This article was downloaded by: [Cambridge University Library]

On: 23 March 2015, At: 04:32

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

American Journal of Sexuality Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wajs20

“Very Very Risky”: Sexuality Education

Teachers' Definition of Sexuality and
Teaching and Learning Responsibilities
a
Marilyn Preston PhD
a
Colby College , Waterville , ME , USA
Published online: 21 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Marilyn Preston PhD (2013) “Very Very Risky”: Sexuality Education Teachers'
Definition of Sexuality and Teaching and Learning Responsibilities, American Journal of Sexuality
Education, 8:1-2, 18-35, DOI: 10.1080/15546128.2013.790223

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2013.790223

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 American Journal of Sexuality Education, 8:18–35, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1554-6128 print / 1554-6136 online
DOI: 10.1080/15546128.2013.790223

“Very Very Risky”: Sexuality Education

Teachers’ Definition of Sexuality and Teaching
and Learning Responsibilities

MARILYN PRESTON, PhD

Colby College, Waterville, ME, USA
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

Sexuality education teachers are responsible for providing qual-

ity health education to students. While data exist on young peoples’
understanding of sexuality, little research has focused on the teach-
ers responsible for providing sexuality education. This qualitative
study explored the way in which school-based sexuality education
teachers understand and define sexuality. Based on qualitative in-
terviews with teachers throughout the United States, the findings
suggest that while teachers rely on sex-positive definitions of sex-
uality, they often perceive their responsibility as combating risk,
and perceive young people as immature and oversexualized. Rec-
ommendations include providing ongoing training for teachers in
sexuality education.

KEYWORDS Teachers, sexuality education, young people

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Federal Centre for Health
Education recently published the Standards for Sexuality Education in
Europe, which proposed an affirming sexuality and holistic education pol-
icy that reinforces sexuality as a normative and health part of physical and
mental health and that encourages discussions of bodies, desires, and needs
(WHO, 2010). However, the United States continues to rely on a sexuality
discourse of risk and morality in their public school-based sexuality edu-
cation programs (Boonstra, 2012). Although research suggests that young
people desire to learn about sexuality from a peer educator rather than a
teacher (Allen, 2004), the vast majority of public school students still receive

The author thanks the teachers who participated in this study and AASECT for assisting
with information and recruitment.
Address correspondence to Marilyn Preston, PhD, Colby College, Education Program,
4400 Mayflower Hill, Waterville, ME 04901. E-mail: marilynpreston@gmail.com

18
 Sexuality Education Teachers Ideas about Sexuality 19

sexuality education from teachers who also teach other aspects of health,
physical education, and family and consumer sciences (Walters & Hayes,
2007). In addition, teachers, even those who are preparing for a career in
health education, often do not receive explicit instruction on sexuality and
sexuality education (Cozzens, 2006). This leaves a massive gap between the
needs and desires of young people and the abilities of their schools and
teachers to meet those needs.
Although many studies explore young people and their need for, or
definition of, quality sexuality education, few studies to date have ex-
plored the ideas, practices, and beliefs of those teachers who are cur-
rently providing that education (Smith, 2012). This study seeks to shed
light on those teachers. Using qualitative analytic methodology, I sought
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

to explore the tensions present in sexuality education teachers’ personal

understandings and definitions of sexuality and their professional teaching
practice.

SEXUALITY AND RISK IN THE UNITED STATES

Sexuality education, since its inception, has been used to sustain and create
discourses about the linkages between sexuality and identity (Alldred &
David, 2007; Fields, 2008). In the United States, by using adolescent sexuality
to stand in for issues related to national identity, the purity of racial and
ethnic groups, the gender roles of men and women, and the heteronormative
functioning of American families (Irvine, 2002; Luker, 2006), sex education
programs not only teach skills and knowledge related to sexual behaviors
and risks but also provide ideological guides to youth about what it means
to be a healthy sexual person (Bay-Cheng, 2003; Luker, 2006; WHO, 2010).
Cultural constructions of childhood have historically relied on the as-
sumption that children (and at times, adolescents) are sexually innocent and
in need of adult protection from sexual knowledge (Alldred & David, 2007;
Bay-Cheng, 2003; Thorne & Luria, 1986). The construction of childhood in-
nocence rests on the idea that children are vulnerable in their purity and
inherently casts any sexual agency in young people as deviant and danger-
ous. This dichotomy of pure versus deviant can be dangerous for young
people in that it provides the basis for a belief that young people need to
be protected from sexuality information and education. These discourses of
innocence, however, are not always applied to children or youth of color;
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender youth; or youth who do (or are sus-
pected of) engage in sexual activity (Pascoe, 2007; Rahimi & Liston, 2009;
Tolman, 1996). Young people whose identities or activities are marked of-
ten face stigma, harassment, and ambivalence from adults at their schools
(Bettie, 2003; GLSEN, 2010; Pascoe, 2007).
 20 M. Preston

