the prohibition of gender discrimination and rules for gender-based participation in federally funded school, college, and university athletic programs. Federally funded schools, colleges, and universities that do not adhere to Title IX may face fiscal penalties, such as loss in federal funds or fines. In total, the federal government provides more than $10 billion annually to California public schools, colleges, and universities for student financial aid assistance, funding at high-poverty schools, special education students, and other purposes.

Policies in Other States. Over 20 states have passed legislation requiring student participation in sex-segregated athletic programs and activities be based on biological sex, regardless if a student’s gender identity is different. In some of these states, courts have issued temporary injunctions that have prevented these policies from being implemented while the cases are pending further judicial review. (This is in addition to the previously mentioned 20 states that are currently exempt from the gender-based interpretation of Title IX.) Additionally, there are opposing rulings from different federal circuit courts on whether policies that limit use of sex-segregated restrooms in schools based on biological sex violate federal laws.

Girls State and Boys State Conferences. The American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary Organization operate separate week-long leadership conferences for high school students known as Boys State and Girls State conferences. Existing state law exempts the conferences from sex discrimination provisions, meaning participation in each conference can be segregated based on sex. However, as a condition of being exempt from sex discrimination provisions, gender nonbinary and transgender students must be allowed to participate in either Girls State or Boys State conferences.

Prohibits Transgender Female Students From Participating in Competitive Athletic Programs or Activities Designated for Biological Female Students. The measure repeals existing state law that allows students to participate in sex-segregated K-12 school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with the student’s gender identity regardless of what gender is listed on the student’s official school record. The measure also requires participation in any competitive athletic program or activity designated for female students be based on biological sex, not gender identity. This means transgender girls and women would not be able to participate in athletic programs and activities designated for biological females. (Schools, colleges, and universities could still allow transgender boys and men to participate in athletic programs and activities designated for biological males.) The prohibition would apply to schools serving any students from grades 7 to 12 and colleges and universities that offer sex-segregated athletic programs or activities. These rules would apply to both public and private institutions. The measure defines biological sex as either male or female, based on specified physiological and genetic attributes.

Requires Sex-Segregated Facilities on School, College, and University Campuses Be Segregated Based on Biological Sex. The measure repeals existing state law that allows a student to use K-12 school facilities consistent with the student’s gender identity regardless of what gender is listed on the student’s official school record. The measure also requires sex-segregated facilities (including, but not limited to, restrooms and locker rooms) on the campuses of schools, colleges, and universities be used by persons based on biological sex. This would apply to both private and public institutions and to students, staff, and any other person on campuses. For example, a person who identifies as a transgender female would need to use an all-gender restroom or the restroom designated for biological males. The definition of biological male and biological female are the same as those used for participating in athletic programs and activities.

Eliminates Requirement to Allow Gender Nonbinary and Transgender Students to Participate in Either Girls State or Boys State Conferences. The measure repeals existing state law that requires gender nonbinary and transgender students be allowed to participate in either Girls State or Boys State Conferences. As a result, whether gender nonbinary and transgender students can participate in either conference based on their gender identity, regardless of their biological sex, would be a decision made by the conference administrators.

Fiscal Effects

As discussed above, there is pending litigation and courts have issued temporary injunctions to prevent the implementation of policies in some states that limit participation in school, college, and university athletic programs and activities based on biological sex, regardless if a student’s gender identity is different. Additionally, there are conflicting rulings from different federal circuit courts on whether sex-segregated restrooms in schools based on biological sex violate federal law. As such, there is legal uncertainty regarding the extent to which the measure would be implemented and the resulting fiscal effects on the state and local governments.

No Fiscal Effects if Not Implemented. If a court were to rule that policies similar to the measure (or the measure itself) could not be implemented, then the measure could not be legally implemented and thus would have no fiscal effect on the state or local governments.

Minor Costs for Schools, Colleges, and Universities if Implemented. If the measure could be implemented legally, it would have the following cost impacts on state and local governments:

• Minor Administrative Costs. The measure would generate minor administrative costs for schools, colleges, and universities. For example, schools, colleges, and universities would need to revise policy manuals and training materials and modify data collection policies and systems to track biological sex as defined by the measure to ensure proper implementation. These costs could initially total a few million dollars statewide across schools, colleges, and universities (less than .01 percent of their annual state funding).
• Unknown, but Likely Minor, Costs Associated With Title IX Complaint and Investigation Workload. The measure could trigger additional Title IX complaints. Potential Title IX complaints could be based on claims that either the limits on participation in athletics and school facilities are a form of gender discrimination or the limits are not being implemented correctly. In both cases, the amount of time and resources schools, colleges, and universities spend on investigating Title IX complaints would increase. The potential magnitude of these workload-related costs is unknown, but likely minor relative to overall funding for schools, colleges, and universities.

