CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Although the first organized campaign for school-based human sexuality education in the United
States was begun in the 1890s (Morris, 1994), more than a century later there is still rigorous
debate about the place a human sexuality curriculum should hold in public schools in this
country. In the wave of critical curriculum theory, equity issues in gender, race, social class, and
sexuality are at the forefront of educational reform; however the conservatism that still underlies
our Puritan-based government keeps the idea of teaching human sexuality-related topics in
schools on the back burner. And although empirical research on human sexuality education
programs has concluded again and again that programs of a comprehensive nature; those which
feature a clear delineation of the risks associated with sexual behavior, methods of preventing
those risks, and the encouragement of openness about sexuality; are positively associated with
safer sexual practices among youth (Grunseit, Kippax, Aggleton, Baldo, & Slutkin, 1997;
Landry, Darroch, Singh & Higgins, 2003), politics in the United States continue to focus on less
effective abstinence-only-until-marriage (AUM) human sexuality programs (Landry et al., 2003;
Milton et al., 2001).
In general, the value of human sexuality education is to provide our youth with the information
necessary to make informed choices about sexual acts they choose to engage in and other aspects
of their sexual health, and to encourage students to engage in lower-risk sexual behaviors when
they do become sexually active. Comprehensive human sexuality education programs have been
found to be associated with a delayed initiation of sexual intercourse; reduced rates of teenage
pregnancy, abortion, or birthrates to teenagers; greater sexual monogamy; and consistent condom
use (Darroch, Singh, Frost & Study Team, 2001; Grunseit et al., 1997; Landry et al., 2003), as
well as a decrease in homophobic attitudes (Buston & Hart, 2001).
Human sexuality-related topics are important in the science classroom because it is here that the
full integration of human reproductive anatomy, decision-making skills, sexually-transmitted
diseases, stages of human development, the endocrine system, the relationship between sexuality
and genetics, genetic disorders, and the biology of sexual arousal could be linked to existing
curricular elements. However in order to do so, the science instructor must have the freedom and
desire to provide a comprehensive human sexuality education program for his or her students
(Bowden, Lanning, Pippin, & Tanner, 2003). Assuming that the majority of science instructors
hold a degree in a branch of science or in science education, their own education would have
included at least a basic knowledge of biological processes, cytology, and sexual reproduction.
Consequently, of instructors in all of the academic disciplines, science teachers seem to have the
greatest advantage as facilitators of a human sexuality education curriculum. However, in order
to get the big picture, these topics must be taught to students as a cohesive unit on human
sexuality education (Morris, 1994), not spread throughout the year as they are in most science
textbooks.
In the state of Florida, no state-adopted curriculum exists for the teaching of human sexuality
education. The sixty-seven separate counties within the state each represent a distinct school
district which is self-governing other than having to adhere to the standards set forth in the
formal curriculum documents known as the Sunshine State Standards. The grades 9-12 Sunshine
State Standards for science offer several strands in standards 1 and 2 under the heading
“Processes of Life” which could indirectly include human sexuality-related topics and a single
strand (SC.F.2.4.1) which states that the student “understands the mechanisms of asexual and
sexual reproduction and knows the different genetic advantages and disadvantages of sexual and
asexual reproduction” (Florida Department of Education, 1998). The grades 6-8 science
standards also offer a single curriculum strand (SC.F.2.3.1) related to the general knowledge of
the benefits of sexual reproduction; however specific benchmarks for the teaching of human
reproductive anatomy and disease acquired through sexual contact are excluded from Florida’s
formal science curriculum (Florida Department of Education, 1998). Florida also institutes
standards for health education for grades 9-12 and grades 6-8 which state only that students
“know strategies for health enhancement and risk reduction” (HE.B. 1.4.2), that students “know
ways in which to reduce the risks related to the health problems of adolescents” (HE.A. 1.3.6),
and “know how lifestyle, pathogens (germs), family history and other risk factors are related to
the cause or prevention of disease and other health problems” (HE.A. 1.3.8) (Florida Department
of Education, 1998). Due to the lack of specific curriculum standards for the state of Florida
which focus on human sexual reproduction and sexual health, the decisions of how and when to
teach topics related to human sexuality are explicitly left up to classroom teachers or their
administrators on a county-wide or school-wide basis.
National statistics state that young men and women in the United States typically begin having
sexual intercourse during late adolescence at a median age of 16.9 years for men and 17.4 years
for women (Landry et al., 2003); however specific research on the sexual behavior of middle
school students has found that one in eight middle-school-aged youth are sexually experienced,
having engaged in sexual intercourse, oral sex, or both before the age of 14 (De Rosa et al.,
2006). For this reason, researchers suggest that formal human sexuality education in public
school systems should begin earlier and target younger adolescents (Kalmuss, Davidson, Cohall,
Laraque, & Casssell, 2003).
Florida’s formal public school curriculum, in the form of the Sunshine State Standards, fails to
focus on the understanding of general topics related to human sexual reproduction and aspects of
human disease until grades 9-12, which consequently lends a great disservice to the students in
the state when it comes to their exposure to information related to their sexual health and to
maintaining a healthy lifestyle. In addition, school districts within state of Florida favor curricula
which do not provide instruction on contraceptives despite the fact that researchers in the United
States and abroad have repeatedly concluded that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs do
not result in lower risk sexual behaviors among teenagers. The state of Florida reports that most
monies which are secured annually through federal funding for the teaching of human sexuality
topics are used to fund such abstinence-only-until-marriage programs which do not provide
adequate, or in some cases accurate, information about human sexuality and reproduction
(SIECUS, 2006).
Within the state of Florida, research to compare the success rates of existing comprehensive
human sexuality education programs with those of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs is
needed. However, to date, the full scope of the existing human sexuality curricula that have been
developed and implemented within the state of Florida is unknown. In light of this fact and of
current statistics which reveal that in many cases human sexuality instruction will only meet its
specified goals if it is delivered at the middle school level (Kalmuss et al., 2003), a need was
identified by the researcher to examine the scope with which human sexuality topics are being
covered in middle school science classrooms across the state of Florida.
Only by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of existing human sexuality curricula can
measures be taken in the state of Florida to modify current programs to better target sexually
active adolescents and to provide them with the knowledge and skills necessary to make
informed choices relative to their sexual health. Once these curricula have been examined, then
further research can be conducted to compare the effectiveness of the instruction in modifying
the previously risky behaviors of Florida’s youth and in influencing choices related to safer
sexual activity for the wide diversity of students across the state.
This study sought to gain a better understanding of the extent to which human sexuality topics
are covered in Florida middle school science curricula in a sample of Florida school districts and
the process by which those curricular decisions were made.
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which human sexuality topics are covered
in Florida middle school science curricula in a sample of Florida school districts and the process
by which those curricular decisions were made.
Specifically, the research sought to answer the following questions:
1. Which topics related to human sexuality are included in the district-level
middlegrades science curriculum in a sample of Florida school districts?
2. How did school district personnel make decisions about the inclusion of topics related
to human sexuality in their middle-grades science curriculum?
3. To what extent does the approach to teaching human sexuality in the middle-grades
science curricula align with the expectations of a comprehensive human sexuality
education curriculum (Barber & Murray, 2001; Boote & McGinn, 1998; Buston &
Hart, 2001; Fine, 1988; Grunseit et al., 1997; Kalmuss et al., 2003; Kirby et al., 1994;
Landry et al., 2003; Manlove, 2004; Milton et al., 2001; Morris; 1994; Santelli et al.,
2006; Szirom, 1998)?
4. Do educators in this sample of Florida school districts feel that their
districtimplemented middle-grades science curriculum provides adequate instruction
on human sexuality topics?
Research Design
In order to answer these questions, it was necessary for the researcher to identify and interview
the individual responsible for making decisions related to the middle-grades science curriculum
or health curriculum within a representative sample of Florida school districts. Of Florida’s sixty-
seven school districts, twelve districts were chosen as potential participants for the study based
on their geographic location within the state and the size of the school district. Each sample
district was identified as being located in either west, north, central, or south Florida and was
further categorized as urban, suburban, or rural based on the county’s population size and
whether the district included a major metropolitan center.
Each individual responsible for making curricular decisions related to the middle-grades science
curriculum or health curriculum in the selected district was contacted and requested to consent to
a face-to-face interview with the researcher by direct interviewing methods (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000). The line of questioning for the interview related to the creation of the human sexuality
curriculum within the district, other methods by which human sexuality topics were included in
the middle-grades science curriculum within the target county, and how the middle-grades
science curriculum in the district fulfilled the curricular requirements for a comprehensive
human sexuality education unit as identified by previously conducted research (Barber &
Murray, 2001; Boote & McGinn, 1998; Buston & Hart, 2001; Fine, 1988; Grunseit et al., 1997;
Kalmuss et al., 2003; Kirby et al., 1994; Landry et al., 2003; Manlove, 2004; Milton et al., 2001;
Morris; 1994; Santelli et al., 2006; Szirom, 1998). Additional information from educators within
the sampled school district with respect to the level of acceptance in the community toward
teaching a human sexuality curriculum and how well the curriculum met the sexual health needs
of the students in the school district’s student body was collected through a series of follow-up
questions which were e-mailed to specific middle-grades science instructors who were identified
through the initial interview.
Interviewees were also asked to provide the researcher with a copy of their district’s most current
human sexuality education curriculum guide, if one existed; or the title, publisher, and copyright
date of their districts’ adopted middle-grades science textbooks. To analyze the curriculum for
best practice elements which should be included in a comprehensive human sexuality education
curriculum, qualitative techniques for content analysis of textbooks were utilized to identify the
presence of pre-identified curricular components (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Mayring, 2000;
Smelser & Baltes, 2001).
Sample Selection
Twelve counties were chosen to represent four regions within the state and three population size
delineations, as listed in Table 1. For each of the selected school districts, the individual person
or group of persons responsible for the adoption or creation of curriculum related to science or
health education at the middle grades level was identified using public information published by
the county or by the Florida Department of Education.
Table 1 Counties Contacted for the Purpose of this Study
Western Region
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Leon
Walton
Suwannee
Northern Region
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Duval
Alachua
Levy
Central Region
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Orange
Brevard
Pasco
Southern Region
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Dade
Collier
Glades
The specific job title of each individual identified as a possible participant for this study varied
by county as did the span of their involvement with the curriculum within the school district.
These titles ranged from “Superintendent” in a small rural county which lacked support staff for
curriculum development and selection to “Secondary Science Specialist” in the larger suburban
and urban school districts. Other titles included “K-12 Science and Health Coordinator”,
“Director of Secondary Education”, and “Science Supervisor”. The duties performed by each
individual varied by title and presumably depended on the number of staff supported by the
district. In some counties the individual’s duties were restricted to a focus on the secondary
science curriculum, whereas in others, the individual in question was responsible for selecting
and maintaining middle-grades curricula in all disciplines or even curricula at all levels and
within all academic disciplines.
Data Collection
Interviews were voluntarily arranged and were conducted during the spring and summer of 2006.
Interview questions were based on a synthesis of literature on effective human sexuality
education and addressed five specific areas:
- Whether the school district had a formal human sexuality education curriculum in
place which may have been implemented within the middle-grades science
classroom.
- Whether the existing science curriculum included those topics which differentiate a
comprehensive human sexuality education program from a abstinence-only-
untilmarriage one; including contraception, sexually-transmitted diseases, alternative
lifestyles and sexual preferences, and sexual decision-making (Grunseit et al., 1997),
discourse related to pregnancy alternatives (Kalmuss et al., 2003), and discourse on
female desire (Barber & Murray, 2001; Fine, 1988).
- The process by which the human sexuality education curriculum was created in the
school district and by whom.
- Whether the community within the school district was accepting of a human sexuality
education program at the middle grades level.
- Whether or not educators within the school district felt that the human sexuality
education curriculum in use met the needs of the district’s student population.
If the school district did not have an adopted, formal human sexuality education curriculum
guide, the curriculum contact was asked to provide the researcher with the title, publisher, and
copyright date of the county adopted science textbooks utilized in the middle school classroom.
Because human reproduction is a topic commonly included in integrated science or life science
textbooks for the middle grades level, topics related to human sexuality would be included there
in the absence of a formal curriculum guide for human sexuality education within that school
district. In addition, each individual interviewed at the district level was asked to provide the
researcher with the name and contact information of two middle-grades science teachers
employed by the county who would have first-hand knowledge of the human sexuality education
curriculum and who could answer questions related to the execution of this curriculum on a
school-wide basis.
For the counties for which the district-level curriculum contact provided the requested materials,
the middle grades human sexuality education curriculum or the adopted textbooks for
middlegrades science in use in that county were analyzed for the presence of effective human
sexuality curriculum elements which were identified from existing research on the quality of
human sexuality education.
Finally, the researcher contacted the teacher leads, who were identified by the interviewee in
each county, by e-mail with a series of follow-up questions relating to the implementation of the
district’s human sexuality education curriculum or the aspects of the district’s science curriculum
which related to human sexuality. Additional questions related to the level of acceptance by their
community towards teaching human sexuality education at the middle grades level and the
teacher’s opinion about how the human sexuality curriculum could be changed to better meet the
needs of the student clientele within the county in which he or she was employed.
Data Analysis
Information obtained through the interview process was summarized only and interpreted by the
researcher to draw out an overall picture of the dissemination of information related to human
sexuality to middle-school-aged students within the participating sample school districts. This
was the case for both the interviews of the curriculum contact personnel and of the teacher leads
who were identified by the curriculum contact in each of the selected counties.
The formal curriculum guides for middle grades human sexuality education and the
countyadopted science textbooks, which were obtained by the researcher, were analyzed using
qualitative textbook analysis methods to locate previously identified best practice curricular
elements (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Mayring, 2000; Smelser & Baltes, 2001), which are
characteristic of successful comprehensive human sexuality education curricula.
Assumptions
Prior to beginning the study, it was my assumption that very few counties within the state of
Florida would have a formal, comprehensive human sexuality education curriculum in place at
the middle school level. This assumption was based on: (1) the lack of Sunshine State Standards
for science or health and physical fitness that specifically addressed topics related to human
sexuality and sexual health, (2) the lack of a curriculum figurehead specifically for science or
health education in the smaller suburban and rural counties, (3) the number of federal funding
dollars received by the state of Florida for the 2005 fiscal year for abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs, and (4) the trend of conservative voting in the state. In addition, the researcher
predicted that the majority of formal human sexuality education would be integrated with
curricula for subjects other than science due to the recent adoption of the Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test (FCAT) for science, which would divert class time to topics specifically
included in the Florida Sunshine State Standards curriculum documents. Due to these
assumptions, it was necessary to collect data in order to verify if these assumptions were correct
or falsely assumed.
Limitations
The design of this study was intended to obtain a broad assessment of the status of human
sexuality education across the state of Florida; however that approach led to a number of
limitations in the study. By focusing the level of analysis on the school district level, this study
was unable to assess the taught curriculum at the school level or the classroom level.
Because the state of Florida lacks a formal curriculum for human sexuality education, it would
have been necessary to sample a variety of classrooms at multiple middle-grades sites within
each of Florida’s sixty-seven school districts in order to understand the full scope of how human
sexuality education is being implemented across the state. And even in counties for which a
formal curriculum guide for human sexuality education exists, the manner by which the
curriculum is implemented on a school-wide basis varies from classroom to classroom. Once the
curriculum has been passed on to the classroom teacher, which aspects of the curriculum are
presented to the students and at what level of specificity is at the teacher’s discretion.
The twelve target counties were selected to provide a regionally and demographically diverse
spectrum for data collection within the state. Therefore, the information collected by the study
for each of the participating school districts can be generalized only to the schools within the
sample school district at best, and likely fails to describe the scope of human sexuality education
at the regional or state-wide level.
Consequently, the limitations for this research study are as follows:
1. Information provided by the curriculum contact in each of the participating sampled
counties by way of interview cannot be generalized to other school districts within the
state of Florida.
2. Effective human sexuality curriculum elements included in or excluded from a
sample county’s human sexuality education curriculum or county-adopted
middlegrades science textbook cannot be generalized to other school districts within
the state of Florida.
3. Information provided by individual teachers in follow-up interviews regarding the
acceptance of the community to teaching human sexuality topics at the middle school
level and their opinion on how the curriculum is meeting the needs of the student
clientele within that county cannot be generalized to other school districts within the
state of Florida.
4. Similarities between counties with similar geographic location or population size with
respect to the existence of a formal human sexuality education curriculum, strengths
and weaknesses of the curriculum which relates to human sexuality, or level of
acceptance by the community to teaching human sexuality topics at the middle school
level can only be noted and can not be generalized to other school districts within the
same geographic region or to school districts with a similar population size in the
state of Florida.