For young people, sexual identity development occurs both outside

and within the particular contexts of schools. Sexuality education has the
potential to provide valuable information and an opportunity for youth to
engage in real conversation about sex and sexuality (Fine & McClelland,
2006). At the center of these opportunities are sexuality education teachers,
who exist at the core of a complex web of discourses, policies, and polit-
ical interests. Their role, as those who are the official voice of the school
regarding sexuality information, as well as the one teacher marked as the
resource for student’s needs regarding sex and sexuality, gives them par-
ticular salience in articulating and creating an environment in which young
people’s sexuality can be addressed.
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

SEX EDUCATION TEACHERS

There exists a lack of literature on sexuality education teachers and how they
think about and perform the work of educating youth about sexuality. What
little data exist focuses primarily on sexuality education teachers’ ideas about
the youth they work with and preservice teachers understanding of sexuality
and education (Klein & Breck, 2010; Rodriguez, Young, Renfro, Asencio, &
Haffner, 1996; Summerfield, 2001).
As early as the 1920s, organizations and sexuality education reformers
in the United States outlined what they viewed as the necessary skills for
those charged with teaching sex education. An early article in the Journal of
Social Hygiene, declared that sexuality education teachers needed to possess
a firm sense of morality (Campos, 2002). These early guides suggested teach-
ers must not only teach sexuality education in a way that provided moral
guidance against promiscuity and certain sexual behaviors but also that the
teachers themselves must live lives that fit within these moral boundaries.
These guidelines demonstrated how teachers themselves have been impli-
cated in teaching a particular kind of morality in order to promote a particular
ideology to students.
Research has also demonstrated that teachers conceptualization of their
students is influenced by issues of gender, race, class, and sexuality. Data
have suggested that teachers viewed teenage boys as immature, whereas
teenage girls were viewed as sexual problems, capable of corrupting boys
and responsible for their own amorality (Chambers, Ticknell, & Van Loon,
2004). Data showed that teachers reinforced a heteronormative framework
that placed the emphasis for this particular form of morality on the shoulders
of girls, suggesting that boys were not considered capable of acting in a
sexually responsible way, and that women must act as gatekeepers to both
their own and boys’ sexuality. Not only is this a problematic assumption in
that it ignores the ways in which gender, as a social structure, oppresses
 Sexuality Education Teachers Ideas about Sexuality 21

women’s abilities to enact agency in regards to their own sexuality, but it

also reinforces compulsory heterosexuality, thus ignoring both the needs
and experiences of young people whose sexual desires or behaviors are not
strictly heterosexual.
Teachers are also influenced by stereotypes regarding ethnicity and
race. Teachers often interact with students of color differently than they do
students from the majority culture (Chambers et al., 2004; Morris, 2005). It is
not simply the ways in which teachers interacted with students; it is also how
they offered information and resources (Garcia, 2009). For example, Latina
young women living in an urban area in the United States reported feeling
that sexuality education teachers often relied on stereotypical understandings
of machismo in insinuating that Latina girls, in part because of their ethnicity,
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

had to act as gatekeepers to appropriate sexuality (Garcia).

Data show that teachers feel unprepared to provide sexuality educa-
tion and often report little to no formal training on the topic (Cohen, Byers,
Sears, & Weaver, 2004; Klein & Breck, 2010; Walters & Hayes, 2007). Al-
though teacher preparation in sexuality education varies from state to state,
in a study undertaken by Sexuality Information and Education Council of
the United States (Rodriguez et al., 1996), researchers found that none of the
251 teacher education programs sampled provided formal classes or train-
ing in sexuality education to preservice teachers. In many schools, sexuality
education is offered through health classes and research has shown that
many teachers, regardless of specialization, lack confidence to address is-
sues of sexuality both inside and outside of the classroom (Klein & Breck).
With little preparation and training, teachers are confronted with a politically
loaded topic, one that has been historically used to articulate varying political
philosophies (Moran, 2000).
Sexuality education teachers often feel caught between the needs of
their students and the regulations that restrict how and what they can say
in response to student questions (Walters & Hayes, 2007). In a study of
elementary teachers’ techniques in responding to sexuality related questions,
many felt that they could not adequately address issues, and 46% of the
teachers reported that they felt pressured from the community, parents, or
schools to be particularly cautious about providing answers to sexuality-
related questions (Landry, Singh, & Darroch, 2000). One study found that the
majority of teachers were neither required, nor did they feel it was necessary,
to take a sexuality related course in preparation to teach (Cozzens, 2006). It
has been suggested that teachers’ own limited knowledge might transfer to
youth and leave them with misinformation (Cozzens).
Recent research points out that emotions have an impact on how teach-
ers deliver sex education curriculum. Researchers found that teachers of-
ten verbalized strong emotions, not only about the subject matter but also
about their students and their feelings of the appropriateness of the curricu-
lum or knowledge provided. The researchers concluded that because of the
 22 M. Preston

emotional nature of the topics, teachers felt like they had to “throw together”
lessons as they navigated through the planned curriculum, their students’
questions, and their own emotional responses (Lesko, Brotman, Argawal, &
Quankenbush, 2010).
To make matters more complicated, there is no standardized curriculum
for school-based sexuality education in the United States (Smith, 2012). Cur-
rent U.S. policy allows for several different models of sexuality education;
however, even the most recent sexuality education standards stress sexual
risk over sexual rights (Boonstra, 2012). .A recent survey of U.S. public
schools found that only one-third of lead health education teachers received
formal sexuality education training in the last two years and that a median of
77% of schools across each state provide a written curriculum for health ed-
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

