This article was downloaded by: [Durham University Library]On: 15 August 2013, At: 13:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Sex Education: Sexuality, Society andLearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csed20

Sex and relationship education for13–16 year olds: evidence from EnglandVicki Strange a , Simon Forrest b , Ann Oakley a , JudithStephenson c & the RIPPLE Study Teama University of London, UKb The Sex Education Forum, UKc University College London Medical School, UKPublished online: 23 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Vicki Strange , Simon Forrest , Ann Oakley , Judith Stephenson & the RIPPLEStudy Team (2006) Sex and relationship education for 13–16 year olds: evidence from England, SexEducation: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 6:1, 31-46

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681810500508964

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Sex and relationship education for 13–

16 year olds: evidence from England

Vicki Strange*a, Simon Forrestb, Ann Oakleya, JudithStephensonc and the RIPPLE Study Team1

aUniversity of London, UK; bThe Sex Education Forum, UK; cUniversity College London

Medical School, UK

This article examines the quantity and content of sex and relationship education (SRE) delivered to

students in Years 9–11 (aged 13–16 years) in 12 coeducational state secondary schools in England

during 1997–2000. Teachers reported the delivery of an average of seven (range 0–12) sessions of

SRE across the three years, with no SRE delivered in up to five schools in each year. Most teachers

reported having covered contraception, sexually transmitted diseases and relationships at least once.

Topics such as homosexuality and the negotiation of relationships and sexual encounters were rarely

covered. Data collected from students provided a slightly different picture. At least one-half of

students in all schools reported having received some SRE during Year 9 and at least 85% reported

receiving some SRE during Years 10 and/or 11. Teachers identified various factors that limited the

quality of the SRE delivered. The article discusses some of the challenges that arose when attempting

to reconcile data gathered from students and teachers.

Introduction

In recent years, UK government policy has focused on the need to improve sex and

relationship education (SRE) in schools (Department for Education and Employment

[DfEE], 2000; Department of Health, 2002). This is part of wider concerns to reduce

rates of teenage pregnancies and the number of young people contracting sexually

transmitted infections (Social Exclusion Unit, 1999; Department of Health, 2001). In

order to evaluate these efforts to improve sex education and to make decisions about

the future provision of SRE, it is important to have a clear idea about provision in

schools, prior to the introduction of such policy and guidance, and the salient issues

for those involved in the organization and delivery of this.

Research focusing on SRE in schools has indicated that often little time is

allocated for the delivery of SRE, it is delivered too late for many students and tends

to have an overly biological focus. SRE has been criticized for failing to address

*Corresponding author. Social Science Research Unit (SSRU), Institute of Education, University

of London, 18 Woburn Square, London WC1H ONS, UK. Email: v.strange@ioe.ac.uk

Sex Education

Vol. 6, No. 1, February 2006, pp. 31–46

ISSN 1468-1811 (print)/ISSN 1472-0825 (online)/06/010031-16

# 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14681810500508964

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

affective issues around emotions and relationships, attitudes or skills development

(Allen, 1987; Holland et al., 1998; Measor et al., 2000). Studies examining the

organization and delivery of school-based SRE have identified factors influential in

determining the quality of SRE provision, such as a lack of time available for

planning and delivery; teachers’ confidence and commitment, embarrassment and

lack of training; and difficulties with implementing and monitoring a cross-curricular

approach (Scott & Thomson, 1992; Lawrence et al., 2000).

While much of this research provides important insights into ways in which SRE

might be improved, it is limited with regards to its ability to provide definite

information about either the amount or content of SRE received by students in

schools. For example, few studies have attempted to establish how much time has

been allocated for the delivery of SRE or which aspects of SRE are being addressed.

The report by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), based on a survey of

SRE in 1000 schools and 20 local education authorities, inspections by Her

Majesty’s Inspectors of 140 schools and analysis of Ofsted inspections carried out

during 2000/02, is a good example of this (Ofsted, 2002). The report provides no

detail about the content of SRE being delivered in schools nor about how much time

in the formal curriculum of schools is allocated to this. Rather, it focuses on the

quality of the teaching observed in schools and on recommendations for topic areas

(e.g. sexuality, HIV/AIDS and parenthood) considered to require more attention.

Few studies have attempted to collect information in systematic ways from

representative samples of schools or students. One exception is a survey of SRE

provision carried out by Lawrence et al. (2000); however, generalization from these

findings is limited, as demographic information about the schools is not provided. It

is also difficult to draw conclusions about the total amount of SRE received by

students throughout their school careers. For example, Lawrence et al. (2000) report

estimates of intended provision, rather than figures for SRE actually delivered, and

assess provision only at one point in time across different year groups.