Delimitations
Because the task of examining curricula related to human sexuality education or human
sexuality-related topics within various classrooms of several middle-grades school sites within
each of Florida’s sixty-seven school districts was beyond the abilities of a single researcher
within the length of time warranted for completing this research study, twelve counties were
chosen by the researcher to represent the spectrum of geographic locations and population sizes
across the state of Florida, leading to the following delimitations for this research study:
1. Only twelve school districts were chosen as possible participants in this research
study of the sixty-seven possible school districts within the state of Florida.
2. For each school district selected as a possible participant in this research study, only
one individual from each county was identified as the interviewee, due to the nature
of their job description.
3. Only two classroom instructors within each participating school district were asked to
provide follow-up information regarding the implementation of the human sexuality
education curriculum identified by the curriculum contact, the level of acceptance of
the community within the district to teaching human sexuality topics at the middle
grades level, and the degree to which the classroom instructor felt that their district’s
human sexuality curriculum met the needs of the target student population.
4. Due to the nature of the research topic, some individuals were likely to choose not to
participate in this research study.
Definition of Terms
The following list of definitions is presented in order to clarify significant terms that were used in
this study.
Human Sexuality Education: the explicit and implicit ways in which sexual information,
attitudes, values, and behaviors have been taught and learned from time immemorial (Morris,
1994)
Comprehensive Human Sexuality Education: a sexuality education program which features a
clear delineation of the risks of unprotected sex and methods to avoid those risks (Kirby et al.,
1994), such a curriculum not only teaches students that abstinence is the best way to prevent
unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases but also provides students with the
information and skills they need to reduce their number of partners and to use contraceptive and
disease prevention methods effectively when they become sexually active (Landry et al., 2003)
Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Sexuality Education: a sexuality education program which
excludes advocating contraceptive use or teaching about contraceptive methods, except to stress
failure rates (Landry et al., 2003)
The established need to understand the scope of human sexuality education currently existing at
the district-level across the state of Florida and to learn whether this existing education was
appropriate for the student population that received it led to the development of the research
questions for this study. Data for the purpose of answering these questions was collected by way
of interviews with district-level decision-makers and classroom-based instructors, as well as a
content analysis of the curriculum existing within each district for human sexuality education. At
the conclusion of this research study, the researcher was able to gain some insight into the
existing curricula for human sexuality education at the middle school level being presented to
students across the state of Florida by way of their science instructor. These conclusions are in
spite of limitations, which prevented the collection of data in each and every location where
human sexuality education may vary, and delimitations, which included an initial interview pool
of only twelve individuals and the nature of the research topic which led to possible
nonparticipants.
In the following chapters, a complete review of literature on the history and quality of human
sexuality education in the state of Florida, the United States, and abroad, as well as the complete
methods of data collection, research findings, and conclusions drawn from data collected
throughout this research study will be discussed.
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Much of the human sexuality education currently being offered to students within the state of
Florida is skewed toward abstinence-only-until-marriage ideals and does not provide students
with adequate information about contraceptives and how to prevent the exchange of
sexuallytransmitted infections. This trend is due to restrictions set forth by the federal
government for human sexuality education programs that receive federal funding dollars
(SIECUS, 2006). Furthermore, statistics on the sexual behavior of Florida’s youth provides
evidence that the state needs to examine the quality of its human sexuality education curricula on
a wider scope, especially that instruction provided to its middle-school-aged students. Such
statistical trends are not surprising, considering the history of human sexuality education in the
United States which has consistently supported less-effective abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs over comprehensive human sexuality education. In addition within the United States
there is a lack of a complete understanding of how human sexuality education is handled on a
state-wide basis, resulting in a disorganized front aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and the
transmission of sexually transmitted infections.
In the United States and abroad, comprehensive human sexuality programs have been closely
correlated with lower rates of sexually transmitted disease among adolescents, lower rates of
unintended teenage pregnancy, and higher rates of contraception use by individuals who have
received this type of instruction (Landry et al., 2003). On the other hand, abstinence-only-
untilmarriage programs, which do not include instruction on contraception, have been favored by
the United States federal government and the Florida state government, but do not correlate with
safer sex practices (Kirby et al., 1994; Manlove, 2004) and in many cases are flawed (Planned
Parenthood, 2006; SIECUS, 2006; Waxman, 2004).
Human Sexuality Education in the United States
Since the initiation of human sexuality education in American schools at the turn of the twentieth
century, discourse on human sexuality-related topics has continued to bring about social and
political conflict in this country (Cassell, 1985; Irvine, 2000; Morris, 1994). To quote Irvine
(2000), “since talk about sexuality is the medium of sex education, it is not surprising that school
programs would be a field of enormous tension (p.58).” Campaigns and crusades in the United
States have been ongoing for over a century with the intended goal of sheltering the innocent
child from sexual talk in public schools (Cassell, 1985). The unfortunate result of this conflict
has been the failure to create and implement a national curriculum for the teaching of human
sexuality and sexual health in the United States.
As a result of the continued opposition to formalized human sexuality education in the United
States, evidenced strongly by U.S. federal legislation which financially supports abstinence-
onlyuntil-marriage (AUM) programs (Nagy, Watts, & Nagy, 2002; Planned Parenthood, 2006;
SIECUS, 2006), statistics have revealed that the sexual health of America’s youth is in stark
contrast to the sexual health of adolescents in other developed nations where there is an open,
flexible approach to teaching about sexuality (Milton et al., 2001). In 2000, the teenage birthrate
in the United States was reported as 49 per 1,000 individuals as compared with 7-9 per 1,000
individuals in Sweden and France, and 20-31 per 1,000 individuals in Canada. Chlamydia among
American adolescents between the ages of 15-19 occurs at a rate nearly twice that in Canada and
Sweden, five times that in England, and twenty times that in France (Darroch et al., 2001) at a
rate of 1578.6 per 100,000 individuals, as reported in 2004 (Irwin, 2006). The annual incidence
of gonorrhea in the United States, recently reported at a rate of 472.7 per 100,000 individuals
(Irwin, 2006), is ten or more times the level of occurrence in youth in Canada, Sweden, England
and France (Darroch et al., 2001). In addition, the number of new Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV) infections in the United States has held steady at about 40,000 per year for the past
decade and a half (Brown, 2006), with roughly half of those new infections (20,000 per year)
occurring in people aged 25 and under (Sternberg, 2006), and 854 new cases recorded in the
1319-year-old category in 2002 (Irwin, 2006).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 6.6% of American children begin
their sex lives before the age of 13, and that more than 60% of America’s youth are sexually
active by the time they reach the twelfth grade (Sternberg, 2006). Therefore, in order to minimize
the negative consequences of sexual activity, which include STD infections and unintended
pregnancies in this country, human sexuality education programs within the United States should
be designed for students in the middle grades in order to have the greatest impact.
Currently, human sexuality education is taught in almost all public secondary schools in the
United States (93%), reaching more than 95% of the 15-19 year olds who live in this country
(Landry et al., 2003). Therefore, the basis for the poorer sexual health of Americans compared to
other developed nations, is not the quantity of human sexuality education programs in existence
within this country, but the quality of those programs. While human sexuality education is almost
universal in public school systems within the United States (Nagy et al., 2002; Landry et al.,
2003), with at least 80% of school districts in the United States offering, at a minimum,
instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, the content of these programs
differs considerably (Landry et al., 2003). Human sexuality education programs vary from
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, which are forbidden to include any instruction on
contraception, to abstinence-based programs, which provide information on contraception while
maintaining that abstinence is the expected standard for school-aged children, to comprehensive
human sexuality programs, which provide information on contraception and on making informed
choices related to sexual health with the assumption that some who receive its instruction will
not abstain from sexual activity (Landry et al., 2003). Each of these types of programs provides a
different degree of instruction within the realm of human sexuality education, however only one
type, comprehensive human sexuality education, has been repeatedly shown to reduce the
unintended consequences of sexual activity in teenagers.
The Importance of Comprehensive Human Sexuality Education
In many Western developed nations with adolescent pregnancy and STD rates lower than U.S.
rates a greater social acceptance of sexual activity among teenagers has been described. In these
other countries, there is also a trend toward more comprehensive and balanced human sexuality
education, as well as greater access to condoms and other forms of birth control (Landry et al.,
2003). In a comparison of sexual behavior of teenagers in the United States versus those in
France, Great Britain, Canada, and Sweden (Darroch et al, 2001), researchers found no
significant difference in the variation of teenage sexual behaviors which could account for the
contrast of STD infection rates and teenage pregnancy rates in the United States versus the other
four countries. Instead, researchers suggested that the difference in these rates may be due to
more accepting societal attitudes toward adolescent sexual activity, which has led to greater
access by teens to contraceptive services and supplies in the four countries other than the United
States. In addition, these variations may be due to adolescents’ attitudes toward contraception,
the accuracy of their knowledge of how to use contraceptive methods, fear of the side effects of
contraceptive methods by some adolescents, the level of confidentiality made available to them
when seeking contraceptives, or the extent of parental support or opposition to using
contraception (Darroch et al., 2001). Through a comprehensive human sexuality education
program, these issues and fears might be diverted.
Research on the effectiveness of comprehensive human sexuality education has shown that the
age of first intercourse is delayed, and the incidence of both sexually transmitted diseases and
unwanted pregnancies is lower when young people have participated in human sexuality
education programs that have met certain criteria (Milton et al., 2001), including behavioral and
technical skills related to condom use and negotiation and refusal skills for use in social
situations in which sexual activity could ensue (Kalmuss et al., 2003). Successful human
sexuality education programs not only teach students that abstinence is the best way to prevent
unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, but also include information and skills
that adolescents need to reduce their number of partners and to use contraceptive and disease
prevention methods effectively (Landry et al., 2003; Robin et al., 2004). In 1994, Kirby and
collaborators found that successful programs, those which resulted in reducing unwanted
outcomes of adolescent sexual activity, featured a clear delineation of the risks of unprotected
sex and instruction on the methods to avoid those risks; including in depth instruction on types of
contraceptives, their failure rates, how to obtain them, and how to use them. Such studies have
demonstrated a resulting increase in the use of contraceptive devices and an increase in
alternative and safer sex practices, such as masturbation, by adolescents following instruction on
human sexuality education that is comprehensive in nature (Grunseit et al., 1997).
Reviews of studies conducted to compare changes in behavior and attitudes of youths after their
participation in both comprehensive and abstinence-only-until-marriage human sexuality
programs have been favorable for the former. Among 28 studies of comprehensive human
sexuality education programs evaluated by Kirby and colleagues (1994), nine were able to delay
initiation of sexual intercourse, 18 showed no change in behavior, and only one hastened the
initiation of sexual activity amongst participants following instruction. Similarly in Manlove’s
(2004) more recent review of existing human sexuality education programs, six of nine
comprehensive human sexuality education programs that were evaluated were found to delay the
onset of sexual activity by adolescents, compared with a control group. These results are in
contrast to Kirby’s (1994) analysis of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs from which he
identified no scientific evidence that the programs delayed the initiation of sexual intercourse in
teenagers. Thomas (1999) reported the same after reviewing nine abstinence-only and
abstinence-based curricula for human sexuality education.
Despite continued research in this area of study, results have consistently included that
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs do not delay the initiation of sexual activity by
America’s youth (Santelli et al., 2006), do not decrease sexual behavior amongst adolescents
(Manlove, 2004), and are morally problematic because they often withhold information and
promote questionable and inaccurate opinions about human sexuality and sexual behavior
(Santelli et al., 2006; Waxman, 2004; Wilson, Goodson, Pruitt, Buhi, & Davis-Gunnels, 2005).
Moreover, there is some evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs may actually
increase risky sexual behaviors amongst adolescents by failing to instruct students on the
existence and proper use of contraceptive methods (Landry et al., 2003) and by encouraging
“virginity pledges”, which have been found to correlate with an increase in STD infection rates
(Brückner & Bearman, 2005).
In a study conducted to examine the effectiveness of virginity pledges in reducing sexually
transmitted infection (STI) rates among young adults, Brückner and Bearman (2005) found that
students who pledged to remain virgins until marriage or to stop engaging in sexual intercourse
until marriage were just as likely as non-pledgers to have contracted a sexually transmitted
disease. Those who pledged were also less likely to use a condom at first intercourse, and were
more likely than non-pledgers to engage in oral and anal sexual intercourse without vaginal
penetration. Students who pledged to remain a virgin did initiate sexual intercourse at an older
age than non-pledgers, but got married earlier. Regardless of their pledge, 88% of those students
who made a virginity pledge engaged in vaginal intercourse before marriage, compared to 99%
of non-pledgers.
This study and others like it (Santelli et al., 2006) have indicated that abstinence-only-
untilmarriage programs are in many cases being offered to teenagers who are already sexually
experienced, therefore contradicting an important goal of human sexuality education programs.
So when one considers the repeated research conclusion that abstinence-only-until-marriage
human sexuality education does not decrease sexual activity amongst adolescents (Kirby et al.,
1994; Manlove, 2004), the fact that most Americans are becoming sexually active during their
mid-teens (Landry et al., 2003), and the rationale that the purpose of human sexuality education
is to prevent unintended pregnancy and the exchange of sexually transmitted infections (Landry
et al., 2003), the question arises as to why the United States government and many
stateappropriated funds for teaching human sexuality education require an abstinence-only-
untilmarriage standpoint in curricula which they foster.
The Prevalence of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Curricula in the United States
Beginning in 2001, the United States federal government significantly boosted funding for
abstinence-only-until-marriage human sexuality programs by creating the Community-Based
Abstinence Education (CBAE) funding stream. In that fiscal year, $20 million was allocated to
support the abstinence-only-until-marriage movement in public education in the United States
through federally-funded grants (SIECUS, 2006) made available to agencies nationwide. This
funding came in the wake of $250 million that was appropriated in 1996 to foster the
development of human sexuality education programs in the United States that encourage the
delay of sexual activity until marriage and an additional $50 million which was allocated in
section 510 of the Social Security Act in 1998, also in support of abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs (Nagy et al., 2002; Thomas, 1999). Since the inception of the abstinence-only
movement, federal and state-matching funds totaling nearly $1 billion have been spent on
educational programs for which the only purpose is to focus on the social, psychological, and
health benefits that might be gained by abstaining from pre-marital sexual activity (Planned
Parenthood, 2006).
In the 2006 fiscal year an additional $115 million was allocated for abstinence-only human
sexuality education under the revamped CBAE program (SIECUS, 2006). The updated funding
announcement for CBAE was issued in January of 2006 in which the Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) and the United States Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) set forth guidelines for receiving these funding dollars to preclude “any discussion of risk
reduction”, which is a proven hallmark of the behavioral interventions which have reduced the
number of pregnancies, abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV infections amongst
teenagers in this country (SIECUS, 2006). This guideline was added to the application
documents in addition to a change in the definition of abstinence to make it more rigid. In the
most recent CBAE guidelines, abstinence was defined as “voluntarily choosing not to engage in
sexual activity until marriage (SIECUS, 2006).” In the document, sexual activity was defined as
“any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited
to, sexual intercourse”. All grantees of CBAE funding were required to use a definition of
abstinence that was consistent with this definition in their curriculum and instruction (SIECUS,
2006). With these restrictions in place, human sexuality education programs that promoted the
use of contraceptives or which included manual stimulation of a partner’s genitals in the
supporting curriculum or instruction consequently were not eligible for funding under CBAE.
The funding announcement also made suggestions of how adolescents might be instructed to
avoid sexual activity; which included telling them not to watch television, not to stay out too late,
and to avoid parties where sexually active peers are likely to attend (SIECUS, 2006).
There is some evidence to support the assumption that sexual behavior is encouraged by
watching television programming that is too often loaded with sexual references (Irwin, 2006;
Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999); however this de facto human sexuality education offered by
today’s media is only sought out by our children in the absence of more acceptable forms of
human sexuality education in their schools, and may lead to incomplete and skewed views of
appropriate human sexual behavior (Zillman, 2000). Adolescents in the United States have
turned to the sexual images and stereotypical gender roles offered by fictional television
characters and pop culture personalities in order to understand their own sexuality because they
have not been offered the opportunity to discuss healthy social and physical relationships within
their own peer groups. These suggestions made by the Department of Health and Human
Services seem to assume that the only way for teenagers to be abstinent from sexual activity is to
isolate themselves from all media stimuli and to not participate in typical extra-curricular events
enjoyed by American teenagers.
As a result of the limitations to receive funding under CBAE, programs that conform to the
established guidelines consequently fail to provide our youth with the full range of information
they need to protect themselves throughout their lives by excluding information on contraception
and other methods of risk reduction. By doing so, these programs deny access to complete and
accurate sexual health information which some researchers feel is a basic human right and is
essential to realizing the highest attainable standard of health (Santelli et al, 2006). In addition,
these limitations make it more likely that CBAE funds will be allocated to human sexuality
education programs which utilize pre-existing curricula that have been identified by
representatives from our own federal government to have definite problems and additional
deficiencies, or to curricula developed using these flawed curricula as templates.
