by Julia Kessel
Comprehensive sex education is a necessary aspect of public schools. It is the responsibility of public schools and districts to ensure that their students leave the school as informed and self-sufficient individuals. The goal of sex education within schools is to teach students about their bodies, their sexualities, relationships, safe sex and other topics within the realm of the human body and development so that they are comfortable and are able to make safe, healthy decisions that are right for them. In the state of Wisconsin, there are a specific set of learning standards within the unit of Human Growth and Development that are required to be taught in every school (Department of Public Instruction, pg 2). This list is not all encompassing and school districts are able to teach beyond these standards but, they are recommended to consult with their legal team before doing so to prevent any potential lawsuits. The sex education learning standards in Wisconsin are not inclusive to sexualities other than heterosexual and they are not informative enough for the students. When evaluating these standards through the lense of Jennifer Bryan’s idea of heteronormativity, one can see the idea of gender and sexuality being compartmentalized and judged. The Wisconsin sex education standards do not achieve their goal of giving students the necessary and comprehensive information to be comfortable and aware of their bodies, sexuality and relationships and in addition, they are exclusionary to students who do not identify as heterosexual.
The Wisconsin standards for sex education are very short and leave a lot up to the individual school districts. This variance leaves a disparity between what some students in Wisconsin are taught compared to others. It also allows the schools to have nearly total discretion over the curriculum for this unit. The sex education unit, otherwise known as the human growth and development unit, is required for every student to be taught, unless they are opted out by a parent or guardian. This unit has five mandatory content areas: abstinence as the expectation before marriage, abstinence as the only 100 percent effective way to avoid an unplanned pregnancy or STDs, the benefits of raising a child in marriage, pregnancy and childbirth and lastly, adolescent sex statutes and the sex offender registry (Department of Public Instruction, pg 2). Districts are allowed, but not explicitly encouraged, to teach about other subjects in the realm of human growth and development. Their guidebook states that “districts are advised to consult with their legal counsel for interpretation and application of the above statutes” (Department of Public Instruction, pg 2). The tone of the language used seems to imply that the state does not encourage or want districts to expand on the standards that are laid out for them. This may be due to the potential legal consequences or the moral ideals of those who wrote and approved the standards.
The discussion of sex education in schools tends to be controversial for numerous reasons. Since the topic of sex is often seen as taboo, it is a widely regarded thought that it should not be taught because it is not appropriate for schools. That mindset often leads to a push for an abstinence-only education where the students are taught about the positives of not engaging in sex-related activities until married in a heterosexual, monogamous relationship. A 2003 study by David J. Landry, Jacqueline E. Darroch, Susheela Singh and Jenny Higgins, stated, over “one-third of Americans believed that sexual intercourse should occur only in marriage” (pg 263). Most policymakers cater to the ideals and wants of their community and constituency. Teachers and districts are also pressured into maintaining the happiness of their community. The study also stated, “teachers’ concern about possible adverse community reaction, and teaching in a school without a district- or school-level sex education policy, had a positive association with instruction on topics related to abstinence and had a negative association with instruction on topics related to pregnancy and STD prevention” (pg 265). The coercion of districts, teachers and administrators is a contributing factor to the failure of the Wisconsin sex education standards’ ability to give students a comprehensive sex education in public schools. This leads one to the conclusion that since many Americans feel that sex outside of marriage is wrong, that mindset and opinion is likely to be integrated into policies and later implemented into public schools by school boards and state-level school officials.
Religious beliefs are another common obstacle to implementing a comprehensive sex education in public schools. While there is legally a separation between church and state in the United States due to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, that line is often blurred when people’s religion blends into their morals and beliefs of right versus wrong. In many religions, practicing sex before marriage is a seen as unnacceptable and a sin. This allows for many arguments to be brought up in favor of either no sex education or an abstinence-only education. Those who are against a comprehensive sex education in public schools often believe that it encourages students to engage in sexual activity earlier and creates higher rates of teen pregnancy and by that thinking, teen abortions as well (Ott, Santelli). Although religion does not have a legal place in public schools, the morals of a person’s religion often impact the way that they view what is and isn’t appropriate to be taught in schools. This relationship and idea of “right and wrong” tends to be a challenge for the creators of education standards, school boards, districts and teachers themselves when trying to create, implement, encourage or teach a comprehensive sex education in their public school. The debate about sex education’s place in public schools is ongoing and multifaceted.
