Early childhood sexuality education: Future educators’ attitudes and considerations

Abstract

Sexuality education is one of the most disputable health education programs as far as its inclusion in Early Childhood Education is concerned. This study was conducted in order to investigate early childhood future educators’ attitudes and considerations about introducing sexuality education to their future pupils. We used a qualitative research method: semi-structured interviews for two groups of students in the Department of Educational Studies in Early Childhood, University of Northern Greece. The results revealed that the students who had chosen and successfully completed a course about early childhood sexuality education were the ones who indicated the subject as one of the basic ones to be taught in the kindergarten. Furthermore, they expressed their considerations about Greek bibliography’s lag in this field. Finally, they exhibited more readiness to introduce sexuality education to their future pupils than the rest of the students did. Students who had not attended a relative course referred to developmentally inappropriate subject areas, showing their inability or even riskiness to introduce sexuality to their pupils. The results suggested the students’ need for relevant theoretical as well as practical education.

Keywords

Sexuality education early childhood teacher educator development-appropriate

Introduction

Sexuality education, as a school curriculum subject, has a long history in western European countries going back to the 1950s, while in other parts of the world it became more prominent after the onset of the HIV epidemic in the 1980s (Ketting and Winkelmann, 2013; World Health Organization and Federal Centre for Health Education, 2010). However, a report conducted by the UK Youth Parliament in 2006–2007, which included 21,000 young people under 18 years old, revealed that 61% of the boys and 70% of the girls over the age of 17 reported not having received any information about personal relationships at school. Overall 43% of all young people surveyed stated that they had not been taught anything about personal relationships at school. Moreover, 40% of young people between the ages of 11 and 18 thought that their “Sex and Relationships” education was either poor or very poor (UK Youth Parliament, 2007). As far as Greece is concerned, sexuality education in schools began in 1980 with a pilot program (IPPF, 2006).

Traditionally, not educating youth about sexuality has been related to sexual health consequences such as sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy (Acharya et al., 2009, Phipps, 2008). Furthermore, young people who do not receive sexuality education have been characterized as vulnerable to coercion, abuse and exploitation (Astra Youth, 2014; Raphael, 2015). Youth self-esteem has been negatively correlated with a lack of sexuality education from sources such as school and parents (Bates and Joubert, 1993), and self-esteem has been identified as a protective value for the reduction of high-risk sexual behavior (Qin et al., 2017). Furthermore, sexuality education has been identified as a way to develop communication skills such as assertiveness and refusal (UNESCO, 2009) to express emotion (European Parliament, 2013) and to escape from negative emotions such as quilt and fear (YCSRR, n.d.). However, contemporary research highlights the need to re-evaluate teachers’ stances. Specifically, it has been noted that with respect to curiosity, experimentation and pleasure, the issues that young people face contrast significantly with those that teachers believe that their students encounter (Abbott et al., 2016).

Sexuality education in early childhood is one of the most disputable health education programs. The age at which sexuality education starts across Europe is very different. However, the differences have much to do with what is understood by the term “sexuality education”. A broad definition would include, among others, proper genital terminology, body hygiene and recognizing body differences. It would also include a variety of aspects of well-being such as the development of social and refusal skills, self-esteem, secure feelings and respect for everybody’s privacy. This kind of education could start at primary school level as far as sexuality education is “development-appropriate” (WHO and BzgA, 2010). Regarding the “proper” age for sexuality education, research evidence has supported the view that sexual behavior should start from the preschool years, or even earlier. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS, 1998), which has published guidelines about introducing sexuality issues to children from birth to five years old, regards sexuality education as a lifelong process. It encourages everybody’s right for comprehensive relevant education which entails, among other aspects, exploring feelings and values, developing communication, decision-making and critical thinking skills (National Guidelines Taskforce, 2004). Research evidence in Greece demonstrates that Greek parents believe that the support for sexual development should start between 3 and 12 years old (Kakavoulis, 2001). Though, in the most European countries, sexuality education officially begins among 7–12 years old. Furthermore, it seems that the content, as well as the didactic methods used to teach sexuality education, vary greatly from country to country (Parker et al., 2009).