This paper aims to fill a research gap concerning what is known about SRE

provision in English schools. Data gathered from both teachers and students are

drawn on to establish the amount and content of SRE delivered to two cohorts of

students during Years 9–11 (aged 13–16 years) in 12 coeducational state secondary

schools in England over the period 1997–2000. We also examine teachers’ views

about the factors that need to be addressed for SRE to be delivered successfully. By

focusing on the period immediately prior to the most recent government guidance

on sex and relationship education (DfEE, 2000) we hope to provide data against

which future studies can compare more current information about sex education,

thus allowing some assessment of the possible impact of such guidance. We also

discuss some of the challenges that arose in our attempts to combine data from

teachers and students in order to establish what SRE was actually delivered in the

study schools. Combining data gathered by different methods and from different

sources is commonly referred to as ‘triangulation’ and is considered by some as an

appropriate approach for establishing the validity/credibility of findings (Patton,

1980). A second contribution of the paper is to these methodological debates.

32 V. Strange et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

Methods

In 1997, approximately 350 mixed-sex state schools in central and southern England

were contacted by letter and invited to take part in a randomized controlled trial of

peer-led sex education—the Randomised Intervention of Pupil Peer-led Sex

Education (RIPPLE) Study. Forty-nine schools expressed an interest in taking part

in the study and, following visits by members of the research team to discuss the

study in more detail, 29 schools were randomly allocated either to receive peer-led

sex education or to continue with their usual sex education curriculum. Schools

chose not to take part in the study for a variety of reasons, some unrelated to the

delivery of sex education. A few schools were only interested in taking part in the

study if they could implement peer-led sex education. Others were excluded by

the research team because they were too far from the study base in London. Full

details of the RIPPLE study, including the process by which schools were recruited

to the study and the methods employed, can be found elsewhere (Stephenson et al.,

2003). This paper reports on the data collected in the 12 schools randomized to the

control group in which the usual sex education curriculum was implemented.

Between 1997 and 2000 in-depth interviews were carried out in all the RIPPLE

Study schools with the teachers who were responsible for coordinating, and in some

cases delivering, SRE. Some teachers were interviewed more than once. The

interviews were semi-structured and consisted mainly of open questions that aimed

to establish the following: what SRE had been delivered to two cohorts of students in

Years 9–11; what external agencies had contributed to the programme; what the

main issues were in organizing and delivering it; and whether any of the teachers

delivering SRE had received any training. In order to standardize the information

collected from the schools, teachers were also asked to complete, with the

researcher, a table indicating whether particular topics had been covered in the

SRE programme, and in which years. Teachers were also asked to indicate the extent

to which they were satisfied with a number of factors thought to influence the

organization and delivery of SRE. These topics and factors were based on very

similar questions asked in a recent survey of school sex education by Lawrence et al.

(2000). All the interviews were transcribed. Information from these was extracted

and combined with other study data.

Two cohorts of students, in all schools, were asked to complete questionnaires in

Year 9 (aged 13/14 years), Year 10 (aged 14/15 years) and Year 11 (aged 15/16

years). Students completed the questionnaires under the supervision of researchers

and/or teachers, and were asked to work alone. The questionnaires comprised about

50 items including demographics, sexual knowledge, attitudes, cognitions and

behaviour and attitudes to school and the future. One section, the data from which

are reported here, covered students’ experiences of SRE. Frequencies were

calculated using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. This paper presents

data from questionnaires completed by students attending the schools in Years 10

and 11. Data from those students who joined the schools after the autumn term of

Year 9 were excluded as these students may not have been enrolled in the study

schools when the SRE was delivered. Data referring to SRE covered during Year 9

Sex and relationship education for 13–16 year olds 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

are taken from the questionnaires completed by students in Year 10, and data

referring to SRE covered in Years 10 and 11 are taken from questionnaires

completed in Year 11, unless otherwise stated.

Results

A comparison of the RIPPLE Study control schools with other maintained

secondary schools in the same four Government office regions in 19972 indicates

that in relation to key demographic criteria these schools are a fairly representative

sample. The study schools had slightly fewer students with statements of special

educational needs (1.8% versus 2.3%) and the academic attainment of students, as

indicated by the average GCSE3 points score, was very slightly lower (36.1 versus

37.8). The proportion of students who were eligible for free schools meals was very

similar (13.7% versus 13.0%) and levels of absenteeism (authorized and

unauthorized) were also very similar (8.6% versus 8.8% of half-days).

Interviews were carried out with 17 teachers and one school nurse in the 12

control schools. Eight of the teachers were personal social and health education

(PSHE) coordinators and three of these also held other positions as a head of year,

head of science and deputy head of the school, respectively. Seven of the teachers

were year heads with responsibility for coordinating the SRE provision for their year.

One teacher was a religious education (RE) teacher and another was a science

teacher.

