Our group conducted a focus group at the Salt Lake Center for Science Education (SLCSE) on February 12, 2015. A small group of parents and educators attended the meeting and provided their input on three main questions: the importance of sex education in their community, how they are providing sex education to their children and how comfortable they are providing that information, and what type of tools they feel they are missing when trying to address sex education with the children in this community.
Several key themes emerged from this discussion upon analysing the transcribed data. All parents in this discussion agreed that sex education is very important for their youth and that discussions around sex and sexuality is normal and should be present and ongoing. However, parents feel that although they would like to be the ones providing information about sex education to their children, they don’t think their children will take the conversations seriously because it’s coming from them. The majority of parents present agreed on this matter, one even stating, “I don’t feel all that comfortable talking to my son about some things. Well, actually it’s not that I don’t feel comfortable, he doesn’t feel comfortable talking to me”. Several educators present in the meeting who have experience talking to youth about sexuality identified with this discomfort in discussing this information with their own children. One woman stated, “I’m an in-home therapist, so I have access to that information. I work with human and family services and I use the information with my clients, but I will admit the thought of using them with my own kids gives me a lot of anxiety.” Another stated, “I feel like my son is very unlikely to talk to me about it, I’ve talked to hundreds of kids about it… but my own son is probably not going to talk to me about it, but he might talk to one of you”. These findings are concurrent with previous literature on the topic of parents and youth discussing sex education with one another. A study by Klitsch (1992) surveyed 84 high school students and their parents on the level of communication they have with one another in regard to sex education. The researchers found a that parents and their children reported different levels of comfort in discussing these issues. Less than one fifth of the parents acknowledged that discussing this topic with their children is uncomfortable, whereas half of the male students, and one third of the female students reported feeling uncomfortable discussing the topic with their parents (pg. 51). Another recent study surveying 317 teenagers and 575 of their parents found similar results: parents rated themselves as “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with providing these discussions, while the majority of children in the study reported that they would “definitely not talk to” their parents about these topics, stating embarrassment as the central reason (Ogle, Glasier, & Riley, 2008, p. 283). These findings from our focus group and the literature is problematic for youth because if they’re uncomfortable or unable to take their parents seriously during these discussions, then it’s unlikely that parents are able to effectively deliver information about sex and sexual health without the help of the schools or a community program. This ties into our second prominent theme from the discussion: an overall dislike for the current legislated sexual education program being implemented in state-funded schools.
Parents identified several reasons why the current school-based sex education program does not adequately meet the needs of their youth. They expressed disappointment with the limited content, concerns about the risk of an abstinence only approach and the overt values taught concurrently with the material. One parent expressed frustration, stating, “I actually signed a document I didn’t want him to be a part of that, and one reason why...is because the Utah legislature basically mandates that abstinence only is taught, and they don’t talk about ways of preventing STIs, and they don’t talk about it in a high school class and I think that is inappropriate...they also talk about the only appropriate place for sex is within a marriage, which to me is inappropriate because it excludes an entire population of people who couldn’t be married at the time.” The legitimacy of this parent’s concern about the efficacy of abstinence-only curriculum is validated by research comparing the behavior of teens who made a virginity pledge prior to marriage to those who did not. A study found that over 80% of the students denied having ever made a virginity pledge just five years after making their vow, and that “pledgers” are less likely to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease before marriage (Rosenbaum, 2009, p. 110). In fact, virginity pledges do not affect sexual behavior but appear to decrease the likelihood of taking precautions during sex.
The conservative values taught alongside abstinence only curriculum generated much conversation and concern. One parent noted the limited scope of the material, referring to its heteronormative position. Another stated, “I really dislike the state’s approach to it. I think it’s discriminatory, it’s disrespectful, and yeah, I just don’t like it.” In response to the Abstinence Only Until Marriage (AOUM) movement, much scholarly discussion has been conducted on this oversimplified message and the damage it does to particular groups of people. In a 2006 Harvard Educational Review Article it was reported, “the adverse consequences of state policies that curtail education and health are not equally distributed….they fall unevenly on girls, poor and working-class youth, teens with disabilities, Black and Latino adolescents, and lesbian/gay/bisexual and transgender youth.” (Fine & McClelland, p. 299). The parents speaking at our focus group repeatedly voiced the concerned that the incomplete information provided in public schools left their children and others at risk while promoting Utah’s mainstream societal values and behaviors.
