RESEARCH ARTICLE

New Evidence: Data Documenting Parental

Support for Earlier Sexuality Education
ELISSA M. BARR, PhDa MICHELE J. MOORE, PhDb TAMMIE JOHNSON, PhDc JAMIE FORREST, PhDd MELISSA JORDAN, MSe

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies document support for sexuality education to be taught in high school, and often, in middle
school. However, little research has been conducted addressing support for sexuality education in elementary schools.
METHODS: As part of the state Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Survey administration, the Florida
Department of Health conducted the Florida Child Health Survey (FCHS) by calling back parents who had children in their home
and who agreed to participate (N = 1715).
RESULTS: Most parents supported the following sexuality education topics being taught specifically in elementary school:
communication skills (89%), human anatomy/reproductive information (65%), abstinence (61%), human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV)/sexually transmitted infections (STIs) (53%), and gender/sexual orientation issues (52%). Support was even greater
in middle school (62-91%) and high school (72-91%) for these topics and for birth control and condom education. Most parents
supported comprehensive sexuality education (40.4%), followed by abstinence-plus (36.4%) and abstinence-only (23.2%).
Chi-square results showed significant differences in the type of sexuality education supported by almost all parent demographic
variables analyzed including sex, race, marital status, and education.
CONCLUSIONS: Results add substantial support for age-appropriate school-based sexuality education starting at the
elementary school level, the new National Sexuality Education Standards, and funding to support evidence-based
abstinence-plus or comprehensive sexuality education.

Keywords: sexuality education; adolescents; public support; abstinence-only sexuality education; abstinence-based sexuality
education; comprehensive sexuality education.
Citation: Barr EM, Moore MJ, Johnson T, Forrest J, Jordan M. New evidence: data documenting parental support for earlier
sexuality education. J Sch Health. 2014; 84: 10-17.

Received on December 11, 2012

Accepted on May 5, 2013

S exuality education in US schools has long been con-

sidered a controversial topic. This debate typically
centers on which type of sexuality education program
a broad set of topics related to sexuality and sexual
health including abstinence and contraception as dis-
ease prevention methods.5-7 As this debate continues,
to offer.1-4 Such programs generally fall within 1 of so does the need for quality sexuality education to
3 categories: (1) abstinence-only, which emphasizes address risky sexual behaviors of youth and associated
abstinence from all sexual behavior outside marriage negative health outcomes.
and may only include contraception in terms of fail- Risky sexual behaviors among youth remain high.
ure rates; (2) abstinence-based, which emphasizes According to the 2011 national Youth Risk Behavior
the benefits of abstinence yet includes information Survey (YRBS) data, almost half (47.4 %) of high
about contraception as a disease prevention method school students in grades 9-12 reported ever having
(sometimes referred to as abstinence-plus); and (3) had sex.8 When looking at high school seniors
comprehensive, which is age-appropriate, sequenced specifically, 63.1% reported ever having had sex with
K-12 sexuality education that includes information on 24.1% of seniors having had 4 or more partners.8 Data

a Associate Professor, (ebarr@unf.edu), Department of Public Health, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224.
bProfessor, (mmoore@unf.edu), Department of Public Health, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224.
c Associate Professor, (tammie.johnson@unf.edu), Department of Public Health, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224.
dAsthma Epidemiologist, (Jamie_Forrest@doh.state.fl.us), Florida Asthma Program, Florida Department of Health, 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-12, Tallahassee, FL 32399.
e Senior Epidemiologist, (Melissa_Jordan@doh.state.fl.us), Bureau of Epidemiology, Florida Department of Health, 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-12, Tallahassee, FL 32399.

Address correspondence to: Elissa M. Barr, Associate Professor, (ebarr@unf.edu), Department of Public Health, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224.