A total of 3331 students (86% of those enrolled in the schools since Year 9)

completed questionnaires in Year 10 (1622 in cohort 1 and 1709 in cohort 2) and

2920 (80% of those enrolled in the schools since Year 9) did so in Year 11 (1433 in

cohort 1 and 1487 in cohort 2). The sample in each year comprised approximately

50% girls and 50% boys.

What SRE was provided and by whom?

Data from teachers

In eight of the 12 schools, most of the SRE was delivered by form tutors. In one of

these schools, the form tutors chose the area of PSHE that they would like to teach,

and consequently most of the form groups received SRE from the same teacher. In

another school, SRE had previously been delivered by form tutors, but in recent

years had not been delivered at all because form tutors were not confident and/or

comfortable with teaching the subject. In two schools, most of the SRE was

delivered by one or two dedicated teachers with form tutors covering classes where

necessary. In one school the SRE was delivered on three days during the school year.

On these days the timetable was collapsed and most of the SRE was delivered by the

school nurse and outside agencies. Teachers in two other schools reported that the

school nurse contributed to the SRE programme, and in one of these almost all

the SRE was delivered by her. In another two schools, teachers reported that school

nurses used to contribute to the SRE programme, but that more recently these

34 V. Strange et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

services had been cut and they were no longer able to commit time to the

programme. In three of the 12 schools, teachers reported that some of the SRE had

been delivered by external speakers or organizations other than the school nurse.

These included sessions delivered by a representative from a company promoting

sanitary products and a drama company that worked with students in Year 9, a

session with a nurse from a family-planning clinic aiming to promote local services

and abstinence from sexual intercourse, and discussion-based sessions delivered by

volunteers from a local church youth group. In most schools the SRE delivered in

PSHE time was supplemented by that covered as part of the national curriculum in

science. This covered fertilization, physical and emotional changes in adolescence

(puberty), the menstrual cycle, the effects of sex hormones and development of the

foetus (www.nc.uk.net). In at least one school, PSHE was also supplemented by

work carried out in RE, which included discussion about abortion. No teachers

indicated any awareness of topics related to SRE having being covered in other

subject areas.

How much time was allocated to SRE?

Data from teachers

Table 1 summarizes data from teachers about the amount of SRE delivered to each

cohort of students in each school in Years 9–11. As all the interviews were completed

before the end of the school year 2000/01, data about the SRE provided to students

in the second cohort during Year 11 were not obtained. In order to provide some

idea of the total probable amount of SRE delivered across the three years, we have

assumed that the SRE delivered in this year was the same as for those students in the

first cohort (these data are shown in italics in the table). Table 1 does not include any

SRE that was stated as having been delivered in science or RE as part of the national

curriculum.

Over the three years, teachers reported that students in the first cohort received

between 0 and 12 sessions of SRE with an average between six and seven sessions.

Students in the second cohort received between three and 12 sessions with an

average between seven and eight sessions.4 The number of sessions delivered in each

year ranged from zero to six in Year 9, zero to seven in Year 10 and zero to five in

Year 11. Teachers reported that no SRE was delivered to students in Year 9 in four

schools, to students in Year 10 in four schools and to students in Year 11 in five

schools. In one school, teachers reported that students in the first cohort received no

SRE in Years 9, 10 or 11. Data were missing for at least two of the three years for

students in two schools—one for students in the first cohort and one for students in

the second cohort.

Data from students

Table 1 also presents data from students (see emboldened characters). Between 49%

and 99% of students in the first cohort and 65% and 99% of students in the second

Sex and relationship education for 13–16 year olds 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

Table 1. Mean number of sessions of sex education reported by teachers as having been delivered to students and the percentage of students from

these schools who reported having received any sex education in Years 9, 10 and 11

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

Year 9

(10 schools)

Year 10

(11

schools)

Year 11

(9

schools)

Year 10/11 Total

(all

years)

Year 9

(11 schools)

Year 10

(9

schools)

Year 11

(9

schools)

Year 10/11 Total

(all years)

Teachers Students Teachers Teachers Students

(Students*)

Teachers Teachers Students Teachers Teachers Students

(Students*)

Teachers

Mean number

of sessions

2/3 89 2/3 1/2 95 (16) 6.5 3/4 93 2/3 1/2 93 (16) 7.5

Range 0–6 49–99 0–6 0–5 89–99

(8–31)

0–12 0–6 65–99 0–7 0–5 86–100

(4–27)

3–12

Number of

schools

delivering

no SRE

4 – 4 5 – 1 2 – 4 5 – 0

Teachers, number of sex education lessons delivered, as reported by teachers. Students, percentage of students reporting having received sex

education. Data for Years 10 and 11 are combined, as students were asked in the questionnaire completed in Year 11 about both years of SRE

together. Students*, percentage of students who reported that they could not remember who took their sex education.

36

V.

