In this final section of the chapter, I examine whether there is a difference in the population based on whether participants recalled receiving education on homosexuality and sexual orientation in their sex education and whether perceptions of earlier inclusion of non - heterosexual identities might indicate something different about those participants. These specific topics were investigated because there is a relevant question around whether there might be a connection between being exposed to homosexuality and sexual orientation and the perceived importance of other facets of sex education, including whether topics such as these should be discussed earlier in the curriculum.
When Mann-Whitney U tests were run comparing those who reported having been taught about homosexuality and those who reported that they had not received any information, there was a significant difference for the question that assessed whether sex education focused more on straight couples than LGBT couples (heteronormativity),
(U(255) = 5217.0, Z = 17620.0, p < .001). The descriptive statistics indicate a much larger percentage of respondents who were not taught about homosexuality, agreeing with the heteronormative statement.
However, when running the same test comparing those who reported being taught about sexual orientation, versus those that were not, there were four questions that were found to be significantly different, three of which are salient and focus on the prevailing theme of sexual orientation. The first question covered whether participants thought that sex education focused more on straight couples than LGBT couples (U(257) = 6223, Z = -3.539, p < .001). Similarly, to the finding related to discussing homosexuality, participants who did not discuss sexual orientation in the classroom felt that the curriculum was heteronormative. The second relationship dealt with whether participants were bullied over their sexual orientation (U(254) = 7193, Z = -2.376, p < .05). Generally, those who were not taught about sexual orientation reported higher levels of indifference and agreement to being bullied compared to those who reported discussing sexual orientation in the classroom. Finally, the third relationship was then found on the appropriateness of discussing anal sex in sex education (U(256) = 6811, Z = -2.467, p < .05). Counter-intuitively, those who did not talk about sexual orientation were more likely to respond that anal sex was appropriate for the classroom.
In addition to the previous idea that being educated on certain topics surrounding sexual orientation may affect opinions on how these sensitive topics should be approached, it is possible that the key indicator lies in preconceived notions. Regardless of whether sexual orientation was discussed in schools, it is highly probable that everyone will have been exposed to the idea through other learning opportunities and the media (Turnbull et al. 2008). Thus, maybe any embodied opinions formed before or during the onset of sex education, are contributory to one’s perceptions about other topics that may be broached in sex education. To look at this specifically, I recoded the question on the appropriateness of teaching non- heterosexual identities in the classroom into three groups, those that feel Key Stage 1 or 2 is appropriate for learning about non-heterosexual identities (early), those that agree with Key Stage 3 or 4 (late) and those who feel that it is completely inappropriate (not appropriate).
When running Mann-Whitney U tests comparing the early versus the late groups, there were several significant differences. There were significant differences for all of the importance-based questions (e.g. discussing safe sex is important for both young men and young women, discussing biological aspects are important, etc.). For most of the opinion- based questions (e.g. Family values do not affect my decisions concerning sex; Giving young
people information about how to obtain and use condoms and other contraception makes it more likely that they will practice safe sex now or in the future, etc.), there were no significant differences except for the questions on whether sex education should be compulsory/optional. Finally, there was a significant difference for all of the questions asking students to rank when (Key Stage/age) they felt the topic was appropriate for the classroom (e.g. STIs, termination, oral sex, etc.).
When comparing the ‘early group’ with those that responded that sexual orientation was not appropriate to be discussed in school, the results showed significant differences with only half of the questions. Four of the questions assessing heteronormativity in the classroom showed statistical significance. These included: One, the question asking about the importance of discussing LGBT topics (U(104) = 128, Z = -4.036, p < .001), two, the statement relating to the importance of discussing safe sex for both straight and LGBT young people (U(104) = 201, Z = -3.679, p < .001), three, the appropriateness of discussing anal sex in the classroom (U(104) = 147.5, Z = -3.892, p < .001), and four, the appropriateness of discussing non- heterosexual identities in the classroom (U(104) = 0, Z = -6.176, p < .001). In all four of these questions, the early advocates replied more favourably than their late counterparts with higher levels of agreement and more support for earlier teaching of other related topics.
Finally, the third comparison is between the ‘late group’ and the ‘not appropriate’ group. This comparison showed similar results, on the same variables, listed in the preceding group comparison. The results were: One, on the question asking about the importance of discussing LGBT topics (U(166) = 345.5, Z = -3.080, p < .01), two, on the statement relating to
the importance of discussing safe sex for both straight and LGBT young people (U(166) = 400.5, Z = -3.004, p < .01), and three, on the appropriateness of discussing anal sex
in the classroom (U(165) = 512.5, Z = -1.973, p < .05). The results are the same as reported for the previous comparison. The responses of the late group showed the same tendencies when compared to the not appropriate group.
6.4 Discussion
Overall, these data demonstrate many similarities to other research examining sex education (see Alldred and David 2007); however, there are some interesting results that need further discussion. I begin by looking at broad themes that emerged and then look at some of the more intricate relationships that were, or in some cases were not, found to be significant.