Lastly, parents and educators in this focus group provided some alternative ways these discussions could be had with youth that would be more effective. Parents discussed the possibility of a school-based workshop for both parents and children to attend together. If parents participated, there would a forum for a more flexible, comprehensive discussion. One parent felt this would offer a chance to “talk about more than what’s legislated. I would think that in general for our community of this school, people would be in agreement about this, that it not be heterosexist, that it talk about the full range.” Other parents remarked on the strengths of programs available through other community based resources. The opinions about content were diverse, yet they demonstrated the parents’ desire for their children to have access to broader information within the context of sex education.
Action Plan
Throughout the course of the year, our group has been collecting information regarding the current approach to sexual education and sexually transmitted infection (STI) trainings in Utah. We have learned that there are several programs that exist statewide that encourage open discussion about the aforementioned issues, but they are not integrated into schools due to restrictions by abstinence-only legislation. Our focus group expressed concerns with the gaps in the current sexual education programs (like the Healthy Relationships toolkit) that are being taught to their children (Utah Department of Health). To address these concerns, our group has created the following plan: increase the sexual education knowledge among parents and their children at SLCSE by April 28, 2015. We chose the SLCSE because one of our group members could assist us in creating a focus group there, and we liked that the population within this school is diverse and representative of the Salt Lake Valley, even though it was relatively small. Once we established our first focus group, we began thinking about our objectives.
In thinking about our process objective, we want to help empower parents to talk about their concerns regarding the gaps in the current sex education curriculum. For our outcome objectives, we want to help empower parents to play a role in supplementing the current sex education program by engaging in community-based educational opportunities that can provide them with tools necessary to talk to their children about sex and STIs.
When exploring which social change model would be most appropriate to meet our goal, the Inclusive Program Development model stood out among the rest (Gamble & Weil, 2010). The model, which focuses on expanding and developing programs through participatory engagement in order to improve service effectiveness (p. 26), is in line with our group’s efforts to collaborate with parents in expanding the current sex education curriculum being taught to their children in order to improve its effectiveness. In attending focus groups to identify and voice the changes they want to see in the program, these parents are working towards a future collaboration with school administrators and community agencies in improving their children’s sex education. The hope is that this effort will spark interest and create dialogue among parents in other schools and districts on how to supplement the current sex education program, which will hopefully grow into a larger effort towards changing the curriculum citywide. Should that happen, then the Coalition model would likely be utilized to help reach the larger goal.
Ultimately, evaluation of our efforts will be determined by a post-test which we conduct with parents to measure their level of perceived knowledge, and perhaps comfort level, with talking to their teens. We plan on creating a pre-test to establish a baseline and compare to the post-test to determine what changes have occurred. The formal measure will reflect the amount of knowledge parents indicate they gleaned. Indeed, a tell-tale, informal measure of this would be some parents’ willingness to continue the discussion with other parents in a safe, peer-based environment.
In addition to our focus group, we are continuing to gather information on our population through follow-up meetings with the stakeholders at SLCSE and our community partners, Planned Parenthood and University Neighborhood Partners (UNP). Directly after our first focus group meeting, a representative from our team attended a speaking engagement with spokeswoman Leslie Kantor entitled, A Conversation About Sex Education. As Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Vice President of Education, Kantor stressed the importance of evidence based practice in the field of sexual education. Kantor compared sex education to helping the homeless to demonstrate her field’s particular need for validation. “No one disagrees with efforts to help the homeless, right?” Kantor states (Feb. 17, 2015). In contrast, she stated that the controversial nature of sex education necessitates using validated educational material due to the scrutiny of sex education in the United States. One such program mentioned by Kantor was Families Talking Together.