ucation, including sexuality; of the median percentage of schools providing

comprehensive condom use education was only 18% (CDC, 2012). The data
suggest that sexuality education is not only lacking but also wildly inconsis-
tent, and teachers are often caught in these inconsistencies without formal
training in sexuality curricula.
At a time when the sexuality education standards in Europe demand
a holistic and sex-positive discourse for young peoples’ sexuality educa-
tion, the United States seems to be slipping back into older, damaging
discourses of risk, health behavior, and morality (Boonstra, 2012). Given
the wide disparities in quality and curriculum, however, teachers them-
selves become incredibly important starting points for understanding how
sexuality is defined to young people in the United States. Given this lack
of research on the ways in which teachers “translate” sexuality for young
people (Smith, 2012, p. 532), the findings of this study can be taken as a
starting point for exploring these issues. This study seeks to describe how
current teachers whose duties included sexuality education define the term
sexuality, and how they conceptualize their students’ sexuality and sexual
readiness.

METHODS

This study utilized methods derived from grounded theory methods.

Grounded theory is well suited for analysis when there is a lack of in-
formation or data-generated theories about particular phenomena such as
the case of this study (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Using grounded theory in
this study allowed for the development a data-driven understanding of the
ways in which sexuality education teachers define sexuality.
Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with teachers in the
United States who taught sexuality education to middle and high school aged
youth. Teachers were recruited via list serves for state and national teaching
and sexuality education associations and snowball sampling methods, and
 Sexuality Education Teachers Ideas about Sexuality 23

all potential participants were informed of the nature of the study and Insti-
tutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Participants were offered information
on the campus IRB system and informed that they could withdraw from the
study at any time. Prior to participation, teachers were provided with infor-
mation and asked for informed consent without signature. Upon consent, the
interviews were recorded either face to face or on the phone, depending on
geography. Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by
the author. Once data were transcribed, recordings were destroyed. In order
to protect participants, no identifying information was collected; participants
were asked to identify the state they taught in, and to describe the geography
of their school district (urban, rural, suburban) but were not asked at any
time to identify the district or schools that employed them. In keeping with
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

the method of theoretical sampling, as the analysis progressed participants

were sought who could offer outsider knowledge or counter examples in-
cluding teachers in private schools, teacher-trainers, and sexuality education
consultants.
Grounded theory is an iterative process, requiring that researchers ex-
amine the data and emerging theories to both construct and deconstruct the
data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Data analysis moves from raw data, to codes,
to concepts, to categories, and finally to the development of theory. Each
level of analysis involves higher levels of abstraction from the data itself.
For this study, data analysis advanced through several steps; initial coding,
secondary coding, and selective coding, as well as through constant compar-
ison, theoretical memoing, and integrative diagramming until a theory could
be built from the data.
Initial coding is the process of breaking down the raw data into small
and discrete units, or codes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). I identified initial codes
by using a line-by-line examination of the interview transcripts. I identified
246 initial codes in the data. During this step I explored each transcript line
by line in order to deconstruct the data and identify and record incidents.
Open coding allows for any and all possible interpretations to be used to
explore the data (Corbin & Strauss).
After initial codes were identified in the data, secondary coding was
used to identify concepts. Secondary coding is a higher level of abstraction
than initial coding and involves the re-construction of data to determine
how the concepts identified in the initial coding are linked or related. In
secondary coding, concepts are re-examined and grouped into larger cate-
gories or themes. By exploring the meaning assigned by the participants, the
actions or interactions taking place during and after data collection, or if they
share similarities or highlight differences, I grouped the smaller concepts into
inter-related themes. Corbin and Strauss (2008) suggest that secondary coding
involve asking when, what, why, and with what consequences the emerging
themes have within the phenomena under investigation. For example, I iden-
tified several codes that described actions teachers took in their classrooms
 24 M. Preston

while teaching sexuality, including creative writing, anonymous questions,

and knowledge “bingo.” During secondary coding, I collapsed these codes
into a larger concept I titled Opening Discussion as teachers used all these
activities in order to create a space for dialogue about sexuality and sex for
their students.
After secondary coding, selective coding was used to explore the ways
that the individual processes and stories in the data connected to discourses
present in the larger social context of sexuality education and adolescent
sexuality. I explored how the themes that emerged out of secondary coding
were connected to the particulars of the situation (school district policies,
teacher’s past experiences). I examined the data for ways in which the cat-
egories theoretically connected to the context from which the participants
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

were speaking, to find if there were particular processes that emerge out of
the interplay between the categories and the context outlined in the data.
Moving beyond the particular of each participants’ situation, I utilized selec-
tive coding to examine the data for ways in which the themes connected to
or defied the larger discourses surrounding sexuality and sexuality education,
such as viewing adolescents as inherently at risk, innocent, or gendered.