10 • Journal of School Health • January 2014, Vol. 84, No. 1 • © 2013, American School Health Association
for high school freshmen, generally 14 to 15 years pregnancy.3,18-20 These programs, often referred to
old, showed that 32.9% reported having had sex as ‘‘evidence-based’’ programs, teach both abstinence
(ranging from 24.2% for White females to 60.3% and contraception and have been found to delay
for Black males) and 8.7% reported having had 4 the initiation of sexual intercourse, decrease the
or more partners (ranging from 4.2% for Hispanic frequency of sexual intercourse, decrease the number
females to 25.9% for Black males).8 In another study, of sexual partners, and/or increase the use of condoms
Lindberg et al9 found that 50% of teens surveyed and contraception.3 Unfortunately, implementation
had engaged in vaginal intercourse, 55% in oral sex, of evidence-based sexuality programs including both
and 11% in anal sex.9 In a review of available 2009 abstinence and contraception in US schools is lacking.
middle school YRBS results (16 areas/states), data Of the mere 22 states and the District of Columbia (DC)
documented that as many as 20% of 6th graders and that require schools to teach sexuality education, only
42% of 8th graders reported having engaged in sexual 17 and DC require that programs provide information
intercourse.10 on contraception.21
Although sexual activity is high, the use of However, a growing body of literature documents
protection is not. According to Kirby3 careful and strong support for such sexuality education. Years of
consistent contraceptive use among many teens is national and state level research has shown repeatedly
lacking with only 70% of teen girls who rely on oral the majority of the public overwhelmingly supports
contraceptives actually taking them every day. YRBS teaching both abstinence and contraception, which
data also document that only 56.3% of sexually active is typical of an abstinence-based or comprehensive
high school seniors reported condom use at last sexual program.1,3,5,22-28 Such studies typically focus on
intercourse.8 Among freshmen, reported condom use support for teaching sexuality education to middle
at last sexual intercourse (62.2%) ranges from 51% school and high school aged youth, and not elementary
among Hispanics to 76.2% among Blacks.8 When students specifically. This article presents results of
reviewing prevention education, approximately 16% a statewide assessment of Florida parents’ attitudes
of high school students in 2011 reported never being toward sexuality education in schools. This study
taught about acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is unique in that it documents separate support for
(AIDS) or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) various sexuality education topics at the elementary,
infection in school, a significant increase from 13% in middle, and high school levels.
2009.8 In a review of 2009 YRBS middle school data
from 16 US locations, as many as 34.7% of 8th grade
METHODS
students also reported never receiving HIV/AIDS
education in school.10 Procedures and Participants
These risky sexual behaviors have numerous nega- The data used for this analysis are from the
tive health and social outcomes. Adolescents are faced 2008 and 2009 Florida Behavioral Risk Factor
with epidemic rates of sexually transmitted diseases Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Florida Child
(STDs)/HIV and unintended pregnancy. In the United Health Survey (FCHS). The BRFSS is an ongoing,
States, nearly half of the 19 million new STD infections cross-sectional, population-based telephone survey of
each year occur in individuals under age 25, and one noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 years and older in
fourth of sexually active teens have an STD.3,11 Of randomly selected households. It is conducted in every
the new HIV infections in 2009 in the United States, state, the District of Columbia, and 3 US territories.
young people aged 13-29 made up the largest group Within each randomly selected household, 1 adult is
(39%).12 Additionally, the United States continues randomly selected to complete the survey. The BRFSS
to lead other developed countries in teen pregnancy, elicits information from respondents pertaining to a
birth, and abortion rates.13,14 The pregnancy rate for variety of disease states, risk factors, preventive health
US teens aged 15-19 is approximately 68 per 1000, practices, and emerging health issues. Demographic
while the birth rate is 40 per 1000.15 With 1 in 10 and socioeconomic data are also collected. BRFSS
new mothers in the United States being a teen, more data are collected throughout the calendar year
than 400,000 babies are born to teen girls each year, by telephone interviews, and then aggregated and
almost 1100 every day.16,17 Only half of these teen weighted annually by the Centers for Disease Control
mothers obtain a high school diploma by age 22 (vs and Prevention (CDC) Behavioral Sciences Branch.
90% of those who do not give birth), almost 33% of During 2008 and 2009, the Florida BRFSS had
girls born to teens become teen parents themselves, nearly 23,000 respondents. These respondents were
and US taxpayers pay more than $9 billion annually asked (1) if they had children younger than 18 years
for teen childbearing costs.17 living in the household and (2) if they did, if they
Fortunately, numerous studies have documented would be willing to be called back at a future date for
the effectiveness of various sexuality education participation in an additional survey, the FCHS. Of the
programs in preventing adolescent STDs, HIV, and 3675 households who met these criteria for the 2 years

