Introduction

School is an opportunity to prepare children for success both now and later in life.  Being able to make informed choices about sexual behavior and reproductive health is a big part of that.  Events such as unintended pregnancies and contracting STDs can drastically alter the course of a young person’s life. Schools can help inform students through age-appropriate and inclusive reproductive education programs.

The specific focus of this blog is on how LGBTQ youth experience reproductive education in middle and high school.  There is a multitude of research and opinions on the topic of reproductive and health education in public schools.  Although our society is slowly becoming more aware and accepting of LGBT-related issues such as marriage equality, schools have been slow to adopt health curriculum that is reflective of this national trend.

On the surface, this inequality affects students who identify as LGBTQ and are exposed to non-inclusive health curriculum.  LGBT students are marginalized in their own classrooms and their educational needs go unmet.  However, the damage goes much deeper than just this specific population.  When all students are taught to ignore LGBT-related issues when it comes to sex and health, they are placed at an educational disadvantage.  They are underprepared for establishing personal and professional relationships with LGBTQ youth and do not have the opportunity to learn about and consider accepting LGBTQ peers and others.

A Rainbow of Perspectives

watercolor rainbow

Education in general is often in the forefront of media and professional attention, and sex education is no different.  In order to unpack the messages we are hearing about sex education and how the conversation related to LGBT youth, I will examine three sources that span the “rainbow” of perspectives, if you will.

On one end of the spectrum, there is the infamous abstinence-only education, which dictates that everyone should wait until marriage to have sex.  To learn more about this approach to sex education, I visited the National Abstinence Education Association’s website to learn more about this approach.  I examined a report published by the organization called The Abstinence Works Report.  The document cited many studies that they believe support the use of abstinence education.  The rate of success for many of these studies was comparing self-reported pre and post intervention sexual behavior.  On the surface this might make sense, since abstinence-only education aims to eliminate all sexual behavior outside of marriage.

However, such an outcome measurement is built upon the notion that teen sexual behavior is something that should be reduced or eliminated in the first place.  We would certainly not endorse an intervention aimed at eliminating all peanut butter consumption simply because it was proven to work.  We have to think about whether the outcome of the intervention and the desired outcome is the same thing.  Measuring the outcome of a sexual education program should include many indicators, such as knowledge about a wide range of related topics and accurate understandings of the benefits and risks to sexual activity.  Focusing on one agenda-driven indicator does not evaluate how effective a program is.

On the opposite end of our rainbow spectrum is an article by a counseling psychology graduate student, published by the Huffington Post, that gives several reasons why it is important for schools to adopt LBGT-inclusive sex ed.  Goodman argues that exclusively heterosexual-oriented sex education programs alienate LBGT youth and fail to meet their educational needs in this area.  This is especially true when an abstinence-only program is taught in a state where same sex marriage is not yet legal.  LGBT students are caught in a catch-22, where they would have to remain abstinent their entire lives because they cannot enter into a marriage with their chosen partner.

Goodman also pointed to the school-wide improvements that come with inclusive sex education.  Students exposed to sexual diversity are more likely to accept LGBT people.  This can result in less bullying and harassment.

To conclude my quest, I came across a very confusing midpoint of the rainbow.  Published by the American Psychological Association, this toolbox component gave advice on how to include LGBTQ youth in abstinence-only curriculum.  It recommended some ways to reframe the abstinence message for LGBTQ youth.  Recommendations include making sexual decisions free of mind-altering substances or circumstances, basing decisions on personal values, and deciding whether or not to be abstinent. Although these recommendations seem like healthy advice to me, it still doesn’t reconcile abstinence’s key tenant—no sex until marriage.

References

Abstinence Works. (2013). National Abstinence Education Association, 19-20. (2013, July 1). Retrieved August 8, 2014.

Framing inclusive abstinence messages with LGBT youth. (2002). American Psychological Association, 19-20. Retrieved August 8, 2014, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/hlgbsp/abstinence-messages.pdf

Goodman, J. (2013, August 30). 5 Reasons Schools Should Adopt LGBTQ-inclusive Sex Ed.Huffpost Gay Voices. Retrieved August 8, 2914, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-a-goodman/lgbtq-inclusive-sex-ed_b_3834914.html

How they do it in Norway

Although the primary focus of this blog is sex education in the United States, examining the practices of other countries can be helpful to further understand the strengths and weaknesses of our own system.  To do this, I examined the sex education practices of Norway.

