In or Out? The Great Compromise of Sexual Education
Protestors rally against former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in Washington, DC in 2017. Photo courtesy of Ted Eytan.
The education system accommodates an incredibly diverse body of students while perpetuating values and information deemed universally important. Unfortunately, there is frequent disagreement between American schools’ curricula and what parents believe their children should be taught. This conflict, most intense in sexual education, has placed parental consent at the center of state policies, bifurcating instruction of sexuality, relationships, and reproductive health into two frameworks: Opt-Out and Opt-In.
Under the Opt-Out policy, students participate in sexual education by default unless their parents explicitly opt them out of that instruction. The majority of states—36 as well as Washington DC—are proponents of this policy, praising its compromise between awareness of sexual health issues and respect for parental consent.
The second, less common policy is Opt-In, which is in place in five states. This policy excludes students from sex ed unless parents grant written permission for them to participate. Proponents of Opt-In believe it ensures parents remain actively involved in their children’s education. Opponents argue that it perpetuates stigma around sexual health and discourages student participation. Of the two, Opt-In is far more restrictive and has been heavily criticized for letting students with less engaged parents “slip through the cracks” and miss important information.
While the idea of seeking parental consent to teach sensitive content is well-intentioned, a requirement to opt into sex ed undermines its validity; framing it as something taboo rather than beneficial for all students regardless of their sexual orientation and identity. Therefore, the Opt-In policy should be abolished and replaced by Opt-Out policies so parents can exclude students should they feel uncomfortable with the content. To inform decisions regarding opting out and combat misinformation about sex ed, schools should also offer parents a “sex ed syllabus” defining the timeline for what information will be taught and during what grade levels.
In 1950, a new framework for sex ed called comprehensive sexual education (CSE) was introduced by the American Health Association and public officials, sparking the current wave of controversy we still see today. CSE focuses on topics like sexuality, gender identity, reproductive rights, consent, and sexual orientation; prioritizing medical accuracy and transparency from an early age through adolescence and progressing at a developmentally appropriate pace. Research has shown that CSE is effective in reducing risky sexual behavior, the spread of HIV, STIs, and teen pregnancy. According to the World Health Organization, CSE “plays a central role in preparing young people for a safe, productive, fulfilling life”. Due to these enormous benefits, CSE is being more widely adopted in schools around the country, but it is drawing extensive criticism from parents who distrust it.
Parents oppose aspects of CSE for reasons including religious beliefs, discomfort with content, or fears of encouraging sexual activity. Instead, many parents have supported the traditional focus on abstinence, which emphasizes the dangers of sex and advocates refraining from it. These “abstinence-only” programs receive over $110 million per year from the federal government, but they fail to teach social-emotional learning, diversity of identities, or violence prevention. To top it all off, studies show evidence that the program fails in its sole purpose of preventing premarital sexual activity and that emphasis on abstinence is positively correlated with teen pregnancy. Still, many states teach this curriculum.
With the rise of CSE and opposition to its progressive curriculum came the introduction of the Opt-In policy in the 1980s. While meant to ease tensions, the very existence of an Opt-In policy undermines the legitimacy of sex ed, framing it as something to be avoided and perpetuating the stigma surrounding these important topics. On top of that, it fails to acknowledge that children’s views on sexuality can differ from those of their parents. A system where parents control what their children can learn leads to teachers being unable to answer students’ questions due to restrictions on what can be taught.
To restore the beneficial elements of sex ed and help combat the perception of sex ed as something to be avoided, Opt-Out policies should be standardized at the state level to allow for gradual standardization and implementation of CSE. A more effective solution than Opt-In policies would be taking a similar approach to New Jersey; offering more transparency regarding the content and timeline of the CSE curriculum and communicating its positive impacts to parents while offering them the option to opt-out. This can be done by sharing a syllabus during a school board meeting so that parents may view it and ask any questions it raises. Parents have every right to be involved and invested in their children’s education, and to voice concerns if they feel content is inappropriate.
Despite their benefits, current Opt-In and Opt-Out policies have fallen victim to a cycle of politicizing sex education that has resulted in their abuse. In a perfect world, sex ed should not be optionalized, but rather embraced and restructured along the guidelines of comprehensive sex ed to maximize its benefits for all students. But until we can agree on what sex ed should look like, we need standardized Opt-Out policies so parents can express their dissatisfaction and withdraw their students without reverting curricula to abstinence-only for everyone else. By gradually reforming and implementing CSE alongside Opt-Out frameworks, we can compromise and work to combat the misinformation and intolerance that have long plagued discussions of sex and sexuality.
Nathan Shurts (CC ’28) is a staff writer at the Columbia Political Review. He is a freshman studying political science and statistics.