As sex education researchers, we wonder about the imminent implementation of the new sex education program for elementary and secondary school students. Following on from the 2018 curriculum, the draft program is integrated into the Culture and Citizenship of Quebec (CCQ) course.
At first glance, the program is in continuity with the Quebec approach and international guidelines: sexuality is addressed in a global and positive perspective. The subjects are varied and make it possible to awaken young people to social problems (for example aggression and violence), to make them reflect (love life, identity, self-image) and to accompany them in their development in a critical way (puberty, sexual act, social pressure). We also welcome the integration of critical reflection on digital technology, which was largely absent from the previous curriculum.
Nevertheless, we remain on our hunger, or on our guard, in relation to certain aspects; particularly with regard to the implementation, the presence (or absence) of certain content and the training and support that will be offered (or not) to the teaching staff.
Installation too fast
As with the 2018 curriculum, this program was created with little input from practice settings. However, since the abolition of the Personal and Social Training course in the early 2000s, sexuality education content has been provided by a multitude of actors and actresses (community, nurses, sexologists, teachers, etc.) . These people have developed an expertise that we cannot do without in terms of content and themes.
This new program comes only a few years after the development of the 2018 curriculum, launched in 2015 in its pilot version. Between the mistakes of the first times and the pandemic, it has not really had time to prove itself. However, a lot of energy has been invested in implementing it: many stakeholders have developed educational activities around the content that needed to be covered. Without evaluation and without hindsight, is it relevant to start from scratch? There would certainly be lessons to be learned from the experience of recent years, before sweeping them under the rug for political reasons.
There is also a major difference between the 2018 curriculum and the new program: the first relied on volunteer teachers, who felt equipped and comfortable with the material to be transmitted. The second integrates sexuality education content into a subject. This means that the teachers who will be in charge of it will be obliged to approach these contents. There is therefore a risk of ending up with professionals who do not have the training, the ease or the will to approach these themes with the required sensitivity.
Content still missing or poorly integrated
As was the case in the 2018 curriculum, the realities of trans and intersex people are not found in the secondary school curriculum, while puberty is a pivotal time for questions around gender and the appearance of several characteristics. gender, including some intersex variations.
The theme of pornography is also absent, while the average age of exposure to pornographic content is 12.2 years, and that a third of young people have consulted it before the age of 10. It therefore seems important to provide them with a supervised and safe space to broach the subject and give them the opportunity to reflect and distance themselves from these representations of sexuality. Although these are difficult topics to tackle, it is high time that they were integrated into the program.
As for the integration of sexuality education content in the CCQ program, the task seems for the moment to have been done superficially. In elementary school, for example, the prevention of sexual assault is approached according to the theme “personal desires and limits”. There is a disturbing conceptual shift here that risks fueling victim-blaming rhetoric. Although we appreciate in this section the importance placed on assertiveness in children, the management of their desires and their personal limits has nothing to do with aggression.
A fundamental characteristic of the CCQ program is that it is rooted in reflection, dialogue and the creation of a common culture. It is a program where delicate and controversial issues are tackled and where students are invited to form their own opinion and debate it with their classmates. While some sexuality education content should benefit from such pedagogical treatment, others, however, do not lend themselves to it at all.
Asking young people to define sexual violence according to their perception (rather than according to the law), or asking students to “find” homophobic and transphobic arguments to debate gay marriage are educational exercises to be avoided. There are contents to learn, and others to discuss!
Are the teaching staff equipped to frame this discussion and provide accurate legal and medical information, while respecting the various sensitivities of young people and the experiences they may have had? A reflection is necessary to properly integrate the contents of sexuality education in a course based on sociological and ethical reflections.
A well-prepared teaching staff
Having experience of sexuality does not make you an expert. And good intentions and general knowledge are not enough to transmit quality sexuality education content. Training is necessary in order to develop expertise, have the right attitude and get out of personal biases, in addition to providing a wealth of in-depth knowledge on key subjects such as the prevention of sexual violence or puberty.
Such important educational content should not be modulated by political waves. We must give ourselves the means, as a society, to properly train and support the communities, the people involved, the students and their families, as well as to evaluate the programs and their implementation. It is also essential to collaborate closely with those who practice in the field, in order to be able to adapt and update the content.
In this way, we will really be able to equip young people and give them the knowledge they need to go through the transition to adulthood, with respect for themselves and others. It is about respecting their right to a complete and adapted education.
Having a sexuality education program is a good step in this direction if we give ourselves the means to implement it while respecting the expertise of the practice settings and adequately train the teaching staff. Without this, we only waste resources that have already been developed, and it is young people who suffer.