In general, the majority of students felt that sex education was important and the listed topics were all important to cover in the classroom. Of these topics, the largest consensus was on the inclusion of STIs but this may have been influenced by the fact that students are inundated with public health messages in educational settings, evidenced by the content required in the National Curriculum and the results discussed within. This is also reflected in the social topics included, as relationships and LGBT topics saw a higher proportion of students responding with indifference or ‘not important’ to some degree, which may suggest a heteronormative attitude towards sex education, as these views were more prevalent in the straight identified group. These views were also more prevalent in those that said discussing non-heterosexual identities should occur later or not at all in the curriculum suggesting that those who wish to see non-heterosexual identities discussed in Key Stages 1 and 2 are generally more receptive to the idea that sexual orientation has a place in the classroom. This may be because they themselves were educated earlier on the subject, but unfortunately, this was not asked in this survey. It cannot be assumed that students viewed these topics, especially the question on LGBT topics, unfavourably because predominately this was not the case. However, this does reinforce the notion that biology still prevails in sex education and is similar to the results obtained by a YouGov poll orchestrated with The Sun (2011) for the public. Nevertheless, we must be cautious in describing these results as proof of the current content of the curriculum as there are alternative possibilities ranging from a lack of recall, to personal constructions of topics being inconsistent in research.
Students also responded that sex education should be compulsory and inclusive of everyone irrespective of gender or sexual orientation. However, there was a discrepancy between the results of two questions that examined similar topics. Young people agreed that it was important to educate LGBT young people about safe sex, yet significantly less responded that it was important to discuss LGBT topics. My only explanations for this are that some students may not perceive LGBT ‘issues’ as an academic concern, but rather a socio-political concern in that gay rights fall outside the realm of education - or possibly a misunderstanding of the question - but these are speculations.
Additionally, it was surprising to find that many participants felt that giving information on sex encourages sex at a younger age. This has been refuted in the past (Baldo et al. 1993; Walker 2001, p. 133; Goldman 2008, p. 421) but the myth prevails in the classroom, suggesting that young people are never actually informed why sex education is important, except for the public health messages that are conveyed.
Next, it was interesting to find the number of participants who did not feel that family values affected their decisions on sex. As discussed in Chapter 3, parents are to be actively involved in the implementation of sex education in schools though consultation on the curriculum. This leads to the question of why is this necessary inclusion when students reportedly do not care about their family’s values. One answer to this question lies in the amount of literature that suggests many young people do learn family values in terms of relationships and expectations from their parents (Jaccard and Dittus 2000; Dittus and Jaccard 2000; Davis and Friel 2001; Mcneely et al. 2002; Fingerson 2005). Each of these studies demonstrate varying levels of influence but generally there is a link between the level of communication and expectations from the parents on the debut of sexual activity, though Wellings and colleagues (2001, p. 1847) contest that those who learn sex education from school were less likely to partake in underage sex than those whose main source of information was from family or friends. While this literature is useful in understanding the relationship between parents and their children, it is important to recall the discrepancy reported by young people regarding their parents’ level of interaction regarding sex (Walker 2001, p. 135). This again is problematic when policies suggest that sex education should start and continue in the home, especially if parents lack the appropriate knowledge.
The second part of the survey contained information on the appropriateness of discussing a selection of topics in sex education. Generally, students felt that many topics could be taught earlier than currently mandated under the National Curriculum28, with LGB identified people typically leading the vote for earlier inclusion. This confirms previous findings (Woodcock, Stenner and Ingham 1992, p. 523; Measor et al. 2000, p. 159; Buston and Wight 2002, p. 240; Buston and Wight 2006, p. 142; Blake 2008, p. 37). This is deduced from the idea that many of the topics listed on the survey are included in Key Stages 3 and 4 where compulsory sex education begins. Interestingly, the one topic that had the highest percentage of young people identifying it as suitable in the first two Key Stages of education was the topic of non-heterosexual identities. This is consistent with the general shift in societal views, as LGBT identified people are gaining equality (e.g. Marriage Act 2013), emphasised by the latest release by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA- Europe) (2014) in which the UK scored the highest on legal and human rights policy progression towards equality.
28
The new National Curriculum took effect for the 2014-2015 school year. The infor mation in the current consultation document is nearly identical to that presented earlier in this thesis (DfE 2013). Please refer to p. 72-73 in this thesis for a general overview of the infor mation contained in the curriculum.
In the survey section on the appropriateness of topics in the classroom, it was found that young women and straight identified participants tended to be more conservative with slightly more participants selecting the higher age ranges as being more appropriate, the only exception being on the appropriateness of discussing non-heterosexual identities. I cannot explain this finding except that it may relate to either the notion of individuals holding different views, or possibly the environment in which these students were educated influencing the responses. For instance, young women may have issues with immature boys during lessons, thus preferring to have lessons later in school. This would be corroborated with the findings of Strange and colleagues (2003), and Alldred and David (2007) who both identified that girls would typically prefer to have their sex education in a single-sex classroom. However, as this study included an all-girls school, and their responses indicated later education on most topics, this hypothesis is not supported in this instance. This admittedly, could be due to the limited sample in this study.
