Category Archives: policy

Policy Matters: Louisiana Legislators are Worried Questions will Cause Action

In matters of education, as with many social concerns, there continues to be a disconnect between policy and practice. Sex(uality) education has long suffered from ineffective policies handed down by federal, state, and local agents (i.e. politicians) that don’t bother to critically think through the decisions they are making. I remember a conversation that took place during the 2008 presidential election surrounding the appeal to the “average American” (whatever that actually means) by politicians. They wanted to demonstrate that they could connect with the hearts and “minds” of “every man” (yes, the use of man is very intentional) and in doing so, seemed to limit intellectual discourse. A journalist (I wish I could remember who) responded to this trend in the most logical manner I had heard in quite some time by making it clear that we shouldn’t want an “every man” in the White House. We should want our president to be the smartest person in any room they walk into around the world. Unfortunately, that just hasn’t been the case, and the evidence continues to mount as we suffer from over-simplified justifications for otherwise illogical policy decisions.

Most recently in the ongoing sex(uality) education debate, the Louisiana legislature struck down a bill that would have given the state Department of Education the ability to ask teens about their sexual health. These questions, which are a part of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted nationally by the CDC since 1991, ask young people about sexual activity and sexual risk behaviors. The survey is grounded in a solid public health approach, which is in keeping with a majority of mainstream comprehensive sexuality education, and avoids any discussion of morals or values related to sex(uality). However, legislators were concerned that asking about such activities would desensitize them and give them “ideas”. Louisiana law currently reads that

 It is the intent of the legislature that, for the purposes of this Section, “sex education” shall mean the dissemination of factual biological or pathological information that is related to the human reproduction system and may include the study of sexually transmitted disease, pregnancy, childbirth, puberty, menstruation, and menopause, as well as the dissemination of factual information about parental responsibilities under the child support laws of the state.  It is the intent of the legislature that “sex education” shall not include religious beliefs, practices in human sexuality, nor the subjective moral and ethical judgments of the instructor or other persons.  Students shall not be tested, quizzed, or surveyed about their personal or family beliefs or practices in sex, morality, or religion.

Sex education is not required in the state, and is even banned in elementary schools. It amazes me that in 2014, when children are born with smartphones in their hands and Netflix accounts embroidered on their baby blankets, that we are still worried that discussing sex(uality) is somehow going to lead to increased rates of sexual activity. I realize that this is the same logic that has led to debates over discussing homosexuality, as if the mere mention of it will “turn kids gay”, but I can’t help but continue to shake my head. How long must we cater to an anti-intellectual fringe minority instead of the educators and researchers who continue to produce sound scientific evidence and pedagogically effective means of providing our young people with a well-rounded education that teaches them to think critically about the world around them. I can only assume that the ultimate threat isn’t that asking kids about sex will make them go have sex, but that it will encourage more critical thinking, which will lead to young people not blindly following outdated beliefs in the first place.

Clearly, those screaming the loudest in Louisiana aren’t presenting a more effective sexuality education curriculum and yet we continue to deny young people access to important health information. This out-of-touch ideology has led to a full 25% of students in the state not having had any education concerning HIV/AIDS, and higher than average pregnancy and birth rates (in a country that already has the highest rates in the industrialized world). Not surprisingly, the rates of HIV and STI infection in Louisiana are also well above the national average. Most recently (May 27), the legislature took the added step of banning any organization the provides abortions from distributing sex education materials in schools (H.B. 305). Planned Parenthood, who no doubt was the main focus of this legislation, is perhaps the largest private provider of sex education in the country.

Now, there are folks in Louisiana, as there are nationally, that are trying to combat these educational mistakes. Legislation has been presented in Louisiana several times over the past five years that would require comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education for young people but it has been defeated each time. Most recently, Rep. Patricia Smith (D), who sponsored the bill, went as far as to say that a lack of sex education “is really a form of child abuse.” These policy debates play out across the country every month, and young people are left twisting in the wind as a result. Until we make it clear to our elected officials that we want them to vote based on educated and informed evidence, they will continue to strike an unwritten bargain with a vocal minority that doesn’t reflect the beliefs of most citizens or the scientific evidence as a whole.

I realize that relatively small legislative decisions such as this can get lost in the black hole of larger social and political issues, but each of these decisions are connected to one another. As educators, it is our responsibility not only to provide young people with open-minded, diverse, and critical perspectives on a host of issues. We must also engage in these policy debates and voice our opinions to those elected officials that are responsible for defining the bounds of our discourse. They may not remember any single vote a few years from now, but our young people will be feeling the effects of those votes for years to come. Policy matters.


