Name: ​Hallie Whiting

Title of Project: ​LGBTQ Inclusion In Public School Sexual Education

Faculty Mentor and Her Departmental Affiliation:​ Dr. McWhorter, Stephanie Bennett-Smith
Chair in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies

Part 1: Aims:
For my research project, I aim to determine what factors affect whether HIV and
same-sex sex, safety, and relationships are included in The United States public schools’ sexual
education curriculum. I want to study the social, historical, and legal differences of Louisiana,
Virginia, and California to get a clearer understanding of the different perspectives of inclusive
sexual education. Then, I want to be able to determine who is in a position of power in
determining what is included in public school sexual education and what reasoning these power
figures have behind their decisions. I will focus on the legislative and educational changes
beginning in the 1980’s because the rise in national conservative groups as well as the impact of
The Reagan Administration greatly shaped the curriculum of sexual education that exists today.

Part 2: Background and Significance

The number of adults in the United States identifying as LGBTQ has risen from 3.5% to
4.1% between 2012 and 2016 which amounts to more than 10 million members of the LGBTQ
community living in the U.S. today. Millennials make up the biggest portion of U.S. adults
identifying as LGBTQ, meaning generations are becoming more willing to identify outside the
traditional sexuality normative (Bridges, 2017). Despite gender and sexual identification
demographics changing every year, the U.S.’s sexual education curriculum that introduces many
of these identities to students remains static. According to the National Conference of State
Legislators in 2016, “only 33 states and the District of Columbia require students to receive
instruction about HIV/AIDS, and only 20 states require that this information must be medically,
factually, or technically accurate (NCSL, 2015). The growing population of the LGBTQ
community is not being represented in most schools’ sexual education curriculums because of
outdated legislation or a lack of legislation entirely concerning the curriculum requirements.
Sexual education has existed as early as 1892, but the first wave of organized opposition
existed from the late 1960’s to the early 1980’s (Advocates for Youth, n.d.). Growing concern
about non marital adolescent pregnancy began in the 1960’s, and the AIDS epidemic in the
1980’s lead to widespread implementation of school based programs recommending AIDS
education and abstinence only until marriage (AOUM) approaches. National conservative groups
such as Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America protested for abstinence only
curriculum and the Reagan administration supported their views by tying federal funding to a
curriculum grounded in abstinence. “AOUM withholds information about condoms and
contraception, promotes religious ideologies and gender stereotypes, and stigmatizes adolescents
with non heteronormative sexual identities,” but in 2016, funding for AOUM increased to $85
million per year (Hall, 2016). Despite scientific evidence showing the ineffectiveness of teaching
abstinence (​Stanger-Hall, et. al, 2011​), religious bias weaved its way into most states’ curriculum
except for California, Colorado, Iowa, Washington, and Washington D.C., who passed pieces of
legislature specifically requiring inclusive sexual education (Human Rights Campaign, n.d.).
Many states with limited funding have to accept the federal funding which is certainly not
LGBTQ inclusive nor is it required to be medically accurate at times. Decisions of sexual
education curriculum for schools with sufficient funding are “decided on a local level by school
boards, advisory committees, or even individual teachers” (Human Rights Campaign, n.d.). The
lack of federal control over sexual education leads to deeply rooted cultural and religious norms
around adolescent sexuality driving restrictions on content.
The U.S. public school sexual education curriculum has demonstrated significant lack of
mandated sexual health information for heterosexual students, so the inclusion of LGBTQ sexual
education is far from acceptable. Poor LGBTQ sexual education produces significant health risks
as well as long-term stigmas surrounding non heteronormative practices. LGBTQ students are
significantly more likely to report being physically forced to have sex (18% LGBTQ vs 5%
heterosexual), sexual dating violence (23% LGBTQ vs. 9% heterosexual), physical dating
violence (18% LGBTQ vs. 8% heterosexual), and being bullied at school (34% LGBTQ vs. 19%
heterosexual) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). It should be the school’s
responsibility to create environments that all students can thrive socially, emotionally, and
physically.

Part 3: Plan for Research

In order to understand the current state of public school sexual education, I must research
the history of states that have either accepted inclusivity in their curriculum, rejected it entirely,
or left the decision up to localities. Critical reading of government documents will be necessary
to incorporate legislative evidence. I also plan on having a discussion with Dr. Nathan Snaza
who teaches a class on the “Politics of Sexual Education” to gain insight on where to look for
information, a general timeline of sexual education in the U.S., and possibly further experts to
contact. I am interested in researching what led to each state’s respective decision and who made
it because I believe it will lead me to make a clear identification about the value and cultural
differences among the three areas. News outlets will offer context and information about the
discussion of the impending decisions before they were made and after the laws went into place.
There is a multitude of sources I can look into, but while doing this research, I will constantly
need to be identifying religious bias and reminding myself of the demographics that make up a
certain area. Race, ethnicity, and religion will undoubtedly play a role in the decisions made
surrounding sexual education as they do with all other legislative decisions. My research will
culminate in a research paper detailing my research process including a power analysis of sexual
education in U.S. public schools. I will also report the information I find surrounding the
connections between federal funding and biased curriculum as well as a sample curriculum of
inclusive sexual education that will first be given to multiple school boards in Virginia for
feedback. The feedback will then help me construct a final curriculum recommendation that will
be sent to Virginia’s Senate Representatives, Marker Warner and Tim Kaine.

Part 4: Literature Cited

Advocates for Youth. “A Selective History of Sexuality Education in the United States.”
Accessed April 15, 2018.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/serced/1859-history-of-sex-ed​.

Bridges, Tristan, “The Changing Gender and Sexual Demographics of The United States.”
Pacific Standard​, January 17, 2017,
https://psmag.com/news/the-changing-gender-and-sexual-demographics-of-the-united-sta
tes

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Health Risks Among Sexual Minority Youth.” Last
modified May 24, 2017. ​https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/disparities/smy.htm​.

Hall, Kelli S., Sales, Jessica M., Komro, Kelli A., and Santelli, John. “The States of Sex
Education in the United States. ​The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of
the Society of Adolescent Medicine​ 58, no.6 (2016): 595-597.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.032.

Human Rights Campaign, “A Call To Action: LGBTQ Youth Need Inclusive Education.”
Human
Rights Campaign, ​n.d.,
https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC-SexHealthBrief-2015.pdf?_ga=2.54210
475.2069447320.1520355752-1573932322.1519167667

NCSL, 2015; Guttmacher Institute, 2015; Powered by StateNet.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx

Stanger-Hall, Kathrin F. & Hall, David W. “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy
Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S.” ​PLoS ONE​, ​6​(10)
(2011). ​http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024658