Problems with Existing AUM Curricula
Taking into consideration the large allocation of funds awarded annually by our federal
government to agencies providing public or private education in human sexuality, it is difficult to
imagine that there is virtually no investigation or regulation by the government in order to ensure
the programs made possible by the funding are providing quality education in addition to
upholding abstinence-only-until-marriage ideals.
In 2004, Representative Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, completed a report
appropriated by the United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform
regarding the state of abstinence-only human sexuality education curricula that were in existence
within the United States. The report, titled “The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only
Education Programs” (Waxman, 2004), found that the curricula used by more than two-thirds of
government-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs contained misleading or inaccurate
information about abortion, contraception, genetics, and sexually transmitted infections (Planned
Parenthood, 2006; SIECUS, 2006). In several specific examples, WAIT Training, an
abstinenceonly-until-marriage curriculum, is cited for incorrectly stating that HIV can be
transmitted through tears and sweat, while the Why kNOw curriculum incorrectly states that 24
chromosomes from each parent combine to form the fetus (actually 23 chromosomes from each
parent combine to form the zygote) (Planned Parenthood, 2006). In addition, Waxman found that
many abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula blur the line between religion and science and
may treat gender stereotypes as scientific fact (NARAL, 2006; Planned Parenthood, 2006;
Santelli et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2005), including specific statements like “Men sexually are
like microwaves and women sexually are like crock pots… A woman is stimulated more by
touch and romantic words. She is far more attracted by a man’s personality while a man is
stimulated by sight. A man is usually less discriminating about those to whom he is physically
attracted (WAIT Training, 1996, p.196).”
Therefore, as a result of the loopholes in place for receiving federal funding for human sexuality
instruction, public dollars are being diverted indiscriminately into CBAE and Title V programs
that are not required to provide accurate information from legitimate sources or to be medically
accurate, simply because they promote abstinence by failing to discuss the risks associated with
sexual activity and ways to reduce these risks. In addition, many of these programs rely on scare
tactics and messages of shame in the place of valid medical information, teaching adolescents
that sexual activity is associated with decreased education and income attainment, an increase in
depression and suicide, and a decrease in relationship stability later in life (SIECUS, 2006). The
new CBAE guidelines suggest that teenagers who remain abstinent until marriage will never
experience an STD or unintended pregnancy, will be financially secure, will be ensured a happy
marriage, and will be good parents (SIECUS, 2006). The truth, however, is that most Americans
initiate sexual intercourse before marriage as adolescents (Irwin, 2004) and that adolescents in
the United States have the highest age-specific risk for many sexually transmitted infections and
the highest age-specific proportion of unintended pregnancy (Santelli et al., 2006). These facts
seem to make it blatantly clear that in the United States we would better meet the needs of our
populace by offering comprehensive human sexuality education to our youth rather than
instruction based on abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula.
Support for Comprehensive Human Sexuality Education in the U.S.
With the establishment of the CBAE funding stream and the strict limitations for curricular
elements spelled out in the supporting documents for obtaining these funds, the United States
government has laid the groundwork for the prevalence of abstinence-only-until-marriage human
sexuality programs which are being implemented in this country today. And although these
programs conform to the strict moral standards of past generations, statistics on sexually
transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy clearly show that these types of curricula do not
meet the health needs of the American public in the current generation (Darroch et al., 2001;
Santelli et al., 2004). The question of why we are not meeting these needs with an appropriate
solution requires an answer.
Data show (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2000; Landry et al, 2003) that the lack of federal support
for comprehensive human sexuality education in the United States does not seem to be due to a
resistance to teaching sexuality-related topics from the majority public, as nationwide, parents
have been shown to favor comprehensive human sexuality education. In the year 2000, a
nationwide phone survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 85% of the
parents who were surveyed wanted their children to learn about condoms, other forms of
contraception, and how to talk about contraceptive devices with their partners if they chose to
have sex, in school. Additional surveys of the American public have repeatedly revealed
overwhelming support among adults for teaching adolescents to be abstinent (Landry et al.,
2003). Therefore, the existing debate over human sexuality education in schools should not be
whether abstinence should be included in the curriculum but over what topics should be taught to
our youth in addition to abstinence within the realm of a human sexuality education curriculum.
Strangely, some curricula that are categorized by curriculum developers as “abstinence-only”
don’t include the topic of abstinence at all. These curricula simply fail to discuss the specific
human behaviors that can result in conception and pregnancy, resulting in the failure of many
middle-grades students to be able to clearly explain the concept of abstinence (Stiles & Garner,
1993). Another problem with the concept of abstinence-only education is that abstinence means
different things to different people. Some consider abstinence to mean refraining from all
intimate contact except for kissing and holding hands, while others consider abstinence as
anything except sexual intercourse (Devaney, Johnson, Maynard, & Trenholm, 2002, p. 37).
Therefore even in the realm of existing abstinence-only education, instruction may vary widely.
Likewise, because the label “comprehensive” is applied broadly to curricula that contain
information on contraception and pregnancy alternatives even comprehensive human sexuality
curricula may fail to include progressive curriculum elements such as varying sexualities and
female desire. However, it is instruction on contraception and how to obtain it that specifically
has been found to reduce sexual activity among teenagers (Kirby, 1994).
Because there has been no movement toward the adoption of a national curriculum for human
sexuality education in the United States, this debate over what topics should be included in
human sexuality curricula is not making any ground at the national level but instead is affecting
public-school curriculum decisions at the regional, state-wide, and district-wide levels. And
because no national standards exist for the teaching of sex-related topics, extreme regional
differences exist in this country with regard to what is actually being taught about human
sexuality in America’s public schools.
Regional Differences in Human Sexuality Education across the U.S.
In the United States, politics seem to differ by geographic region and consequently these
differences affect the curriculum standards for public-school education in place across the
country. Such trends have been identified by research (Landry et al., 2003) which examined how
human sexuality education was taught in public school systems in different geographic regions of
the United States.
In a study conducted by Landry and collaborators (2003) of human sexuality education curricula
which existed by region, teachers in the southern, mid-western, and western regions of the
United States were more likely than educators in the Northwest to emphasize the ineffectiveness
of methods for preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases or not to cover them at all
in their human sexuality education curricula. Similarly, teachers in the southern and mid-western
regions of the country were more likely than teachers in the northeastern region of the United
States to teach abstinence as the only option for preventing sexually transmitted disease and
unintended pregnancy. Additionally, teachers in the South were significantly less likely than
northeastern instructors to teach the importance of correct and consistent contraceptive use, or
the proper way to use a condom, or to provide information on specific sources of birth control.
Of all geographic regions of the United States, adults living in the South have been found to have
the least permissive attitudes about sexuality, as gauged by attitudes toward premarital and
extramarital sex and homosexuality. These results may reflect the more traditional values and
attitudes which generally occur among southern residents, and the relatively high proportion of
residents in the southern United States who belong to fundamentalist religious denominations
(Landry et al., 2003).
School size was also found to be a factor in whether comprehensive human sexuality education, a
program which included instruction on contraception, was offered, with teachers in the largest
schools (more than 1,000 pupils) being less likely than those in the smallest schools (fewer than
300 students) to teach abstinence as the only option for preventing unintended pregnancy and the
exchange of sexually transmitted disease (Landry et al., 2003).
These trends in human sexuality education which were observed by geographic region clearly
reflect differences in the politics and lifestyles existing across each region, as the southern and
mid-western regions of the United States are typically labeled as “conservative” in relation to
political reform (Alderman & Hogan, 2005). As a result, citizens in these regions would be more
likely to disapprove of teaching the topics encompassed within a comprehensive human sexuality
program; such as contraceptives, how to prevent sexually transmitted disease, varying
sexualities, and abortion. Larger schools are more likely to be located in urban centers where
trends in younger sexual activity (Kalmuss et al., 2003), oral sex (Kalmuss et al., 2003), and high
rates of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (AVERT, 2006) have been
documented and may be more socially relevant.
Regional politics have also affected how some states choose to respond to the guidelines for
funds under CBAE. Legislators in California, for example, have completely refused to apply for
federal funding for human sexuality education under CBAE because of the lack of federal
recognition of research findings in support of comprehensive human sexuality education over
abstinence-only-until-marriage sexuality education (Sternberg, 2006). The state of Florida,
however, has conformed to the restrictions necessary to receive federal dollars for the teaching of
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs by their public schools and additional agencies, having
received $2,521,581 in federal Title V funding in the 2005 fiscal year and having spent a total of
$11,651,307, including matching funds, overall for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs
(SIECUS, 2006) in the 2005 fiscal year.
The State of Human Sexuality Education in Florida
As a part of the conservative South, the lack of a state mandate for comprehensive human
sexuality education in the state of Florida is not surprising. In fiscal year 2005, there were
twenty-four Title V or CBAE grantees or sub-grantees operating specific programs for
abstinence-only-until-marriage human sexuality education across the state of Florida (SIECUS,
2006). Ranging from county health departments to Catholic diocese, these organizations utilized
abstinence-only curricula which have been documented to contain false information with little or
no medical basis (Planned Parenthood, 2006; SIECUS, 2006; Waxman, 2004; Wilson et al.,
2005), and which rely on scare tactics to deter teenagers from becoming sexually active
(SIECUS, 2006). These programs exist in addition to human sexuality education that is being
offered within public school settings. These public school programs may utilize unique curricula
for human sexuality education, or may utilize a curriculum provided through a federal grantee.
Florida state guidelines for the teaching of human sexuality education state that in order for
students to graduate from high school, they must receive one-half credit in “Life Management
Skills” in either the ninth or tenth grade. The course must include instruction in the prevention of
HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, family life, the benefits of sexual abstinence, and
the consequences of teen pregnancy. It also states that “descriptions for comprehensive health
education shall not interfere with the local determination of appropriate curriculum which
reflects local values and concerns” (SIECUS, 2006). School boards may also decide on an
individual basis to allow additional instruction on HIV/AIDS within the contingencies that
abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage is taught as the expected standard for all
school-age students while teaching the benefits of monogamous heterosexual marriage and that
abstinence is a certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and
other associated health problems (SIECUS, 2006).
In Florida, required curriculum elements are described in a series of curriculum documents
known as the Sunshine State Standards. The grades 9-12 Sunshine State Standards for science
offer several strands in standards 1 and 2 under the heading “Processes of Life” which could
indirectly include sexuality-related topics and a single strand (SC.F.2.4.1) which states that the
student “understands the mechanisms of asexual and sexual reproduction and knows the different
genetic advantages and disadvantages of sexual and asexual reproduction” (Florida Department
of Education, 1998). The grades 6-8 science standards also offers a single strand (SC.F.2.3.1)
(Florida Department of Education, 1998) which relates to general sexual reproduction; however
all topics specifically included under the umbrella of human sexuality education are excluded
from Florida’s formal secondary science curriculum. Florida also institutes standards for health
education for grades 9-12 and grades 6-8 which state only that students “know strategies for
health enhancement and risk reduction” (HE.B. 1.4.2), that students “know ways in which to
reduce the risks related to the health problems of adolescents” (HE.A. 1.3.6), and that students
“know how lifestyle, pathogens (germs), family history and other risk factors are related to the
cause or prevention of disease and other health problems” (HE.A. 1.3.8) (Florida Department of
Education, 1998). Consequently, the decisions of how and when to teach topics related to human
sexuality in Florida’s secondary schools are explicitly left up to teachers or their administrators
on a county-wide or school-wide basis. Additionally, Florida has an “opt-out” policy, which gives
parents the opportunity to remove their child from any or all human sexuality education or
instruction related to HIV and AIDS (SIECUS, 2006).
Statistics that have been published concerning the sexual health of Florida’s youth is telling
evidence that the promotion of abstinence-only-until-marriage human sexuality education in the
state is not meeting its intended goal of reducing sexual activity and unintended consequences of
sexual activity among adolescents. In 2005, 47% of the female high school students and 54% of
the male high school students in the state of Florida reported ever having sex, which exceeded
the nationwide statistics of 46% for female high school students and 48% for male high school
students (SIECUS, 2006). Of those high school students who were surveyed in the state of
Florida, 4% of the female students and 14% of the male students additionally reported that their
first sexual intercourse had occurred before the age of 13 (SIECUS, 2006). Such statistics justify
the evaluation of Florida’s human sexuality education programs on a wide scale.
To gain a better perspective of existing Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage programs,
researchers in the state of Florida systematically evaluated these programs in 2003 through
Florida State University and the Florida Department of Health. This review involved pre- and
post-test surveys and one behavioral survey of participants in various abstinence-only-
untilmarriage programs within the state. The results showed only small changes in participants’
agreement with statements such as “I believe having sex as a young person could mess up my
future” between the pretest and posttest administration; however the behavioral survey found
reported increases in seven sexual behaviors, including an increase in the number of students
who reported that they had engaged in sexual intercourse after receiving abstinence-only
instruction (Florida State University, 2003). These results do not seem to place any confidence in
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs as being able to modify sexual behavior and attitudes of
adolescents in the state of Florida toward the positive.
Besides funding for abstinence-only-until marriage human sexuality education that is spent
annually by CBAE grantees in the state of Florida (SIECUS, 2006), additional Florida dollars for
abstinence-only education are annually appropriated to about 4,000 Crisis Pregnancy Centers
(CPC) that are currently in operation within the state (Blumner, 2006). These centers, which are
advertised to offer free pregnancy testing and pregnancy counseling, have received more than
$30 million nationwide since the year 2001. Following an insider investigation by a Tampa-area
newspaper reporter, the centers were accused of luring possible mothers requesting their services
into a barrage of anti-abortion propaganda (Blumner, 2006) by referring the individuals who
sought their services to religious organizations and adoption agencies when the individual plainly
wished to terminate the pregnancy. The state of Florida also spends $2 million per year to
maintain a “pregnancy support” hotline which directs women to the Crisis Pregnancy Centers for
assistance, and some of Florida’s “Choose Life” license plate money also goes to the
administration of these centers (Blumner, 2006). Similar to the abstinence-only-until-marriage
curricula which are funded with federal dollars, the Crisis Pregnancy Centers have been
documented to provide false medical information to clients, citing such ailments as “postabortion
syndrome”, which has no medical basis (Blumner, 2006).
Finally, Florida funds its own abstinence-only supportive website titled G2W: It’s Great to Wait
(It’s Great to Wait, 2006), which provides information for adolescents and parents about STDs,
abstinence, relationships, statistics on adolescent sexual activity, peer pressure, refusal skills, and
secondary virginity. Disappointingly, the site seems to fall into the abstinence-only modus
operandi of slanting information towards the negative. When a visitor clicks on the “pregnancy”
link, he is taken to a page headed by the picture of a young mother cradling a baby with one arm
and grasping her head with the other. Information provided on the page includes the statistic that
“Two out of three teenage mothers live in poverty.” The page also states that “if the other parent
is raising the child, you could pay a child support payment every month for 18 years” and
describes abstinence as “fool-proof and cheap”. Within the information provided about
relationships, the website states that “studies show that married people live even longer lives, are
physically healthier, and are wealthier.” Also associated with the Great To Wait website are a
series of statewide abstinence rallies for parents, adolescents, and potential abstinence-only
educators that are free to participants, as they are funded by taxpayers.
Because there has not been a formal study conducted in the state of Florida to thoroughly
describe district-by-district policies for instruction on human sexuality education, there is no
literature which compares Florida’s district-wide curricula with programs that have been proven
as effective for modifying adolescent sexual behavior. Without this information, it must be
assumed that the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that are in place in Florida have had
similar results as those which have been implemented in other parts of the country. Likewise, if
programs containing specific curriculum elements and skills training have been shown to reduce
risk-taking sexual behaviors by teenagers in general (Burgess, Dziegielewski, and Green, 2005),
then they would be expected to have the same impact on adolescents living in the state of
Florida.
Clearly, the state of Florida has an obligation to its adolescent citizens to provide information
through its human sexuality education that will enable teenagers to experience a life of better
sexual health. However, in repeated reviews of abstinence-only-until-marriage human sexuality
curricula, such curricula has not been found to modify adolescent sexual behavior, to decrease
rates of sexually transmitted infection among adolescents, or to prevent unintended teenage
pregnancy (Santelli et al., 2006; Thomas, 1999; Wilson et al., 2005). By not meeting the intended
goals of human sexuality education, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs therefore
constitute poor human sexuality education that does not meet the needs of the general American
public. Comprehensive human sexuality education, on the other hand, has been characterized as
good practice due to its ability to reduce the rates of unintended consequences of sexual activity
in repeated studies.
An Explanation of Effective Human Sexuality Education
In a review of sexual risk-reduction programs published in the 1990s, Robin and collaborators
(2004) identified key features of human sexuality education programs that effectively produced
positive effects. Effective programs were those that included a focus on skills that reduce specific
sexual risk behaviors, a longer intensity and duration of the program’s sessions, facilitation by
trained adult instructors, mixed-gender group instruction, and instruction that occurred in
schools. When a human sexuality education programs included these particular elements,
delayed sexual intercourse, increased condom use, increased contraceptive use, and reduced
frequency of sexual intercourse were reported by participants after receiving instruction.