Journal of School Health • January 2014, Vol. 84, No. 1 • © 2013, American School Health Association • 11
combined, 2008 and 2009, a total of 1715 BRFSS sexuality education programs that address various
participants participated in the FCHS, comprising the health and reproductive issues).
sample for the current study. The interviewer then read a list of sexuality topics
The FCHS callbacks to the eligible BRFSS par- and asked the respondent if he/she would be in
ticipants were made between January 2009 and favor of his/her child learning about each topic
January 2010. Approximately 15 call attempts were in elementary school (grades K-5). The 5 topics
made at varying times throughout the day, both on at the elementary level included communication
weekdays and weekends, to increase response rates. skills, human anatomy and reproductive information,
At the beginning of the survey, the interviewer asked HIV and sexually transmitted infections information,
respondents to complete the survey as it pertains to abstinence from sexual activity, and gender and sexual
1 identified child younger than 18 years living in the orientation issues. The same was included for middle
household. This child was randomly selected by a school (grades 6-8) and high school (grades 9-12) with
computer program prior to the call, based on previous the addition of 2 topics, birth control methods and
BRFSS responses. condom use, for a total of 7 topics. Communication
skills included a 1-sentence description read aloud
to each participant defining the topic for clarity:
Instrument ‘‘Communication skills are the ability to clearly express
The FCHS was developed using existing instruments your feelings and/or desires with a family member,
including the BRFSS child health callback surveys in friend or partner.’’ For purposes of this study, parental
North Carolina and Colorado, National Health and ‘‘support’’ is defined as affirmative responses to
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), National these items.
Health Interview Survey, and the National Child
Health Survey. Several additional questions were pre-
Data Analysis
pared for topic areas not covered in the existing
The FCHS data were merged by participant
instruments, following the standard telephone inter- sequential number with the 2008-2009 BRFSS data.
viewing format used for the other questions. Florida As a result, the data collected for the BRFSS were
Department of Health (FDOH) and Florida Depart- available for each FCHS participant. The data were re-
ment of Education (FDOE) program staff reviewed the weighted to account for nonresponse. SAS version 9.2
survey and provided feedback for content validity and (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used to manage the
readability. The final draft of the instrument was then data and create variables, while SUDAAN version 10.0
reviewed by the BRFSS contractor, Abt SRBI, and (RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC) was
additional language was added on the basis of their used to calculate point estimates and 95% confidence
recommendations to clarify specific question topics. intervals. Frequencies were calculated for parent
The FCHS collects information on the health and demographics, support for sexuality education in
health practices of the respondent’s children, as general, and support for each specific topic. Chi-square
well as their support for various health education analyses were conducted to test significant associations
programs and practices. A total of 123 questions take between 2 variables to include parent demographics
approximately 15 minutes to complete. The survey and each type of sexuality education supported, and
is available in both English and Spanish. The FCHS parent demographics and support for all topics at each
questionnaire contains several demographic items and grade level. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ .05.
items specific to support for sexuality education.
One question asked whether respondents
would allow their children to participate in grade RESULTS
level-appropriate human sexuality education at his or Demographics
her school. Response options included ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No.’’ More than half (59.4%) of respondents were
The second question asked which kind of human sex- female, and the majority (80%) were either married
uality education or prevention the respondent would or cohabitating. Most of the sample was non-Hispanic
be most likely to support in his/her child’s school. White (62.2%), followed by Hispanic (22.1%) and
The phone interviewer listed the 3 types of sexuality non-Hispanic Black (15.7%). The majority was in the
education programs and provided a definition for 30-39 age range (40.7%), followed by 40-49 (32.6%),
each: abstinence-only (emphasizes abstinence from 29 and younger (14.4%), and 50 or older (12.4%).
all sexual behaviors—may not include information Respondents were likely to have at least graduated
regarding contraception, except in terms of failure from high school (20.2%) or received more education
rates, or disease prevention methods); abstinence-plus with 71.6% reporting 4 or more years of college. Only
(emphasizes the benefit of abstinence—includes infor- 8.2% did not finish high school. The sex of the child
mation about contraception and disease prevention for whom respondents answered was male in 51.3%
methods); and comprehensive (age-appropriate K-12 of cases and female in 48.8% of cases.

