This section provides descriptive information about schools’ sexuality education programmes, based on information from a written questionnaire completed by the schools in the survey.
The information includes: compliance with requirements to consult the community; the content, time and resources for sexuality education; the skills and confidence of those delivering the sexuality education (teachers and external providers); student exemption; and other services to which students had access. (See Appendix 3).
Consultation with the community about the delivery of health education, including sexuality education, has been compulsory since 1989. In 2001 the legislation was amended so that the maximum period between consultation with the community increased from 18 months to two years. It is now compulsory to teach a sexuality education programme in all state and state-integrated schools.
Seventy-three schools consulted their community at least every two years. The remaining 27 schools did not meet legislative compliance for community consultation.
Some schools noted that their consultation with parents had led to some changes to how they implemented their sexuality education programmes. These changes included:
Thirty-three schools said they had made changes to their consultation process as a result of the 2001 changes in legislation.
From the information provided by schools there appeared to be a strong focus on puberty and a lesser focus on relationships at the primary schools. Primary schools reported that they seldom taught students about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases or decision-making about sexual behaviour.
The information provided by secondary schools showed a stronger focus on contraception, relationships and sexually transmitted infections. There was less focus on pubertal change than in primary school programmes, but it remained a common part of secondary school programmes. In some schools, pubertal change was accompanied by study of sexual maturation, and in others sexual maturation, rather than pubertal change, was taught.
Kirby[1] suggests 14 hours or more per year are required for effective sexuality education.
Fifty schools reported time allocated to Years 7 and 8. The average time was 10 hours for each year level. Forty-four schools reported time allocated to Years 9 and 10. The average was 8 hours for Year 9 and 11 hours for Year 10. Thirty-seven schools reported the time allocated to a senior year level sexuality education. Students who studied towards certain unit or achievement standards could have 20 to 30 hours’ sexuality education. Otherwise, between one and 12 hours was allocated to each year group.
Schools reported using a wide range of resources. Of the most commonly used resources, 30 percent were published by the Ministry of Education (particularly Curriculum in Action), 18 percent by Family Planning Association, 7 percent by Parenting with Confidence (Sex with Attitude) and 4 percent each by Johnson and Johnson, Ministry of Health and National Centre for Religious Studies. A wide range of other publishers of book, video and Internet resources made up the other 33 percent.
Just under a third of the schools in the survey reported that their teachers had qualifications in teaching sexuality education. About a half the schools reported that their teachers did not have qualifications, and about one quarter of the schools did not complete this question.
A greater percentage of secondary schools than primary schools reported that their teachers had specific qualifications in teaching sexuality education.
Well over half the schools stated that their teachers were confident about teaching sexuality education. Many attributed this confidence to recent professional development or the qualifications of their teachers.
Four schools reported that their teachers were not confident teaching this subject and stated this was because of a lack of professional development and, in some cases, a general discomfort about teaching the subject. These schools used outside providers to support their sexuality education programmes. The remaining 30 schools did not answer this question.
Nearly two-thirds of the schools in the study reported that their teachers had undertaken some form of recent professional development on sexuality education. A greater percentage of secondary schools than primary schools stated that their teachers had specific professional development on sexuality education.
The most common providers of professional development were colleges of education.
The self-evaluation questionnaire did not ask about the effectiveness or frequency of the professional development provided.
Sixty-two schools used an outside provider to support and/or deliver their sexuality education programmes. Public health nurses were the most commonly used outside providers in primary and intermediate schools, and Sex with Attitude was the most common outside provider in Years 9 to 13 secondary schools. Those schools with students in Years 7 to 13 used these two providers equally (Sex with Attitude (12) and Public Health Nurse (13)). The Family Planning Association was the other major provider that worked in 17 schools.
The self-reported data about schools’ use of outside providers (including guest speakers) were limited, with only 46 schools providing the required detail.
Most of these schools (29) said that they used outside providers for up to 15 percent of their programme. In many cases this was a single guest speaker for a class, or an assembly presentation.
Twelve schools used outside providers for between 20 and 75 percent of the programme at one or more year levels. Half of these were intermediate schools where an outside provider presented puberty talks, and the teacher taught the rest of the programme. The other schools used an outside provider to present a series of interactive sessions as part of the programme.
Five schools had used an outside presenter for the entire programme. Two of these were limited programmes, consisting only of puberty talks, and two were comprehensive sexuality education programmes developed with student consultation. One school used a qualified outside provider because its own staff were not adequately trained.
In secondary schools the use of outside providers was typically for a one-hour presentation. Many curriculum leaders noted that these presentations were separate from their planned sexuality education programme. Full primary and intermediate schools were more likely to use outside providers to deliver core programme material.
Eighty-five schools reported on exemption. Just under half (37) reported that they had exempted a small number of students from sexuality education classes. In 30 of the schools, fewer than one percent of the students (85 students) had been exempted. In six schools, up to three percent of each class (a total of about 75 students) had been exempted. At the special school, very high needs students participated in some, but not all of the programme. Forty-eight schools reported that students could have been exempt, but did not indicate the approximate percentage of exempt students.
The main reasons for exempting students were religious and cultural beliefs. Some of these students attended most of the programme, but did not attend the parts that included content on contraception, sexually transmitted infections and abortion.
National and international research[2] identifies easily accessible sexual health services for students as being an important element of a high quality approach to sexuality education.
Secondary schools reported that their students had access to people who could give them support and guidance about sexuality issues. These included: school guidance counsellors; public health nurses; nurses from iwi providers; form teachers; deans; school chaplains; hostel matrons; and other students (through peer support networks).
Some students had access to general practitioner services through their schools. Secondary schools also reported that their students had access to support from the following outside agencies: the Family Planning Association; youth health centres; iwi health services; community health centres; mental health services; and local churches.
The full primary and intermediate schools reported a more limited range of adults from whom students could seek support and guidance about their sexual development. These adults included the Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour (RTLB), the office administrator and part-time guidance counsellors.
The schools also reported that their students had access to support from the following outside agencies: public health nurses; general practitioners; and Child, Youth and Family.
Schools differed in the way that they thought students would make contact with the external organisations. A few secondary schools reported that they expected that their students would have learned about the appropriate agency through sexuality education classes and would refer themselves; other schools expected that the school nurse or guidance counsellor would refer them and sometimes accompany students to an appointment. Only one secondary school said that it would involve parents in open communication.
Primary schools were more likely to discuss a referral with the child’s parents.
Schools did not monitor the extent to which students access these services.
[1] Kirby, D. Looking for the reasons why; the antecedents of adolescent sexual risk taking, pregnancy and child bearing. Washington DC: 1999. National Campaign to prevent Teen Pregnancy, Task force on Effective programmes and Research.
[2] Health Funding Authority New Zealand, Sexual and Reproductive Health: Literature Review Findings, Wellington: 2000.