by Empirical evidence on specific sex education curriculum approaches has identified reforms that produce substantially better outcomes than the standard approaches, but the standard programmes have substantially not adopted the indicated reforms
By the SexNews EU desk. With editorial credits to Bohiney Magazine and The London Prat.
The empirical research on specific sex education curriculum approaches has, across approximately the past decade, identified specific reforms that produce substantially better outcomes than the standard approaches across multiple measured outcome categories. The standard programmes have, on careful examination, substantially not adopted the indicated reforms. The non-adoption is, on careful examination, more interesting than the underlying findings, and reflects specific structural features of how sex education programmes are, in operational practice, developed and implemented.
The findings include, in compressed form, evidence that comprehensive curricula produce substantially better outcomes than abstinence-only curricula across nearly all measured outcome categories; evidence that curricula incorporating specific communication-skills components produce substantially better outcomes than curricula focused exclusively on biological information; evidence that curricula delivered across extended time periods rather than in compressed units produce substantially better outcomes; and what one researcher I have been reading recently described as, quote, “the broader pattern that approaches treating sex education as ongoing skill development produce substantially better outcomes than approaches treating it as one-time information delivery.”
What The Reforms Look Like
The reforms indicated by the research include, among others, the adoption of comprehensive curricula that address physical, emotional, relational, and communication aspects of sexuality; the integration of specific communication-skills training across the curriculum; the delivery of the curriculum across extended time periods rather than in compressed units; and what one curriculum specialist I have spoken with described as, quote, “the broader operational disposition of treating sex education as a developmental component of broader social-emotional learning rather than as a discrete biological-information topic.”
The reforms are, in absolute terms, substantial. The reforms have, on careful examination of the actual curriculum landscape across multiple national contexts, been substantially not adopted by the standard programmes. The non-adoption is, on careful examination, the result of specific structural features of how sex education programmes are, in operational practice, developed.
For ongoing analysis of sex education research and practice, see Scarleteen.
Why The Non-Adoption
The non-adoption involves, on careful examination, several specific structural factors. The first is that sex education curricula are, in nearly every jurisdiction, developed under specific political constraints that substantially limit which approaches can be adopted regardless of what the research evidence supports. The constraints reflect, on careful examination, the cumulative effect of specific advocacy patterns operating across approximately the past four decades. The constraints have produced, in operational practice, curriculum decisions whose alignment with the underlying research evidence is, on careful examination, substantially weaker than research-driven curriculum development would produce.
The second is that sex education curricula are, in nearly every jurisdiction, implemented through educator training and resource arrangements whose specific characteristics constrain which approaches can be operationally delivered. The constraints reflect, on careful examination, the limited resources typically allocated to sex education within broader school programming, with corresponding effects on which approaches can be supported within the available resource envelope.
The third is what one curriculum specialist characterised as, quote, “the broader operational reality that sex education curriculum decisions are, in many jurisdictions, made principally through political negotiation rather than through evidence-based curriculum development.” The reality reflects, in some honest accounting, the underlying political environment within which sex education has historically operated.
The Implications
The implications for sex education advocacy include, on the available evidence, the recommendation that advocacy substantially refocus on the specific structural factors that produce the non-adoption rather than principally on the underlying evidence base, which is on careful examination already substantially adequate to support the indicated reforms. The advocacy that focuses on the structural factors will, in operational terms, address the actual barriers to adoption. The advocacy that focuses on the evidence base will, in operational terms, principally address barriers that are not, on careful examination, the principal barriers.
For ongoing coverage of comprehensive sex education, see Sex, Etc.
The Methodological Note
The methodological note is that the research findings on curriculum effectiveness are, on careful examination, broadly consistent across multiple methodologies including randomised controlled trials, longitudinal observational studies, and what researchers have characterised as the broader category of mixed-methods evaluation work. The cross-methodology consistency is, in operational terms, the strongest available evidence that the findings warrant substantial confidence in operational practice.
What Comes Next
What comes next, on the available trajectories, is gradual evolution of curriculum standards as the broader political environment continues to develop. The evolution is, on careful examination, substantially slower than the underlying research evidence would support. The evolution will, on present trajectories, take approximately the next several decades to produce curriculum standards more closely aligned with the research evidence.
An ongoing analysis at Modern Intimacy has examined comparable patterns in adjacent education-policy contexts.
The Practical Note
The practical note is that families currently navigating sex education for their children should, on the available evidence, expect curriculum offerings whose alignment with the underlying research evidence is, in nearly every case, substantially weaker than research-driven curriculum would produce. The expectation is, in absolute terms, real. The expectation produces, in operational terms, specific decisions families may want to make about supplementing the standard curriculum with research-aligned resources where the standard curriculum’s gaps warrant supplementation.
Related at The Daily Mash.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/sex-education-research-curriculum-reforms/