Potential, but Unknown, Cost Pressures Related to Federal Fiscal Penalties. If the measure could be implemented legally and was found to violate Title IX, schools, colleges, and universities may face federal fiscal penalties, such as loss of federal funds or fines. This could place pressure on state and local governments to provide schools, colleges, and universities with additional funding to cover any federal fiscal penalties, though whether action is taken and the magnitude of such action is unknown.

Other Potential Cost Pressures. If the measure could be implemented legally, since the measure does not require schools, colleges, and universities to modify existing facilities, there would be no direct increase to facility costs. However, there may be facility cost pressures. For example, schools, colleges, and universities may choose to convert existing sex-segregated facilities into all-gender facilities to allow transgender students to use any and all facilities. There could be other cost pressures associated with complying with the measure, depending on how schools, colleges, and universities respond to these requirements. Additionally, the measure may generate indirect cost pressures for other government-funded programs and services. For example, transgender students may seek out supportive services to the extent their mental health is impacted by the proposed changes under the measure. State and local government costs could increase to the extent the supportive services are provided through a government-funded program. The potential cost pressures on other government-funded programs and services are unknown. The potential magnitude of these indirect costs is unknown.

Summary of Fiscal Effects. We estimate the measure would have the following fiscal effects:

• Minor administrative and workload costs to schools, colleges, and universities, which could range from no effect to a few millions of dollars initially, depending on whether the measure can be legally implemented.
• If legally implemented, there could be potential, but unknown, cost pressures related to federal fiscal penalties if the measure results in schools, colleges, or universities being deemed out of compliance with federal law.

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Healthy Schools

CDC Healthy Schools

Healthy Students, Ready to Learn

CDC-RFA-DP-24-0139: Improving Adolescent Health and Well-Being Through School-Based Surveillance and the What Works in Schools Program

Evidence-Based Strategies for School Nutrition and Physical Activity

Healthy and Supportive School Environments

School Employee Wellness

• Parents for Healthy Schools
• School Health Index (SHI)
• Wellness Policy in Action Tool

About CDC Healthy Schools

Improving School Health

Promoting Healthy Behaviors

Data and Research

Managing Health Conditions

Training and Professional Development

Assessing School Health

Stories of Achievement

The BAM! Body and Mind Classroom Resources for teachers portal contains lesson pland, activities, and more for grades 4-8.

The Virtual Healthy School (VHS) shows the WSCC model in action. Learn ways to implement the model in your school.

The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) model is CDC's framework for addressing health in schools.

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

• Fact sheets
• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• HIV and AIDS
• Hypertension
• Mental disorders
• Top 10 causes of death
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases
• Feature stories
• Press conferences
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Triple Billion
• Data collection tools
• Global Health Observatory
• Insights and visualizations
• COVID excess deaths
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment case
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal

Global report reveals major gaps in menstrual health and hygiene in schools

NEW YORK, GENEVA , 28 May 2024 –  Around the world, menstrual health and hygiene needs are being overlooked due to limited access to information, education, products and services, as well as inadequate facilities and inequalities.

A new report, Progress on drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools 2015–2023: special focus on menstrual health , launched by UNICEF and WHO on Menstrual Hygiene Day, analyses for the first time emerging national data on menstrual health and hygiene in schools globally.