Stra

nge

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

cohort reported receiving SRE in Year 9. Between 89% and 99% of students in the

first cohort and 86% and 100% of students in the second cohort reported receiving

SRE in Years 10 or 11. Of those who reported having received some SRE, between 4%

and 31% said they could not remember who took the sessions.

Comparison of data from teachers and students

In order to obtain as complete a picture as possible of the provision of SRE, we asked

for data from both teachers and students. We found a number of discrepancies

between these two sources of information. While teachers in some schools reported

that SRE was not delivered to students during PSHE in some years, at least one-half

of the students in all schools in each of the three years reported having received some

SRE. For example, teachers in four schools reported that no SRE was delivered to

students in the first cohort in Year 9; but between 49% and 96% of students in these

same four schools said they had received some SRE.

What topics/activities were covered and when?

Data from teachers

Table 2 presents teacher reporting of the coverage of SRE topics in each year. The

topics most commonly reported by teachers as having being covered at all were

‘contraception’ (nine schools in cohort 1 and 10 in cohort 2) and ‘sexually

transmitted diseases’ (nine in cohort 1 and seven in cohort 2). The next most

frequently covered were ‘relationships’ (eight in cohort 1 and seven in cohort 2),

resisting pressure (five in cohort 1 and five in cohort 2) and ‘using sexual health

services’ (five in cohort 1 and five in cohort 2). Some topics were reported as having

been covered by very few teachers. These included ‘homosexuality’ (which was

reported as being covered in just one school in each cohort), religious and cultural

views (two schools in cohort 1 and no schools in cohort 2) and ‘sexual harassment’

(one school for the first cohort and two schools for the second). ‘Talking about sex

with a partner’ was also reported as being covered in just four schools in the first

cohort and three in the second cohort. Three schools in the first cohort and four in

the second reported having covered how to ‘negotiate relationships’.

Teachers were also asked whether students in their schools were provided with the

opportunity to touch and practise using condoms in the classroom. In seven schools

in cohort 1 and five schools in cohort 2, teachers reported that some students would

have had the opportunity to touch condoms. Teachers from two schools in each

cohort reported that, in some classes, the teacher would have demonstrated how to

use a condom and some students may have practised using a condom themselves.

Data from students

Table 3 presents comparable data from students on the coverage of particular topics

within SRE. All topics and skill-based activities were considered to have been

Sex and relationship education for 13–16 year olds 37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

covered by at least some students in all the schools. Across the schools, the topics

considered to have been covered by most students were ‘HIV/AIDS’ (range 60–

97%), ‘STDs’ (range 64–97%) and ‘where to go to get contraception/condoms/

medical advice’ (range 67–92%). Most students (82% in cohort 1 and 77% in cohort

2) had ‘looked at contraceptives’. The topic area reported by the least number of

Table 2. Number of schools in which teachers reported covering particular topics during Years 9,

10 and 11

Topic Cohort 1 Cohort 2

Year 9

(10

schools)

Year 10

(10

schools)

Year 11

(9

schools)

Any

year

Year 9

(11

schools)

Year 10

(9

schools)

Year 11

(9

schools)

Any

year

Contraception 5 5 2 9 7 5 2 10

Sexually transmitted

diseases (including HIV)

2 6 2 9 5 4 2 7

Relationships: listening,

sharing and tolerance

6 3 2 8 6 3 2 7

Resisting pressure 4 1 1 5 5 1 1 6

Using sexual health

services

1 3 2 5 1 3 2 5

Long-term relationships

and marriage

3 2 2 5 2 2 2 4

Fertilization, pregnancy

and birth

2 1 1 4 3 1 1 5

Decision-making and

personal choices

3 2 2 4 4 2 2 5

Family life—different

types of families,

changing families

3 2 1 3 3 4 1 5

Negotiating relationships 2 1 0 3 4 1 0 4

Talking about sex with a

partner

2 2 1 4 2 1 1 3

Puberty 1 2 0 3 3 0 0 3

Love-making—arousal,

foreplay, intercourse

0 3 1 3 1 2 1 3

Sexual stereotyping 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 4

Sex and the law 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3

Sexual harassment 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 2

Religious and cultural

views: moral views and

attitudes

1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0

Homosexuality 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

Touching condomsa 7 5

Practising using condomsa 2 2

aSkills-based activities—data were not collected by year and are only available for eight schools for

cohort 1 and seven schools for cohort 2.