FINDINGS
Participant Characteristics
This study recruited a total of 15 participants. Of these, 11 were current
public high school teachers, one participant worked at a private school, one
was a health educator in a public high school, one was a former teacher
who was employed as a state-level trainer for health education curriculum,
and one participant was a county health educator who offered sexuality
curricula in the public schools. The majority of participants were female
(n = 12). Participants ranged in age from 28 to 62. The majority of the sample
identified as white (n = 13) and heterosexual (n = 12). Teaching experience
ranged from 4 to 37 years (M = 12.86 years), and seven participants described
their schools as in suburban areas, three in urban areas, three in rural areas,
and one participant said she taught in an area that was both suburban and
urban. The participants came from six different states, eight participants
taught in states that are politically liberal, and seven from states that are
politically conservative.
The participants had various levels of training. Only four of the partic-
ipants had received formal sexuality education training, including graduate
degrees in human sexuality and formal postgraduate training and develop-
ment in sexuality and sexuality education. The majority of participants held
bachelors degrees in education; eight of which had degrees that specifically
focused on health education, one whose degree was in mathematics. Finally,
 Sexuality Education Teachers Ideas about Sexuality 25

one participant, who worked for the local county health department had a
degree in public health.
Data collected for this study included teacher’s reports of curriculum,
models of education supported by their local school board, and regulations
that they were required to follow. For example, some teachers in this study
taught in schools that used Abstinence-Only models of education wherein
they were prohibited from discussing sexual intercourse outside of the con-
fines of a monogamous, committed relationship. This study does not address
the specific regulations placed upon teachers by their school district policies,
but rather focuses on the ways in which the teachers own conceptualiza-
tions of sexuality were aligned with their understanding and articulation of
the roles and responsibilities they took on in teaching sexuality education.
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

The analysis showed that, while regulations certainly impacted the ways in
which teachers offered information, they did not have as much of a role
in shaping the definitions that the teachers held of sexuality or their own
teaching role.

RESULTS

Several important and somewhat contradicting themes emerged from the

data that paint both a hopeful and potentially problematic picture of sexuality
education in the United States. Importantly, the findings seemed to point to
the benefit of specialized training for teachers. There were stark contrasts
between the teachers with formal, specialized training and those who had
only received minimal or basic health education training. The findings from
this study address the tension within the ways teachers define sexuality,
the views that teachers hold as to their responsibilities in teaching sexuality
education, and the ways in which they view their students’ own developing
sexuality and their professional practice.

Teachers’ Definition of Sexuality

Every teacher in this study defined sexuality as encompassing both behaviors
and emotions. Overall, the teachers defined sexuality in a holistic and sex-
positive way. Their definitions often went beyond the mechanics of sexual
behaviors or bodily changes to include desires and emotions.
For example, Sam, a public school teacher in the Midwest, shared:
“Sexuality is actually part of what makes you, you. It’s not just being male or
female, it’s being attentive to your body and being respectful to your body
and being respectful to others.” Sam’s definition of sexuality was broad and
encompassed not only sex and sex organs, but emotional experiences as
well. In a similar way, Carrie, who also teaches in public schools on the
West Coast, shared:
 26 M. Preston

I think sexuality is anything and everything about a person. It doesn’t

have to be kissing and hugging, it’s kind of who they are and what they
are and how they express that to others and with others. I think we put
way too much effort on intercourse, sexuality is so much more than that.

Mary, who taught public schools on the East Coast for 20 years, explains
that she is concerned about expanding the definition of sexuality for her
students: “I look at the real emotional aspects of it and the social aspects.
Especially when it’s love, where we learn love. I try to look at sexuality
overall. It’s not scholastic, it’s emotional and mental, social, spiritual.”
The teachers’ understanding of sexuality reflected a more sex-positive
ideology than the current discourse of young peoples’ sexuality on which
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

the United States relies. They consistently articulated that their definitions of
sexuality went “beyond” both the traditional definitions and their perceptions
of young peoples’ definitions of sexuality. Teachers, even those whose own
background might have suggested a more conservative ideology or who
held conservative values, defined sexuality as a broad concept that held
many possibilities and desires.

Teachers’ Beliefs about Their Responsibility in Sexuality Education

The teachers in this study shared a common definition of sexuality, but their
ideas about their role and responsibilities in providing education to young
people differed. Every teacher in this study highlighted their commitment
to teaching young people about sexuality, often times suggesting that they
were the only individuals that their students could count on to provide
information.
Only four of the 15 teachers, however, spoke of including a respon-
sibility to teach sex-positive curricula to their students. Below, Brian, who
has taught for 11 years in various private schools, articulated his desire to
broaden the content and offering of sexuality curricula:

I think [sexuality education] has to start in the earliest grade levels, it

could start in pre-kindergarten. I think that when kids are that young
you’re not teaching about semen, but you’re teaching proper names for
body parts. I think you teach good touch bad touch, but I also think
you would teach little kids everybody has the right to be loved, there
are many ways to love people, there are many kinds of families. I would
start it as early as education can start and I would continue it as far as it
can go. I think that more deliberate integration of content that needs to
be put into the curriculum.