Kalmuss et al. (2003) have also identified a series of critical program issues that are necessary
for the success of a comprehensive human sexuality curriculum including that the program
should begin earlier and target younger adolescents; the program should use a variety of
behavioral skills and an appropriate length of time to develop these skills including effective
communication, negotiation and refusal skills, and technical condom use skills; the program
should not assume that sexual behavior is volitional; the program should not assume that sexual
activity among teenagers is limited to vaginal sex; the program should be designed to reach all
learners, including those with learning disabilities and cognitive immaturity; and the program
should focus on the sexual risks for males as well as females.
Other researchers who have focused on the content of human sexuality education curricula
contend that programs designed for adolescents who have not yet engaged in coitus
systematically ignore the reproductive health needs of sexually experienced adolescents (Santelli
et al., 2006). In addition, because of federal laws which limit the definition of marriage to
include heterosexual couples, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are discriminatory
against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (GLBTQ) youth (Buston & Hart,
2001; Santelli et al., 2006). For that reason, best practice human sexuality education should use
terms like “partner” rather than “spouse” (Fletcher & Russell, 2001) and should refer to multiple
sexualities in order to reflect the diversity of sexual preference that is inherent even within
members of the same gender (Barber & Murray, 2001). Best practice human sexuality education
should be relevant to all pupils who receive it, whatever their gender, ethnicity, educational
needs, or sexual identify and orientation (Buston & Hart, 2001).
Research contends that when considering comprehensive human sexuality education, the issue of
holistic sexual health should be a factor, as well as the avoidance of instruction which focuses on
the negative consequences associated with sexual behavior (Santelli et al., 2006). Human
sexuality programs which have been associated with positive effects commonly utilize
interactive and participatory approaches with students (Robin et al., 2006). Too often human
sexuality education curricula exist in the form of a narrative of biological facts (Boote &
McGinn, 1998); the teaching of reproductive anatomy and physiology, bacteria and viruses, and
genetics and hormones. Such basic information does not enable students to make a connection
between the “hard facts” and personal issues of sexuality, relationships, and sexual decision
making, which are recommended topics within an adequate human sexuality education program
(Barber & Murray, 2001; Fletcher & Russell, 2001; Szirom, 1988). Effective human sexuality
education should model the specific skills necessary to make wiser choices, such as acting out
the refusal of unwanted sex and instruction on the use of condoms (Robin et al., 2006).
When human sexuality education is presented simply in the form of the mechanics of
reproductive biology and how to prevent pregnancy, it becomes heterosexist by definition
(Buston & Hart, 2001). By failing to take the holistic approach to human sexuality, instruction
that is based solely on human reproductive anatomy, pregnancy, and human development
disregards additional sexual aspects of human nature, such as sexual attraction, lust, and
romantic love, which are feelings shared by all human beings regardless of their sexual
orientation. Therefore, best practice human sexuality education has been characterized by
researchers (Buston & Hart, 2001) as instruction which includes information about same-sex
sexuality, defines sexual intercourse in terms other than heterosexual penetration and
reproduction, and acknowledges that homosexuality is a valid emotional orientation (not solely a
form of sexual behavior) (Buston & Hart, 2001). Additionally, a discourse on female desire
should be included in human sexuality instruction in an effort to sway traditional human
sexuality education from its heterosexist norms (Barber & Murray, 2001; Fine, 1988; Irvine,
2000).
If the research cited in this chapter holds true, much of the human sexuality education being
offered to students within the state of Florida is skewed toward the abstinence-only-untilmarriage
vantage point and does not provide students within the state with adequate information about
contraceptives and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. Statistics show that the rates
of unintended pregnancy and the transmission rates of sexually-transmitted infection amongst
adolescents in the United States remain a problem, despite increased federal funding for
abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula. In other developed nations in which there is a greater
acceptance of adolescent sexual activity and in which human sexuality education is
comprehensive in nature, these rates are a fraction of those within the U.S.
Literature on successful human sexuality education programs, those programs which result in
measurable changes in adolescent sexual behavior and attitudes, suggest that instruction on
contraception, sexually-transmitted diseases, varying human sexualities, and female desire are
necessary in addition to instruction on human reproductive biology, pregnancy, and development.
In addition, successful programs for human sexuality education should include interactive
activities related to the refusal of unwanted sex and how to use a condom. Because abstinence-
only-until-marriage programs specifically address heterosexual unions between one man and one
woman as marriage, they are heterosexist by nature and do not relate to the sexual lives of
students of varying sexual orientations. Best practice human sexuality education should be
relevant to all students who receive it, regardless of their age, race, gender, sexual identity, or
emotional needs.
Statistics on the sexual behavior of Florida’s youth provide evidence that the state needs to
examine the quality of its human sexuality education curricula on a wider scope, especially that
instruction that is being provided to its middle-school-aged students who may not yet be sexually
experienced. However, in order to accomplish that task, some understanding must exist as to how
sexuality-related topics are currently being taught to middle-school-aged children in the state of
Florida and how the quality of that instruction correlates with best-practice curriculum elements
for comprehensive human sexuality education, which have been identified in research conducted
worldwide. And while the previously described literature exists, there has not been any
comprehensive study conducted in the state of Florida, to date, in order to identify how human
sexuality education is being implemented at the district-level in Florida’s sixty-seven school
districts. As a result, this is a critical area for research in order to provide Florida’s middle-grades
students with the best possible education in the area of human sexuality.
In the chapters to follow, a complete description of the research methods for data collection and
analysis, research findings, and conclusions will be discussed as they relate to the initial research
questions for this study.
CHAPTER 3: METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which human sexuality topics are covered
in Florida middle school science curricula in a sample of Florida school districts and the process
by which those curricular decisions were made. Guidelines for these curricula and contextual
support are offered in the form of formal curriculum guides for human sexuality education and
county-adopted science textbooks. To answer the research questions identified at the start of this
research study, the individual who was responsible for making curricular decisions related to the
science or health curriculum implemented within each sampled school district was contacted and
interviewed. These individuals were also asked to provide the researcher with a copy of the
support materials for human sexuality education, in the form of the district’s formal curriculum
guide for human sexuality education, or information related to the county adopted middle-grades
science textbook.
Specifically, the research questions for this study were as follows:
1. Which topics related to human sexuality are included in the district-level
middlegrades science curriculum in a sample of Florida school districts?
2. How did school district personnel make decisions about the inclusion of topics related
to human sexuality in their middle-grades science curriculum?
3. To what extent does the approach to teaching human sexuality topics in the
middlegrades science curriculum align with the expectations of a comprehensive
human sexuality education curriculum?
4. Do educators in this sample of Florida school districts feel that their
districtimplemented middle-grades science curriculum provides adequate instruction
on human sexuality topics?
The methods for data collection and analysis described in this chapter were carried out in an
effort to answer these research questions and to gain a better perspective about the scope of
human sexuality education that is being implemented within a sample of Florida’s school
districts at the middle grades level.
School District Sample Selection
In the state of Florida, each of sixty-seven counties represents a distinct school district which is
self-governing and which is responsible for maintaining its own academic curriculum, and
promotion and graduation requirements. To represent the diversity of school districts within the
state, twelve counties were initially selected as potential participants in this research study based
on their geographic location within the state of Florida and the published population
demographics for the county. These counties included Walton, Leon and Suwannee in the
western region; Alachua, Duval and Levy in the northern region; Brevard, Orange and Pasco in
the central region; and Collier, Dade and Glades in the southern region. Suwannee County, Levy
County, Pasco County and Glades County were characterized as “rural” counties for the purpose
of this study based on population size. The “suburban” counties included Walton County, Alachua
County, Brevard County, and Collier County, and were districts with a growing student body and
moderate population size. “Urban” counties included a major metropolitan center and had the
largest population in each region. The urban counties for this study included Leon County, Duval
County, Orange County, and Dade County.
Participant Selection
For each of the school districts chosen for the original sample, the individual person responsible
for the adoption or creation of curriculum related to science education or health education at the
middle grades level was identified using public information published by the county itself or the
Florida Department of Education. The specific title of each individual, identified as a possible
participant for this study, varied by county, as did the span of their involvement with the
curriculum within the school district. These titles ranged from “Superintendent” in a small rural
county which lacked support staff for curriculum development and selection to “Secondary
Science Specialist” in the larger suburban and urban school districts. Other titles included “K-12
Science and Health Coordinator”, “Director of Secondary Education”, and “Science Supervisor”.
Procedures
Methods for Contacting Participants
In November of 2005, each of the individuals identified as being the primary person responsible
for making curriculum decisions related to either science education or health education in the
twelve target counties was contacted by way of stamped mail. The first contact consisted of a
preliminary cover letter explaining the purpose of the study, a consent statement agreeing to
participate in the research study, a stamped and addressed legal-sized envelope, and a large,
preaddressed postage-paid envelope. The individuals identified as curriculum contacts were
asked to sign, complete, and return the consent agreement in either postage-paid envelope, along
with a copy of the most current middle grades human sexuality education curriculum that existed
within the county or the title, publisher and copyright date of the county-adopted textbooks for
middlegrades science classes within the county. The consent statement authorized the researcher
to contact the individual in the future for the purpose of setting up a phone interview at the
participant’s convenience.
In February of 2006, a second contact letter was mailed out to eleven of the twelve counties due
to a lack of response to the initial contact. The second contact consisted of a cover letter
explaining the purpose of the study and a second request for the voluntary participation of this
individual in the research study, the same consent agreement included in the first contact, and a
stamped and addressed, legal-sized envelope. The individual was asked a second time to sign,
complete, and return the consent agreement in the postage-paid envelope. The cover letter gave
the individual the option of contacting the researcher for a second postage-paid mailer in order to
provide the researcher with a copy of the most current middle grades human sexuality education
curriculum that existed for the school district. If the county in question did not have a formal
human sexuality education curriculum, the individual was again asked to provide the researcher
with the title, publisher and copyright date for the county-adopted textbooks for middle-grades
science.
In mid-May, 2006, a third contact was attempted with nine of the twelve districts, for which the
curriculum contact did not provide the researcher with a signed consent statement, by e-mail. The
letter identified the name of the researcher, the name and a brief description of the research study,
a reminder about the first two items the individual should have received from the researcher by
mail, a request for the individual’s participation, and a request for an e-mailed reply if the
individual did not wish to participate in the study.
Also in mid-May 2006, the three individuals for whom consent statements were received were
contacted by e-mail requesting to set up an interview by phone or in person. Arrangements were
made to conduct the interviews during a time, in a manner, and at a place that was convenient for
the participant. The participants were told that that interview would consist of a line of
questioning related to the development and implementation of a human sexuality education
curriculum in their county and that it would take approximately thirty minutes of their time.
From May-July 2006, interviews were conducted and initial personalized contacts were
attempted on a per county basis as summarized in Table 2. A final contact was made by e-mail to
non-participants in early October 2006 informing participants that the final document was in the
process of being written and initiating a final request to participate in the research study.
Table 2 Summary of Contacts Made By County
County
Contact Made
Result
Alachua
11/05
No Response
02/06
No Response
05/06 (First E-mail)
Individual no longer
employed by Alachua
County, new information
provided
05/06 (Second E-mail)
No Response
10/06 (Third E-mail)
No Response
Brevard
11/05
No Response
02/06
Consent Form Returned
05/06
Interview Scheduled
06/06
Interview Conducted
08/06
Two middle-grades science
teachers provided e-mail
responses to follow up
questions, not the two
teachers suggested by
county contact (No
Response)
Collier
11/05
No Response
02/06
No Response
05/23/06 (First E-mail)
Response by phone,
individual is retiring, new
information provided
05/25/06 (Second E-mail)
Response, new individual
will help
06/01/06 (Third E-mail)
Yes, they do have
abstinence-only education,
no follow up
Contacted two teachers
recommended by contact by e-
mail, no response
County
Contact Made
Result
10/06 ( Second E-mail to
teachers recommended by
contact)
One of two teachers
responded with answers to
questions; other teacher, no
contact
Dade
11/05
No Response
02/06
No Response
05/06 (First E-mail)
Response, new
name
provided, will
information
forward
05/06 (Second E-mail)
No Response
10/06 (Third E-mail)
No Response
Duval
11/05
No Response
02/06
No Response
05/06 (First E-mail)
No Response
10/06 (Second E-mail)
No Response
Levy
11/05
No Response
02/06
Consent Form Returned
05/06
Interview Scheduled
06/06
Interview Conducted
Pasco
11/05
No Response
02/06
No Response
05/06 (First E-mail)
Response, new name
provided
05/06 (Second E-mail)
No Response
10/06 (Third E-mail)
No Response
Glades
11/05
No Response
02/06
No Response
05/06 (First E-mail)
No Response
10/06 (Second E-mail)
No Response
County
Contact Made
Result
Leon
11/05
No Response
02/06
No Response
05/06 (First E-mail)
Response, new name
provided
05/06 (Second E-mail)
No Response
10/06 (Third E-mail)
No Response
Orange
11/05
Consent Form Returned
05/06
Interview Scheduled
07/06
Interview Conducted
Contacted two
teachers
recommended by contact by
e-mail, no response
Suwannee
11/05
No Response
02/06
No Response
05/06 (First E-mail)
No Response
10/06 (Second E-mail)
No Response
Walton
11/05
No Response
02/06
No Response
05/06 (First E-mail)
Interview Scheduled
06/06
Interview Conducted
Contacted two
teachers
recommended by contact by
e-mail, no response
10/06
Second e-mail to teachers, no
response
Content Analysis and Interview Questions
Based on my analysis which examined the curriculum elements which are present in effective
human sexuality education programs (see Chapter 2), I developed the following checklist for the
purpose of analyzing each human sexuality education curriculum or science textbook provided
by the curriculum contact who chose to participate in the study. Recreated in Table 3, the
checklist includes content that should be present in a human sexuality education curriculum that
takes a comprehensive rather than an abstinence-only approach, specific subject matter that is
suggested for the purpose of making a human sexuality curriculum more meaningful for
marginalized students (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, sexually abused), specific
activities shown to reduce unwanted outcomes of adolescent sexual activity, specific skills
correlated with the increased use of contraception, including condoms; basic biological facts
about the human reproductive system, aspects of parental involvement in the curriculum, and
female desire.
Table 3 Curriculum Analysis Checklist
Curriculum Element
Present?
Comments
Contraception- Failure rate
Contraception- How to use
Contraception- How to obtain
HIV/AIDS
STDs other than HIV
How to put on a condom
Curriculum Element
Present?
Comments
Condoms and Dental Dams as
STD prevention
Female Reproductive Anatomy
Picture?
Male Reproductive Anatomy
Picture?
Parenting
Sexual Stereotyping/Roles
The Menstrual Cycle
Sexual Decision Making
Refusal Skills
Rape
Spermatogenesis
Menopause
Fertilization-Penetration
Origins of Sexual Orientation
Homosexual
Transsexual
Transgender
Sexuality Continuum
Parental Consent
Sex without Reproduction
Monogamy
Polygamy
Curriculum Element
Present?
Comments
Abortion
Homework w/Parental
Involvement
Masturbation (Mutual,
Personal)
Oral Sex (Fellatio,
Cunnilingus)
Anal Intercourse
Abstinence
Emergency Contraception/
How to Obtain it
Pregnancy and Development
Labor and Delivery
Post-Natal Development
and/or Care
Puberty
Anonymous Question Box
Marriage
Female Desire/Orgasm
Role-playing- Discussing
Sexual Options with a Partner
Contacts to receive additional
information on related topic
These data were analyzed to draw out answers to the research questions identified for this
research study. Due to limitations on the scope with which the information uncovered through
these methods for data collection and analysis could be generalized, slight changes were made to
interview questions for both the curriculum contacts per county and the classroom teachers
whose contact information was provided by the curriculum contact for each participating county.
Additionally, slight modifications had to be made due to the failure on the part of one
participating county’s district-level contact to provide a copy of the existing human sexuality
education curriculum guide for her school district or the title, publisher and copyright date of the
county-adopted textbook for middle-grades science in her district.
Each set of interview questions is displayed in a separate table below. Table 4 includes the set of
questions which were asked to the curriculum contact for health education in Brevard County.
Table 5 displays the follow-up questions which were included in an e-mail sent to two
middlegrades science teachers employed by Brevard County. Table 6 lists the set of follow-up
questions which were e-mailed to two teacher leads identified by the curriculum contact within
Collier County. Listed in Table 7 are the interview questions which were presented to the
curriculum contact for science education in Levy County. Table 8 lists the set of interview
questions which were asked to the curriculum contact for health education in Orange County.
Finally, listed in Table 9 are the interview questions which were asked to the middle school
education coordinator in Walton County.