12 • Journal of School Health • January 2014, Vol. 84, No. 1 • © 2013, American School Health Association
Support for Sexuality Education Support for Sexuality Topics in High School
Overall, participants expressed supportive views Finally, most respondents were also supportive of
about including sexuality education in school instruc- the 7 topics listed as potential topics to include when
tion. The majority (79.3%) of parents would allow teaching sexuality education in high schools, grades
their children to participate in age-appropriate sexu- 9-12. When asked whether they would be in favor
ality education. When asked which type of sexuality of their child learning about the specific topics in
education program they preferred, 40.4% supported high school, 90.8% were in favor of communication,
comprehensive sexuality education, 36.4% supported 91.5% in favor of anatomy, 90.8% in favor of HIV,
abstinence-plus sexuality education, and 23.3% sup- 89.6% in favor or abstinence, 72% in favor of gender
ported abstinence-only sexuality education(Table 1). and sexual orientation issues, 85.8% in favor of birth
control, and 82.6% in favor of condoms. More than
Support for Sexuality Topics in Elementary School 70% of the participants supported teaching all 7 topics
Respondents held supportive views toward the at this level (Table 4).
5 topics listed as potential topics to include when
teaching sexuality education in elementary schools,
grades K-5. When asked whether they would be in Relationships Between Demographics and Support
favor of their children learning about the specific for Sexuality Education Topics
topics in elementary school, 88.7% were in favor of Significant differences by sex. Male respondents
communication, 64.7% in favor of anatomy, 61.3% in were significantly more likely than females to support
favor of abstinence, 53% in favor of HIV and 51.7% abstinence-only sexuality education (30% vs 20%,
in favor of gender and sexual orientation issues. More p = .04). Females were significantly more likely than
than half of the participants supported teaching all 5 males to support teaching various topics in both middle
topics at this level (Table 2). school and high school. These include anatomy and
HIV in middle school, and birth control and condoms
Support for Sexuality Topics in Middle School in both middle school and high school.
Most respondents were supportive of the 7 areas Significant differences by race/ethnicity and mar-
listed as potential topics to include when teaching ital status. Although respondents of all races were
sexuality education in middle schools, grades 6-8. supportive of teaching most sexuality education topics
When asked whether they would be in favor of their in general, non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics were
children learning about the specific topics in middle statistically more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to
school, 90.7% were in favor of communication, 88.4% support both HIV (63%, 61%, vs 48%, p = .01) and
in favor of anatomy, 86% in favor of HIV, 86.4% in gender and sexual orientation issues (61%, 59%, vs
favor of abstinence, 71.1% in favor of birth control, 47%, p = .02) in elementary school. Additionally, sin-
68.9% in favor of condoms, and 62.1% in favor of gle respondents were statistically more likely than
gender and sexual orientation issues. More than 60% married or cohabitating respondents to support teach-
of the participants supported teaching all 7 topics at ing birth control in middle school (81% vs 68%,
this level (Table 3). p = .00) and gender and sexual orientation issues in

Table 1. Parent Support for Sexuality Education and Sex Education Types, by Parent Characteristics, Florida BRFSS-CHS 2008-2009

Sex Education Abstinence-Plus Abstinence-Only Comprehensive

Parent Characteristics % p % p % p % p
All 79.3 36.4 23.2 40.4
Sex Male 72.2 0.01 34.3 0.52 29.6 0.04 36.1 0.18
Female 82.6 37.4 20.2 42.4
Race/ethnicity NH White 83.5 0.26 40.3 0.16 20.4 0.14 39.3 0.33
NH Black 77.8 30.5 32.2 37.3
Hispanic 76.5 32.0 19.6 48.4
Age group 18-29 74.1 0.16 35.1 0.93 16.2 0.40 48.6 0.49
30-39 75.6 37.0 25.9 37.1
40-49 83.6 35.2 22.9 41.9
50+ 82.9 38.8 21.2 40.0
Education <HS 75.9 0.45 23.7 0.14 27.8 0.62 48.5 0.49
HS/some college 75.9 42.7 20.4 36.9
4+ years college 80.8 36.1 23.5 40.4
Married/cohabitate Yes 80.1 0.68 36.3 0.95 24.5 0.18 39.1 0.32
No 78.1 36.7 19.0 44.4

Journal of School Health • January 2014, Vol. 84, No. 1 • © 2013, American School Health Association • 13
Table 2. Parent Support for Specific Sex Education Topics for Elementary School Students, by Parent Characteristics, Florida
BRFSS-CHS 2008-2009