By comparing the policies, implementations and outcomes related to the sex education standards in both a very urban public school district and a more rural public school district in Wisconsin, one is able to get an objective view of if the sex education standards reach their goal of making students comfortable and informed in the realm of their body, sexuality and relationships. When analyzing the standards, looking at the students, teachers and school administrations gives the clearest picture of how the standards impact the populations that they aim to help. Starkly different forms of sex education are offered to students in the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) and the Green Bay Area Public School District (GBAPS). While they both include the mandatory state standards, they approach the expansion of the human growth and development unit in very different ways. These districts were chosen due to the wide disparity in content of their sex education units even though they base their units off of the same requirements. The learning goals and outcomes within each district lead to the need for a deeper look into the shortcomings of the Wisconsin state sex education standards. Comparing MMSD to GBAPS shows the inconsistency in sex education units in school districts across the state of Wisconsin.
The Madison Metropolitan School District encompasses Madison, Fitchburg and numerous surrounding towns and villages, serving over 25,000 students. This district is required to teach the subjects included in the Wisconsin standards for sex education but chooses to teach a more inclusive human growth and development unit. Throughout their version of this unit, they use a number of resources from their Curriculum & Inclusive Practices Guide (Hohs). The guide was created by Sherie Hohs, the MMSD LGBTQIA+ Lead as a part of the MMSD Welcoming Schools Initiative. It includes lesson plans for teachers about inclusive marriage, intersectional gender and sexuality identities, gender inclusion, LGBTQ+ inclusive sex education and a large number more. The goal of using comprehensive resources for a more inclusive sex education is to ensure that their student population, no matter how they identify, is able to walk away from the unit aware and comfortable with all of the mentioned topics. The Madison Metropolitan School District’s human growth and development unit successfully achieves that goal.
On the other hand, the Green Bay Area Public School District (GBAPS) serves about 20,000 students in Green Bay and the surrounding suburbs. In this district, the standards for their human growth and development unit are small and do not expand much on the Wisconsin state standards for sex education. The GBAPS standards focus heavily on responsible decision making, abstinence before marriage and positives of only having children once married. One noticeable inclusion is that it mentions “sex stereotypes” (Green Bay Area Public School District). What is left unknown by that learning standard is which stereotypes are included and if/how those stereotypes are then addressed and combated in the classroom. The GBAPS’ human growth and development unit curriculum focuses solely on heternormative ideals, sexualities and relationships and then preaches them to their student body. While these standards do achieve the minimum goal, they are not inclusive and are hyperfocused on heterosexual situations and relationships.
Green Bay and Madison public school districts both aim to partake in the process of teaching students about sex and sexuality because of their responsibilities as public schools to teach their students about these topics. They impose learning standards that every school in their district is required to address and teach their students about. This is due to the “special responsibility upon the school in helping boys and girls grow into men and women who have their impulses under direction and control for the service of individually satisfying and socially acceptable purposes” (Southworth, pg 80). Public school districts are held responsible for the education of their students and oftentimes they receive a great amount of guidance from the state but other times, it is not so beneficial. Since the Green Bay Area Public School District did not expand on the Wisconsin state sex education standards, they do not adequately address the problem at hand, giving students an informative, comprehensive and inclusive sex education in their public schools. Meanwhile, the Madison Metropolitan School District expanded on the state sex education standards and was able to fulfill their responsibility in terms of educating their students in a deep, useful and inclusive way throughout the human growth and development unit.
The Wisconsin state standards for sex education tend to follow a very heteronormative approach to teaching. Heteronormativity is defined as the cultural and social management of gender and sexuality that tends to rely on the traditional “boxes” within gender and sexuality and doesn’t allow for any variation (Bryan, pg 1). It looks at gender and sexuality as right or wrong, as a black and white concept when in actuality, they are spectrums with no correct way to identify. This idea was coined by Michael Warner and written about in depth by Jennifer Bryan. The idea of heteronormativity helps explain the importance of inclusivity in sex education and the harmful impacts of putting gender, sexuality and sex into “boxes.” It also describes the heteronormative assumptions that often come along with sex education in schools and how harmful that may be to students.
By applying Jennifer Bryan’s 2012 theory of heteronormativity to the Wisconsin state sex education standards, one can see how deeply flawed and exclusive the standards are. For example, the standards focus on the heterosexual marital idea of a husband and wife, with the wife in charge of primarily raising and being responsible for the children. This instantly leaves out any student who identifies as anything other than heterosexual. Michelle Estes conducted a study about the sexual miseducation of LGBTQ+ students. In this study, she stated, “Repeated exclusion of LGB[TQ+] individuals from sex education courses can leave them without much needed knowledge to protect themselves when engaging in sexual activity” (pg 623). The heteronormative ideals taught by the Wisconsin state sex education standards do just that, exclude. They exclude students who identify as LGBTQ+, non-monogamous relationships, those who may not want children and many more. Students in the above categories are ignored and encouraged to fall into the heteronormative boxes of a husband-wife marriage that eventually leads to the wife becoming pregnant and raising a child. Jennifer Bryan’s theory of heteronormativity exposes the numerous flaws within the Wisconsin state sex education standards by showing the problems related to limiting gender and sexuality to rigid norms and assumptions.