Similarly, Sonia, who had years of specialized sexuality education train-

ing and who taught in several urban public schools in the East Coast,
shared that she understood her biggest responsibility to be to “try to respect
 Sexuality Education Teachers Ideas about Sexuality 27

everyone in the room, and try to think of who could possibility be in the
room.” She believed that in doing so, she would be able to support young
people who had been “disrespected” by other teachers or adults in regards
to sexuality and identity. Like Sonia, Ananda had received specialized train-
ing through various comprehensive and positive sexuality programs. Ananda
taught in a unique program that matched teachers with the same students
throughout their secondary education. Ananda shared that she felt that her
responsibility involved “normalizing the conversation about sex and sexuality
[and] encouraging communication . . . around the topic.”
Unlike the majority of the teachers in this study, the four teachers who
conceptualized their responsibility toward students as inclusive of conveying
the concepts of pleasure and rights had all received significant specialized
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

training and education in human sexuality. The four teachers also all spoke
of what they termed the “European model” of sexuality education as the
model on which they based their own ideas of responsibility toward their
students. The European model they described is similar to what Tolman
and McClelland (2011) would define as “normative sexuality development
(p. 250),” in which adolescent sexuality is conceived of as expanding the
understanding of sexuality to incorporate positive sexual development and
to view sexuality education and research as leading to the goal of supporting
young people into developing healthy sexuality.
In contrast, the other 11 teachers in this study spoke of their respon-
sibility to students in ways that focused primarily on the health outcomes
and behaviors of their students. These teachers, many of who shared that
they lacked formal sexuality education training or, in three cases, access to
standardized sexuality curriculum, often defined their responsibility in teach-
ing sexuality education as one of combating risk. For example, Marissa, who
teaches in the rural south, explained, “I have to say that [young people] need
the truth. I think they need to know that all sex is very very dangerous. That
it may be fun and everybody may be doing it, but it’s very very danger-
ous.” Marissa’s belief that sex was “very very dangerous” led her to create a
curriculum that focused specifically on sexually transmitted infections (STIs)
and pregnancy prevention. She did not speak to her class about desire and
positive sexuality.
Not only did the majority of teachers’ describe their responsibility in
terms of combatting sexual risks, but they also spoke of imbuing a sense of
a particular morality onto their students. These moral lessons may seem like
places of empowerment for young people, but they also ignore the reality
of the ways in which gender, race, class or other forms of difference shape
young peoples’ agency. Below, Dana, whose position involves teaching at
several schools throughout the rural south, shared:

They [young people] need to know about [sexually transmitted infec-

tions]. They need to know about birth control. They need to know about
 28 M. Preston

pressure, how to say no to pressure, that it is ok to say no. They need to

realize their own feelings instead of what everybody else tells them they
are supposed to feel.

The vast majority of teachers in this study were very clear that they
relied on a model of sexuality education that emphasized protecting young
people from risk, but they were emphatic about providing the education in a
way that was clear and open, without emphasizing fear. One teacher, how-
ever, explicitly relied on the discourse of risk while teaching young people.
Tabitha, an 11-year veteran teacher in a suburb in the south, explained:

I definitely do try to scare them. I try to get at that point of view [sex is
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

scary]. I think they get it and for some kids, I think they’re hearing the
message and I think its good for them to hear that message. I don’t know
how lasting the message is.

The majority of teachers in this study listed STIs as the most pressing
concern they had for students. Teachers spoke of a responsibility to pro-
vide the “truth”, “medically accurate” information, or “honest information” to
students, but their definition of the content of that information focused on
combating the implicit risk they perceived as a threat to their students. The
teachers were particularly concerned about providing information to com-
bat sexual coercion, unwanted pregnancy, and emotional hardship that they
viewed as accompanying adolescent desire.

Teachers’ Perceptions and Beliefs about Young Peoples’ Sexuality

The teachers’ perceptions of their students’ sexuality contributed to and were
shaped by the discourses of risk and childhood innocence. Despite their ar-
ticulated goal of providing holistic and healthy education, their perceptions
of students’ sexual lives and sexuality were steeped in discussions about
morality, risk, and danger. These beliefs served to reinforce their own teach-
ing identities and roles. All of the teachers in this study perceived the lives of
their students to be media-saturated, oversexualized, and morally ambigu-
ous. All but one teacher perceived the students themselves as lacking in
emotional maturity and judgment, participating in risky sexual experimenta-
tion, and being ignorant about the potential adverse outcomes that sexual
behavior could entail.
A lack of responsibility was a major theme that emerged in the data. This
theme encompassed not only the young people themselves but also their
families. The teachers perceived young people having a lack of knowledge
and responsibility and that the families of their students were ignorant of the
“realities” of their children’s sexual lives. Within this void of responsibility
that teachers perceived, they articulated that it was the media and other
 Sexuality Education Teachers Ideas about Sexuality 29

forms of popular culture that shaped their students’ understandings of sex

and sexuality. For example, Lacey, who teaches in public schools on the
East Coast, describes her perception of family and media in young peoples’
developing sexuality:

Parents are so naı̈ve about what their children are doing. Parents don’t
believe their kids are watching X-rated movies and pornography on the
internet, and listening to music that is very intense with language and
sexuality. They don’t think their kids are having sex. [Young people
themselves] don’t think that anything will happen to them, they think
they will have sex and it will be fun, and it will be over and they will be
in love, or they will break up and go on and nothing will happen.
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