Gender and Sexual

Communication Anatomy HIV Abstinence Orientation Issues
Parent Characteristics % p % p % p % p % p
All 88.7 64.7 53.0 61.3 51.7
Sex Male 86.0 0.19 60.5 0.18 55.7 0.40 61.3 0.99 50.0 0.59
Female 90.0 66.6 51.8 61.2 52.5
Race/ethnicity NH White 89.9 0.51 69.4 0.09 47.9 0.01 57.9 0.10 46.8 0.02
NH Black 84.4 57.1 62.8 70.2 61.4
Hispanic 89.3 61.4 60.9 63.6 58.7
Age group 18-29 86.0 0.40 57.2 0.56 42.0 0.29 61.2 0.90 49.3 0.47
30-39 91.1 67.0 55.2 63.1 52.4
40-49 88.2 65.3 52.4 59.9 54.5
50+ 85.2 61.9 55.7 59.4 45.8
Education <HS 89.2 0.21 60.2 0.28 72.6 0.02 65.6 0.36 67.0 0.05
HS/some college 83.4 59.2 55.2 65.8 55.6
4+ years college 90.1 66.8 49.8 59.5 48.7
Married/cohabitate Yes 89.2 0.77 66.2 0.35 50.8 0.08 60.8 0.63 49.1 0.03
No 88.2 61.1 60.0 63.3 60.2

Table 3. Parent Support for Specific Sex Education Topics for Middle School Students, by Parent Characteristics, Florida
BRFSS-CHS 2008-2009

Gender and Sexual

Middle School Communication Anatomy HIV Abstinence Birth Control Condom Orientation Issues
Parent Characteristics % p % p % p % p % p % p % p
All 90.7 88.4 86.0 86.4 71.1 68.5 62.1
Sex Male 87.9 0.14 82.6 0.01 79.2 <0.01 83.4 0.17 61.0 0.00 60.7 0.01 59.5 0.39
Female 92.1 91.1 89.2 87.8 75.7 72.0 63.3
Race/ethnicity NH White 91.9 0.47 90.4 0.19 87.5 0.37 88.4 0.13 71.7 0.32 67.5 0.58 59.8 0.16
NH Black 91.1 84.2 85.2 88.4 74.0 71.9 71.1
Hispanic 86.9 84.5 81.0 78.7 63.4 63.8 62.8
Age group 18-29 86.2 0.54 87.7 0.53 75.6 0.17 78.7 0.15 62.9 0.61 66.9 0.35 68.2 0.76
30-39 91.8 89.3 85.8 89.5 72.3 72.1 62.0
40-49 92.0 89.7 89.5 87.2 72.2 67.2 60.6
50+ 87.9 83.6 84.9 80.9 70.3 62.6 62.0
Education <HS 81.9 0.18 82.1 0.31 82.8 0.76 76.0 0.21 74.3 0.70 73.1 0.47 72.8 0.05
HS/some college 93.8 86.3 87.8 89.2 73.3 71.8 68.1
4+ years college 91.1 89.8 86.0 87.0 70.1 67.0 59.1
Married/cohabitate Yes 91.1 0.90 87.9 0.34 85.5 0.35 86.6 1.00 67.9 0.00 64.9 0.00 59.0 0.01
No 90.7 90.9 88.7 86.6 81.4 80.0 72.2

both elementary school (60% vs 49%, p = .03) and sexuality topics because it includes information on
middle school (72% vs 59%, p = .01). support at the elementary level for the first time.
Significant differences by education. Respondents Results also add substantial support for age-appropriate
with less than a high school education were school-based sexuality education. These findings are
significantly more likely than those with a high school in agreement with the newly established National
or college degree to support teaching HIV education Sexuality Education Standards that recommend age-
in elementary school (73% vs 55%, 50%, p = .02) appropriate sexuality education beginning as early as
and gender and sexual orientation issues in both kindergarten.29
elementary school (67% vs 56%, 49%, p = .05) and In general, the respondents were supportive of
high school (73% vs. 68%, 59%, p = .05). age-appropriate sexuality education with almost 80%
stating that they would allow their children to
participate in such education. The majority supported
DISCUSSION
all 5 topics listed being taught starting in elementary
This study adds to the research documenting school. It was not surprising that almost 90%
public support for sexuality education and specific supported teaching communication and more than

14 • Journal of School Health • January 2014, Vol. 84, No. 1 • © 2013, American School Health Association
Table 4. Parent Support for Specific Sex Education Topics for High School Students, by Parent Characteristics, Florida BRFSS-CHS
2008-2009