38 V. Strange et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

Table 3. Percentage of students who reported having covered particular SRE topics in Years 9–11

Topic Cohort 1 Cohort 2

01 02a 03 04 05 06 07a 08 09a 10a 11 12 Mean 01 02 03 04 05 06a 07a 08 09a 10a 11a 12 Mean

I looked at contraceptives

(not pictures)

80 95 86 89 91 87 81 52 87 75 75 85 82 91 97 89 42 83 85 91 67 70 87 30 88 77

I looked at condoms 75 95 88 93 90 87 86 45 83 75 88 85 83 91 98 88 35 78 87 93 69 73 87 22 89 76

I learnt:

How people have sexb 62 74 74 70 64 71 63 52 68 71 72 63 67 55 80 79 50 65 54 71 53 71 64 68 65 65

Termination/abortionb 76 88 80 75 82 79 82 78 79 66 64 77 78 70 97 84 62 69 71 80 80 68 77 44 69 73

Gay and lesbian

relationships

55 56 58 43 44 58 38 32 49 43 32 59 47 46 75 72 28 31 47 53 55 49 39 34 37 48

Marriage 60 70 61 55 62 60 58 69 64 49 43 69 60 51 88 72 46 54 62 71 85 60 63 39 53 62

HIV/AIDS 91 96 90 83 93 88 76 88 94 77 83 81 87 91 97 88 60 83 80 85 89 83 89 71 79 83

STDs 89 95 87 77 88 83 75 85 94 71 74 81 84 93 97 85 58 76 83 84 87 79 89 64 79 81

Sexual feelings, emotions

and relationshipsb62 74 76 57 77 73 64 61 60 60 52 74 67 59 88 80 43 68 60 74 65 66 57 50 56 65

Where to go to get

contraception/

condoms/medical

advice

83 92 83 88 91 84 86 74 83 78 81 74 84 91 93 88 68 80 83 92 79 82 87 67 81 83

I practised:

Putting a condom on 22 43 19 67 25 28 22 10 40 21 43 18 28 8 66 24 6 13 24 69 11 48 26 1 14 26

Resisting pressure to

have sex

27 43 43 36 43 42 24 23 36 26 26 46 35 37 40 49 24 30 39 45 27 47 39 14 35 35

Discussing how to use

condoms with a

partnerb

21 32 29 25 31 32 21 16 32 21 22 28 26 22 31 30 13 18 31 32 15 32 29 6 20 23

Data taken from questionnaires completed during Year 11 (n 5 1433, cohort 1; n 5 1487, cohort 2). Emboldened cells indicate those schools where

teachers reported that the topic had not been covered during Years 9, 10 and 11.aData from teachers missing for at least one year. Data for Year 9 SRE available for 10 schools in cohort 1 and 11 schools in cohort 2. Data for Year 10 SRE

available for 10 schools in cohort 1 and nine schools in cohort 2. Data for Year 11 SRE available for nine schools in cohort 1 and nine schools in cohort 2.bNo information from teachers about whether these topics were covered during sex education sessions.

Sex

and

relation

ship

educa

tionfor

13–16

yea

rold

s39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

students as having been covered was ‘gay and lesbian relationships’ (range 31–75%).

Fewer students reported having covered skills-based activities; 26% of students in

cohort 1 and 23% in cohort 2 said they had practised discussing how to use condoms

with a partner; 28% in cohort 1 and 26% in cohort 2 reported having practised

putting a condom on; and 35% in each cohort said they had practised how to resist

pressure to have sex.

Comparison of data from teachers and students

Comparison between the data obtained from teachers and students was not

straightforward for topics covered in SRE. Some of the topics most commonly

reported by teachers as having been covered during Years 9–11 were similar to those

topics most commonly reported as having been covered by students. These included

‘HIV/AIDs and STDs’, ‘contraception’ and ‘using sexual health services’. However,

most teachers also reported having covered ‘relationships’, while fewer students

considered this had been included in their SRE. Also of interest are the occasions

where teachers reported that particular topics had not been covered at all during any

year but students reported that these topics had been covered.

Regarding skill-based activities, teachers in six schools in cohort 1 and five in

cohort 2 reported that students did not practise using condoms; between 6% and

67% of students in these schools said they had done so.

What explains the discrepancies between the information given by teachers

and students?

While the triangulation of data gathered using different methods and/or from

different sources is often suggested as a way of establishing the validity/credibility of

findings, in practice, as we found in the study reported here, data from different

sources are quite likely to conflict (see Oakley, 2000). However, discussion about

how to deal with such contradictory evidence is relatively rare.

There are various possible explanations for the discrepancies we found. As regards

the amount of SRE provided, some differences between the information given by

teachers and students may be due to SRE being delivered in other parts of the

curriculum. However, apart from science and RE, teachers did not identify other

subject areas where topics related to SRE were addressed. Other explanations might

be: that teachers underestimated the extent to which SRE was delivered in their

schools because delivery of SRE tends to be very variable between classes, and

consequently they were not aware of SRE delivered by form tutors; that students/

teachers did not accurately recall in which year SRE had been delivered; and/or that

students’ responses in the questionnaire survey did not just reflect the SRE delivered

within the formal curriculum of schools, but wider experiences of SRE, including

possibly their experiences of completing the RIPPLE Study questionnaires.