The Anaheim Debate of ’68: Part II

Part II: The Specifics

Following Townsend’s appeal to the school board, numerous conservative groups popped up to oppose FLSE and its supporters. “It wasn’t long before the community members became acronym crazy and started forming their own groups”(Paige C., 2009, p.2). Numerous organizations, such as People Against Unconstitutional Sex Education (PAUSE), Sanity of Sex (SOS), Mothers for Moral Stability (MOMS), Parents Opposed to Sex and Sensitivity Education (POSSE), and the Movement to Restore Decency (MOTOREDE) all formed with the same goals for opposing FLSE, Cook, Williams, and SIECUS in their efforts to provide inclusive sex education for Anaheim students. Ultimately these groups banding together, argued based on three premises, insisting that parents should be responsible for teaching children about sex, the courses were too specific and sexually explicit, and that those who taught sex education were evil. Those arguments were wrapped up into the elements of the conflict in Anaheim.

Like many community conflicts, the debate over sex education in Anaheim involved policy, object and leadership. “The policy issues in the Anaheim controversy revolved around the fundamentalist, conservative ideology of the opponents”(Hottois & Milner, 1975, p. 75). Ultimately, they viewed sex education as in opposition to the conservative ideology of the purpose of education. “They seemed to sense that sex education was related to an approach centered on a rationalist morality of consequences”(p.75). This was in contradiction with their own absolutist approach, and threatened their notions of morality. This same basis in ideology was held by proponents, such as Paul Cook, and Dr. Mary Calderon, Director of SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Committee of the United States). However, as Hottois and Milner (1975) point out, they failed to grasp the reality that sex education, by its very nature, raised moral issues.

Secondly, an object of focus is required as a focal point for community controversy. In the Anaheim case, these objects were the sex education curriculum itself, and the decision-making authority in the schools. With both objects, opponents characterized them as meaning to focus on a program of “life adjustment”, which was reinforced by the vocal, antagonistic approach Paul Cook at various times. Former school nurse Sally Williams, who designed the curriculum and named the program Family Life and Sex Education (FLSE), originally offered the content to juniors and seniors in the spring of 1965, and it was spread to grades seven through twelve the following fall.

The curriculum itself was basically an upgraded four-and-a-half-week session, which covered topics such as reproduction, pregnancy, birth, and physical changes during puberty. “The difference here is the format. Anaheim’s FLSE was coeducational and based on a discussion format often related to sensitivity training. Students spent a good amount of class time discussion not just on the mechanics of sex, but also gender roles within relationships and male and female stereotypes”(Paige C., 2009, p.1). The overall goal was to foster open, honest, and frank discussion about the topics, which was seen by many as an intrusion into the responsibilities of parents and other community groups.

More specifically, the objects within the curriculum that raised the most concern were the topics of masturbation and homosexuality. Masturbation has brought about the initial conflict, and the objections were amplified by the message being conveyed that it was a healthy sexual expression with no negative consequences. “This was a major issue for the religious members of the community, as was the section devoted to an explanation of homosexuality”(Paige C., 2009, p.1).  Although these two issues were held up by the opposition as evidence of the moral decay of the program, proponents hailed them as evidence of the model program that had been created in Anaheim. James Collier, a writer for the Village Voice wrote that Anaheim was giving children “what is unquestionably the most intelligent, realistic, honest, and complete course in sex education anywhere in the United States, if not the entire world”(Collier, 1967).

The last element of conflict in Anaheim was that of leadership. From proponents, Cook attempted to be that leader. “While Cook sought to lead the proponents, he didn’t seem to have a following. It was as if the parents who had said that they favored sex education in the 1962 opinion poll has all moved away; none emerged publicly to support the embattled superintendent”(Hottois & Milner, 1975, p.76). However he did receive support from the school board and teachers. Additionally, and perhaps most publicly, was the support of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers (PTA). “Through both literature and legislation, the PTA continued to push for a broader sex education program for students of all ages. ‘The Case for Sex Education’, a press release in their national publication, laid out their support of similar programs”(Paige C., 2009, p.3).