Through the lens of heteronormativity, the sex education learning standards in Wisconsin are accurate and achieve the goal of teaching heterosexual students about heterosexual sex and relationships. Success of the standards through the eyes of heteronormativity would entail ensuring that students learn and follow this sequence of events, abstinence, marriage to a person of the opposite sex, and then children. It would aim to delay the age that students begin to engage in sexual activity and decrease the number of sexual partners a person has throughout their lifetime overall. The intended consequences and outcomes of the Wisconsin state sex education learning standards are for the students to not engage in sexual activity before marriage and if they absolutely must, then for it to be safe. The unintended consequences are that students who engage in sexual activity feel shamed and not know how to handle situations since they are not talked about in class. Students who identify as LGBTQ+ are excluded from the classroom discussions of safe sex and relationships which ultimately leads to the standards not achieving their goal and responsibility of giving ALL students an informative and comprehensive sex education.
The Wisconsin sex education standards as a policy do not adequately address their responsibility to the students in the state. As stated by Southworth, “there is a very significant responsibility for the school to supplement the sex education taught in the home and church” (pg 83). Public schools are the ones responsible for giving their students an adequate and comprehensive sex education and the standards are aimed to do that. While the standards exist to address the responsibility of public schools, they do not do so adequately. Due to the exclusive and surface level information required, as well as the significant amount of necessary and vital information left out, the Wisconsin state sex education standards do not give students comprehensive and thorough information about all genders, sexualities and types of relationships. Through comparing and evaluating the human growth and development units in different districts throughout Wisconsin, there is evidence to prove that a successful and informative sex education can be given in the state that is helpful and inclusive to all of the students that it aims to serve.
In conclusion, the Wisconsin state standards for sex education are not successful in addressing their responsibility of teaching students comprehensive and inclusive sex education because they leave out many important topics and only focus on the narrow idea of heterosexual individuals and relationships. Heteronormativity adds to the problem that is exacerbated by the Wisconsin sex education standards because of the way it compartmentalizes gender, sex and sexuality and makes a statement of good versus bad when it is about what is right for each individual student. As for a proposed solution, rewriting and expanding the Wisconsin sex education standards and the human growth and development unit to include a number of vital, yet missing topics would be the best, most successful and efficient option. Starkman and Rajani’s study proved that there is more evidence showing that the impacts of a comprehensive sex education are ultimately positive and that it does not encourage some of the behaviors that the policies are designed to avoid (pg 314). The expanded curriculum for the human growth and development unit would include that the students are taught to be comfortable with their bodies (during and after puberty), safe sex for all kinds of couples, forms of birth control, how relationships don’t have to look one way, abortion, adoption and numerous more topics. By expanding the state sex education standards, public schools in Wisconsin would be able to achieve their goal of giving their students an informative, inclusive and comprehensive sex education that is no longer heteronormative or surface-level.
References
Bryan, J. (2012). “Heteronormativity at School: Questioning the “Natural Order” of Things.” From the Dress-up Corner to the Senior Prom: Navigating Gender and Sexuality Diversity in PreK-12 Schools. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
Estes, M (2017). “If There’s One Benefit, You’re not Going to Get Pregnant”: the Sexual Miseducation of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Individuals” Sex roles, 2017-11, Vol.77 (9), p.615-627.
Evers, T (2011). “Need for Human Growth and Development Instruction in Wisconsin Schools.” Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sspw/pdf/hgdunitintro.pdf.
Hohs, S (2021). “Curriculum & Inclusive Practices.” LGBTQIA+ MMSD
“Human Growth and Development.” Green Bay Area Public School District
Landry, D, Darroch, J, Singh, S, Higgins, J (2003). “Factors associated with the content of sex education in U.S. public secondary schools.” Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 2003-11, Vol.35 (6), p.261-269
Ott, M, Santelli, J (2007). “Abstinence and abstinence-only education.” Current Opinions in Obstetrics and Gynecology, October 2007 – Volume 19 – Issue 5 – p 446-452.
Southworth, W (1954). “A Study in the Area of Family Life Education: The Nature of Sex Education Programs in Wisconsin High Schools.” The High School Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, 1954, pp. 77–116. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40363168. Accessed 29 Mar. 2021.Starkman, N, Rajani, N (2002). “The case for comprehensive sex education.” AIDS patient care and STDs, 2002-07, Vol.16 (7), p.313-318.