With respect to coverage of particular SRE topics, one reason for differences

between the data provided by students and by teachers may be because the questions

40 V. Strange et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

asked of the two groups were not exactly the same. For example, whereas teachers

were asked whether ‘using sexual services’ had been covered during SRE, students

were asked whether they had ‘learnt where to go to get contraception/condoms/

medical advice’. In addition, data were missing from teachers from four schools in

cohort 1 and five schools in cohort 2 for at least one year. In some schools these

missing data reflected teachers’ (particularly year heads’) limited knowledge of the

SRE provision delivered to year groups other than their own. In other schools,

the interviews were carried out with teachers who had joined the school and/or taken

over the responsibility for the SRE programme when the RIPPLE study was already

underway, and they may therefore not have been aware of the SRE provided before

this date. Often teachers who may have known more about the SRE had either left

the school or researchers were not able to make contact and organize an interview. In

some cases it is possible that students had covered particular topics in another

subject lesson. For example, the teacher in school 12 reported that sexually

transmitted diseases/HIV was not covered in any year during PSHE; however,

around 80% of students reported having covered this topic (most probably in

science). For other topics, the differences between the reports of the students and

the teachers are more difficult to explain. For example, just one teacher reported that

‘homosexuality’ was covered as part of the SRE programme, while between 31% and

75% of students in all schools reported having covered gay and lesbian relationships.

In this case it is less obvious in which other part of the curriculum this topic might

have been addressed.

Some possible explanations for differences between students and teachers in

reporting skills-based activities are that teachers may sometimes have been unaware

that other teachers were carrying out SRE lessons where students were encouraged to

practise using condoms, and/or that students interpreted this question to include

occasions on which they may have watched others/teachers demonstrating condom use.

What issues influenced the organization and delivery of SRE?

Throughout the interviews, teachers talked about the factors that they felt influenced

the organization and delivery of SRE. The issues most often mentioned were

differences in confidence and enthusiasm, management support, timetable space

and training.

Variability in teachers’ confidence and enthusiasm for delivering SRE

This was highlighted by teachers in seven of the 12 schools. Many teachers

commented that the SRE was ‘patchy’ and that the quality and quantity of SRE

delivered to the different form or class groups was highly dependent on the

enthusiasm and confidence of the staff delivering it. All these teachers indicated that

they thought that the quality of SRE would be improved if delivered by a core team

of staff who were interested in delivering SRE as distinct from form tutors, some of

whom felt uncomfortable providing SRE and/or did not value it.

Sex and relationship education for 13–16 year olds 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

Support from the senior management team

All the teachers interviewed thought that this was important and that support for

SRE from the senior management team (SMT) was essential in order for space to be

allocated in the timetable for SRE and so that the importance of PSHE was

promoted within the staff team. In four schools, teachers identified the lack of

support from the SMT as a problem for the implementation of the SRE in their

school. In three schools, teachers reported that whole year groups had failed to

receive SRE because of a lack of clarity regarding who was responsible for the

coordination of the programme. In one school, the teacher interviewed explained

how a recent Ofsted report highlighting the lack of timetabled provision had assisted

her with negotiating more support from the SMT to promote SRE. Some teachers

felt that the SRE was more likely to be implemented successfully if responsibility for

the coordination of SRE was taken by a member of the SMT.

Space on the timetable

Many teachers said they would like more time to deliver SRE. In two schools,

teachers reported that there was no time allocated to the delivery of SRE. Some

teachers expressed concerns that the time available for SRE was likely to decrease as

more subjects (e.g. citizenship) are incorporated into the PSHE framework and as

the pressure increases for schools to invest time in improving examination grades in

curriculum subjects.

Training and INSET time

About one-half the teachers interviewed specifically identified the lack of training for

teachers and the lack of INSET time to develop and coordinate the SRE programme

as factors influencing the implementing of SRE. Teachers in five of the 12 schools

reported that they had received some training or support from an external agency

related to the delivery of SRE since 1997. This included sessions coordinated by the

local education authority (three teachers) and a two-day course held at a local

hospital for teachers and health professionals that covered information about

contraception and sexually transmitted infections and classroom-based activities

such as condom demonstrations (one teacher). A teacher in one school had received

advice about the content of the SRE programme from someone in the local health

promotion team. Teachers in five schools said that either INSET or some other time

had been allocated to support staff around issues relating to PSHE. Just two of the

teachers interviewed (in the same school) reported that they had received training in

the delivery of sex education during their initial teacher training.

Discussion

This paper has examined the quantity and content of SRE delivered to students in

Years 9, 10 and 11 in 12 mixed-sex state schools in England between 1997 and 2000

42 V. Strange et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

using evidence from a national study of sex education. Comparison of these schools

with others in central and southern England suggests this to be a broadly

representative sample.