To be continued…


The Anaheim Debate of ’68: Part I

I’ve always considered myself a student of history, and found meaning in examining the historical context for present-day conversations. I often encourage my students to reflect on the history of how we have constructed sexuality and gender, along with race, class, and other identity markers. I’ve spent a great deal of time examining the history of sexuality education in this country, as well as other countries around the world. Various people and events have had a considerable impact on our current debate, and yet they end up trivialized or boiled down to quotes or images. Anthony Comstock, Margaret Sanger, and Alfred Kinsey are perfect examples. What results is circular conversation instead of progress. One such significant historical moment for the sexuality education debate occurred in Anaheim, CA in 1968. You aren’t going to find this series of events in your history books, but I would argue it has significantly shaped the nature of the debate, and the way information is communicated and curricula are formed to this day. Over the next few posts, I’ll attempt to share this historical moment.

Part One: Setting the Stage

Cole Porter may have been right when he coolly asserted in 1928 that “Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it”. However, talking about “it” is another question entirely, and the debate over the who, what, when, and where of sex education has fueled no shortage of controversy over the past 40 years. That controversy over the administration of sex education has resulted in numerous battles being waged in the court of law, as well as the court of public opinion. Interestingly, despite 40 years of research and evidence being accumulated, the same issues, which fueled such controversy in Anaheim in 1968, are still sparking controversy in school districts across the United States today. Furthermore, those issues continue to call into question the roll of education and how we ultimately decide the scope and definition of morality.

Although a recent development relative to the history of American education, sex education has still managed to find a place within the context of that history. More specifically, historians have identified culture, religion, and ideological management as central themes within American education, and those themes emerge quite directly and prominently within sex education.

From the moment this country was settled, culture and religion have played significant roles in its overall development, and more specifically in the development of the American educational system. From the earliest documented stages of American educational history, culture and religion have impacted the content and delivery of this area of education. More specifically, the majority white, Christian cultural values and religious values have been emphasized as sex education was deemed a taboo subject not to be discussed, and certainly left to the home environment.

However, as American majority cultural and religious values shifted, a growing number of individuals saw the value in sex education within the classroom. Although this marked an ideological shift for some, and many debates, as we shall discuss later, it did not change the cultural and religious perspective that formed the foundation for sex education. As continues to be common in numerous other facets of the American educational system, sex education presented a decidedly biased view of the content, failing to acknowledge the ever-growing multicultural dimensions of our country. Even today, many of the comprehensive sex education programs, regarded as progressive and ideal, fail to address the multicultural differences in language, culture, religion, and values that shape our current student population.

Not surprisingly, ideological management has also played a major role in the history of sex education. The debate ultimately boils down to a question of what information is presented and distributed to children about sex, and whether it is the school’s responsibility to distribute that information. The discussion over sex education has brought to light the apparent hypocrisy of ideology as well, as parents and other conservative leaders believe in the need for sex education, yet want control over what that curriculum looks like and who’s culture and beliefs it represents. They aren’t comfortably doing it themselves, but they have no problem telling others how to do it.

In this respect, the debate over sex education is no different from the various other debates that have given rise to these major themes in American educational history. Thus, the controversy in Anaheim, California over sex education serves as an excellent case study of how these, and other themes emerge in the battle over sex education.

Beginning in 1962, a formal program of family life sex education began in Anaheim, as the school board sought to unify the instruction being provided by nurses and physical education staff. “The first controversy over sex education occurred in 1962, when some Anaheim parents complained about a film, shown by a coach, which discussed masturbation, one of the more sensitive topics in sex education”(Hottois & Milner, 1975, p. 73). As was the common procedure at the time, the instruction was halted and a committee of community and civic leaders was formed to explore the question of sex education. It was found that there was overwhelming support from the community, and the program continued and actually developed into a national model for sex education at the time. Support from various pro-sex education organizations, such as SIECUS, encouraged the continued development of the program.

In 1968, James Townsend, a leader of the California Citizens’ Committee, publically demanded at an open board meeting that the authorities look into the sex education program. This marked the effective beginning of the controversy. Townsend and his followers were allowed to present their case openly, and were given amble time to construct a very persuasive argument. Unfortunately, instead of taking the information under advisement, investigating, and issuing a report, the board members in support of sex education went on the defensive. They argued with opponents and became too personally involved in the debate, instead of simply letting the program be reviewed. “Hence, their success in building a sex education program and the national recognition they had received seemed to force them into partisan roles and made them give up the public relations strategy that had served their interests in 1962”(Hottois & Milner, 1975, p.77).