In the kind of broad-based sexual health education described above, the role of school educators seems to be decisive. Hence, we need to wonder whether teachers possess willingness, readiness and academic resources to provide sexuality education. The literature underlines teacher’s inability to run relevant programs successfully. Most teachers have no formal training in sexuality education (Price et al., 2003). In some cases, teachers are simply expected to deliver sexuality education without training, experience or personal aptitude (Gordon, 2014). Even when teacher training institutions include relevant education, the compulsory courses cover training at a basic level and optional ones may be available only to those students specializing in health and physical education (Carman et al., 2011). In the United States, for instance, only 61% of colleges and universities require sexuality education courses for health education certification. Nearly one-third of the responsible teachers for sexuality education is reporting to receive no pre-service or in-service relevant training (FOSE, 2015). Furthermore, researchers admit that there is little international research focusing on teachers’ roles in sexuality education during primary school years (Walker and Milton, 2006) as well as on their needs as educators (Carman et al., 2011). It seems that teachers realize the importance of a sexual health education program for elementary schools, but they feel less capable, less comfortable and even less willing to teach a range of relevant topics (Cohen et al., 2012). Additionally, early research conducted in Greece matches research evidence gathered in other countries: preschool teachers stated that they agree with the importance of sex education but they do not feel able to provide appropriate relevant programs (Menmuir and Kakavoulis, 1999).

As far as the educational system of Greece is concerned, graduates of the University Departments of Education Sciences in Early Childhood become teachers mostly occupied in kindergartens. Children may attend kindergarten as early as age four to five and stay for two years. However, senior kindergarten is compulsory and considered as the first year of formal education.

According to the Greek official cross-curricular, comprehensive framework for the programs of study (Pedagogical Institute of the Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs, 2017), one of the basic aims of the kindergarten is to help the children to grow up and be socialized smoothly and multifarious. In this educational level, school curriculum should aim, among others, to help children to develop self-esteem, to detect similarities and differences with other people and respect them, to comply with basic hygiene and self-protection rules, to broaden knowledge for the human body and birth. Furthermore, one of the suggested thematic sections of the official program of study in Health Education for the kindergarten is specifically the “Sexuality Education”, with no more clarification. However, out of the nine Greek University Departments of Education Sciences in Early Childhood only one offers a course concerning exclusively “Sexuality and Health”. Four out of the rest departments have general inclusions of training in sexuality education, dedicating only a few hours of the course time at this topic.

It seems that sexuality is no more a taboo educational field for the early childhood curriculum. Nevertheless, the international literature indicates that teachers feel insecure to pursue sexuality education. Furthermore, the relative academic preparation seems to be incomplete. This study aimed to explore the readiness of the students – future early childhood educators – to provide sexuality education and more specifically to:

clarify Greek future early childhood teachers’ attitudes and considerations about their involvement in children’s sexuality education and

highlight the role that the successful completion of a sexuality education course plays in the attitudes students hold on this issue.

Methods

Sample

Participants were students of the Department of Education Sciences in Early Childhood of the University of Thrace, Greece. Graduates are qualified with a four-year degree and are mostly occupied in kindergartens, as teachers for children aged 4–6 years old. It is noteworthy that it is the only Greek University Department of Education Sciences in Early Childhood which offers a course dedicated to “Sexuality and Health”. Some of the course’s topics are proper genital terminology, body hygiene, a variety of aspects of well-being such as the development of social and refusal skills, self-esteem, secure feelings, talking about emotions and respect for everybody’s privacy. We used a purposive non-probability sample in order to study a population who has familiarity with the specific issue and to fit better to the purposes of the study (Babbie, 2001). They volunteered after they were given brief verbal information about the aims of the research, their obligations and our commitments. Participants were informed of the presence of a voice recorder and were assured that there would not be any kind of evaluation of their personal opinions. We announced that their participation in the research would last approximately 80–90 minutes and it would be arranged at the most convenient date and time. We finally picked the 20 first who volunteered to participate. They all were women, mostly in the 19–21 age range. Notably, men constitute a tiny minority of individuals in education sciences in early childhood departments in Greece; therefore, the lack of men in our sample was absolutely justified.

Design and data collection

The data were collected using qualitative methods which help researchers to isolate target populations, show the immediate effects of a program on the specific groups and indicate the constraints that operate against the desirable changes (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). A semi-structured group interview method was conducted and the interview protocol included questions on health promotion topics that participants would pick to teach and those that they felt it would be difficult to teach, the proper age for the launch of sexuality education at school, as well as topics that they would include, their perceived readiness to run relevant programs, their considerations about their applicability and their perceived needs for interventions.

