Sex Education in Canada: Exploring Links Between School Contexts and Messages about Biology, Relationships, and Sexual Violence

Background and Purpose: Sexual identity development and exploration are important tasks of adolescence, and critical social work priorities. Most Canadian youth become sexually active in their teens, and sex education, mandated in Ontario schools, aims to teach youth about healthy sexual expression and relationships. However, since no specific curriculum guidelines exist, program delivery may vary widely. With few exceptions, sex education research tends to focus on pregnancy and disease. Often left out are sexual violence prevention and the effects of school context.  In order to fill this critical gap, this research explores information about relationships and sexual violence in sex education, as well as school and program context, by asking: Do amounts of information received in sex education about biology, relationships, and sexual violence, differ by school and program context (school type, program type, tone, and gender of instructor)?

Methods: Participants were 1845 undergraduate students (67% female; Mage=22 years; 70.3% White/Caucasian, 9.3% Asian/Pacific Islander; 7.1% Black/African-Canadian; 1.1% Aboriginal/First Nations/Metis) attending one of two post-secondary schools in southwestern Ontario. Participants were recruited via campus-wide emails and completed a brief online survey. Sexual information received was assessed by asking about 24 topics with the heading, “How much information did you receive about the following in your school sex education?” Through factor analysis, three subscales were created: biology and health information (6 items; alpha=.86); relationship and communication information (6 items; alpha=.91); and sexual violence information (3 items; alpha=.90). Independent variables included type of school, type of sex education program, perceived tone of program, and gender of instructor(s).

Results: Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) revealed that after controlling for relevant socio-demographics, school and program contexts affected amounts of information received. Specifically, school type affected amounts of biology messages (F(2,1493)=23.83, p<.001), with students receiving the most information in public schools. Program type was linked with receipt of significantly different amounts of information about biology (F(4,1445)=51.93, p<.001); relationships (F(4,1445)=12.79, p<.001); and violence (F(4,1445)=7.51, p<.001) with the highest amounts of all three received in comprehensive sex education programs. Differences also emerged by program tone (biology: F(4,1508)=30.84, p<.001; relationships: F(4,1508)=6.60, p<.001; violence: F(4,1508)=4.82, p<.001) with “safety-based” programs delivering the most information about biology and relationships, and “pleasure-driven” programs delivering the most information about sexual violence. Gender of instructor was also significant (biology: F(3,1496)=23.94, p<.001; relationships: F(3,1496)=19.89, p<.001; violence: F(3,1496)=21.95, p<.001.) Students with both male and female instructors received the most information across topics.

Conclusions and Implications: School type, program type, program tone, and instructor gender may affect information amounts received about biology, relationships, and sexual violence, all important topics likely to contribute to the sexual health and safety of adolescents as they develop. Increasing understanding of program effects and nuances, and tailoring sex education to maximize its effectiveness present grand challenges for social work, which is uniquely positioned to take a holistic, strengths-based approach across practice, policy, and research. Social work must put adolescent sexual health, and sexual violence prevention, critical components of youth health and safety, at the forefront of social work priorities for the future.