Families Talking Together (FTT) is described as, “ A brief parent-based intervention to prevent/reduce adolescent sexual behavior” (Resources for parents; 2011). With goals including increasing parental behavior proven to have an impact on adolescent sexual decision making, FTT is categorized as an effective program by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, FTT included face to face sessions with parents, teens, and trained educators. Facilitating invivo conversation with families was a request by our partners at UNP: Alma Yanagui (community advocate coordinator) and Guadalupe (community advocate and para professional at SLCSE). Both Alma and Guadalupe are partners through UNP as well as parents of teens at SLCSE. Alma and Lupe provide us with inside information to SLCSE and direct contact with spanish speaking parents. They will also be responsible for future implementation of FTT not only at SLCSE, but also at addition UNP education pathway partner sites, including East and West High School.
After finding a curriculum that fits the needs of our partners, a representative from our group contacted the educational team at Planned Parenthood in order to plan the event. Coordinating with Annabel Sheinberg, the director of education at Planned Parenthood Utah, we were given a training manual and parent handbook in order to get more familiar with the program components. Essentially, Sheinberg explained that the FTT consists of three main components:
- Think Health: Explores why parents need to talk to teens about sex, love, and relationships, and provide them with an understanding of the health stats for teens in their community and any cultural factors that may exist
- Talk Social: Teen motivations and decision making is different than adults. This explores how social factors are highly influential whether they are between a teen and friends, a dating partner, or peers.
- Stay Involved: Explores why monitoring and supervision help teens stay safe, and helps identify ways to communicate with your teen about expectations.
Besides the curriculum, Sheinberg and our partners from UNP will help design how our event will be facilitated. Since SLCSE has forty percent latino/latina student population, UNP suggested that two facilitators will present, one speaking in spanish and one in english. In addition, Sheinberg and UNP offered to help provide funds for a small dinner for families who attend. Our team will coordinate with SLCSE advisory instructor Lisa Prucell to have a volunteer on hand to provide childcare for families with younger children. On Thursday March 12th, a representative from our group will attend the School Community Council (SCC) and the Parent Teacher Student Organization (PTSO) in order to present our planned event.
Based on our analysis of the focus group we feel confident that our target population, in this case parents of teenaged students, will be receptive and fully participatory in our efforts. It’s evident that our focus group echoed the findings of a 2008 study that focused on how parents and adolescents communicate with each other about sex and how that can increase anxiety and avoidance on the part of the parent and teen (Afifi, Joseph, & Aldeis). Ultimately, the findings suggest that when parents are informal, receptive and “composed” during conversations, their teenagers were less anxious and avoidant (p. 689). Simply by their desire to communicate with their teens on some level about sex, parents’ resulting receptivity to and participation in our workshop is tantamount to the success of our outreach. We believe the outline of a revised and robust curriculum could be realized.
References
Afifi, T., Joseph, A., Aldeis, D. (2008). Why can’t we just talk about it?: An observational study of parents’ and adolescents’ conversations about sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(6), 689-721.
Fine, M. & McClelland, S. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all
these years. Harvard Educational Review, 76(3), 297-338.
Gamble, D. N., & Weil, M. (2010). Conceptual frameworks and models for community practice. In Gamble, D.N. & Weil, M. (Eds.), Community practice skills: Local to global perspectives (p. 24-46). New York, NY: Columbia University.
Guilamo-Ramos, V., Lee, J., & Jaccard, J. (2012). Families talking together: Creating healthy family conversations to prevent teen pregnancy. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. New York; Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health.
Kantor, L. (Director). (2015, February 17). A conversation about sex education. Contraception Week. Lecture conducted from Planned Parenthood of Utah, Park City .
Klitsch, M. (1992). When parents and kids talk sex. Family Planning Perspectives,
24(2), 50-51.
Ogle, S., Glasier, A., & Riley, S. C. (2008). Communication between parents and their
children about sexual health. Contraception, 77(4), 283-288. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2007.12.003
Resources for parents; Families talking together. (2011, January 1). Retrieved from http://www.clafh.org/resources-for-parents/parent-materials/
Rosenbaum, J. E. (2009). Patient teenagers? A comparison of the sexual behavior of
virginity pledgers and matched nonpledgers. Pediatrics, 123(1), 110-120.
Utah Department of Health. (n.d.). Healthy relationships toolkit. Retrieved from http://health.utah.gov/vipp/pdf/DatingViolence/Healthy%20Relationships%20Toolkit.pdf