The amount of SRE reported by teachers to have been delivered to students

during Years 9–11 was very variable between schools and across the three years and

the two cohorts. Teachers in one school reported that students received no SRE. In

contrast, teachers in other schools reported that students received as many as 11 or

12 sessions. On average, teachers reported the delivery of around six to seven

sessions of SRE across the three years. Data collected from students provide a

slightly different picture. At least one-half of students in all schools reported having

received some SRE during Year 9 and at least 90% reported receiving SRE during

Year 10 and/or Year 11.

Teachers in most schools reported having covered ‘contraception’, ‘sexually

transmitted diseases’ and ‘relationships’ at least once during the three years. This

was heartening, as these topics are listed in government guidance (DfEE, 2000) as

topics that should be addressed as part of the SRE programme in secondary schools.

However, other topics such as ‘homosexuality’ and the negotiation of relationships

and sexual encounters, including dealing with sexual harassment, were rarely

covered. Again, the data from students on topics covered provided a slightly

different picture. At least 10% of students in all schools reported having covered

each of the SRE topics. Some of the topics (e.g. HIV/AIDS and contraception) most

commonly identified by students as having been addressed were the same as those

identified by most teachers. But others topics (e.g. relationships) that were

commonly reported by teachers as having been covered during SRE were reported

by fewer students. While teachers in just two schools reported that students in some

classes might have been given the opportunity to practise using condoms, some

students in all schools said they had practised these skills during SRE.

These findings echo those from other research and suggest that, while many

schools may have successfully given students factual information, most were not

providing them with opportunities to develop skills that may enable them to use

condoms and negotiate sexual situations with partners (Buston et al., 2002). The

development of such skills has been highlighted as important in government

guidance (DfEE, 2000) and is supported by research examining the factors

predicting young people’s sexual behaviour (Abraham & Sheeran, 1994).

In the RIPPLE Study, from which the data reported in this paper are taken, we

collected information on the same issues from multiple sources, including, with

respect to SRE provision, both teachers and students. However, attempting to

combine these data to yield a complete picture of the amount and content of SRE

currently provided in the study schools was a problematic enterprise. We have

suggested a number of reasons why the ‘facts’ as reported by teachers and students

might be different, and why a simple approach to the triangulation of data is unable

to solve this problem. While contradictions in data gathered from different sources

may present researchers with difficulties in terms of establishing ‘what actually

happens’, such contradictions may ultimately result in more rigorous analyses, as

Sex and relationship education for 13–16 year olds 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

researchers are motivated, in order to understand the findings, more fully to

interrogate both the data themselves and the methods by which these were collected.

The teachers interviewed in this study were, almost without exception, extremely

committed and enthusiastic about SRE. However, they identified a number of

factors that have also been highlighted in previous research examining SRE both in

England and other parts of the United Kingdom (Buston et al., 2001, 2002) that

limited the quality of SRE delivered to students. The four most commonly discussed

were: the variability in teachers’ confidence and enthusiasm for delivering SRE, a

lack of support from the senior management team, competition for space on

crowded timetables, and a lack of training and INSET time.

These findings suggest a number of ways in which the quality of SRE in schools

might be improved. Lawrence et al. (2000) have recommended that SRE should

become a statutory part of the national curriculum. They argue that statutory status

would raise the profile of SRE in schools and increase its recognition by those in

senior management positions. This in turn would increase the likelihood that

adequate space on the timetable would be allocated to the delivery of SRE, and that

those taking responsibility for coordinating SRE would be seen to hold a valuable

role within the school and be given time to design, develop and review programmes.

With school timetables becoming ever more crowded and teachers and students

already under pressure to meet increasing numbers of academic targets, the

likelihood of schools being able successfully to implement comprehensive SRE

programmes may be highly dependent on policy-makers resolving some difficult

questions regarding which other aspects of the school curriculum should be

compromised.

Clearly with such limited time available to deliver SRE it is not possible for most

schools to address all the topics suggested by government guidance (DfEE, 2000).

Suggested topics include relationships, the responsibilities of parenthood, self-

esteem, contraception, safe sex, how to access local services, resisting pressure, peer

pressure, sex and the law, arguments for delaying sexual activity and human

sexuality and prejudice. Schools require clear guidelines about which core topics

they should cover and how these can realistically be addressed in the time available.

Such guidance should focus particularly on how teachers should address skill

development and how they can enable students to examine their personal attitudes

towards, for example, gender and sexuality.