Gender and Sexual

Communication Anatomy HIV Abstinence Birth Control Condom Orientation Issues
Parent Characteristics % p % p % p % p % p % p % p
All 90.8 91.5 90.8 89.6 85.8 82.6 72.0
Sex Male 87.6 0.11 89.2 0.23 87.7 0.11 87.2 0.24 79.4 0.01 73.2 0.00 67.4 0.13
Female 92.3 92.5 92.3 90.7 88.8 87.0 74.0
Race/ethnicity NH White 91.8 0.62 92.3 0.50 91.9 0.61 91.1 0.27 85.4 0.60 83.1 0.32 71.5 0.24
NH Black 89.4 90.5 88.8 88.3 88.6 85.8 79.5
Hispanic 88.5 87.6 89.1 84.2 82.7 75.4 68.4
Age group 18-29 86.6 0.43 86.8 0.14 91.6 0.45 87.1 0.54 84.0 0.97 85.3 0.86 77.0 0.78
30-39 92.1 91.1 90.9 90.2 86.5 81.0 70.0
40-49 92.3 94.5 92.6 91.1 85.9 83.9 72.6
50+ 86.7 88.5 86.3 85.7 85.0 82.3 72.6
Education <HS 83.8 0.45 86.1 0.43 87.5 0.51 78.9 0.15 81.2 0.30 69.6 0.14 62.9 0.43
HS/some college 92.7 93.6 93.1 92.8 89.8 87.5 75.3
4+ years college 91.2 91.6 90.7 90.1 85.4 83.0 72.3
Married/cohabitate Yes 91.3 0.79 92.3 0.49 91.1 1.00 90.1 0.76 85.1 0.29 82.1 0.50 71.3 0.45
No 90.4 90.0 91.1 89.0 88.9 85.0 74.8

half teaching abstinence. It is interesting to note that local school boards may determine whether to include
more than half of them also supported teaching HIV contraception.21 In 2005, the Florida Department of
and gender and sexual orientation issues. In middle Education’s Coordinated School Health Program office
and high school, there is overwhelming support for surveyed the 67 county District Health Education
these same 5 topics, and additional support for teaching Curriculum Coordinators. One of the 38 health
both birth control (71% and 86%, respectively) and education-related questions was about the type of
condoms (69% and 83%, respectively). These findings sexuality education being taught in the district. Of the
suggest parents are more supportive of an abstinence- 62 responding districts, 33 (53%) reported teaching
based program than an abstinence-only program, abstinence-only in the middle schools, compared
consistent with previous research.1,3,5,22-28 with 29 (47%) teaching abstinence-based. Among
There were a few differences in support levels across high schools, 26 districts (42%) reported teaching
demographic variables. Males were more supportive abstinence-only compared with 36 (58%) teaching
of teaching abstinence-only than females, similar to abstinence-based.30 These practices are inconsistent
a previous study.25 This is consistent with females with the survey results of parents in Florida showing
being more supportive of teaching both birth control that only 23.3% prefer abstinence-only education.
and condoms in the current study. Additionally, non-
A study of Florida school teachers found that many
Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics were more supportive of
students receive no sexuality education as the majority
teaching HIV than non-Hispanic Whites. This may be
of Florida schools do not require sexuality education
owing to their knowledge of the increased risk of HIV
for all students.31 Additionally, there is little uniformity
for minorities. Single respondents were more likely to
in what content is taught as sexuality education is
support birth control than were married or cohabiting
respondents. An unexpected pregnancy for a single often included as part of another course. Contrary to
person is likely viewed much differently than for parental support for sexuality education starting in
someone in a committed relationship. Individuals who elementary school documented in the current study,
are single with a child may have personal experiences teachers reported that sexuality education often occurs
of an unexpected pregnancy making them more likely late in one’s high school career.31
to support contraception education. Finally, those with There is great irony in that both the need for sexual-
less than a high school degree were more supportive of ity education and the widespread support for sexuality
teaching HIV. These findings were unique as previous education are well documented; yet, policy and prac-
studies suggest those with more education are typically tice are not reflective. This incompatibility is evident
more supportive of sexuality education in general.24 with the ‘‘vocal minority’’ often influencing school
Although this study documents that parents are in decisions regarding sexuality education.1 Hopefully,
favor of teaching most sexuality topics including both district and school personnel can counter minority
contraception and abstinence in Florida schools, local opposition with the evidence found in this study.24,32
practice is not reflective. Florida mandates that schools As school districts look to improve sexuality educa-
teach sexuality education including abstinence, but tion, more data to document what parents are truly in