Ten key facts from the report:

• Worldwide, only 2 out of 5 schools (39%) provide menstrual health education. This increases in secondary schools, with 84% of secondary schools in Central and Southern Asia, for example, providing menstrual education, compared to 34% in primary schools. 
• Less than 1 in 3 schools (31%) globally have bins for menstrual waste in girls’ toilets. This drops to 1 in 5 schools in Least Developed Countries (17%), and only 1 in 10 schools (or 11%) in sub-Saharan Africa. 
• Menstrual products are not always readily available, with many unable to afford them. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, only 1 in 8 schools (12%) provide menstrual materials for free or for purchase. 
• In many countries, adolescent schoolgirls do not have access to a clean toilet or other dedicated private space to change menstrual products in school. 
• Unequal access to water and soap is an additional issue for millions of adolescent schoolgirls. Girls in urban areas, private schools and girls-only schools are more likely to have access to a private place with water and soap, highlighting inequalities even within the same country. 
• Millions around the world are unaware or unprepared for menstruation before having their first period. A study in Ethiopia, for example, reveals that less than half the surveyed girls knew about their periods before their first time. 
• Studies show that stigma related to menstruation remains widespread, with adolescents often feeling ashamed or unable to openly discuss the topic. This shame can affect their mental health and school attendance. 
• No national datasets were identified on how many teachers are trained to teach about menstrual hygiene, indicating a significant gap in educational support. Teachers play a crucial role in providing accurate information and creating a supportive environment, but without proper training they are ill-equipped to address students' needs. 
• Only 30 countries, over one-third in sub-Saharan Africa, have relevant data tracking at least one of the globally recommended priority indicators. This lack of data hampers efforts to understand and address the issues comprehensively. 
• While countries such as Zambia and the Philippines have shown marked improvements in making menstrual products and services available in schools, more needs to be done. Change is possible with targeted policies and investments. 

The report underscores the urgent need for global action to improve menstrual health and hygiene in schools. By addressing these issues, we can ensure that every schoolgirl can manage her menstruation with dignity, safety and confidence.

The new UNICEF-WHO report also includes progress on broader access to water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools. Today, 1 in 5 children (447 million) still lack basic drinking water services at their school, 1 in 5 lack basic sanitation services (427 million), and 1 in 3 children (646 million) don’t have access to basic hygiene services. Achieving the relevant Sustainable Development Goal by 2030 will require a two-fold increase in current rates of progress for basic drinking water, a two-fold increase for basic sanitation, and a four-fold increase for basic hygiene services.

Notes to Editors  

The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) report - Progress on drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools 2000-2023: special focus on menstrual health – compiles data on global progress towards achieving universal access to safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), and for the first time includes a section on menstrual health. The emerging data measures global progress against several indicators which shed light on how many adolescent schoolgirls are not yet able to meet their menstrual needs across the world, and the efforts required until we are able to create a period-friendly world for all.

National data availability for menstrual health remains limited and indicator definitions vary making cross-country comparison difficult. Global and regional estimates are aggregates and should be treated as such.

Access the report and data here .

Dedicated to the well-being of all people and guided by science, the World Health Organization leads and champions global efforts to give everyone, everywhere an equal chance at a safe and healthy life. We are the UN agency for health that connects nations, partners, and people on the front lines in 150+ locations – leading the world’s response to health emergencies, preventing disease, addressing the root causes of health issues and expanding access to medicines and health care. Our mission is to promote health, keep the world safe and serve the vulnerable. www.who.int

About UNICEF

UNICEF works in some of the world’s toughest places, to reach the world’s most disadvantaged children. Across more than 190 countries and territories, we work for every child, everywhere, to build a better world for everyone.

For more information about UNICEF and its work for children visit  www.unicef.org

Follow UNICEF on  Twitter ,  Facebook ,  Instagram  and  YouTube

The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene is responsible for monitoring global progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) targets and indicators related to drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH). The JMP produces national, regional, and global estimates of progress on WASH in households, schools, and healthcare facilities.

Progress on drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools 2000–2023: special focus on menstrual health

Download the infographic: Highlights - WASH in schools in 2023

More information on WHO's work on water, sanitation and hygiene

More information on WHO's work on environmental health

For further information:

WHO media contact: [email protected]

Iris Bano Romero, UNICEF New York, +19178048093, [email protected]

School Officials Are Using Dress Codes To Target LGBTQ Students

Schools across the country have denied students entry to prom, graduation ceremonies and other school activities because of dress code policies that advocates say disproportionately impact LGBTQ+ students and girls.

In May, 16-year-old Florida junior Sophie Savidge told NBC News that she wasn’t allowed to go to prom because she wore a suit. In a statement at the time, the school pointed to its online guide to attire, which stipulates that “ladies” are required to wear dresses and “one piece attire only” to formal events.

A transgender student in Alabama reportedly wasn’t allowed to go to her senior prom in April because she wore a dress. The school’s student handbook said that it was up to administrators to “deem appropriate clothing or appearance,” according to AL.com.