Additionally, in 1968, “Paul Cook, who had watched the district grow from its postwar infancy, had resigned as superintendent, and the sex education program was virtually abolished” (Hottois & Milner, 1975, p.74). Although programs in other cities around the country, such as areas of Texas and in Chicago, had experienced controversy as well, the debate was amplified in Anaheim. This was due in large part to the combination of a model program and a largely right-wing political population. Additionally, allowing extremist conservative Christian groups to participate fueled the fire. “The inclusion of these extremist groups into the sex education debate caused attention to be taken away from both legitimate opposition as well as the benefits of the program”(Paige C., 2009, p.1).

Although this was not the first time politics and religion had waded into the sexuality education waters, this debate did mark a turning point in the way curricular decisions were made based on the views of groups with no direct educational connection. Our ideas of “local control” were shifting from local educators to local citizens (with national support).

To be continued…

Sexuality Education in Rural Midwestern Communities

Although my interests as they pertain to sex(uality) are broad, anyone who has gone through the process of writing a thesis or dissertation knows that specificity is the key to success, not to mention finishing! My focused dissertation research examined sexuality education policy implementation in two rural midwestern communities in Iowa. I approached this comparative case study through a social cognitive lens. My study was unique in the sense that very little research has examined sexuality education policy implementation, and no research that I was able to find focused on the midwest as a discreet community. The social cognitive lens I used to examine and interpret my findings also amounted to a new application of social cognition theory. As a lifelong resident of the midwest, and current resident of Iowa, my investment into the local community is high. Having experienced a form of sexuality education myself, I am familiar with the community dynamics that impact that way in which sexuality education is delivered.

Although a full review of the history of sexuality education is outside the purview of this site, it is important to note that the way we approach sexuality education has an extensive and sordid history. Several scholars, including Robin Jensen, Alexandra Lord, Kristin Luker, and Jeffrey Moran, have reviewed this history in excellent detail, and I would refer you to their work for a more extensive discussion. This past has brought us what Marty Klein and others refer to as “America’s Culture Wars” or America’s War on Sex. Debates continue to rage over funding, policy, and curriculum on multiple fronts. Although the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that children should receive comprehensive sexuality education (Constantine, Slater, & Carroll, 2007; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004), a small but vocal minority of individuals continue to lobby against such policy initiatives, citing various personal reasons for objecting. The act of objecting to comprehensive sexuality education for yourself or your children is certainly within anyones’ rights, but infringing on the rights of others in the process has become problematic for a country higher birth and STI rates than all other industrialized nations.

This history, in addition to fueling my general passion for the topic, lead me to study sexuality education policy implementation in rural communities. The overall purpose of this study was to provide a qualitative case study analysis of sexuality education policy implementation in two rural midwestern communities in the state of Iowa. I was interested in learning how local agents in rural midwestern communities implemented sexuality education policy, and understanding that process from a social cognitive theoretical framework.

I utilized a qualitative case study methodology for this study. Seven local implementing agents (defined as those directly responsible for the implementation of sexuality education policy received from the state of Iowa) from two rural school districts in the state of Iowa were interviewed, and relevant documents pertaining to the implementation of sexuality education policy were analyzed. The case study methodology provided the opportunity for participants to share individual values and beliefs regarding sexuality education policy, and discuss their experiences implementing this policy.Analysis of the data was guided by the following research questions: (a) what are the roles of individual implementing agents in the implementation of sexuality education policy in two rural, midwestern school districts?  (b) Are there significant individual and group influences on how implementing agents choose to implement sexuality education policy? (c) What is the community context in which implementing agents implement sexuality education? How significant is that context to implementing agents’ decisions regarding sexuality education policy implementation? and (d) how is sexuality education policy implementation organized and administered in rural midwestern school districts?

My findings were thought-provoking and insightful, and generated a greater understanding of how policy is implemented in these areas, and how this can impact the way we address the sexuality education needs of young people in these communities. Four main themes emerged, and my findings were centered around these areas.

#1. Values & Beliefs of Implementing Agents- The values and beliefs of implementing agents were of particular interest from a social cognitive perspective (Bandura, 1986; 2001; Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Guthrie, 1990; Jones, 1989). In the present study, personal and professional values and beliefs could not be distinguished from one another, and implementing agents were generally supportive of comprehensive sexuality education. They were willing to provide resources for young people, and were not significantly influenced by any religious or otherwise conservative belief structures. A lack of formal training, and a focus on addressing teen pregnancy were also reflected in the values and beliefs of implementing agents. These values and beliefs did not expand the definition of sex(uality) education beyond a biological context.