Table 4 Brevard County Curriculum Contact Interview Questions
Question Number
Question
1
Could you explain the history of your
county’s human sexuality curriculum as you
understand it?
2
In what year was this curriculum first
adopted?
3
For what grades was this curriculum
intended?
4
Does Brevard County require teachers in
these grade levels to teach this curriculum?
5
When the curriculum was created, who (of
the following) had input into its contents?
6
Were you a part of the curriculum
development of this particular curriculum?
7
I understand the curriculum was just revised
this year. What changes were made and for
what reasons?
8
Have you ever been approached by a
member of the community with a complaint
about this curriculum?
9
Do you personally feel that this curriculum
meets the needs of the student population in
Brevard County?
10
What topics do you think could be added or
removed so that it does meet the needs of
your student population?
Question Number
Question
11
As a whole, do you feel like your
community is open to the teaching of human
sexuality topics at the middle school level?
12
After reviewing the curriculum, I have
noticed the following items are excluded
from the curriculum which published
literature states are important in a
comprehensive human sexuality
curriculum. I would like to discuss whether
these topics were considered to be included
in the curriculum and whether or not they
were excluded for particular reasons:
13
When does the county offer inservice for
teachers to become more comfortable with
this curriculum?
14
Is there any other information you would
like to add about human sexuality education
in Brevard County?
Table 5 Brevard County Teacher Follow-up Questions
Question Number
Question
1
Do you feel that the human sexuality
education curriculum in Brevard County
meets the needs of your student
population? (please explain your response)
2
What topics do you feel could be added to
or removed from the county curriculum to
better meet the needs of your students?
3
When teaching human sexuality education
topics in your classroom, do you:
_____ Cover only the information in
the Sunshine State Standards?
_____ Cover only the information in
the county adopted textbook?
_____ Supplement the Sunshine
State Standards and textbook with
information for additional sources to
adequately teach comprehensive
human sexuality education topics?
_____ Teach directly from the
county-wide curriculum for human
sexuality education?
4
Over how many class periods do you cover
sex education topics in a typical school
year?
5
As a whole, do you feel that your
community is open to teaching human
sexuality topics in the middle school grades
(6-8)? (please explain)
6
Have you ever had a student “opt-out” of
participating in a sex education unit during
any school year?
Table 6 Collier County Teacher Follow-up Questions
Question Number
Question
1
Do you feel that the human sexuality
education curriculum in Collier County
meets the needs of your student
population? (please explain your response)
2
Your county does not have a formal human
sexuality education curriculum guide, so do
you feel that your students would benefit by
the development of such a curriculum?
3
When teaching human sexuality education
topics in your classroom, do you:
_____ Cover only the information in
the Sunshine State Standards?
_____ Cover only the information in
the county adopted textbook?
_____ Supplement the Sunshine
State Standards and textbook with
information for additional sources to
adequately teach comprehensive
human sexuality education topics?
4
As a whole, do you feel that your
community is open to teaching human
sexuality topics in the middle school grades
(6-8)? (please explain)
Table 7 Levy County Curriculum Contact Interview Questions
Question Number
Question
1
Could you give me a general description of
your county’s school system and student
body?
2
Has your county ever had a course,
curriculum or program specifically focused
on human sexuality education at any grade
level? (please elaborate)
3
What is the primary focus of the
middlegrades science curriculum in Levy
County?
4
Has there ever been a public outcry by
parents, teachers, or administrators to create
and implement a formal human sexuality
education program in Levy County?
5
If a program was created and implemented,
do you feel that it would be well-received by
the teaching staff, administration, and
residents? (If no, why?)
6
Do you know of any middle-grades science
teachers within your county who include a
human sexuality unit in their curriculum
beyond the small bit of information that may
relate to the Sunshine State Standards?
7
Do you feel like the topics related to human
sexuality and reproduction covered by the
Sunshine State Standards and/or your
textbooks offer your students the
information they need to make responsible
and healthy choices when it comes to their
sexuality? Please explain.
8
Do you have any additional comments or
information that may be helpful for me to
gain a better understanding of how human
sexuality topics are covered in Levy
County?
9
Would you be able to provide me with the
names and contact information of two
classroom teachers to ask a few additional
questions?
Table 8 Orange County Curriculum Contact Interview Questions
Question Number
Question
1
How does Orange County label its human
sexuality curriculum (abstinence-only,
abstinence-based, or comprehensive)?
2
Could you explain the history of your
county’s human sexuality curriculum as you
understand it?
3
In what year was the curriculum first
adopted?
4
For what grades was this curriculum
intended?
5
Does Orange County require teachers in
these grade levels to teach this curriculum?
6
When the curriculum was created, who of
the following had input into its contents?
Parents? Teachers? School board members?
School based administrators?
Superintendent? Health care providers?
Students?
7
Were you a part of the curriculum
development of this particular curriculum?
8
I understand that this curriculum was
revised this year. What changes were made
and for what reasons?
9
Have you ever been approached by a
member of the community with a
complaint about this curriculum?
10
Do you personally feel that this curriculum
meets the needs of the student population in
Orange County? Can you specifically state
why you believe so or not?
11
Do you believe there may be a language
barrier preventing some students from
getting the information?
12
What topics do you think could be added or
removed so that it does meet the needs of
your student population?
Question Number
Question
13
As a whole, do you feel like your
community is open to teaching human
sexuality topics at the middle school level?
14
In my data collection, I have found that the
following topics which are identified as
crucial components of a comprehensive
human sexuality curriculum to be missing
from the curricula in many counties. Does
Orange County include them? If not, why?
How to use and where to obtain condoms?
How to use and where to obtain
contraceptives? Masturbation? Multiple
sexual orientations?
Female desire?
Decision making and refusal
skills?
Parent involved homework?
Spread of STDs by anal or
oral intercourse?
Table 9 Walton County Curriculum Contact Interview Questions
Question Number
Question
1
Could you give me a general description of
your county’s school system and student
body?
2
Has your county ever had a course,
curriculum or program specifically focused
on human sexuality education at any grade
level? (please elaborate)
3
What is the primary focus of the
middlegrades science curriculum in Walton
County?
4
Has there ever been a public outcry by
parents, teachers, or administrators to create
and implement a formal human sexuality
education program in Walton County?
5
If a program was created and implemented,
do you feel that it would be well received by
the teaching staff, administration, and
residents? (If no, why?)
6
Do you know of any middle-grades science
teachers within your county who include a
human sexuality unit in their curriculum
beyond the small bit of information that may
relate to the Sunshine State Standards?
7
Do you feel like the topics related to human
sexuality and reproduction covered by the
Sunshine State Standards and/or your
textbooks offer your students the
information they need to make responsible
and healthy choices when it comes to their
sexuality? Please explain.
8
Do you have any additional comments or
information that may be helpful for me to
gain a better understanding of how human
sexuality topics are covered in Walton
County?
9
Would you be able to provide me with the
names and contact information of two
classroom teachers to ask a few additional
questions?
Data Analysis
Information obtained through the interview process was summarized only and interpreted by the
researcher to draw out an overall picture of the dissemination of information related to human
sexuality to middle-school-aged students within the participating sample school districts. This
was the case for both the interviews of the curriculum contact personnel and of the teacher leads
who were identified by the curriculum contact, in each of the participating school districts.
The formal curriculum guides for middle grades human sexuality education and the county
adopted science textbooks which were obtained by the researcher were analyzed using
qualitative textbook analysis methods to locate previously identified curriculum elements
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Mayring, 2000; Smelser & Baltes, 2001), which are characteristic of
successful human sexuality education curricula. Using Table 3 as a guide for content analysis,
each curriculum was examined and specific content was identified as present or absent from the
document. This procedure was carried out for both the formal human sexuality education
curriculum guides and the county-adopted middle-grades science textbooks. The content
analyses for human sexuality curricula implemented within the school districts which
participated in this study are located in Appendix A. Those counties for which a content analysis
was conducted included the following: Brevard County, Levy County, Orange County and
Walton County.
The complete set of findings for this research study are summarized in Chapter 4, followed by a
series of conclusions drawn from the research and recommendations for additional research
related to the topic of human sexuality education, specifically in the state of Florida.
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
The methods of data collection and analysis described in Chapter 3 were conducted for the
purpose of examining the extent to which human sexuality topics are covered in Florida middle
school science curricula in a sample of Florida school districts and the process by which those
curricular decisions were made. Specifically, the research questions for this study were stated as
follows:
1. Which topics related to human sexuality are included in the district-level
middlegrades science curriculum in a sample of Florida school districts?
2. How did school district personnel make decisions about the inclusion of topics related
to human sexuality in their middle-grades science curriculum?
3. To what extent does the approach to teaching human sexuality in the middle-grades
science curriculum align with the expectations of a comprehensive human sexuality
education curriculum?
4. Do educators in this sample of Florida school districts feel that their
districtimplemented middle-grades science curriculum provides adequate instruction
on human sexuality topics?
By conducting interviews with county figureheads, whose job it is to maintain curricula for
middle grades science within their county of employment, and the content analysis of the
countyadopted curriculum or textbook which included elements related to human sexuality, data
was collected and analyzed to provide answers to these research questions. For each sample
school district which provided data, the scope of human sexuality education that is currently
made available to students in the middle grades within that district was revealed.
Participating School Districts & Participants
Of the twelve school districts identified as possible participants at the beginning of the study,
only five provided data in the form of an interview with the district-level curriculum contact, a
copy of the district’s formal curriculum guide for human sexuality education, publisher
information for the county-adopted middle-grades science textbook, or feedback from classroom
teacher leads in the form of e-mailed questions. These counties were Brevard, Collier, Levy,
Orange and Walton.
The geographic and demographic delineations which these counties represented covered a span
from western, northern, central, and southern Florida and included counties identified as urban,
suburban and rural. The selected counties that did not participate in the study were Alachua,
Duval, Glades, Leon, Dade, Pasco, and Suwannee.
Research Question 1
The first question the researcher sought to answer was “Which topics related to human sexuality
are included in the district-level middle-grades science curriculum in a sample of Florida school
districts?” The content of the science curricula which related to human sexuality was found to
vary considerably among the sample school districts that chose to participate in the research
study. The content analysis checklist for each curriculum that was provided for the purpose of
this study is included in Appendix A. A summary of the contents contained within each of the
four sample curricula that were analyzed are displayed in Table 10.
Table 10 Summary of Content Contained in Human Sexuality Curricula by District
Content
Brevard County
Levy
County
Orange
County
Walton
County
How to obtain
contraception
(including
emergency
contraception)
HIV/AIDS
√
√
√
√
STDs other than
HIV
√
√
How to put on a
condom
√
Condoms or dental
dams for STD
prevention
√
Female
reproductive
anatomy
√
√
√
√
Male reproductive
anatomy
√
√
√
√
Parenting
√
√
√
√
Sexual
stereotyping and
roles
The menstrual
cycle
√
√
√
√
Sexual decision
making
√
√
Refusal skills
√
√
Rape
Spermatogenesis
Menopause
√
√
√
√
Fertilization and
development
√
√
√
√
Origins of sexual
orientation
Varying sexualities
and gender
identity (including
homosexual,
transsexual and
transgender)
√
Sexuality
continuum
√
Sex without
reproduction
(including
masturbation, oral
sex, anal
intercourse, and
female desire)
√
√
Abortion
√
Abstinence
√
√
Pregnancy
√
√
√
√
Labor and delivery
√
√
√
√
Puberty
√
√
√
√
Contacts to receive
additional
information
√
√
The topics which were included in each of the four school district curricula which were made
available to the researcher included HIV/AIDS, female reproductive anatomy with a diagram,
male reproductive anatomy with a diagram, the menstrual cycle, menopause, fertilization and
development, puberty, pregnancy, and labor and delivery. All four counties included a brief
explanation of the role of parents; however, only the curriculum guides in Brevard County and
Orange County included specific lessons that included the responsibilities of being a parent. In
Brevard County and Orange County, information about twelve sexually-transmitted diseases
other than HIV/AIDS was included in the formal curriculum guides for human sexuality
education. In Levy County and Walton County, the only disease spread by intimate contact that
was included in the county-adopted middle-grades science textbooks other than HIV/AIDS was a
cold sore, which was not identified as a strain of the herpes virus.
The formal curriculum guides for human sexuality education which were in use within the
middle schools in Brevard County and Orange County also contained information related to
decision making and refusal skills in sexually charged situations, the importance of abstinence in
preventing the unwanted consequences of sexual activity, and additional contact information for
agencies which could provide support in order to obtain contraceptive devices or to receive
counseling related to becoming sexually active, including county health departments, clergymen,
and medical personnel.
Brevard County was the only sample school district that included a sexual activity continuum in
the formal curriculum guide for human sexuality education. The continuum included “manual
stimulation” which was the closest reference to masturbation in any single lesson in any of the
sampled curricula. Orange County was the only school district for which the formal human
sexuality education curriculum was labeled as “comprehensive”, therefore the curriculum guide
for this district was the only curriculum which was analyzed and included information about
types of contraceptive devices, failure rates of contraceptive devices, how to obtain contraceptive
devices (including emergency contraception), and how to use a condom. Brevard County’s
curriculum guide for middle grades human sexuality education did include information on types
of contraception and their failure rates; however this information was included in the teacher’s
appendix only and teachers were instructed not to share this information with their students.
Research Question 2
The second research question for this study asked “How did school district personnel make
decisions about the inclusion of topics related to human sexuality in their middle-grades science
curriculum?” To some degree, the answer to this question related to the acceptance of the
community within the sample school district to teaching topics related to human sexuality at the
middle grades level. If the community within the district did not accept a formal human sexuality
education curriculum, the district was not likely to have a formal curriculum guide in place for
teaching these topics. For the districts which did not have a formal curriculum guide for human
sexuality education in place, the researcher was not able to obtain specific information about
which individuals acted as decision-makers to include or exclude topics under the umbrella of
human sexuality education within the middle-grades science curriculum within the district. It can
only be assumed that the individuals who were responsible for the scope of the human sexuality
curriculum in these districts were the same individuals who served on the county textbook
adoption committee, as the human sexuality education in these counties was specifically limited
to the subject area included in the county-adopted science textbook. Traditionally, textbook
adoption committees include district-level administrators, school board members, school-based
administrators, classroom teachers, parents, and in some cases, students.
In 1990, in accordance with a state mandate, Brevard County assembled a group of interested
parties in order to develop a set of formal curriculum guides for human sexuality education for
grades K-12 to be utilized in all public schools within the district. The original curriculum guides
were developed over a two-year period by a panel of 25 individuals; representing educators,
parents, school board members, health care providers, students, religious figures, and
schoolbased administrators. Orange County began developing their formal curriculum guides for
human sexuality education in 1985, in response to a growing HIV epidemic across the nation.
Orange County educators determined a need for HIV education and began the development of a
set of curriculum guides for use in all Orange County public schools, grades K-12, which were
then adopted in 1991. The interviewee for Orange County was a member of the original decision-
making team which consisted of educators, parents, school board members, health care
providers, students, religious figures, and school-based administrators who developed and
approved the content for the curriculum. This committee of individuals also developed a series of
guidelines for educators about how the curriculum should be implemented, which includes the
statement that “Respect for all people shall be affirmed,” during the same time period. Brevard
County and Orange County were in the process of revising their original curriculum documents
in the summer of 2006 at the time this research study was ongoing.
Because the district-level curriculum contact for Collier County was never formally interviewed,
the researcher was unable to learn how curricular decisions related to human sexuality were
made, and by whom, within that school district. Levy County reported using an abstinence-only
human sexuality education curriculum which was taught at the seventh-grade level by nurses
from the county health department; however the curriculum contact for this district did not
provide the researcher with a copy of the curriculum. Therefore, the researcher cannot report
with accuracy which individuals within Levy County specifically made curricular decisions
about which topics were included in or excluded from the district’s human sexuality education
curriculum. Despite reporting the existence of this curriculum, the district-level interviewee in
Levy County reported that the community within his district was “conservative ‘church going’
people” who would not approve of a formal curriculum guide for comprehensive human
sexuality education.
In Walton County, no formal curriculum guide for human sexuality education was being utilized.
Therefore, the individuals responsible for making decisions related to which human sexuality
topics were integrated into the science curriculum were, by default, those individuals who served
on the textbook selection committee for the county’s middle-grades science textbook.
Research Question 3
Research question number three asked “To what extent does the approach to teaching human
sexuality in the middle-grades science curriculum align with the expectations of a comprehensive
human sexuality education curriculum?” Of the four curricula which were analyzed, only one
curriculum, in Orange County, was characterized as “comprehensive” in nature. In Brevard
County, the formal curriculum for human sexuality education was labeled “abstinence-based”
and the individuals who provided the researcher with information regarding human sexuality
education in Collier County, Levy County and Walton County all referred to the curriculum
within their district as “abstinence-only”; however in all three cases abstinence was not an
element which was contained in the curriculum.
