Comprehensive Sex Education Curriculum

Sex education is a hotly debated topic in the United States. Much of the existent literature on the topic concerns the populations who desire abstinence-only sex education or comprehensive sex education. Little research however, has been done on the minutiae of the topic, specifically; do certain topics illicit more disagreeance than others and is it possible for an educational system to cohesively accommodate differing first principle views? This research ultimately intends to contribute a topic by topic breakdown of sexuality to analyze how demographic variables affect topic acceptance and if a new kind of curriculum strategy would be useful for sex education. To that end this research is organized as follows: following a brief introduction,

Sex positive research still remains in its seminal stage but cultural indicators are increasingly pointing to a multiplication of more positive, liberal attitudes in the general population (Newport 2015; Russell 2005), including topics about sexuality and sex education. The body of research concerning sex education, particularly the failing health and educational outcomes of abstinence only curriculum, is monumental; consisting of large amounts of data and peer reviewed research supporting the fact that not only do abstinence courses fail to reduce teenage pregnancies or lower the rates of sexually transmitted infections, they may also exacerbate negative health outcomes by not providing adequate information for adolescent sexual decision-making, i.e like how to properly use contraceptives (Stranger-Hall et al. 2011; Santelli et al 2006). Abstinence only education programs are also increasingly losing their foothold as educational programs and states are increasingly opting out of federal abstinence funding (Doan & McFarlane 2012). Thus, there has been an increase in research pertaining to the benefits of comprehensive sex education and, more broadly, the advantages of sex positivity in addressing structural oppressions such as racism, sexism, ageism and discrimination inadvertently taught in traditional sex education programs and in society at large (Connell &

Bleakley et al. (2006) surveyed 1096 individuals and found that 82% preferred comprehensive education. They also found that abstinence only education had the highest rate of opposition voiced by about 50% of respondents (See also Eisenberg 2008 for similar results). However, the federal government continues to fund abstinence only education at staggering levels. In 2008 the allocated budget for these programs was $176 million (SIECUS 2015). Divergent sexual and cultural attitudes are also apparent in legislative differences between states concerning the content of sex education courses. For example, only 19 states require medically accurate information to be presented and only 33 require students be taught about HIV/AIDS (NCSL 2015). This legislative inconsistency confuscates the political environment and policy implementation. State statutes also complicate matters at a regional level. In Idaho Title 33, chapter 16 of Education- Courses of Instruction, Idaho’s policy on sex education in schools, states that "the decision as to whether or not any program in family life and sex education is to be introduced in the schools is a matter for determination at the local district level by the local school board of duly selected