Dana also expressed a belief that it was media, not family, that shaped
students’ understanding of sexuality. She shared, “I hate to say it, but a lot of
[young people] aren’t getting [sexuality education] at home. They are learning
what life is supposed to be like from reality shows, which are not real, but
they don’t understand that.”
In addition to perceiving the lives of young people as media saturated
and irresponsible, teachers articulated that they perceived young people to
be uninformed or emotionally immature about sexuality and sexual behav-
iors. Sam, teaching in a suburb in the Midwest, said, “It’s really scary how
uninformed they are. I don’t think adults realize it.” In the following state-
ment, Brian reinforces the notion of ignorance amongst young people. He
goes on to share:

[My current students] have such a deep detachment from the emotional
side of things, the consequential side of things. They just don’t get it.
There is a huge sense of entitlement, and a lot of things that they go
through . . . human emotions and behavior are one of those things that
get lost [for young people].

Carrie also expressed concern that her students were uninformed:

[Young people] are doing things at a very young age without knowing
what they’re actually doing and what they’re doing to themselves. If I go
over things like STIs, they have no idea that oral sex is a way to transmit
an STI . . . [they] are doing things without knowing and therefore putting
themselves at a big risk.

Finally, every teacher in this study identified his or her teaching role as
unique and valuable in that the teachers’ perceived his or her classroom as
the only place that young people could learn about sexuality. Many teach-
ers perceived their students’ families and the communities as contradicting
“healthy” sexual development by modeling behavior that the teachers found
 30 M. Preston

immoral or problematic. Their perceptions of students’ families were often

shaped by stereotypes around issues of social class and family type. Dana
shared her concern for her students, suggesting that due to “media and pub-
lic exposure and because of the changing neighborhood and family values”
young people’s “moral values” suffered. Below, Marissa relies on both class
and family-type stereotypes to explain her concern for her student’s moral
development:

With the demographic that I teach [rural, low-income adolescents], so

many of their moms and dads break up with one girlfriend and boyfriend
and move in with the other. It’s not normal, and you don’t have to have
sex with someone until you are ready. [I give] them the message that
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

there’s an alternative to falling into bed with somebody because between

the media and what they see at home they think it’s very normal to go
on a date once or twice and then [have sex].

The teachers in this study viewed the sexual world of young people
as encompassing danger, media overexposure, and worrisome role models.
For some of these teachers, stereotyped and problematic notions of social
class and family stability influenced their views of their students’ developing
sexuality. The teachers expressed a concern over a general lack of responsi-
bility, both in regards to their students, as well as to the larger community,
which they viewed as leading to their students’ exposure to risky moral de-
velopment. The teachers saw their role in the classroom as combating these
risks, as well as the risks that they perceived sexuality and sexual behaviors
to pose to the students themselves.

DISCUSSION

While the sample from this study is small, a strength of qualitative research is
the ability to explore the ways in which individuals define certain concepts
and how they rely on those definitions in explaining and defining their own
roles. The findings from this study suggest that sexuality education teachers’
definitions of sexuality and their beliefs about their own responsibility, as
well as those of their students, involve tensions that have the potential to
limit young peoples’ ability to learn about and develop healthy sexual iden-
tities and behaviors. It is important to note that the findings of this study
cannot, and should not, be generalized to all sexuality education teachers.
Rather, the results of this study support the notion that teachers’ definitions
of sexuality are informed by their personal experiences and practices, and
that these definitions can potentially limit (or expand) the opportunities that
young people have to engage in sexuality education. Importantly, the find-
ings suggest that it is an interaction of local policies, national discourses, and
 Sexuality Education Teachers Ideas about Sexuality 31

personal experiences that inform how teachers translate sexuality to their

students, and suggest that standardized and mandatory pre-service and in-
service programs can support sexuality educators in creating classrooms that
are equitable and affirming of adolescent sexuality.
The data from this study suggest that sexuality education teachers’ defi-
nition of sexuality is closely aligned with the “rights-based” or “sex-positive”
European standards of sexuality education and a view of sexuality as part
of normative adolescent development. Overall, the teachers articulated the
belief that sexuality was a healthy part of everyday identities, and that it en-
compassed emotions, bodies, and behaviors, including desire. This is a hope-
ful development in that research demonstrates that utilizing a sex-positive
approach (such as approaches in European nations including the Nether-
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