The content analysis checklist created for the purpose of this study included those curriculum
elements which were identified within research on effective human sexuality education as
bestpractice and most likely to result in instruction that led to safer sexual practices among youth
who received the instruction. The curricula received from Brevard County, Levy County, Orange
County and Walton County that related to human sexuality were analyzed for content based on
this checklist. Each district’s curriculum included a different number of best-practice curriculum
elements for human sexuality education. Table 11 summarizes the content of each of the human
sexuality education curricula with the addition of activities which should be included in an
effective human sexuality curriculum by school district.
Table 11 Best-Practice Human Sexuality Education Curriculum Elements by District
Content
Brevard County
Levy
County
Orange
County
Walton
County
emergency
contraception)
HIV/AIDS
√
√
√
√
STDs other than
HIV
√
√
How to put on a
condom
√
Condoms or dental
dams for STD
prevention
√
Female
reproductive
anatomy
√
√
√
√
Male reproductive
anatomy
√
√
√
√
Parenting
√
√
√
√
Sexual
stereotyping and
roles
The menstrual
cycle
√
√
√
√
Sexual decision
making
√
√
Refusal skills
√
√
Rape
Spermatogenesis
Menopause
√
√
√
√
Fertilization and
development
√
√
√
√
Origins of sexual
orientation
Varying sexualities
and gender
identity (including
homosexual,
√
transsexual and
transgender)
Sexuality
continuum
√
Sex without
reproduction
(including
masturbation, oral
sex, anal
intercourse, and
female desire)
√
√
Abortion
√
Abstinence
√
√
Pregnancy
√
√
√
√
Labor and delivery
√
√
√
√
Puberty
√
√
√
√
Contacts to receive
additional
information
√
√
Activity
Brevard
County
Levy
County
Orange
County
Walton
County
Homework with parental involvement
√
√
Refusal skills and decision making in sexual
situations
√
√
Anonymous Question Box
√
√
Role-playing
√
√
Brevard County
When analyzed for content, Brevard County’s adopted curriculum guide for middle-grades
human sexuality education included many curriculum elements and activities that are
characteristic of an effective human sexuality education curriculum. In addition to basic
information on male and female reproductive anatomy, fertilization and development, and
pregnancy, the curriculum focused on sexuality as one element of a person’s individuality, refusal
skills and decision-making in sexual situations, characteristics of healthy relationships, and a
progression of physical intimacy (sexuality continuum). The lessons contained in the curriculum
guide offered numerous opportunities for students to involve their parents in the unit, including
parent interviews and questionnaires. The curriculum guide also included detail on the biological
cause and symptoms of twelve different sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. In
addition, instruction on parenting skills was emphasized along with statistics on teenage
pregnancy. The curriculum guide suggested that the classroom instructor make an “Anonymous
Question Box” available for students so that they would feel more comfortable asking questions.
Because the curriculum was categorized as “abstinence-based”, the contraception information
that was included in a teacher’s appendix of the curriculum, although very thorough and up to
date, could not be shared with students. The teacher’s portion of the curriculum guide
specifically stated that contraception is not to be discussed in detail with students and that “any
discussion of birth control and birth control methods should stress that none of the methods,
except abstinence, is totally reliable (p.ix).” In addition, teacher instructions for utilizing the
curriculum guide stated that abortion, masturbation, and homosexuality were not to be elaborated
upon. If these topics were initiated by a student during classroom instruction, the classroom
instructor was given a specific scripted response that they were expected to use.
If asked about abortion, a classroom instructor must define abortion as “the surgical termination
of pregnancy and not a means of contraception” without elaboration. If a student questioned
about masturbation, the instructor was expected to reply that “masturbation usually means
touching one’s own genitals for sexual satisfaction. The choice about masturbation is personal
and should be evaluated against one’s own principles and values.” If questioned about the issue
of homosexuality, the instructor must respond that “it is undetermined what causes people to
become homosexuals, at what age a person becomes homosexual, or whether a person is born
homosexual.”
Brevard County’s formal curriculum guide for human sexuality education included a list of
phone numbers and contact information for students in order to learn additional information
about issues related to their sexuality and sexual health. Students were referred to several local
private organizations, the county health department, their parent, a clergyman, a teacher or
counselor, a dean or principal, or their family doctor to gain additional information or advice
about sexually-related topics or how to obtain contraception.
In summary, the facets of an effective human sexuality education curriculum, which the literature
identified as effective for lowering rates of the unintended consequences of sexual activity
among teenagers, that were excluded from Brevard County’s middle-grades human sexuality
education curriculum guide were: types of contraception (failure rates), how to obtain
contraception (including emergency contraception), how to use contraception, condoms and
dental dams for STD prevention, rape, origins of sexual orientation and gender association,
varying sexualities, sexual contact without reproduction (including masturbation, oral sex, anal
intercourse, and female desire), sexual roles and stereotypes, monogamy and polygamy, and
abortion.
Collier County
The district-level curriculum contact for Collier County did not provide the researcher with a
copy of any curriculum guide for human sexuality education or the county-adopted textbook
information for middle-grades science classes; therefore it can only be assumed from a
participating classroom teacher’s responses that Collier County does not have a formal
curriculum guide for human sexuality education in place. The seventh grade science curriculum
in Collier County is life science, and therefore any instruction related to human sexual
reproduction would be integrated in to this curriculum and would predominantly include
curriculum elements common to basic science textbooks. These topics may include the
following: the male and female reproductive systems, gamete formation (meiosis), fertilization
and development, the endocrine system, and general information related to bacteria and viruses,
although not specifically sexually transmitted agents. Although these topics have been identified
as important in a comprehensive unit on human sexuality, many curriculum elements are
missing.
Therefore, Collier County’s curriculum for human sexuality education that is included within the
scope of the science curriculum does not include the following curriculum elements which are
characteristic of effective instruction on human sexuality education: types of contraception
(failure rates), where to obtain contraception (including emergency contraception), how to use
contraception, sexually-transmitted infections other than HIV/AIDS, condoms and dental dams
for STD prevention, parenting skills, sexual roles and stereotyping, rape, origins of sexual
orientation and gender association, varying sexualities, a sexuality continuum, sexual contact
without reproduction (including masturbation, oral sex, anal intercourse, and female desire),
monogamy and polygamy, abortion, abstinence, and contacts to receive additional information.
Types of activities that are indicative of effective instruction on human sexuality education that
were excluded from Collier County’s middle grades instruction on human sexuality included the
following: parental involvement in the unit, refusal skills and decision making in sexual
situations, an anonymous question box, how to put on a condom, and role-playing.
Levy County
For Levy County, the district-level interviewee did not provide the researcher with an example of
the human sexuality education curriculum guide or a copy of the lesson which he reported was
taught to the seventh-grade students in the district by the school nurse; however the textbooks
that were used in the middle-grades science classrooms for instruction on life science were
obtained from the publisher and analyzed by the researcher. The district utilized four small,
bound titles published by Prentice Hall (2007). Two of these books, titled Animals and Human
Biology & Health, included topics related to reproduction in general. Topics specifically related
to human sexual reproduction were covered in the second title only.
As expected, the curriculum elements contained in the textbooks utilized by Levy County’s
middle-grades science teachers were strictly biological facts which were identified in a simplistic
manner. In Human Biology & Health (Prentice Hall, 2007) HIV/AIDS infection was discussed in
a small section of text contained within a chapter titled “Fighting Disease”. The text explained
that the virus could be spread through blood and other fluids produced in the human body, but
did not specifically use the terms “semen” or “vaginal secretions”. The text only alluded to the
fact that HIV/AIDS is a sexually-transmitted disease by stating that “sexual contact is one way in
which this (fluids from an infected person come into contact with those of an uninfected person)
can happen”; however no additional detail was given. To a student who is not educated in human
sexuality, kissing may be inferred as a form of sexual contact, and this text did not provide
information which clarified that saliva is not one of the bodily fluids in which HIV can survive.
The only other virus mentioned to spread through intimate contact in the text was a “cold sore”,
which was not identified as a form of the herpes virus.
In Human Biology & Health, an entire section was dedicated to the study of the endocrine system
and human reproduction, including the male and female reproductive systems, and pregnancy
and development. As with the chapter on fighting disease, this section of text lacked many details
and only covered topics related to human reproduction in the form of a brief narrative.
The topics included in Levy County’s science curriculum that related to effective instruction on
human sexuality were limited to the following: the male and female reproductive systems,
fertilization and development, the menstrual cycle, puberty, pregnancy, labor and delivery, and
menopause. Although the textbook included detailed descriptions of the male and female
reproductive systems, no connection was made between how the sperm produced by the male
reproductive system which “leaves the body through the penis” and the egg produced by the
female reproduction system “which can be fertilized if sperm are present in the fallopian tube”
may come to be in the same place at the same time. The text explained what a virus was and that
a virus could be transmitted from person to person, but the information in the text did not clearly
link sexually-transmitted infections with specific sexual behaviors, nor did the text make any
mention to how the spread of disease could be prevented other than avoiding fluid to fluid
contact.
Therefore, Levy County’s curriculum for human sexuality education that is included within the
scope of the science curriculum does not include the following curriculum elements which are
characteristic of effective instruction on human sexuality education: types of contraception
(failure rates), where to obtain contraception (including emergency contraception), how to use
contraception, sexually transmitted infections other than HIV/AIDS, condoms and dental dams
for STD prevention, parenting skills, sexual roles and stereotyping, rape, origins of sexual
orientation and gender association, varying sexualities, a sexuality continuum, sexual contact
without reproduction (including masturbation, oral sex, anal intercourse, and female desire),
monogamy and polygamy, abortion, abstinence, and contacts to receive additional information.
Types of activities that are indicative of effective instruction on human sexuality education that
were excluded from Levy County’s middle grades instruction on human sexuality included
parental involvement in the unit, refusal skills and decision-making in sexual situations, an
anonymous question box, how to put on a condom, and role-playing.
Orange County
The formal curriculum guide for middle-grades human sexuality education in Orange County
was very comprehensive and included almost every curriculum element and activity suggested
by literature on effective human sexuality education to be important for lowering rates of the
unintended consequences of sexual activity, including pregnancy and the exchange of
sexuallytransmitted infections, among teenagers. Only four curriculum elements were completely
absent from the curriculum received by students between Kindergarten and the twelfth grade.
The curriculum elements that were excluded from Orange County’s curriculum guides for human
sexuality education included polygamy, dental dams, a sexuality continuum, and the female
orgasm.
Topics to which single lessons were not completely devoted at the middle grades level included
the origins of sexual orientation and gender identity, varying sexualities, abortion, masturbation,
and sexual roles and stereotyping. The origins of sexual orientation were omitted from the
curriculum guide for human sexuality education because there was no conclusive research to
provide an explanation for why homosexuality occurs. And although varying sexualities,
abortion, and masturbation were not covered in specific lessons, middle- school teachers in
Orange County were provided with information about and definitions of these topics to provide
to students if questions arose. Teachers were asked to define terms such as homosexual,
transsexual, and transgender using medical terminology and to sway students away from using
slang terms. Teachers in Orange County were permitted to define and explain masturbation and
abortion if they were knowledgeable enough to provide accurate information and felt
comfortable doing so; however they were cautioned by county administrators to do so without
judgment.
Other topics were omitted from the middle school curriculum for human sexuality education but
were covered in either the elementary or high school curriculum. Puberty was covered in the
fourth and fifth grade curricula, so elements related to this topic were not included in the
middlegrades curriculum guide for human sexuality education. Information on puberty was also
repeated in the ninth grade county-adopted textbook for biology. Instruction on sexual
stereotyping and roles was considered a part of the high school curriculum for Life Management
Skills and was also absent from the middle grades curriculum guide for human sexuality
education.
The middle-grades human sexuality education curriculum guide for Orange County was found to
be extremely thorough and included most curriculum elements and activities that are
characteristic of effective instruction on human sexuality education with positive results. At the
middle grades level, the curriculum included the following topics which are characteristic of
effective human sexuality education: types of contraception (failure rates), how to use
contraception, how to obtain contraception (including emergency contraception), instruction on
HIV/AIDS, instruction on additional sexually transmitted diseases, condoms as STD prevention,
male and female reproductive anatomy, parenting, the menstrual cycle, menopause, fertilization
and development, explanations of varying sexualities and gender identities (including
homosexual, transsexual, and transgender), sexual contact without reproduction (including
masturbation, oral sex, anal intercourse, and female desire), monogamy and polygamy, abortion,
abstinence, pregnancy, labor and delivery, and contacts to receive additional information.
Activities that are included in successful human sexuality education instruction that were also
included in Orange County’s middle grades curriculum guide for human sexuality education
included the following: how to put on a condom, refusal skills and decision making in sexual
situations, parental involvement in the unit, an anonymous question box, and role-playing.
Walton County
Similar to Levy County, Walton County’s adopted textbook for middle-grades science contained
very few curriculum elements which are characteristic of effective instruction on human
sexuality. Instruction on HIV/AIDS and sexually-transmitted disease was limited to a single
statement in the seventh grade textbook that identified AIDS as a disease caused by virus
particles and the mention of cold sores (which was not identified as a form of the herpes virus) in
the same section of text. Cause of transmission of HIV and symptoms of HIV infection were
completely absent, and no other sexually transmitted diseases were identified.
Topics related to human reproduction were contained in the eighth grade edition of the
middlegrades science textbook for Walton County and only included the following curriculum
elements that are included in effective instruction on human sexuality education: the male and
female reproductive systems, the menstrual cycle, fertilization and development, pregnancy,
labor and delivery, changes that occur during puberty, and menopause. In this case, the male and
female reproductive systems were explained in very biological terms. Semen was identified to
leave the male’s body through the urethra, and a sperm fertilizing the egg was the attributed
cause of pregnancy; however how the sperm and egg may come to join was not discussed. The
menstrual cycle was explained and diagramed in detail; however it was never linked to puberty
in females. Menopause was identified as the end of a woman’s ovulation and menstruation
periods, and a picture of a post-menopausal woman hula-hooping with an adolescent girl was
accompanied by the caption, “menopause does not inhibit a woman’s ability to enjoy an active
life.”
The textbook adopted by Walton County (Biggs, 2006) presented topics related to human
sexuality in a series of disconnected biological facts and did not include the following curriculum
elements which are characteristic of effective instruction on human sexuality education: types of
contraception (failure rates), where to obtain contraception (including emergency contraception),
how to use contraception, sexually transmitted infections other than HIV/AIDS, condoms and
dental dams for STD prevention, parenting skills, sexual roles and stereotyping, rape, origins of
sexual orientation and gender association, varying sexualities, a sexuality continuum, sexual
contact without reproduction (including masturbation, oral sex, anal intercourse, and female
desire), monogamy and polygamy, abortion, abstinence, and contacts to receive additional
information. Types of activities that are indicative of effective instruction on human sexuality
education that were excluded from Walton County’s middle grades instruction on human
sexuality included parental involvement in the unit, refusal skills and decision making in sexual
situations, an anonymous question box, how to put on a condom, and role-playing.
Research Question 4
Finally, the researcher desired to answer the question, “Do educators in this sample of Florida
school districts feel that their district-implemented middle-grades science curriculum provides
adequate instruction on human sexuality topics?” Overall, the interviewees who provided data
for this research study did not feel that the curriculum for human sexuality education that was
being implemented within their school district met the needs of the middle grades student
population within the district.
In Brevard County, Levy County, Orange County, and Walton County, the researcher asked this
question directly to the district-level curriculum contact whose job it was to maintain curricula
related to middle-grades science or health within their district. In Collier County, a middlegrades
science teacher provided a response and in Brevard County, the district-level interviewee’s
response was supported by two middle-grades science teachers who answered the question as
well. The reason that the curriculum was not justified for its intended audience differed with each
person who provided information; however, the consensus across all districts that were sampled
was that the curriculum currently in place needed revision.
In Brevard County, both the district-level curriculum contact and middle-grades science teachers
that were interviewed felt that the district’s adopted curriculum for human sexuality education
was strong; however the three individuals felt that a full disclosure of information related to
contraception would be additionally valuable to the middle-grades students within the school
district. One of the teachers who was interviewed specifically answered “No, abstinence is not
realistic for a small percent of the population” when asked if he felt that the curriculum for
human sexuality education in place within his school district met the needs of his students. The
second teacher interviewed in Brevard County provided a similar response saying, “Our district
does not allow us to teach about contraception, but offers free daycare services and parenting
classes to high school students who have babies. I just don’t understand the reasoning behind
this.”
The middle-grades science teacher in Collier County who provided a response to this question
also was not satisfied with the quality of the human sexuality education curriculum in place
within her school district. When asked if she felt that the human sexuality education curriculum
in place within Collier County met the needs of her student population, she responded “No, we
teach an abstinence-based education program. Although I believe that the information they are
getting is very important, I also know that some of our students are sexually active. They are not
getting the information that they need.” To make up for these shortcomings, this teacher
explained that she taught from the county-adopted science textbook for the middle grades and the
grades 6-8 Sunshine State Standards for science when it came to topics related to human
sexuality; however she also stated that she tried to “answer their (her students’) questions and
discuss issues without crossing any of those political/problematic lines.”