#2. Community Context- The community context emerged as a second significant theme (Arnold et al., 2005; de Coste, 2011; Smith & DiClemente, 2000). Despite previous findings, the present study found the community to be relatively silent on matters of sexuality and sexuality education. In general, if the implementing agents could rationalize the curriculum, then others in the community deferred to their expertise and were more interested in avoiding sexuality-related conversations themselves. Parents did play a limited role in both districts, and smaller community groups influenced the sexuality education policy implementation in one of the two communities. Additionally, lack of access of health services emerged as relevant to the present study.

#3. Implementing Agent Interaction- The interaction among implementing agents was found to be minimal in both districts. Agents acted mostly independently in matters of sexuality education policy, and were generally unaware of the actions of other implementing agents. This was especially interesting as administrators generally had less direct knowledge of how sexuality education policy was being implemented than with other curricular areas.

#4. Organization and Administration of Sexuality Education- The organization and administration of sexuality education varied greatly in each district. For both districts, the focus on core subjects such as math and science was very high. Policy implementation was a completely internal process in one district, whereas outside presenters and organizers participated in the other district.A careful examination of the curriculum materials made it clear that the materials each district possessed were either outdated or lacked comprehensive information. As a result of the poor quality and lack of access to quality curricular materials, implementing agents in both districts were forced to cobble together handouts, activities, and resources from a variety of external sources to shape their lessons. This lack of clear, comprehensive, and up-to-date curricular materials severely hindered the ability of implementing agents in both districts to implementing sexuality education policy effectively. Furthermore, implementing agents in both districts expressed a lack of knowledge about where to find additional resources should they wish to improve the manner in which they implement sexuality education policy.

Although the findings of this study are not necessarily generalizable to all rural midwestern communities (nor was that the expectation, as is true of much qualitative work), they are still quite significant for how we understand the policy implementation process in these communities. The findings indicate a need for more resources, professional development and training, community leveraging, and diversification of curricular content in rural midwestern communities.

At least one-fourth of all young people go to school in rural communities (Beeson & Strange, 2000) and these areas are often viewed as being insulated from the social concerns of larger urban areas (Blinn-Pike, 2008; Champion & Kelly, 2002). Since a majority of sexuality education curricula are focused on addressing these social concerns, there is a belief that sexuality education is less necessary in rural communities. However, evidence suggests that the need is just as great in rural communities, which are often underserved and lack the available resources of larger urban areas (Alexander et. al., 1989; Blinn-Pike, 2008; Blinn-Pike et al., 2004). Thus, the need for not only more research, but action to encourage more comprehensive implementation of sexuality education policy, is timely and warranted.


Alexander, C.S., Ensminger, M.E., Kim, Y.J., Smith, J., Johnson, K.E., & Dolan, L.J. (1989). Early sexual activity among adolescents in small towns and rural areas: Race and gender patterns. Family Planning Perspectives, 21, 261-266.

Arnold, M.L., Newman, J.H., Gaddy, B.B., & Dean, C.B. (2005). A look at the condition of rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(6), 1-25.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Beeson, E., & Strange, M. (2000). Why rural matters: The need for every state to take action on rural education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 16(2), 63-140.

Blinn-Pike, L. (2008). Sex education in rural schools in the United States: Impact of rural educators’ community identities. Sex Education, 8(1), 77-92.

Blinn-Pike, L., Berger, T.J., & Hewett, J. (2004). Evaluation of the ‘Reducing the Risk’ curriculum: 18 month follow-up. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 495-511.

Champion, J.D., & Kelly, P. (2002). Protective and risk behaviors of rural minority adolescents. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 23, 191-207.

Cohen, D.K., & Weiss, J.A. (1993). The interplay of social science and prior knowledge in public policy. In H. Redner (Ed.), Studies in the thought of Charles E. Lindblom. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Constantine, N.A., Slater, J. K., & Carroll, J. (2007). Motivational aspects of community support for school-based comprehensive sexuality education. Sex Education, 7(4), 421-439.

Coste, d. (2011). Federal initiatives and sex education: The impact on rural United States. Critical Education, 2(13), 1-16.

Guthrie, J.W. (1990). Policy into practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3).

Jones, J.W. (1989). Personality and epistemology: Cognitive social learning theory as a philosophy of science. Zygon, 24(1), 23-38.

Kaiser Family Foundation, National Public Radio, & Harvard University. (2004). Sex Education in America: General Public/Parents Survey. Menlo Park, CA: The Foundation. 

Smith, M., & DiClemente, R.J. (2000). STAND: A peer educator training curriculum for sexual risk reduction in the rural South. Students together against negative decisions. Preventive Medicine, 30, 441-449.