We applied a group interview technique in order to redress the power balance between the researchers and the participants (Cohen et al., 2007). We run the interview for two different groups, each of 10 students. The first group consisted of students at the second year of their studies, who had taken no lessons about sexuality education or even health education yet. The second group was students at the third year of their studies who had successfully completed a course on sexuality and health. In both groups, we used one of the 10 students as an observer who took notes along with the investigator. Finally, the interview was recorded, transcribed and analyzed.

Data analysis

A directed content analysis approach was used to analyze the verbatim transcripts. Content analysis is a flexible method for interpreting text data; the directed approach of content analysis was preferred in order to use prior research as an initial coding scheme before analyzing data (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). After reading the transcript, the two researchers who worked separately highlighted all the text that appeared to be relevant to our basic research queries. Highlighted passages were coded using the predetermined codes. Any text that did not fit in the initial coding scheme was given a new label. After comparing codes across transcripts and identifying key themes for the two focus groups’ data, one of the researchers examined the data for each key theme to determine whether subcategories were needed for a category (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). During the whole process, researchers’ and observers’ written notes were taken into account in order to reveal non-verbal communication efforts and noteworthy emotional expressions. As far as the trustworthiness is concerned, the two investigators co-operated regularly in order to develop codes and review the coding process and the research development. Furthermore, the observer role of two of our participants contributed to a richer variation of the phenomena under study (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004). Finally, participants’ actual words, presented further down, were translated from Greek into English and, in order to check fidelity, were translated back into Greek from a new translator.

Results

Results revealed important differences between the students who had chosen and successfully completed a course in early childhood sexuality education and the students who had not. Specifically, as follows.

Students who had not attended University’s course “Sexuality and Health”

Admitted early childhood’s need for some kind of sexuality education – the vast majority of them – but they highlighted their inability to introduce it to their future pupils as a subject. They stated that they have not been academically prepared.

Specifically, they were asked about the appropriate age for academically introducing sexuality-related issues to children. Since this question was found to be vague, we explained that we were asking them to suggest the proper age for first contact with sexuality education. We furthermore encouraged study participants to suggest appropriate subject areas for initial discussion. Two of the participants declared:

[…]¹ maybe from kindergarten, I simply haven’t thought about it …² I haven’t thought what could be done …

I believe that an introductory speech should be given even in kindergarten, considering child’s cognitive abilities to understand some basic issues …

Furthermore, answering to “What are the tools you need but you don’t have in order to present such an issue?”:

I have a lack of knowledge. Without knowledge you can’t do anything, you can’t talk to the children, you can’t run a project about their sexual life … I am not ready; I know absolutely nothing to tell them.

Were embarrassed to deal with sexuality issues, due to their own considerations and inhibitions:

Actually I believe that it is very important to think what these issues are for us … Meaning that many homosexuality issues, limit issues, sexuality’s or not are difficult for us … Very much … This is why we find it difficult … but sometime in the future … the ‘tool’ is ‘us’ …

Assumed that they would have to talk to their pupils about topics such as homosexuality, masturbation and children’s future sex actions. For instance, answering to the question:

What are the issues […] that it would be difficult for you to bring up? For example, It would be difficult for me to bring up issues about sexuality in a kindergarten, issues that are related to the topic sexuality and health

four participants mentioned:

It would be difficult for me to talk about –the one I mentioned before– the sexuality between the two sexes … And the orientation of sexual life’s beginning for a child

[…] personally, I am not one of the persons, let’s say, that would try or not protect a child from a sexual direction … I will let him/her choose … To be responsible for his/her choices.

For me, it is the masturbation issue.

For me, it is the sex act.

Students who had successfully attended University’s course “Sexuality and Health”

Not only all of them were in favor of early childhood sexuality education, but they explained in depth the reasons that relay under this attitude. For instance:

… It would be really good and positive to start even from kindergarten … Let me explain why … Because when we say ‘sexuality’ we don’t mean the sex act necessarily. We mean a broad education, which a child could use as a basis and we, as early childhood teachers, can transmit to a child and let him/her develop many positive aspects of his personality, his self-confidence, the capability to have an opinion, to respect others, I believe everything is about education, for proper behavior and especially for sexuality, everything begins from that …

Perhaps even from play schools, meaning at the age of 3, because I believe that children are so clever today that they begin to discover early their body and sex differences …

I will also agree … Kids are ashamed because they learned to be ashamed, but if they learn from early childhood that this is an issue they could ask about … a common issue that is part of their everyday life, then perhaps we could ask adults about it.

Included in their future sexuality education program topics such as “building of refusal skills” and “enhancing of self-esteem”.