Information that was learned about the degree to which the human sexuality curriculum in Levy
County met the needs of the student population was non-committal at best. The district-level
interviewee from Levy County explained to the researcher that there was no perceived need for a
comprehensive human sexuality education curriculum within the district and that he did not feel
that the community within the district would be open to teaching a human sexuality education
unit that was comprehensive in nature at the middle grades level, due to the fact that the people
within the community were “conservative” and “church-going”. When asked specifically if this
individual felt that the topics related to human sexuality and reproduction covered in the
Sunshine State Standards or the county-adopted textbooks offered his students the information
they needed to make responsible and healthy choices when it came to their sexuality, he provided
the following response: “I believe that the standards are there to be taught or be mastered by the
students. Teachers are responsible to teach those standards and to follow the state guidelines
governing curriculum and instruction in their classrooms.”
Because the formal curriculum guide for middle-grades human sexuality education in Orange
County was so thorough, the interviewee in this district had few complaints about the quality of
the instruction offered to students within the Orange County school district. In general the
interviewee felt that the curriculum met the needs of the student population within her district
and that the population of Orange County was very open to teaching human sexuality topics at
the middle school and other levels. Although she felt that the curriculum was weak when it came
to gay and lesbian issues, she felt that the topics were too politically charged to be included in the
general curriculum manual. To account for this weakness and to be more equitable to all
students, the curriculum guide that was developed for Orange County students used the term
“partner” rather than “spouse” when referring to sexually active couples. The interviewee also
explained that some high schools within Orange County had gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual,
and questioning organizations (GLBTQ) in place as an extracurricular option for high school
students.
Information gathered about Walton County with respect to this research question came by way of
the district-level curriculum contact who shared that the public in Walton County had never
requested the development of a formal curriculum for human sexuality education and that she did
not feel that such a curriculum would have been well received by the community. She felt that
because of the rural nature of the district that a human sexuality curriculum would be met with
opposition, in a similar manner to the struggle faced when debating about a curriculum which
includes instruction on evolution.
To her knowledge no middle-grades teacher within her school district was teaching a formal unit
on human sexuality education other than the information that was included in the county-adopted
textbook for middle-grades science and the grades 6-8 Sunshine State Standards for science that
related to reproduction in general. Although the interviewee did not feel that those brief
references to reproduction would provide her students with the information they needed to make
healthy decisions related to their sexuality, she felt that an in depth unit on human sexuality, by
way of a textbook, would be too controversial and would not be accepted by the parents of her
students.
Summary of Findings
Despite the fact that only five of the original twelve counties selected as potential participants for
this research study provided data, the researcher was able to answer each of the research
questions. As a result of the data collected, a broad perspective on the scope of human sexuality
education existing within a sample of school districts across the state of Florida was gained. Of
the districts that provided data, only one, Orange County, had a comprehensive human sexuality
education program in place; one county, Brevard, labeled their program as “abstinence-based”;
and three school districts, Collier County, Levy County, and Walton County, described their
human sexuality education as “abstinence-only”, although the curricula that were analyzed for
these districts did not include any reference to abstinence in the middle-grades classroom
instruction on human sexuality.
In both Brevard County and Orange County, a committee of curriculum developers, including
educators, parents, school board members, health care providers, students, religious figures and
school-based administrators, were assembled more than a decade ago to develop a set of formal
curriculum guides to teach human sexuality topics within all K-12 public schools within the two
districts. These guides were both being revised during the summer of 2006 during the time this
research study was being conducted. In Collier County, Levy County, and Walton County, no
formal curriculum guides existed for human sexuality education. Instead, the instruction on
human sexuality that occurred within the middle schools in those districts was based on the
county-adopted textbook for middle-grades science. By default then, the individuals who were
responsible for determining which topics were included in human sexuality education instruction
in Collier County, Levy County, and Walton County were those individuals who served on the
textbook adoption committees within those school districts. Traditionally, textbooks are reviewed
and chosen for adoption by such individuals as district-level administrators, school board
members, school-based administrators, classroom teachers, parents, and in some cases, students.
Of the four curricula that were obtained by the researcher and analyzed for content, only two
(Brevard County and Orange County) contained curriculum elements and activities that were
characteristic of effective instruction on human sexuality education in addition to basic topics
related to human reproduction. The topics which were included in each of the four school district
curricula made available to the researcher included HIV/AIDS, female reproductive anatomy
with a diagram, male reproductive anatomy with a diagram, the menstrual cycle, menopause,
fertilization and development, puberty, pregnancy, and labor and delivery. The additional
activities that were contained in the formal curriculum guides for human sexuality education in
Brevard County and Orange County included parental involvement in the unit, refusal skills and
decision making in sexual situations, an anonymous question box, how to put on a condom, and
role-playing.
By inclusion of the topics common to all four of the curricula, to some degree each of these four
curriculum were aligned with best-practice standards for human sexuality education; however
much additional content on human sexuality and the inclusion of specific supplemental activities
are necessary in order for a human sexuality education program to promote healthy sexual
practices among all youth who receive the instruction. The formal curriculum guides for human
sexuality education within Brevard County and Orange County contained such additional
curriculum elements and supplemental activities and were better aligned with the standards for
effective human sexuality instruction. Of the four curricula analyzed for this research study, the
formal curriculum guide for Orange County contained the most curriculum elements and
activities that were identified in the literature as characteristic of effective human sexuality
education.
Individuals in four of the five districts felt that the curriculum for human sexuality education that
was in place within their district did not provide the middle school students within that district
with the information necessary to make wise decisions related to their sexual health. The reason
that the curriculum was not justified for its intended audience differed with each person who
provided information; however, the consensus across all districts that were sampled was that the
curriculum that was currently in place needed revision.
In the final chapter of this paper, the researcher will interpret these findings and draw additional
conclusions from the data collected through this research study. In addition, this summary will be
revisited and additional information will be provided regarding how these research findings
support the subject-related literature. Finally, recommendations by the researcher for additional
research related to human sexuality education in the state of Florida will be provided.
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
The research study described in the previous chapters was conducted for the purpose of
examining the extent to which human sexuality topics were covered in Florida middle school
science curricula in a sample of Florida school districts and the process by which those curricular
decisions were made. Specifically, the research questions for this study were stated as follows:
1. Which topics related to human sexuality are included in the district-level
middlegrades science curriculum in a sample of Florida school districts?
2. How did school district personnel make decisions about the inclusion of topics related
to human sexuality in their middle-grades science curriculum?
3. To what extent does the approach to teaching human sexuality in the middle-grades
science curriculum align with the expectations of a comprehensive human sexuality
education curriculum?
4. Do educators in this sample of Florida school districts feel that their
districtimplemented middle-grades science curriculum provides adequate instruction
on human sexuality topics?
Through the data provided by district-level figureheads who maintained the middle-grades
science or health curricula within the participating counties and middle-grades science teachers
within each of the sample school districts, the researcher was able to draw conclusions about the
scope of middle-grades human sexuality education that was in place, at the district level, within
the state of Florida.
An Interpretation of Research Findings
Had more of the sample school districts chosen to participate in this research study, perhaps more
generalizations could have been made by the researcher regarding the quantity and quality of
human sexuality education within the state of Florida. With data from only five counties
(Brevard, Collier, Levy, Orange, and Walton), a state-wide summary was not possible; however,
due to the spectrum of the participating counties with respect to geographic location and
population size, some patterns were observed.
The urban (Orange County) and suburban (Brevard County) school districts located in central
Florida both participated in the research study and had created and implemented formal
curriculum guides for human sexuality education for all K-12 public schools within the two
school districts. This was due to an acceptance by these communities to teaching human
sexuality topics to adolescents, a perceived need by the district for instruction on human
sexuality education, and the availability of human resources for the development and writing of
the curriculum and the writing of grants to procure funds for human sexuality instruction. The
formal curriculum guides for human sexuality education that Orange County and Brevard
County made available to their middle grades educators and students contained the majority of
curriculum elements that were identified in the literature as important for effective human
sexuality instruction. The few best-practice curriculum elements that were not covered by either
of these school districts included female desire, varying sexualities, polygamy, and dental dams.
Female desire was possibly omitted from the curriculum guides for human sexuality education
because its inclusion may be perceived by the community to encourage sexual activity, making
the curriculum guide seem like more of a “how to” manual for sexual activity rather than formal
instruction on the prevention of the unintended consequences of sexual activity, which is a
common argument against comprehensive human sexuality education (Irvine, 2000). However,
by its omission, the human sexuality education instruction in Brevard County and Orange
County introduced elements of a hidden curriculum which depicted the female as a passive
participant in the process of sexual reproduction (Martin, 1991). Polygamy may have been
omitted for the same reason, as this type of mating system is marginalized and is not considered a
mainstream human sexual behavior in the United States.
The omission of varying sexualities from the Orange County middle grades curriculum guide for
human sexuality education was due to the inconclusive nature of how and why homosexual
orientations exist in humans and other animals. In Brevard County, this topic was omitted from
the formal human sexuality curriculum guide for middle grades because such instruction was, in
the opinion of the district-level interviewee, too politically charged within that community.
Somewhat related, dental dams are predominantly associated with the lesbian community
because they exist to prevent the spread of sexually-transmitted infection by oral to genital
contact. Because the topic of varying sexualities was omitted from both of these districts’ middle
grades curriculum guides for human sexuality education, the omission of dental dams from the
curricula is understandable.
Since Brevard County had implemented a human sexuality education curriculum that was
“abstinence-based”, all references to contraception were also omitted from instruction received
by its middle-grades students. As a result, discourse on types of contraception (failure rates),
how to use contraception, how to obtain contraception (including emergency contraception), and
how to put on a condom was also excluded from the formal curriculum guides for middle school
human sexuality education.
The school districts located in the western, northern, and southern regions of Florida (two rural
and one suburban) that provided data for this research study did not have a formal human
sexuality education program in place, and instead relied on information contained in the
countyadopted science textbooks. The middle-grades science textbooks for these districts were
conservative with respect to the human sexuality information that was included and reflected the
values and beliefs of the community within the district. Consequently, the human sexuality
curricula in Collier County, Levy County, and Walton County lacked many critical elements that
were identified in the literature as characteristic of effective instruction on human sexuality
education. Most notably, the human sexuality education curricula in these school districts lacked
instruction related to abstinence, contraception, decision making and refusal skills in sexual
situations, sexually-transmitted diseases other than HIV/AIDS, varying sexualities, and healthy
relationships. Also, these curricula did not include opportunities for parental involvement.
In Brevard County and Orange County where a formal curriculum guide for middle grades
human sexuality education existed, the decision-makers for the scope and sequence of the
curriculum included a mixture of individuals such as educators, parents, school board members,
healthcare providers, students, religious figures and school-based administrators. In the case of
both of these school districts, the curriculum guides for human sexuality education were written
and revised over a two-year period before being distributed to school personnel, which gave each
group of individuals a stake in the final product. For the participating counties that lacked a
formal curriculum guide for human sexuality education (Collier County, Levy County, and
Walton County), it can only be assumed that the individuals who made the final decision about
which human sexuality topics were included in or excluded from the adopted curriculum were
those individuals who served on the most recent textbook adoption committee for middle-grades
science, as their human sexuality curriculum was limited to the information contained in their
county-adopted science textbooks. Traditionally, the textbook adoption process for public school
districts include several groups of decision-makers such as: educators, school board members,
county-based administrators, school-based administrators, parents, and students.
Data on how well the county-adopted human sexuality education curriculum in each sample
district met the needs of the middle school students within that district was obtained by
interviewing the district-level curriculum contact or a middle-grades science educator in the
sample school district. In four of the five cases, regardless of the county the individual
represented or the job position held by the interviewee, the individual did not feel confident that
the instruction on human sexuality within the school district was adequate to provide the student
population within the district with the information necessary to make responsible decisions
related to their sexual health. This was the case for the school districts in Brevard County, Collier
County, Orange County, and Walton County. The district-level interviewee in Levy County felt
that the Sunshine State Standards for science should be the main focus of instruction in the
science classroom, regardless of the omission of specific topics related to human sexuality
education.
Orange County was the only participating school district for which contraception was included in
the curriculum; however the county’s curriculum contact for health education still felt that the
curriculum could do better in reaching its gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning
students. Individuals who were interviewed in Brevard County, Collier County, and Walton
County felt that by taking an abstinence-based or abstinence-only approach to human sexuality
education, their students were not being provided the with the best possible instruction related to
sexuality and sexual health as many middle grades students in their district were already sexually
active. In Brevard, Collier, Levy, and Walton counties these same individuals also felt that the
community within the school district would not accept a middle-grades curriculum that included
instruction on contraception.
A trend of conservatism within a community seemed to be mirrored by its schools with respect to
human sexuality education. In the participating school districts for which the interviewee
reported resistance by the community to teaching about contraception, the curriculum in place
did not include such instruction. In the sampled urban district where the community had
perceived a need for formalized HIV/AIDS education, the curriculum in place was the most
liberal and comprehensive of the four human sexuality education curricula that were examined.
Findings that Confirm Prior Research
The data collected in this research study which described the scope of human sexuality education
curricula that was in place within a sample of school districts in the state of Florida lends
credibility to facts published in previous literature which identified that abstinence-only-
untilmarriage programs are the norm for public schools in the state (SIECUS, 2006) and are not
reasonable for middle-school-aged students because such instruction often presumes that
students in the middle grades are not yet sexually active (Irwin, 2006). Three of the five districts
(Collier County, Levy County, and Walton County) that provided data for this research study
implemented a middle-grades science curriculum which did not contain curriculum elements that
have been specifically identified as critical for effective human sexuality education; instruction
that has been shown to delay the age of first intercourse and to decrease rates of teenage
pregnancy and STD transmission amongst teenagers. The curriculum elements that were omitted
included behavioral and technical skills related to condom use and negotiation and refusal skills
in sexual situations (Kalmuss et al., 2003). Four of the five participating school districts (Brevard
County, Collier County, Levy County, and Walton County) did not include information on
contraception. When included in a human sexuality education curriculum, this topic has resulted
in reducing the unwanted outcomes of adolescent sexual activity (Kirby et al., 1994).
Because of the lack of a complete understanding of what district-level curricula for human
sexuality education existed across the state of Florida, it was difficult to tie the findings of this
research study directly to previously published literature. No previous research studies have
specifically examined the quality of human sexuality education curricula at the district-level
across the state. As a result, the findings of this research add to a previously non-existent area of
study.
Findings that Add to Prior Research
Because the sample size for this research study was limited, a complete analysis of the human
sexuality education that existed at the district level across the state of Florida was not possible;
however some findings of the research study were noteworthy.
Regionally, central Florida was the most liberal geographic region with respect to the human
sexuality education offered to its middle-grades students. Both counties within this region that
provided data for this research study, Brevard and Orange, had formal curriculum guides
implemented for middle-grades human sexuality education that contained many of the
curriculum elements that have been identified as characteristic of effective human sexuality
education programs.
The three counties in the research study with the smallest populations did not have formal
curricula for middle-grades human sexuality education in place within the school district. One of
these districts, Walton County, was located in west Florida; Levy County, in north Florida, and
Collier County was located in south Florida. In each of these sample school districts a
representative who was interviewed identified that the community within the district would not
approve of a middle-grades curriculum with a focus on human sexuality topics or a curriculum
that contained information on contraception.
Finally, educators and district-level decision-makers in the state of Florida did not feel confident
that the human sexuality education that each of the school districts was providing to its
middlegrades students would result in a decrease in rates of teenage pregnancy and STD
transmission.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations for this research study included the following:
1. Information provided by the curriculum contact in each of the participating sampled
counties by way of interview cannot be generalized to other school districts within the
state of Florida.
2. Effective human sexuality curriculum elements included in or excluded from a
sample county’s human sexuality education curriculum or county-adopted
middlegrades science textbook cannot be generalized to other school districts within
the state of Florida.
3. Information provided by individual teachers in follow-up interviews regarding the
acceptance of the community to teaching human sexuality topics at the middle school
level and their opinion on how the curriculum is meeting the needs of the student
clientele within that county cannot be generalized to other school districts within the
state of Florida.
4. Similarities between counties with similar geographic location or population size with
respect to the existence of a formal human sexuality education curriculum, strengths
and weaknesses of the curriculum which relates to human sexuality, or level of
acceptance by the community to teaching human sexuality topics at the middle school
level can only be noted and not generalized to other school districts within the same
geographic region or school districts with a similar population size in the state of
Florida.
