Sexuality Education in Public Schools

Healthy People 2010 seeks to increase the number of young adults receiving school-based education on contraception and abstinence. (1) The U.S. Surgeon General issued a report in 2001 emphasizing the important role of comprehensive school-based programs in promoting responsible sexual behavior and lessening some of the serious problems of sexual health experienced by the nation. (2) States can promote sexuality education by requiring school-based sexuality education and enacting content requirements for these programs that include information about contraception. (3)

  • Sexuality Education in Public Schools

      Strength Of Policy 2007 Change From 2004
    ALABAMA (1) No/Harmful Policy Same
    ALASKA No/Harmful Policy Same
    ARIZONA No/Harmful Policy Same
    ARKANSAS No/Harmful Policy Same
    CALIFORNIA (2) No/Harmful Policy Same
    COLORADO No/Harmful Policy Same
    CONNECTICUT No/Harmful Policy Same
    DELAWARE Meets Policy Same
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Meets Policy Same
    FLORIDA No/Harmful Policy Same
    GEORGIA No/Harmful Policy Same
    HAWAII Meets Policy Same
    IDAHO No/Harmful Policy Same
    ILLINOIS No/Harmful Policy Same
    INDIANA No/Harmful Policy Same
    IOWA No/Harmful Policy Same
    KANSAS No/Harmful Policy Same
    KENTUCKY No/Harmful Policy Same
    LOUISIANA No/Harmful Policy Same
    MAINE Meets Policy Same
    MARYLAND Meets Policy Same
    MASSACHUSETTS No/Harmful Policy Same
    MICHIGAN No/Harmful Policy Same
    MINNESOTA No/Harmful Policy Same
    MISSISSIPPI No/Harmful Policy Same
    MISSOURI (3) No/Harmful Policy Same
    MONTANA No/Harmful Policy Same
    NEBRASKA No/Harmful Policy Same
    NEVADA No/Harmful Policy Same
    NEW HAMPSHIRE No/Harmful Policy Same
    NEW JERSEY No/Harmful Policy Same
    NEW MEXICO No/Harmful Policy Same
    NEW YORK No/Harmful Policy Same
    NORTH CAROLINA No/Harmful Policy Same
    NORTH DAKOTA No/Harmful Policy Same
    OHIO No/Harmful Policy Same
    OKLAHOMA No/Harmful Policy Same
    OREGON (4) No/Harmful Policy Same
    PENNSYLVANIA No/Harmful Policy Same
    RHODE ISLAND Meets Policy Same
    SOUTH CAROLINA Meets Policy Same
    SOUTH DAKOTA No/Harmful Policy Same
    TENNESSEE No/Harmful Policy Same
    TEXAS No/Harmful Policy Same
    UTAH No/Harmful Policy Same
    VERMONT Meets Policy Same
    VIRGINIA (5) No/Harmful Policy Same
    WASHINGTON No/Harmful Policy Same
    WEST VIRGINIA No/Harmful Policy Worse
    WISCONSIN No/Harmful Policy Same
    WYOMING No/Harmful Policy Same
     
    Meets PolicyMeets Policy 8  
    Limited PolicyLimited Policy 0  
    Weak PolicyWeak Policy 0  
    No/Harmful PolicyNo/Harmful Policy 43  
    Better Better 0  
    Worse Worse 1  
    Same Same 50  
    • 1. Alabama was graded incorrectly in the 2004 Report Card. It should have received a "no/harmful policy" instead of a "meets policy." Since there is no change in the individual state law for this state, the comparison with 2004 is based on the underlying data, that is, there is no change from 2004.
    • 2. California was graded incorrectly in the 2004 Report Card. It should have received a "no/harmful policy" instead of a "meets policy." Since there is no change in the individual state law for this state, the comparison with 2004 is based on the underlying data, that is, there is no change from 2004.
    • 3. Missouri was graded incorrectly in the 2004 Report Card. It should have received a "no/harmful policy" instead of a "meets policy." Since there is no change in the individual state law for this state, the comparison with 2004 is based on the underlying data, that is, there is no change from 2004.
    • 4. Oregon was graded incorrectly in the 2004 Report Card. It should have received a "no/harmful policy" instead of a "meets policy." Since there is no change in the individual state law for this state, the comparison with 2004 is based on the underlying data, that is, there is no change from 2004.
    • 5. Virginia was graded incorrectly in the 2004 Report Card. It should have received a "no/harmful policy" instead of a "meets policy." Since there is no change in the individual state law for this state, the comparison with 2004 is based on the underlying data, that is, there is no change from 2004.

    Does the state require that sexuality education be taught and that it include information about contraception?

    States receive a "meets policy" if they require sexuality education to be taught and if their content requirements include coverage of contraception.  States receive a "no policy" if they either do not require sexuality education or if their content requirements do not include contraception.

    Data Source: Sexuality Education in Public Schools, 2007.

    Guttmacher Institute, State Policies in Brief, "Sex and STD/HIV Education," May 2007, available at http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf, accessed May 4, 2007.

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2010, 2nd ed. (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000), Objective 9-11, available at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General, June 2001).

3. Abstinence-until-marriage curricula are not included, as such curricula have been demonstrated to be ineffective with adolescents.  Debra W. Haffner, "What's Wrong with Abstinence-Only Sexuality Education Programs?" Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) Report 25 (April/May 1997), 9-13, available at http://www.siecus.org/siecusreport/volume25/25-4.pdf.