… I would include … Self-esteem issues … Furthermore, how they could be protected from others’ malicious actions in sexual issues, protection, learning to deny … and the one we discussed before … to act according to their willingness …

I would mostly insist on protection, on willingness, on self-esteem … Meaning I would mostly insist on the values that children should have … meaning that if they know: I respect my body, I protect it, I do only what I want to, there is no way -well, there are exceptions- to be misled and take part into actions he/she doesn’t want to …

Even some of these students did not have a clear view about the appropriate topics for early childhood. They even confused important concepts such as “protection from malicious actions” and “protection from diseases”. For instance, after the previously expressed opinions about “protection from malicious actions”, one of the participants declared:

Me too, one important thing I would like to add is ‘protection’. I would even talk about condoms …

Moreover, one of them expressed worries about explaining homosexuality:

One thing that would be difficult for me is explaining homosexuality.

Answering the questions: which are the “tools” you need but you do not have them, they considered necessary Practice Programs for the kindergarten on this issue.

Perhaps a Practice Program, meaning placing undergraduate students in the kindergarten to explain these things to kids, in order to have a clue for what we ought to do.

Expressed complains about the lack of Greek bibliography on the topic.

We don’t have proper Greek bibliography, aiming at children […] the existence of a children’s book that refers, for instance, to the sex act, it doesn’t mean that the reference is correct … In order to let children learn by themselves, through games, activities, and fairytales.

Overall, they exhibited more readiness and willingness to introduce sexuality education to their future pupils. Additionally, the overall majority of the participants included “sexuality” in the issues they would introduce to their pupils as a health education program. Furthermore, they did not express agony for their inappropriateness, in contrast with the first group interview, and lastly, they included in their possible future health education program a wide range of aspects of this issue, appropriate for the specific developmental stage.

Discussion

Prior research literature shows that teachers find it difficult to introduce sexuality issues to their pupils, mostly due to their inadequate academic preparation (Carman et al., 2011; Carter and Wengert, 1998; Cohen et al., 2012; Herr et al., 2012). The qualitative outcomes of this study confirmed previous literature and showed that even when teachers have successfully attended a relevant course, they do not feel adequately prepared and they need more theoretical as well as practical training.

Both groups admitted the need for early childhood sexuality education. However, only students who had completed the relevant course were positive that early childhood needs a kind of broad-based sexuality education program and explained in detail the reasons behind it and its limits.

It is now accepted that sexuality education should be part of children’s primary education and one of the main secrets of its success is its implementation at the right – developmentally speaking – age. However, this area has been barely studied as far as early childhood education is concerned. It is a topic that needs to be covered at early childhood as long as we take into account children’s interests and their limited needs in detailed information (Shaw, 1995; UNESCO, 2009; WHO and BzgA, 2010). Appreciating one’s body, building healthy relationships, expressing feelings, decision-making, problem-solving, society and cultural issues are among the most important “sexuality education” issues that need to be addressed at the “0–5 years old” level (SIECUS, 1998). None of these concepts were mentioned in the first group. On the contrary, they focused on concepts that referred to the basic issues of sexuality education and even on developmentally inappropriate subject areas, showing their inability or even riskiness to introduce them to their pupils. A sexuality education program that would be developmentally inappropriate, not only would fail to promote a whole-sided growth of children, but it would misinform and mislead them; it might conjure misleading images and convey conflicting and, sometimes, damaging messages to them (SIECUS, 1998; UNESCO, 2009). However, even the second group was not able to distinguish clearly the different needs between the different age groups. Clearly, one theoretical course was not enough to enable all of the attendees to conceive the importance of the “development-appropriate” education. Future research should reveal the appropriate training program for fully prepared educators. Nevertheless, it was observed that the last group demonstrated a better ability to introduce sexuality education to their future pupils, confirming the importance and effectiveness of the attendance of a relevant course at undergraduate level. Specifically, they included “sexuality” in their future health educational programs more often than the first group, they included some of the important topics that are appropriate for the children’s developmental stage, and finally, all of them addressed the need for early childhood sexuality education.