Journal of School Health • January 2014, Vol. 84, No. 1 • © 2013, American School Health Association • 15
favor of may help decision makers consider the pref- Other communities might consider replicating a
erences of the majority when changing existing policy similar assessment to document support for sexu-
or creating new policy. ality education in their own state or community.
To conduct a similar state level study, interested
communities or groups of a particular state may
Limitations
partner with their state Department of Health or a
This study had several limitations. One concern
university or college with personnel who could assist
is the restriction placed on data collection through
with the development of a similar instrument, data
a random-digit dial telephone survey. Approximately
collection, and data analysis. To conduct a similar
25% of US households do not have landline telephones
study at the local level, interested individuals may
in their home.33 Thus, individuals with no phones, or
partner with a local community group or the county
those with only cell phones, were not included in this
health department in addition to working with a
study. Second, this study used a brief description to
local university/college. Results of such efforts could
imply the content of sexuality education topics to be
improve the current sexuality policies or content in
taught. Therefore, support for the nature and depth
their school health curriculum or be used to develop
of each topic is not known. Another limitation of
this content area if it is lacking in the curriculum.
this study is that parents were asked to describe how
Residents, and particularly parents, should be
they might feel about their children participating in
encouraged to share their views on sexuality educa-
age-appropriate sexuality education, regardless of the
tion as this is a public health issue. Educating decision
age of the child. Parents may have answered more
makers, including school board members, about real
supportively if they had a child of appropriate age to
support for sexuality education coupled with informa-
receive sexuality education.
tion on effective programs is an important strategy in
successfully adopting evidence-based programs.25 This
Conclusions in turn may broaden support of programs that pro-
Most parents surveyed were in favor of teach- vide medically accurate information and can reduce
ing sexuality education at all 3 levels of instruction: risky sexual behaviors among youth. Future research
elementary, middle, and high school. Additionally, should further investigate the relationship between
research has identified evidence-based sexuality edu- local support for sexuality education and the sexuality
cation programs that address both abstinence and education implemented in the schools.
contraception, and such programs are consistent with
actual sexual behavior among teens and parental opin-
ions/support. Such findings clearly address 2 of Kirby’s Human Subjects Approval Statement
characteristics of implementing effective sexuality edu- This article reports the results of secondary data
cation programs: (1) secure at least minimal support analyses. Therefore institutional human subjects’
for appropriate authorities and (2) employ behavioral approval was not required.
messages appropriate to teen’s sexual experience.3
REFERENCES
IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH 1. Eisenberg ME, Bernat DH, Bearinger LH, Resnick MD. Support
for comprehensive sexuality education: perspectives from
Our findings have implications for future efforts parents of school-age youth. J Adolesc Health. 2008;42:352-539.
to increase the implementation of evidence-based 2. Jones T. A sexuality education discourses framework: con-
sexuality programs for youth, before risky sexual servative, liberal, critical, and postmodern. Am J Sex Educ.
behaviors begin. Such programs could be offered 2011;6(2):133-175.
3. Kirby D. Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce
as part of the current school health curriculum
Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Washington, DC:
or through a coordinated school health program. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy; 2007.
Offering sexuality education in grades K-12 and 4. Wiley DC. Using science to improve the sexual health of
replacing abstinence-only curricula with abstinence- America’s youth. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(3):308-310.
based programs are both consistent with the new 5. Bleakley A, Hennessy M, Fishbein M. Public opinion on
sexuality education in US schools. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.
National Sexuality Education Standards and with the
2006;160:1151-1156.
preferences of the majority of parents. The National 6. Constantine NA. Converging evidence leaves policy behind: sex
Sexuality Education Standards recommend teaching a education in the United States. J Adolesc Health. 2008;42:324-
variety of age-appropriate sexuality topics in grades K- 326.
12, including the 7 topics assessed in this study. Use of 7. Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United
States (SIECUS). Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education
these data could help to initiate change in adopting a
Kindergarten through 12th Grade. National Guidelines Task Force. 3
healthier approach to quality sexuality education that ed. Washington, DC: SIECUS; 2004.
is age-appropriate, consistent with student needs, and 8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS:
supported by a majority of parents. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System; 2011. Available at:

16 • Journal of School Health • January 2014, Vol. 84, No. 1 • © 2013, American School Health Association
 http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/index.htm. Accessed Available at: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/
October 2, 2012. spib_SE.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2012.
9. Lindberg LD, Jones R, Santelli JS. Non-coital sexual activities 22. Constantine NA, Jerman P, Huang A. California parents’
among adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2008;42(2-1):44-45. preferences and beliefs regarding school-based sexuality
10. Moore MJ, Barr EM, Johnson TM. Sexual behaviors of middle education policy. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2007;39(3):167-175.
school students: 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey results from 23. Eisenberg ME, Bernat DH, Bearinger LH, Resnick MD. Condom
16 locations. J Sch Health. 2013;83:61-68. provision and education in Minnesota public schools: a
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. STD Trends in telephone survey of parents. J Sch Health. 2009;79(9):416-424.
the United States: 2010 National Data for Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, 24. Howard-Barr E, Moore MJ. Florida residents’ preferred
and Syphilis; 2010. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/std/ approach to sexuality education. Am J Sex Educ. 2007;2(3):
stats10/trends.htm. Accessed November 15, 2012. 27-37.
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Among Youth; 25. Howard-Barr E, Moore MJ, Weiss JA, Jobli E. Public opinion
2011. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/youth/index.htm. toward sexuality education: findings among one south Florida
Accessed November 2, 2012. county. Am J Sex Educ. 2011;6(2):176-191.
13. The Alan Guttmacher Institute. U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics. 26. Ito KE, Gizlice Z, Owen-O’Dowd J, Foust E, Leone PA, Miller
Overall Trends, Trends by Race and Ethnicity and State-by-State Infor- WC. Parent opinion of sexuality education in a state with
mation; 2006. Available at: www.guttmacher.org/pubs/state- mandated abstinence education: does policy match parental
pregnancy-trends.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2012. preference? J Adolesc Health. 2006;39:634-641.
14. McKay A, Barrett M. Trends in teen pregnancy rates from 27. National Public Radio, Kaiser Family Foundation & Kennedy
1996 to 2006: a comparison of Canada, Sweden, USA and School of Government. Sexuality Education in America. General
England/Wales. Can J Hum Sex. 2010;19(1-2):43-52. Public/Parents Survey, and Sexuality Education in America. Principals
15. Kost K, Henshaw S. U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Survey. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation;
Abortions, 2008: National Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity. New 2004.
York: Guttmacher Institute; 2012. Available at: http://www. 28. Yarber WL, Milhausen RR, Crosby RA, Torabi R. Public opinion
guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends08.pdf. Accessed October 28, about condoms for HIV and STD prevention: a Midwestern
2012. state telephone survey. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2005;37(3):
16. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Fact Sheet: 148-154.
By the Numbers: The Public Costs of Teen Childbearing in Florida; 29. The Future of Sex Education. National sexuality education
2006. Available at: http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/costs/ standards: core content and skills, K-12 (special report). J Sch
pdf/states/florida/fact-sheet.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2012. Health. 2012;82:1-42.
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Vital 30. Florida Department of Education. Health Education Survey
Signs: Preventing Teen Pregnancy in the US; 2011. Available 2004-2005. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education;
at: http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/pdf/2011-04-vitalsigns.pdf. 2006.
Accessed November 1, 2012. 31. Dodge B, Zachry K, Reece M, et al. Sexuality education in
18. Alford S. Science and Success, Second Edition: Programs That Work Florida: content, context, and controversy. Am J Sex Educ.
to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, HIV & Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2008;3(2):183-209.
Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth; 2008. 32. Vincent ML, Berne LA, Lammers JW, Strack R. Pregnancy
19. Kohler PK, Manhart LE, Lafferty WE. Abstinence-only and prevention, sexuality education, and coping with opposing
comprehensive sexuality education and the initiation of sexual views. Am J Sex Educ. 1999;30(3):142-149.
activity and teen pregnancy. J Adolesc Health. 2008;42:344-351. 33. Christian L, Keeter S, Purcell K, Smith A. Pew Internet and
20. Sullentrop K. What Works 2011-2012: Curriculum-Based Programs American Life Project: Assessing the Phone Cell Challenge to Survey
That Help Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: The National Research in 2010. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center;
Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy; 2011. 2010 Available at: www.pewinternet.org. Accessed October 18,
21. The Guttmacher Institute. State Policies in Brief. Sex and 2012.
STI/HIV Education. New York: The Guttmacher Institute; 2012.

Journal of School Health • January 2014, Vol. 84, No. 1 • © 2013, American School Health Association • 17