Finally, the findings of this study indicate that the quality of SRE is greatly

dependent on the confidence and enthusiasm of the classroom teachers responsible

for its delivery. Both teachers and young people (see also Forrest et al., 2002) say

that the characteristics and values of both the teachers coordinating the programme

and of individual classroom teachers have an important influence on the quality of

SRE provided in schools. While it is important that all teachers have a basic

awareness of issues related to SRE, it might be preferable for most sex education to

be delivered by teams of SRE specialists—a recommendation outlined in the most

recent Ofsted report on SRE (Ofsted, 2002). Our findings also suggest that a greater

emphasis should be given to the training of teachers coordinating and delivering

44 V. Strange et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

SRE. Activities such as condom demonstrations and role-plays may be particularly

difficult for teachers who lack confidence about delivering SRE and/or do not have

the skills or experience to facilitate such activities (Buston et al., 2002). A recent

report outlining progress with regards to the implementation of the government’s

teenage pregnancy strategy describes further developments to ensure the effective

delivery of SRE and indicates that some of these issues are being addressed

(Department of Health, 2004). For example, a specialist PSHE certification

programme for teachers (which includes SRE as a component) has been

implemented, with over 600 teachers from 44 education authorities participating

during 2003/04. A similar programme for community nurses is currently being

piloted and evaluated. In addition, new standards for initial teacher training have

been developed to ensure that trainee teachers are familiar with the PSHE

framework, and a ‘best practice toolkit on PSHE’ has been commissioned and were

circulated to initial teacher training providers by autumn 2004. In exploring the

possible impacts of such initiatives, future research should aim to compare data

about SRE provision, such as those provided in this paper, with similar data

describing the quantity, quality and content of subsequent SRE provision in schools.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the schools and all the young people attending them

for their support of the project. The study is funded by the Medical Research Council.

Notes

1. The RIPPLE team includes the authors and Prof. Anne Johnson, Helen Monteiro

(Department of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, University College London Medical

School) and Angela Flux (State of Flux). It previously included Susan Charleston, Gayle

Johnson and Sarah Hambidge.

2. The Government office regions were East Midlands, West Midlands, Eastern and South East.

All figures are for 1997 except the GCSE points score, which is for students taking GCSE

examinations in June 1999 (DfEE, 1998, 2000).

3. General Certificate of Secondary Education—examinations usually taken at age 16, at the end

of Year 11.

4. This assumes that the sex education delivered in Year 11 to the second cohort of students was

the same as that delivered to those in the first cohort.

References

Abraham, C. & Sheeran, P. (1994) Modelling and modifying young heterosexuals’ HIV

preventative behaviour: a review of theories, findings and educational implications, Patient

Education and Counselling, 23, 173–186.

Allen, I. (1987) Education in sex and personal relationships (London, Policy Studies Institute).

Buston, K., Wight, D. & Scott, S. (2001) Difficulty and diversity: the context and practice of sex

education, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(3), 353–367.

Buston, K., Wight, D., Hart, G. & Scott, S. (2002) Implementation of a teacher-delivered sex

education programme: obstacles and facilitating factors, Health Education Research, 17(1),

101–114.

Sex and relationship education for 13–16 year olds 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013

Department for Education and Employment (2000) Sex and relationship guidance (Nottingham,

DfEE).

Department for Education and Skills (1998) Secondary school performance tables – Ref. PER98SEC.

Available online at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway.

Department for Education and Skills (2000) Secondary school performance tables – Ref. PER00/SEC.

Available online at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway.

Department of Health (2001) The national strategy for sexual health and HIV (London, HMSO).

Department of Health (2002) Government response to the first annual report of the independent advisory

group on teenage pregnancy (London, HMSO).

Department of Health (2004) Teenage pregnancy strategy progress report March. Available online at:

www.info.doh.gove.uk/tpu/tpu.nsf (accessed July 2004).

Forrest, S., Strange, V., Oakley, A.the RIPPLE Study Team (2002) A comparison of students’

evaluations of a peer-delivered sex education programme and teacher-led provision, Sex

Education, 2(3), 195–214.

Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S. & Thomson, R. (1998) The male in the head—young

people, heterosexuality and power (London, The Tufnell Press).

Lawrence, J., Kanabus, A. & Regis, D. (2000) A survey of sex education provision in secondary schools

(Horsham, AVERT).

Measor, L., Tiffin, C. & Miller, K. (2000) Young people’s views on sex education: attitudes and

behaviour (London, RoutledgeFalmer).

Office for Standards in Education (2002) Sex and relationship education in Schools (London,

Ofsted).

Oakley, A. (2000) Experiments in knowing (Cambridge, Polity Press).

Patton, M. Q. (1980) Qualitative evaluation methods (Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications).

Social Exclusion Unit (1999) Report on teenage pregnancy (London, HMSO).

Scott, L. & Thomson, R. (1992) School sex education: more a patchwork than a pattern, Health

Education Journal, 51, 132–134.

Stephenson, J. M., Oakley, A., Johnson, A. M., Forrest, S., Strange, V., Charleston, S., Black, S.,

Copas, A., Petruckevitch, A. & Babiker, A. (2003) A school-based randomised controlled

trial of peer-led sex education in England, Controlled Clinical Trials, 24, 643–657.

46 V. Strange et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:00

15

Aug

ust 2

013