Because the human sexuality education curricula within the central region of Florida that were
analyzed for the study were both greatly aligned with the characteristics of effective human
sexuality education, the researcher found this similarity to be noteworthy; however due to the
limited sample of school districts that were chosen as possible participants and the even smaller
sample of school districts for which data was collected, this similarity cannot be viewed as a
general characteristic of all school districts located in the central region of Florida. The three
participating school districts that had smaller rural or suburban populations were similar in their
approach to instruction on human sexuality education to middle-grades students; however it
cannot be generalized that all human sexuality education in the smaller school districts within the
state is limited to the curriculum elements provided in the Sunshine State Standards for science
and the county-adopted textbook for middle-grades science.
The delimitations for this research study included:
1. Only twelve school districts were chosen as possible participants in this research
study of the sixty-seven possible school districts within the state of Florida.
2. For each school district selected as a possible participant in this research study, only
one individual from each county was identified as the interviewee, due to the nature
of their job description.
3. Only two classroom instructors within each participating school district were asked to
provide follow-up information regarding the implementation of the human sexuality
education curriculum identified by the curriculum contact, the level of acceptance of
the community within the district to teaching human sexuality topics at the middle
grades level, and the degree to which the classroom instructor felt that their district’s
human sexuality curriculum met the needs of the target student population.
4. Due to the nature of the research topic, some individuals were likely to choose not to
participate in this research study.
Based on these delimitations the initial sample size for this study included a total of 36
interviewees, including one district-level curriculum contact and two middle-grades science
instructors from each of twelve sample school districts across the state of Florida. The actual
number of individuals who consented to answering interview questions for the purpose of this
research study was seven; three from Brevard County, one from Collier County, one from Levy
County, one from Orange County, and one from Walton County. Although the researcher initially
realized the sensitive nature of the research topic, a participation rate this low was unexpected
and led the researcher to believe that there is an even greater social stigma attached to teaching
topics related to human sexuality at the middle school level than previously considered.
The lack of participation in the study despite repeated contact from the researcher is a testament
to the fact that most persons who are responsible for making curriculum decisions related to
human sexuality education topics in the school districts throughout the state of Florida felt
uncomfortable sharing information or were unable to share information related to the human
sexuality education in place within their county. This could have been for one of several reasons.
First of all, the school district in question may have lacked a curriculum for human sexuality
education altogether. With the development of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tests for
reading, writing, mathematics and science, many schools in the state have shifted the focus of
their curriculum to include only instruction related to the curriculum strands found within the
curriculum documents known as the Sunshine State Standards, which are assessed on these
standardized tests. Even related-arts curricula in art, music, and physical education are being
reduced or eliminated from schools in order to achieve test score goals and to receive “passing”
school score grades assigned by the Florida Department of Education. With standardized testing
pressure applied throughout the public school system at all grade levels, perhaps human sexuality
education is being put on the back burner as well.
A second possibility was that the school district in question was understaffed at the district level,
and the potential participant simply did not feel that he or she had the time to respond to the
researcher’s requests for contact, much less participate in the study. For some counties identified
as potential sources of data for this research study, a single person or pair of persons was
responsible for maintaining curricula in all four major academic disciplines at the middle school
level. Such counties tended to be smaller and rural.
Another reason that a school district may have failed to participate in the research study was that
the district-level curriculum contact did not wish to have information about their county’s human
sexuality education curriculum published because he or she personally felt that the information
would be damaging to the public image of the school system due to deficiencies in the
curriculum that was in place or because that person felt that the research study may draw
unwanted attention to the school district from the public. Because of the values and beliefs of the
community in that county, the possible participants may have declined to draw attention to
human sexuality education within the district as it may have caused unnecessary controversy. In
most of the sample school districts the general public felt that topics related to human sexuality
should not be covered in the public school curriculum, but instead should be left up to parents.
At the conclusion of this research study, the researcher felt that most counties failed to keep
human sexuality education curricula updated and visible in their schools due to the
overwhelming pressure to improve standardized test scores on a year-to-year basis. Because the
state mandate for human sexuality education is not enforced in every district, school-based
administrators are able to diminish instruction related to curriculum standards that are not
included on the FCAT. As the standards for science and health education identified by the state
only loosely apply to human sexuality topics, human sexuality education may not be seen as a
priority within most school districts. If a particular county was identified by the researcher as
being neglectful of teaching the required human sexuality standards, it may be an embarrassment
to the figureheads of the county. In addition, any teacher who felt as if the human sexuality
education in his county was deficient may feel that he would be putting his job in jeopardy by
saying as much in a follow-up interview.
Finally, the researcher felt that non-participants may have been the result of the taboo nature of
human sexuality topics. The two counties for which face-to-face interviews were conducted and
full disclosure of the curriculum guides for human sexuality education were offered to the
researcher were counties in which the curriculum contact for health education was a former
healthcare provider and classroom teacher. Both Brevard and Orange Counties had one
individual in charge of human sexuality education curriculum for secondary schools, and both
women were former nurses who also worked as classroom instructors, one in health education
and one in physical education. These women were very comfortable with the jargon associated
with human sexuality topics and were very knowledgeable about the curricula in place within
their counties for human sexuality education because they had collaborated on the original
production of the curriculum or on recent revisions. In contrast, Collier, Levy, and Walton
counties were more rural and were made up of a populace that was more conservative and less
open to a public forum on the improvement of the human sexuality curricula for their student
populations. Perhaps the district-level decision-makers in these three school districts felt that
incomplete instruction on human sexuality education was better than none at all.
An additional limitation in this research study that was unexpected was that one district-level
interviewee declined to provide the researcher with the names and contact information of two
middle-grades science educators working within his school district. This individual provided the
researcher with contrite answers to the interview questions related to the human sexuality
education within his school district; however refused to provide the researcher with teacher leads
who may have provided data about the implementation of the curriculum at the school-level. In
other school districts the teacher leads made the personal decision not to participate in the
research study by their failure to reply to the researcher; however the district-level curriculum
contact in those cases allowed the classroom teacher to make that decision on his or her own.
In a related sense, the researcher expected a higher participation rate from classroom educators
who were asked to provide answers to follow-up questions about the implementation of human
sexuality education curricula out of a sense of professional courtesy. In the final contact that
requested the individual’s participation in the research study, the researcher asked the interviewee
to simply reply in an e-mail that he or she did not wish to participate in the study; however none
of the classroom educators even provided this response.
Suggestions for Future Research
Without a larger set of data, more generalized parallels between the findings of this research
study and published literature on the quality of human sexuality education programs in other
parts of the United States and abroad cannot be drawn. In retrospect, the researcher in this case
would have initially included a larger number of school districts in the initial sample in order to
collect a larger set of data for analysis. Although some non-participants were expected, the
participation rate in this case was surprisingly low. A larger initial sample size may have made it
possible for the researcher to make better generalizations of how human sexuality education is
being implemented in the middle grades across the state of Florida.
Additionally, the researcher would have made attempts to contact more classroom educators
within each sample school district by means other than through the initial interview with the
district-level curriculum contact. Though county-based websites, classroom educator e-mail
addresses are now public information. Perhaps if the classroom educator did not feel that the
district-level personnel was aware of his participation in the research study he may have felt
more comfortable providing his opinions about and insights into the implementation of human
sexuality education in his school district. Also, the researcher would have suggested a phone
conversation with the classroom educator during personal time rather than instructional-hours to
add additional confidentiality to the interview responses.
In this particular research study, the interviews conducted through e-mail were much more
impersonal and did not provide the depth of information provided by the face-to-face interviews
with district-level personnel; however, it is important to remember that the two individuals for
whom face-to-face interviews were conducted had medical backgrounds and had previously
taught a health-related curriculum at the middle grades level. The response rate for a research
study of this type may be higher if the background of the interviewee could be considered in
choosing potential participants; however that is not a realistic expectation.
Due to the lack of a state-wide curriculum for human sexuality education in the state of Florida,
decisions of how and when human sexuality-related topics are covered within the middle grades
classroom in this state are ultimately left up to the classroom teacher. Even in cases for which a
district-level curriculum guide for human sexuality education exists, the classroom teacher
makes the final determination about which topics from the curriculum she chooses to cover in
any given school year. State-mandates only require that classroom instructors cover the grade
specific Sunshine State Standards that loosely relate to sexual reproduction. Previous research
has shown that classroom teachers will only discuss those aspects of human sexuality with which
they are personally comfortable (Buston & Wright, 2001) and that do not conflict with their
personal values and beliefs (Bowden et al., 2003; Buston & Wright, 2001).This is another
intriguing area of research related to human sexuality education.
In order to get a more accurate overview of how well Florida middle-grades science teachers are
instructing their students on topics within the realm of human sexuality education, a study of
those successful teachers would have to be conducted. Through future research, the degree to
which human sexuality education topics are covered on a school-wide basis within the state
could be uncovered. Based on the identification of such successful human sexuality education
instructors, recommendations could be provided by the researcher for future teacher inservice
instruction in order to develop these traits in other classroom educators within Florida’s school
districts.
Finally, if a greater sample of school districts with in the state of Florida were to provide copies
of their curriculum guides for human sexuality education or middle-grades science textbooks, a
quantitative analysis of the content included within this text could be conducted in order to gain a
better understanding of the way the critical curriculum elements for successful human sexuality
education are being included in middle-grades science curricula within the state of Florida.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study have several implications for practice within Florida’s middle school
classrooms. Within those school districts which made it a priority to develop a set of formal
curriculum guides for human sexuality education, middle school students were more likely to
receive human sexuality instruction that included the topics and activities that have been
determined by multiple research studies to result in lower rates of teenage pregnancy and lower
transmission rates of sexually transmitted infection in adolescents. In contrast, school districts
which relied on the county-adopted science textbooks to provide human sexuality instruction
were providing a deficient curriculum to their middle grades students that only contained
biological facts related to basic human reproductive biology. These curricula did not include
specific activities that are associated with effective human sexuality education such as decision
making and refusal skills, technical use of a condom, parental involvement, and role-playing.
It is the suggestion of the researcher that each of Florida’s sixty-seven school districts make it a
priority to develop a set of formal curriculum guides for human sexuality education that reflect
the values and beliefs of the community while still providing the students within the school
district with adequate information and skills to make healthy decisions related to their sexual
health. If the state of Florida made it a priority to develop a state-wide curriculum for human
sexuality education that contained the curriculum elements and activities that are characteristic of
effective human sexuality education, this burden would not be put on the school districts on an
individual basis. By setting such a goal, the state of Florida would be providing a great service
for its adolescent population, which would lead to better sexual health for its citizens in the
future.
Information provided by the interviewees in this research study suggested that the human
sexuality education that is being provided to the middle school students across the state of
Florida did not provide adequate information and instruction to allow adolescents in the state to
make more healthful choices related to their sexuality. Only one district that participated in the
research study (Orange County) provided instruction on contraception in the district’s human
sexuality education curriculum guide. The three classroom educators who were interviewed for
this research study felt that a science curriculum that contained the full disclosure of information
related to contraception would better meet the needs of their middle-grades student population,
as a small percentage of their middle grades students were already sexually active. Therefore,
middle school educators across the state should make comprehensive human sexuality education
a goal in their school district and support initiatives that may result in the implementation of such
curricula.
The data provided in this research study depicted a great variation in the quantity and quality of
human sexuality education curricula for middle-school-aged students within the state of Florida.
In the worst case scenario, sample school districts only covered the grades 6-8 Sunshine State
Standards for science which generally relate to the difference between sexual and asexual
reproduction and how disease can spread, in addition to brief sections of text contained in the
county-adopted science textbooks in their human sexuality instruction. These curricula only
covered the biological facts of human reproduction and development in the form of a brief
narrative without relating the subject matter back to the students own lives and bodies. And
despite the fact that district-level curriculum decision-makers in these cases categorized the
districts’ human sexuality education curricula as abstinence-only, the curricula that were
implemented did not include the concept of abstinence at all.
In two of the five counties that participated in this research study (Orange and Brevard), a formal
curriculum guide for middle school human sexuality education had existed for over a decade and
had recently been revised and updated to provide more accurate information to the teachers and
students who utilized the guides. These curricula were better aligned with the characteristics of
effective human sexuality education because they considered the social and psychological
implications of teenage sexual activity in addition to the physical consequences of poor decisions
related to an individual’s sexual health. Only Orange County’s curriculum guide for human
sexuality education combined instruction on contraception with activities that have been shown
to reduce the unwanted consequences of sexual activity among teenagers, including pregnancy
and the exchange of sexually-transmitted infections.
Through this research it has become evident that the public school curricula adopted at the
district-level seems to mirror the values and beliefs of the population within the community. The
more conservative rural and suburban school districts that participated in the study were less
likely to implement a comprehensive curriculum guide for human sexuality education while the
more progressive urban district’s curriculum included many politically charged curriculum
elements and activities based on social learning techniques. And although the more conservative
communities did not recognize a need for a comprehensive program in human sexuality
education, published data on the number of births to teenaged mothers suggest that some of these
districts should make such a curriculum a priority.
In Table 12 the percent of total births to unwed teenaged mothers by district that participated in
this research study are compared to the type of human sexuality education offered within that
district, according to census data for the year 2000 (State of Florida, 2006). Most notable was the
percent of births to unwed teenaged mothers in Levy County which was published at 14.9%
compared to 9.6% for the state of Florida. According to the district-level curriculum contact in
this school district, his community was not open to teaching about contraception in public
schools and did not perceive a need to develop a formal human sexuality education program for
middle-grades students. For a small, rural county, this rate is alarmingly high.
Table 12 Comparison of Births to Teenaged Mothers to Type of Human Sexuality
Education by School District
Name of District
Percent of Births to Unwed
Teen Mothers (2000)
Type of Human Sexuality
Education Offered
State of Florida
9.2%
--------------------
Brevard County
9.7%
Abstinence-based
Collier County
9.1%
Abstinence-only
Levy County
14.9%
Abstinence-only
Orange County
9.4%
Comprehensive
Walton County
9.2%
Abstinence-only
As the population of Florida continues to increase and urban centers within the state continue to
expand outward, the teaching of human sexuality topics will continue to become more important
in order to improve the sexual health of Florida’s populace and to reduce unwanted and
unintended pregnancy to unwed teenaged mothers. With the nationwide acknowledgement that
HIV/AIDS transmission rates have not decreased over the past two decades, perhaps a
nationwide campaign for comprehensive human sexuality education will be put into place in the
near future. Through this research study the researcher found that state-wide, Florida educators
do feel that more comprehensive human sexuality education is needed. Whether involved in a
rural, suburban, or urban school district, individuals in the sample school districts acknowledged
that a percentage of the middle-grades students in their district were sexually active and would
benefit from instruction that provides a complete disclosure of information on contraception and
disease prevention.
In general, this research study provided useful information to begin to understand the spectrum of
existing human sexuality education programs that are currently being implemented to instruct
middle-grades students in the state of Florida. Until a full understanding of the programs and
curricula that exist at the district-level and are being utilized within the state is realized, it will
not be possible to systematically determine the strengths and weaknesses of these programs.
Because the state of Florida lacks a state-wide curriculum for human sexuality education and
because of the great degree of variation in how human sexuality topics are covered from
schoolto-school and classroom-to-classroom within Florida’s public schools, such data may
never be attainable.
In conclusion, the researcher feels that further exploration into this topic is crucial and that
additional information related to the quality and quantity of human sexuality education existing
across the state of Florida should be pursued more vigilantly. Additionally, an examination of
successful human sexuality educators within the state should be conducted in order to fully
understand the methods of classroom instructors who are able to communicate information
related to human sexuality to their students in a way that makes a measurable impact. Human
sexuality education for the middle grades students within the state of Florida should be a priority
for all of its sixty-seven school districts.
Through publicly acknowledged statistics related to teenage pregnancy rates, transmission rates
of sexually-transmitted infections, and the steady rate of new HIV/AIDS infections within the
United States, the need for a structured state-wide program on human sexuality education should
be realized in spite of the taboo traditionally associated with teaching human sexuality education
in public schools. The public funding that has been devoted to teaching abstinence-only-
untilmarriage ideals is money spent in vain, as programs that stress abstinence as the only way to
prevent the unintended consequences of sexual activity have been revealed through research on
effective human sexuality education to be ineffective. District-level representatives who make
curriculum decisions on an everyday basis must make comprehensive human sexuality education
a priority in their school districts or face the negative consequences of their failure to act. Such
consequences could include a rise in the rate of unintended teenage pregnancy and STD
transmission rates in their districts’ adolescent populations. District representatives have
identified weaknesses in current curricula and should begin efforts to revise these curricula so
that they do meet the needs of the districts’ student populations.
Through the continued study of existing programs for human sexuality education and those
educators who are instructing them, continued modifications can be made to the curricula in
order to ensure that the instruction educators within the state of Florida are providing to
middlegrades students meets the needs of the state’s ever-changing student population. It is the
duty of society to provide our youth with the information they need to make informed choices,
no matter what that choice is in reference to. Through additional research studies that focus on
the deficiencies and triumphs of Florida’s human sexuality education curricula, perhaps this
social responsibility will be realized by Florida’s citizens.