Developmentally appropriate sexuality education has been widely accepted as a crucial factor that could determine the outcomes of teaching efforts. SIECUS (1998: 1) has remarked on the importance of providing “accurate, developmentally appropriate information about human sexuality”. However, during recent decades, serious doubts have been raised regarding this unbreakable rule and children’s innocence regarding sexuality. For instance, Blaise (2005: 3, 2009) doubted that relying on child development to inform practice is best for children. She addressed the need to reconceptualize early childhood teaching by moving away from developmentally appropriate practices and toward exploring “postdevelopmentalism”-based theoretical frameworks. These frameworks could help us to explore new ways of understanding teaching, learning and young children. Moreover, Robinson (2012, 2013: 14) claimed that extremely young children are already engaging in behaviors with respect to relationships and sexuality that many adults consider to be developmentally inappropriate. However, adults have heavily regulated children’s access to appropriate information, and moral panic is regularly mobilized when boundaries are transgressed. Apparently, such regulations have critical implications related to children’s increased vulnerabilities, health and well-being.

This qualitative research study provided important information about the attitudes and considerations of a group of the future early childhood educators and introducing sexuality education to their pupils, but there are some proven limitations. Firstly, the participants were mostly in the 19–21 age range. Practicing teachers with job and life experience were not included in our sample, and this constitutes a limitation for our study. Specifically, this study focused on the need to prepare future educators to provide sexuality education. Being equipped with factual and developmentally appropriate knowledge may not be sufficient to actually successfully provide this type of education, since teaching about sexuality is always mediated by context: factors such as student age, type of school, teacher gender and teacher sexuality could mediate future educators’ efficacy. Consequently, it would also be important to study educators who have had experience teaching about sexuality, given that these practitioners have likely met challenges associated with teaching about sexuality in specific contexts.

Secondly, it should be noted that the participants were students of the specific educational institution where the interviews took place, so there is a possibility that the responders tried to answer “correctly” and not “accurately” or according to their true beliefs. Besides, this limited geographical study used only a small sample size within one University’s Department, hence we are not able to generalize the findings.

Conclusion

The study confirmed future educators’ dire need to be fully trained, in theory, and in practicing, using creative teaching techniques as well as appropriate educational tools. On-the-job experience and in-service training will contribute significantly, only if teachers have attended a broad-based, extensive undergraduate relative program. The specific research field is understudied and further examination is needed. Studies should further assess the impact of training and formal education on educators’ perceived readiness to provide early childhood sexuality education. Furthermore, the possible risks of delivering health sexuality education programs, from teachers without relevant academic training, need to be researched in depth. Finally, we all need a formal educational system which would be able to protect children from conflicting and confusing messages they may receive from their social environment and provide effective, scientific, accurate and broad-based sexuality education. Finally, it is important for future sexuality education to attend to affect as well as accuracy; young children should have the opportunity to discuss conflicting and confusing messages about people’s feelings and experiences of sexuality in a safe school environment.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abbott

Ellis

Abbott

(2016) ‘We‘ve got a lack of family values’: An examination of how teachers formulate and justify their approach to teaching sex and relationships education. Sex Education 16(6): 678–691.

Acharya

van Teijlingen

Simkhada

(2009) Opportunities and challenges in school-based sex and sexual health education in Nepal. Kathmandu University Medical Journal 7(28): 445–453.

Astra Youth (2014) Human right to comprehensive sexuality education. Available at: www.astra.org.pl/youth/pdf/Human%20Right%20to%20Comprehensive%20Sexuality%20Education.pdf (accessed 16 October 2017).

Babbie

(2001) The Practice of Social Research, 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson.

Bates

Joubert

(1993) Source of sex education in relation to self-esteem and attitudes towards AIDS precautions among college students. Psychological Reports 72(2): 603–606.

Blaise

(2005) Playing it Straight: Uncovering Gender Discourses in the Early Childhood Classroom, New York: Rutledge.

Blaise

(2009) “What a girl wants, what a girl needs”: Responding to sex, gender, and sexuality in the early childhood classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 23(4): 450–460.

Carman

Mitchell

Schlichthorst

et al. (2011) Teacher training in sexuality education in Australia: How well are teachers prepared for the job? Sexual Health 8: 269–271.

Carter

Wengert

(1998) University preparation of the sexuality educator. Journal of Sex Educator and Therapy 23(1): 83–86.

10.

Cohen

Byers

Sears

(2012) Factors affecting Canadian teachers’ willingness to teach sexual health education. Sex Education 12(3): 299–316.

11.

Cohen L, Manion L and Morrison K (2007) Μɛθοδολογία Εκπαιδɛυτικής Έρɛυνας’ [Research Methods in Education]. Athens: Metehmio.

12.

Denzin

Lincoln

(2011) Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 1–20.

13.

European Parliament (2013) Policies for sexuality education in the European Union. ‘Note’ Directorate – General for internal policies, PE 462.515, Brussels. Available at: www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/462515/IPOL-FEMM_NT(2013)462515_EN.pdf (accessed 21 May 2017).