lands or France) to sexuality education assists young people in developing

healthy sexuality and sexual behaviors (Advocates for Youth, 2009; Santelli,
Sandford, & Orr, 2008). It is an important step toward creating inclusive and
supportive environment for young people; however, the teachers’ definitions
of sexuality did not appear to carry over to the responsibilities they perceived
they had in teaching young people about sexuality.
In addition to an understanding of sexuality as holistic and healthy the
vast majority of teachers articulated a responsibility toward combating risk
for the young people they taught. They spoke extensively of the risk that sex-
uality and sexual behaviors posed to young peoples’ physical and emotional
health and described their role as providing “facts.” The teachers’ articu-
lation of their responsibilities fits within the current discourse of sexuality
education in the United States that emphasizes risk and sexual behavior over
pleasure and sexual agency. This, combined with the teachers’ assumptions
about student’s sexual lives, paints a very different picture than the teachers’
definitions of sexuality suggest.
The majority of teachers in this study felt that the world of the young
people that they worked with was highly sexualized. They worried about
over-saturation of media and technologies, and the teachers expressed a
belief that young people did not have the emotional or developmental ability
to navigate sexuality and sexual interactions in a healthy, and for some
teachers, moral, way. The teachers’ ideas about their students’ sexual lives
fits within the discourse of risk and childhood innocence that has pervaded
the United States and remains a problematic framing of sexuality and young
people in that it does not provide for the “discourse of desire” outlined by
Fine more than 20 years ago (Bay-Cheng, 2003; Fine & McClelland, 2006).
An important finding in this study is the ways in which the teachers
whose training involved advanced coursework and professional develop-
ment within the field of human sexuality differed from other teachers. Those
with specialized training are more able to align their definitions of sexuality
as healthy and holistic with their beliefs about the responsibilities they have
toward students. For these teachers, sexuality is a normative and healthy
 32 M. Preston

part of everyday life, and they work to bring that discourse into their classes
by normalizing sexual talk, integrating sexuality across the curriculum, and
exploring issues of embodiment. Brian’s desire to incorporate discussions
of bodily agency from the earliest grades through adolescence demonstrates
how the advanced training that these teachers receive made the connections
between their own idealism within their definition of sexuality and their
understandings of how and what to teach young people align more closely
than other teachers in this study. It is possible that those teachers who sought
out formal training in sexuality education may have differed from their coun-
terparts in a number of significant ways prior to seeking advanced training.
While this may be the case, I find it important to note that all the teachers
in this study articulated a desire for more formal and specialized training
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

around teaching sexuality education.

The United States has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the
world and one of the lowest rates of contraceptive use in the developed
world (McKay & Barrett, 2010). In addition, LGBT youth in U.S. public
schools are at significant risk for bullying and harassment, and the bullying
can and often does lead to higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation
for LGBT youth (GLSEN, 2009). These statistics point to the alarming scope
of the problem the United States has in regards to teaching young people
about sexuality and sexual behaviors. It is clear that sexuality education is
necessary to protect public health; however, focusing solely on the risks and
dangers of sex and sexuality leaves a void wherein young people are not
provided the tools to develop agency around their sexual needs and desires.
The model that the United States has relied on for decades posits that young
people lack agency and that any desire that a young person might express
marks them as deviant. Thus, sexuality education has often been framed in
terms of risk-prevention in order to “protect” our young people. This study
demonstrates that, while sexuality education teachers define sexuality in a
holistic way that encompasses healthy desire, their interpretation of how and
what to teach young people is filtered through the discourse of risk.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Every teacher in this study shared that they are committed and excited about
their work of providing quality sexuality education. They all spoke of a de-
sire to support young people in a field that was often ignored or misaligned.
They also shared that they went out of their way to support their students
and, despite feeling ostracized in some ways because of the subjects they
taught, they found great joy and pride in their work. However, the discon-
nect between an affirming definition of sexuality and their own beliefs and
abilities about how to teach students is concerning. Affirming sexuality as a
normative and healthy part of identity while relying on a discourse of risk and
 Sexuality Education Teachers Ideas about Sexuality 33

fear to teach about sexuality has the potential to be counterproductive. This

study demonstrates the tensions between professional practice and teachers’
personal understandings and constructions of sexuality, in that those teach-
ers who had access to advanced training specifically in human sexuality
were more able to align their definition of sexuality with the responsibility
they perceived to their role as a teacher. For the other teachers in this study,
however, vast contradictions emerged between their definitions of sexuality
and their understandings of their role and the lives of young people. Given
these findings, I suggest that teachers would benefit from formal sexuality
education training that provides them with a written curriculum from which
to work and that is based in comprehensive and affirming sexuality theories.
There are currently no national standards for sexuality education cur-
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

ricula, although a leading consortium of health education programs recently

published National Sexuality Education Standards: Core Content and Skills,
K-12 (Future of Sex Education Initiative, 2012). While this publication calls
for more standardization of sexuality education for young people, it does not
necessarily propose moving the U.S. sexuality education discourse toward
one of rights-based sexuality. Based on the findings of this study, I would
propose that sexuality education teachers in the United States, who have
significant impact on the healthy development of young peoples’ sexuality,
want to provide an affirming and sex-based education but lack the tools
necessary to translate their definitions of healthy sexuality into their respon-
sibilities as a teacher. The teachers overwhelmingly spoke of a desire for
more formal training, and those who had received preservice, in-service, or
graduate training specifically in human sexuality were more able to articulate
a congruency between their definition of sexuality as normative and their
roles, responsibilities, and abilities to teach adolescents about sexuality in
an affirming way. Supporting teachers in achieving these goals by providing
specified and formal training could potentially go a long way in supporting
young people in developing healthy sexualities.