In Norway, there is a national sex education curriculum from ages 6-16 (Svendsen, 2012).  In contrast, sex education is legally mandated in 23 U.S. states and D.C.  33 states mandate teaching about HIV/AIDS, but only 13 require that information to be medically accurate (Guttmacher Institute, 2014).  Essentially, this means that U.S. students have a 13 in 50 chance of receiving an education that includes medically accurate information on sexual health and HIV/AIDS.

The Real Education for Healthy Youth Act of 2013, was introduced to the U.S. Senate in February, 2013.  The bill proposed providing grant money for the incorporation whole or portions of evidence-based sex education curriculum into adolescent education.  The full text of the bill can be found here: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/372/text.  Currently, the bill has yet to pass the Senate, but hopefully legislation such as this will lead to the adoption of uniform, accurate sex education across the United States.

In Norway, LGBTQ-related topics are incorporated into each age category at developmentally appropriate levels.  Below is a table adapted from the Svendsen (2012) that outlines the sex education curriculum in Norway.  LGBT-related portions are highlighted. I was struck by how inclusive of LGBT issues the curriculum is.  It appears that LGBT-related issues are introduced at an early age and become more comprehensive as the years progress.

Topics included in the Norwegian sex education curriculum
Age Students should be able to…
6-9
  • Talk about the human body from conception to adulthood
  • Talk about tasks in the family, about different family arrangements, including single providers, extended families, families with same sex parents, and families with several sets of parents
10-12
  • Explain what happens during puberty, and talk about differences in gender identity and variations in sexual orientation
  • Talk about ethics in relation to different family arrangements, the relation between the sexes, differences in gender identity, and the relation between generations
  • Discuss how languages can express and create attitudes towards individuals and groups of people
  • Discuss variations in sexual orientations in relation to love, sexuality and family
13-16
  • Discuss Problems in relation to sexuality, differences in sexual orientation, contraception, abortion and STIs
  • Discuss the relationship between love and sexuality in light of cultural norms
  • Reflect on ethical questions concerning human relations, family and friends, heterosexuality, youth culture and body culture
  • Discuss how language can be used for purposes of discrimination and harassment

References:

Slater, H. (2013, June 21). LGBT-Inclusive Sex Education Means Healthier Youth and Safer Schools. Retrieved August 2, 2014, from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2013/06/21/67411/lgbt-inclusive-sex-education-means-healthier-youth-and-safer-schools/

State Policies in Brief: Sex and HIV Education. (2014). Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved August 7, 2014, from http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf

Svendsen, S. (2012). Elusive sex acts: Pleasure and politics in Norwegian sex education. Sex Education, 12(4), 397-410. (2012, September 1). Retrieved August 2, 2014.

Sunday School Sex Ed: Our Whole Lives

Our Whole Lives curriculum spans from age 6-adult

Our Whole Lives curriculum spans from age 6-adult

The birds and the bees may not be the first thing we think of as children exit church services to attend Sunday school activities. However, many churches affiliated with the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Church and incorporating such a program into their work with youth. Wayside United Church of Christ in Federal Way, Washington

Our Whole Lives (OWL) is a comprehensive ex education program that focuses on presenting factual information and allowing students to form their own opinions and make their own decisions in regards to their sexual health and relationships.  The curriculum focuses on four key areas: self-worth, responsibility, sexual health, and justice and inclusivity.

Of particular interest to this blog is the justice and inclusivity component.  Participants are taught about all types of sexual relationships rather than exclusively heterosexual behavior.  Providing such information allows students to pursue the kind of sexual relationship they feel best fits them.  Amy Johnson, An OWL trainer and member of Wayside UCC, says that OWL teaches that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender or race, have equal rights.