14.

FOSE (Future of Sex Education) (2015) National teacher preparation standards for sexuality education. National standards. Available at: http://futureofsexed.org/teacherstandards.html (accessed 16 October 2017).

15.

Gordon P (2014) Sexuality education and the prevention of sexual violence. In: The Council of Europe Program ‘Building a program for and with children’ (ed.) Protecting Children from Sexual Violence – A Comprehensive Approach. Strasburg: Council of Europe. Available at: www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/1in5/Source/PublicationSexualViolence/Gordon.pdf (accessed 16 October 2017).

16.

Graneheim

Lundman

(2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today 24: 105–112.

17.

Herr

Telljohann

Price

et al. (2012) High school health-education teachers’ perceptions and practices related to teaching HIV prevention. Journal of School Health 82(11): 514–521.

18.

Hsieh

Shannon

(2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15: 1277–1288.

19.

IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network) (2006) Sexuality education in Europe: A reference guide to policies and practices, Brussels. The SAFE Project. Available at: www.sexarchive.info/BIB/SexEd/SexEd.html (accessed 16 October 2017).

20.

Kakavoulis

(2001) Family and sex education: A survey of parental attitudes. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning 1(2): 163–174.

21.

Ketting

Winkelmann

(2013) New approaches to sexuality education and underlying paradigms. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz 56(2): 250–255.

22.

Menmuir

Kakavoulis

(1999) Sexual development and education in early years: A study of attitudes of pre-school staff in Greece and Scotland. Early Child Development and Care 149: 27–45.

23.

National Guidelines Taskforce (2004) Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, Kindergarten Through 12th Grade, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Fulton Press.

24.

Parker

Wellings

Lazarus

(2009) Sexuality education in Europe: An overview of current policies. Sex Education 9(3): 227–242.

25.

Pedagogical Institute of the Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs (2017) The cross-curricular, comprehensive framework for the programs of study. Available at: www.pi-schools.gr/content/index.php?lesson_id=300&ep=367 (accessed 16 October 2017).

26.

Phipps

(2008) Consequences of inadequate sex education in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology 111(2, Pt. 1): 254–255.

27.

Price

Dake

Kirchofer

et al. (2003) Elementary school teachers’ techniques of responding to student questions regarding sexuality issues. Journal of School Health 73(1): 9–14.

28.

Qin

Xie

Tang

et al. (2017) Perceived parental attitude toward sex education as predictor of sex knowledge acquisition: The mediating role of global self esteem. Current Psychology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9578-8.

29.

Raphael DA (2015) The effect of sexual education on sexual assault prevention. WomenNC 2015 CSW Research Paper, pp.1–38. Available at: www.womennc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-WomenNC-ResearchPaper-Effects-ofSexEduc-on-PreventSexAssault_Dana-Raphael0415.pdf (accessed 16 October 2017).

30.

Robinson

(2012) ‘Difficult citizenship’: The precarious relationships between childhood, sexuality and access to knowledge. Sexualities 15(3/4): 257–276.

31.

Robinson

(2013) Innocence, Knowledge and the Construction of Childhood: The Contradictory Nature of Sexuality and Censorship in Children’s Contemporary Lives, London: Routledge.

32.

Shaw

(1995) The child’s right to sex education. Planned Parenthood Challenges/International Planned Parenthood Federation 1: 2–3.

33.

SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) (1998) Right from the Start, Guidelines for Sexuality Issues, Birth to Five Years, New York: SIECUS.

34.

UK Youth Parliament (2007) Sex and Relationships Education: Are you Getting it?, London: UK Youth Parliament.

35.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2009) International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education. An Evidence-Informed Approach for Schools, Teachers and Health Educators, Paris: UNESCO.

36.

Walker

Milton

(2006) Teachers’ and parents’ roles in the sexuality education of primary school children: A comparison of experiences in Leeds, UK and in Sydney, Australia. Sex Education 6(4): 415–428.

37.

WHO BzgA (World Health Organization and Federal Centre for Health Education) (2010) Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: A Framework for Policy Makers, Educational and Health Authorities and Specialists, Cologne, Germany: BZgA.

38.

Youth Coalition for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (YCSRR) (n.d.) Report to the United Nations human rights Council for the Universal periodic review of the Republic of India, pp.1–5. Available at: www.sexualrightsinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/India-UPR-1-YC.pdf (accessed 16 October 2017).