Talking about masturbation was another topic with a higher proportion of responses indicating the desire for earlier education on the topic. Conversely, nearly a tenth of the participants declared this topic unsuitable for the classroom. This was one of only two topics (the other being oral sex) where a statistical difference was found between the type of school attended, with state school participants more likely to support the teaching of these topics in the classroom. In general, it was found that the view of masturbation being unsuitable for the classroom was predominantly expressed by non-religious, white young women. This may be explained by the proportion of young women that choose to integrate masturbation into their sexual development being lower than their male counterparts (Robbins et al. 2011), but it could be a result of the classroom setting in which they were educated, as discussed previously (see Strange et al. 2003).
The other contentious topic included in the ‘appropriateness’ section was anal sex. The reason why this topic was chosen and ultimately discussed relates to the perception that anal sex is a core activity for gay men, demonstrated by the statistics that ten percent of straight couple engage in anal sex, while two-thirds of gay men engage in the practice (Bell 1999, pp. 453-454). However, in the most recent British National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3) data (2013), nearly 20 percent of young people have tried opposite sex anal sex. Considering this, I chose to see how young people, including those who identified as LGB, would view anal sex. I found that a large number of participants (one-fifth of the sample, evenly distributed across all demographics except sexual orientation) felt that this topic was not appropriate for the classroom. Three participants who identified as bisexual (n = 19 for LGB
participants) were amongst those that listed anal sex as inappropriate, which proportionately is about the same as the sample as a whole. However, this is likely to be a misleading statistic and hard to compare as the straight identified sample is nearly 20 times larger.
The final section of the survey, which asked about whether topics were covered in sex education yielded mostly predictable results, though there are several worth dissecting. Three of these relate to a lower than I would expect affirmation that they were discussed in the classroom. These were rape, age of consent, and family values. Both rape and age of consent are child protection matters that are heavily discussed in many of the policies. It is interesting that this did not translate to the recollection of teaching on these topics. Similarly, family values were not reportedly discussed, yet in the policies, parents are perceived as instrumental in teaching children about sex and relationships. However, this is also consistent with the sentiment that family values do not influence the sexual decisions of young people, as discussed.
Further, in this section on topics covered, two additional statistics that bear importance on this research are noteworthy. These are on the topics of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Each of these topics was reportedly discussed by just over half of the participants. This refutes the guidance put forth by the national guidance document and even more so from the local guidance document. These topics are supposed to be included in an effort to make sure no child is uncared for through sex education but these statistics suggest that there is a lapse between the local guidance and ultimately what is taught in the classroom. This may be due to a lapse in recalling the material or possibly missing the lesson where it was discussed (the latter possibility will be discussed in the next chapter concerning the frequency of sex education) but in either event, it suggests that there is very little information or support in sex education for those sexualities that are not heterosexuality.
Finally, it is also important to note here that it can be assumed that at least 97 percent of participants in this sample had some type of sex education, or what the young person deemed as sex education. This is evident in the reporting of the discussion on STIs by this percentage of young people. Now, this may have been the only component covered, but seeing as sex education has roots in the National Curriculum, it can be assumed that everyone will have taken part in the programme to some degree.
6.5 Conclusion
As expected, due to the requirements of the National Curriculum, most young people in this sample reported having some form of sex education. Through the results presented in this chapter, it can be seen where there are shortcomings (e.g. percentage of students recalling a topic versus the agreement that such a topic should be discussed and the age at which students feel topics can be taught versus the National Curriculum requirements) and how young people generally felt about the prospect of having sex education as part of the curriculum. Most young people welcomed the prospect, indicating that it is an integral part of their schooling.
Not only do these results indicate the state of sex education, but they also provide other important thoughts for consideration. As students reportedly received little teaching on some topics, it is hard to be sure whether this is because they were never taught about those topics, because they were not taught adequately or whether poor recall plays a factor. The idea of adequate teaching refers to teaching material superficially where students may not fully understand or comprehend, leaving much of the information to be forgotten over a short period of time. It also suggests that while there is some consistency across schools, this consistency can and needs to be improved upon. This is of particular importance when considering LGBT students in the classroom.
Finally, the majority of students, irrespective of gender, religion, and sexual orientation, felt that sex education should be all-inclusive and comprehensive, so as to provide a well-rounded education for all. However, it can also be seen that a significant number of these participants have not learned about sexual orientation and homosexuality in the classroom. This is further be examined in the next chapter, where I discuss the findings from focus groups and interviews that were conducted with LGBT young people about their experiences in the sex education classroom.