REFERENCES

Advocates for Youth. (2009). Adolescent sexual health in Europe and the U.S. –
why the difference? [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.advocatesforyouth.
org/storage/advfy/documents/adolescent_sexual_health_in_europe_and_the_
united_states.pdf
Alldred, P., & David, M. E. (2007). Get real about sex: The politics and practice of sex
education. New York, NY: Open University Press.
Allen, L. (2004). “Say everything”: Exploring young peoples’ suggestions for improv-
ing sexuality education. Gender & Education, 16, 151–167.
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2003). The trouble of teen sex: the construction of adolescent
sexuality through school based sexuality education. Sex Education, 3, 61–74.
 34 M. Preston

Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race and identity. Berkeley, CA: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Boonstra, H. M. (2012). Progressive and pragmatic: The national sexuality education
standards for U.S. public schools. Guttmacher Policy Review, 15, 2–7.
Campos, D. (2002). Sex, youth and education: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara,
CA: ABC-CLIO.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). HIV, other STD, and preg-
nancy prevention education public secondary schools – 45 states, 2008–2010.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61(913), 222–228. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6113a2.htm
Chambers, D., Ticknell, D., & Van Loon, J. (2004). Peer regulation of teenage sexual
identities. Gender & Education, 16, 397–415.
Cohen, J. N., Byers, E. S., Sears, H. A., & Weaver, A. D. (2004). Sexual health
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

education: Attitudes, knowledge, and comfort of teachers in New Brunswick

schools. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 13, 1–15.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publication.
Cozzens, J. (2006). Assessing the awareness of adolescent sexual health among
teachers-in-training. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 1, 21–50.
Fields, J. (2008). Risky lessons: Sex education and social inequality. Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Fine, M., & McClelland, S. L. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: still missing
after all these years. Harvard Education Review, 76, 297–337.
Future of Sex Education Initiative. (2012). National sexuality education standards:
Core content and skills K–12 (a special publication of the Journal of School
Health). Retrieved from http://www.futureofsexeducation.org/documents/josh-
fose-standards-web.pdf
Garcia, L. (2009). ‘Now why do you want to know about that?’ Heteronormativity,
sexism and racism in the sexual (mis)education of Latina youth. Gender &
Society, 23, 520–541.
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (2010). The 2009 National
School Climate Survey [monograph on the Internet]. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/
file/000/001/1675-2.pdf
Irvine, J. (2002). Talk about sex: The battles over sex education in the United States.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Klein, N. A., & Breck, S. E. (2010). ‘I wish I had known the truth sooner’ middle
school teacher candidates’ sexuality education experiences. Research at Middle
Level Education, 33, 1–10.
Landry, D. J., Singh, S., & Darroch, J. E. (2000). Sexuality education in fifth and sixth
grades in U.S. public schools. Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 212–219.
Lesko, N., Brotman, J. S., Agarwal, R., & Quankenbush, J. L. (2010). Feeling jumpy:
Teaching about HIV/AIDS. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Edu-
cation, 23, 823–843.
Luker, K. (2006). When sex goes to school: Warring views on sex – and sex education
– since the sixties. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
 Sexuality Education Teachers Ideas about Sexuality 35

McKay, A., & Barrett, M. (2010). Trends in teen pregnancy rates from 1996–2006: A
comparison of Canada, Sweden, U.S.A, and England/Wales. Canadian Journal
of Human Sexuality, 19, 43–52.
Moran, J. P. (2000). Teaching sex: The shaping of adolescence in the 20th century.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morris, E. (2005). “Tuck in that shirt”: Race, class, gender and discipline in an urban
school. Sociological Compass, 48, 25–48.
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Rahimi, R., & Liston, D. D. (2009). What does she expect when she dresses like that?
Teacher interpretation of emerging adolescent female sexuality. Educational
Studies, 41, 512–533.
Rodriguez, M., Young, R., Renfro, S., Asencio, M., & Haffner, D. (1996). Teaching
Downloaded by [Cambridge University Library] at 04:32 23 March 2015

our teachers to teach: A SEICUS study on training and preparation for HIV/AIDS
prevention and sexuality education. SEICUS Report, 28(2), 15–23.
Santelli, J., Sandford, T., & Orr, M. (2008). Transnational comparisons of adolescent
contraceptive use: What can we learn from these comparisons? Archives of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 16, 92–94.
Smith, S. (2012). Reading Sociology into school-based sexuality education: Interac-
tion and culture. Sociological Compass, 6, 526–540.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publica-
tions.
Summerfield, L. M. (2001). Preparing classroom teachers for delivering health instruc-
tion. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teachers and Teacher Education.
Thorne, B., & Luria, Z. (1986). Sexuality and gender in children’s daily worlds. Social
Problems, 33, 176–190.
Tolman, D. (1996). Adolescent girls’ sexuality: Debunking the myth of the ‘urban
girl.’ In B. J. R. Leadbetter & N. Way (Eds.), Urban girls: Resisting stereotypes,
creating identities (pp. 255–271). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Tolman, D. L., & McLelland, S. I. (2011). Normative sexuality development in ado-
lescence: A decade in review 2000–2009. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
21, 242–255.
Walters, A. S., & Hayes, D. M. (2007). Teaching about sexuality: Balancing contradic-
tory social messages with professional standards. American Journal of Sexuality
Education, 2, 21–47.
World Health Organization and Federal Centre for Health Education (BGzA). (2010).
Standards for sexuality education in Europe: A framework for policy makers,
educational and health authorities and specialists. Cologne, Germany: BZgA.