And the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi filed a federal complaint with the Department of Education against Harrison County School District for barring a transgender girl from wearing a dress to her regional band concert this spring. The complaint detailed a two-year pattern of the district punishing girls — transgender and cisgender alike — for violating dress codes requiring students to dress in clothes that are “consistent with their biological sex.”

The school district added the provision of “biological sex” to its dress code after LGBTQ+ students complained that they couldn’t wear clothes that expressed their gender identity, said Liza Davis, a fellow at the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project.

School administrators have long used dress codes to enforce a rigid gender binary and uphold different standards based on assigned sex. This year, there has been a renewed effort in school districts across GOP-led states to enforce policies that are more explicitly restrictive to queer, trans and gender nonconforming students, as a record number of anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in statehouses across the country.

“Requiring students to dress according to their biological sex — even if it seems to be neutral as a rule, and it’s not calling out any particular student — has a disproportionate impact on gender nonconforming, nonbinary and transgender students because it is tying gender expression to their sex assigned at birth, essentially,” Davis said.

Students who are targeted over dress code infractions can lose out on class time or face punishments like suspension, and may face emotional distress from being pulled from class and told to change, she said.

Sex-based dress codes often force boys to wear pants and girls to wear skirts or dresses of a certain length. Advocates say these rules push rigid gender stereotypes and outdated, misogynistic ideas of how girls should dress in the presence of boys. And they leave no room for less traditional gender expression.

School dress codes that rely so heavily on “biological sex” are reminiscent of anti-LGBTQ bills and policies across the country.

“The district’s discriminatory dress code policies and enforcement are part of a wider sex-based hostile environment, which has impacted our clients and other students,” Davis said, referring to the complaint in Mississippi.

Policies that purport to bring “clarity” to sex discrimination laws by codifying definitions of “male” and “female” in order to exclude trans people from those categories often use exceedingly specific language that also fails to account for intersex people. The language embedded in these policies, often called “Women’s Bill of Rights” bills , was first proposed by Independent Women’s Voice, a conservative organization that has argued it’s necessary to protect women-only spaces and activities from trans people’s inclusion.

So far this year, at least 10 states have introduced or passed similarly worded legislation to narrowly define “biological sex” based on a person’s reproductive capacity or chromosomes. Oklahoma’s governor just signed the state’s own version of a Women’s Bill of Rights into law on Monday. Last year, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) introduced a Women’s Bill of Rights resolution to Congress, though it’s made no progress since.

Some state-level legislation now includes definitions of sex that explicitly bar trans people from updating their drivers licenses or state IDs, which makes it harder to vote , travel, and exist in public life.

Advocates say that an emphasis on “biological sex” has negative ramifications for all people, including cisgender women, because it encourages people to police one another’s gender — including kids. People have harassed child athletes who they suspect are transgender, and one state official in Utah came under fire for falsely suggesting that a student was transgender because of how she looked.

Sex and gender researchers previously told HuffPost that binary definitions of sex do not reflect how scientists currently understand human sex, which is determined by a variety of biological phenomena including hormones, genitals and otter secondary sex characteristics.

As more and more anti-LGBTQ legislation specifies how LGBTQ+ students can and cannot express themselves and participate in school activities, Davis said she would not be surprised if we see more schools across the country adopt policies that have explicit “biological sex provisions.”

Those kinds of provisions are likely to violate Title IX, a 1972 federal law that protects against discrimination on the basis of sex in public schools and colleges, Davis said.

The Biden administration released long-awaited final guidance for Title IX this spring, expanding the definition of sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Since then, more than a dozen red states have sued the Department of Education and vowed to not comply with this updated interpretation.

Many protections for LGBTQ students now hang in the balance . Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has vowed to overturn Title IX and restrict Title VII, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, on day one of his second term if elected.

“The country has to decide. Do we want to live in a place that looks like some of the most regressive politics in the states where right wing elected officials have control over everything: the way you dress, how you identify, the name and pronoun you use, what bathroom you’re able to access?” Brandon Wolf, press secretary at the Human Rights Campaign, told HuffPost earlier this spring. “Or do we want to live in a country... where we have the freedom to be ourselves, we have the freedom to make decisions about our own bodies?”

Popular in the Community

From our partner, more in politics.