Here is a YouTube video of some high school students articulating their experiences in their church’s OWL program.  They emphasize the contrast between the OWL program and their health classes at school as well as the fact that they feel informed and empowered to make their own decisions regarding their sexual relationships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_0ML0Ntmcc

References:

Fyhrie, A, Johanson, E. (2008, January 10). Our Whole Lives. (Video Blog) Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_0ML0Ntmcc .

 

Johnson, A. (n.d.). Just Say Know! Our Whole Lives/Sexuality and our Faith. Retrieved August 7, 2014, from http://www.waysideucc.org/nurturing-us/sexuality-education.html

Our Whole Lives Lifespan Sexuality Education Curricula. (2013, January 13). Retrieved August 7, 2014, from http://www.uua.org/re/owl/

Our Whole Lives. (n.d.). Retrieved August 7, 2014, from http://www.ucc.org/justice/sexuality-education/our-whole-lives.html

This I Believe Reflection

In addition to performing the traditional testing, consultation and counseling duties of a school psychologist, I will use my position to promote social justice, both within the school and surrounding community.  The practice of social justice fits well into a school psychologist’s role of creating a healthy environment because of their unique position within society.  “School psychologists have unique access to: (a) the best possible target populations, and (b) the best possible organizational settings in which to access clients,” (Gutkin & Song).  As a school psychologist, I will have both the necessary social justice training and access to students in order to promote social justice.

I see myself promoting social justice in two ways: through instruction and through socially-just professional practices.  In order for today’s children to create and maintain a socially-just society, they need foundational skills and time to practice them.  “Enhancing social justice in our society will require educational interventions in which people learn about the centrality of equity, fairness, diversity, etc. to the fabric of our society,” (Gutkin & Song). An example of such an intervention could be a school-wide program to highlight different cultures that are represented in the school, focusing both on similarities and differences.  Rather than taking on these projects alone, the school psychologist would function as a member of a school-wide team.

Some schools and school districts promote the socially unjust practice of over-identifying students of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds for special education services.  As a school psychologist, I will work accurately identify students for special education services rather than basing it off of their background of English proficiency.  This can be accomplished by using assessments that establish language dominance and avoiding tests and subtests with high cultural and linguistic loads.

In order to be an agent of change, I will encounter resistance.  On the instruction side, I may have to work with parents, teachers, administrators or students who are not receptive to interventions that promote social justice.  It is important to secure as much buy-in from these groups so that the interventions can be as successful as possible.  Access to appropriate tests and qualified interpreters could hamper my socially just practice of not over identifying CLD students for special education.

Another challenge to practicing in a socially just manner is the time needed in order to do so.  Especially as a new school psychologist, I will be overwhelmed with the day-to-day requirements of my job.  It might be challenging to get everything done while working to specifically promote social justice.  Instead, I will try to infuse social justice into my everyday practice rather than separating the two. A career that incorporates “a social justice orientation requires a rethinking of our social responsibilities and a rechanneling of some of our professional energies, expertise, and actions from the familiar role as advocate into the reformulated role of social justice advocate,”  (Rogers & O’Bryon, 2008). This means that I will have to shift from accomplishing only the basic duties of a school psychologist to a social justice advocate for the students and families I serve.

One of the skills I possess that will be useful in promoting social justice in my school is being able to effectively listen to people.  This will help me assess what social justice issues people might be dealing with.  Using empathetic listening will allow me to establish trust and rapport with those I work with.  Having that foundation will allow me to have an effective working relationship with them.

I grew up in a church that was very active in advocating for social justice-related change.  Members worked to promote equality and acceptance both within the congregation and out in the community.  Having this model has allowed me to build my personal life around a framework of social justice.  It has taught me that taking care of your own circle is not enough.  In order for positive change to occur, people must be willing to advocate for equality and justice for all people.

References

Gutkin, T.B. & Song, S.Y. (in press).  Social justice in school psychology: A historical

perspective. In D. Shriberg, S.Y. Song, A.H. Miranda, & K.M. Radcliff (Eds.), School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations and tools for practice. NY: Rutledge

Rogers, M. R., & O’Bryon, E. C. (2008). Advocating for social justice: The context for change in school psychology. School psychology review37(4), 493-498.