View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Support for School-Based Relationships and Sexual Health Education: A National Survey of Australian Parents

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Support for School-Based Relationships and Sexual Health Education: A National Survey of Australian Parents
Language: English
Authors: Jacqueline Hendriks (ORCID 0000-0002-1177-8980), Katrina Marson (ORCID 0000-0001-6512-6219), Jennifer Walsh, Tasha Lawton, Hanna Saltis (ORCID 0000-0002-7539-9170), Sharyn Burns (ORCID 0000-0002-1551-2805)
Source: Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning. 2024 24(2):208-224.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Sex Education, Parent Attitudes, Elementary Secondary Education, School Role, Individual Characteristics, Controversial Issues (Course Content)
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/14681811.2023.2169825
ISSN: 1468-1811
1472-0825
Abstract: Despite significant evidence worldwide that parents support school-based delivery of relationships and sexuality education (RSE), Australian data has generally lacked larger, nationally representative samples. Furthermore, misguided perceptions of parental attitudes are known to impact delivery. In response, online survey data were collected from 2,427 parents (56.5% female) nationwide, to examine their attitudes towards school-based RSE. Most had a child enrolled in a government school (65.3% primary, 55.7% secondary); and reported diverse religious affiliations (38.7% no religion, 21.3% Catholic, 11.1% Anglican) and voting preferences (26.7% Australian Labour Party, 25.1% Liberal/National, 23.6% undecided). Overall, 89.9% of parents supported schools to deliver RSE, with some modest differences being associated with particular demographic variables. Beyond widespread support for RSE, parents emphatically endorsed schools to address a diverse range of RSE-related issues (n = 40 topics). Parents' responses also provided insight regarding when certain topics should first be introduced and the quality of current RSE provision in schools. Findings from this descriptive overview challenge the currently overstated assumption that parents do not support RSE in schools. Such persistent and obstructive discourse is counterproductive to evidence-based strategies that seek to strengthen young people's personal and social development in a comprehensive and contemporary manner.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1409836
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFn4GqsHtNYafK_RFr6y2sxAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOa_Rz3A-RVAn8CdZQIBEICBmzAuLrxz2XsqWEg-iGfj7MWW1opNLpOrtzAovqlu5QKR4ZKoNu3V7PZzoVHcdrdecXOAECH3kChEhacPvpQ68OOjqNvNPzxttQ9q4oGqsLp5-aKORa3EwZ_WwSO_VUOMdbZam8K1cUOAHnWjP57Jq6wTKQUcaX9gqqydo5m8_jBkjR2ZkrZnr3GUZmUHRsfToxOQQltT0N2WpsEc
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0175069451;bf401mar.24;2024Jan31.02:33;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0175069451-1">Support for school-based relationships and sexual health education: a national survey of Australian parents </title> <p>Despite significant evidence worldwide that parents support school-based delivery of relationships and sexuality education (RSE), Australian data has generally lacked larger, nationally representative samples. Furthermore, misguided perceptions of parental attitudes are known to impact delivery. In response, online survey data were collected from 2,427 parents (56.5% female) nationwide, to examine their attitudes towards school-based RSE. Most had a child enrolled in a government school (65.3% primary, 55.7% secondary); and reported diverse religious affiliations (38.7% no religion, 21.3% Catholic, 11.1% Anglican) and voting preferences (26.7% Australian Labour Party, 25.1% Liberal/National, 23.6% undecided). Overall, 89.9% of parents supported schools to deliver RSE, with some modest differences being associated with particular demographic variables. Beyond widespread support for RSE, parents emphatically endorsed schools to address a diverse range of RSE-related issues (n = 40 topics). Parents' responses also provided insight regarding when certain topics should first be introduced and the quality of current RSE provision in schools. Findings from this descriptive overview challenge the currently overstated assumption that parents do not support RSE in schools. Such persistent and obstructive discourse is counterproductive to evidence-based strategies that seek to strengthen young people's personal and social development in a comprehensive and contemporary manner.</p> <p>Keywords: Parents; Australian schools; relationships and sexuality education; attitudes; advocacy</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Good quality school-based relationships and sexuality education (RSE) has a key role to play in providing young people with information, motivation and skills to enhance their sexual health (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref1">49</reflink>]). Despite there being a national curriculum in Australia, each state and territory is ultimately responsible for school curriculum in both the primary and secondary school context (Carman et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]; O'Rourke [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref3">37</reflink>]; Ezer et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>] Internationally and throughout Australia, teacher training organisations do not routinely provide education and training on RSE (O'Brien, Hendriks, and Burns [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref5">36</reflink>]; Ezer et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]), further contributing to wide variability in the extent and quality of RSE provision within schools (Ezer et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref7">9</reflink>]; Goldfarb and Lieberman [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Contemporary, international evidence advocates for a comprehensive approach to RSE in schools, that considers the <emph>enhancement</emph> of sexual health in addition to the prevention of sexual health problems (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref9">49</reflink>]; Mark, Corona-Vargas, and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref10">28</reflink>]; Sladden et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref11">42</reflink>]; Zaneva et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref12">54</reflink>]). Research clearly demonstrates that the comprehensive delivery of RSE has a positive impact on the sexual health knowledge, attitudes and skills of school-aged youth (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref13">49</reflink>]; Goldfarb and Lieberman [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>]). A whole-school approach is recognised as the best-practice model for delivery of RSE (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref15">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref16">50</reflink>]). Such a holistic approach expands upon direct classroom instruction, to ensure the broader school culture is supportive of RSE and reinforces key RSE messages. Critically, it also requires schools to collaborate meaningfully with local services and families (Sawyer, Raniti, and Aston [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref17">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>With these issues in mind, the perspectives of parents are the focus of the work outlined in this paper. Perceptions of parents' opinions and their anticipated reactions to the curriculum can influence the delivery of school-based RSE (Goldman, Juliette [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]; Marson [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref19">29</reflink>]). Qualitative research on RSE implementation in Europe and North America has shown how RSE stakeholders overwhelmingly 'highlighted the role of parents and caregivers as a source of opposition [to this work], whether at an individual school or broader community level' (Marson [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref20">29</reflink>], 107). In contrast, other international research has consistently found parents to be supportive of RSE in schools. This includes findings from a systematic review of international studies (Kee-Jiar and Shih-Hui [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref21">24</reflink>]) and later large-scale surveys conducted in the USA (Kantor, Levitz, and Syed [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]), Canada (Wood et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref23">53</reflink>]) and Croatia (Igor, Ines, and Aleksandar [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref24">19</reflink>]). There is also evidence of supportive parental attitudes in traditionally conservative countries such as Bangladesh (Rob et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref25">38</reflink>]), Iran (Ganji et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref26">13</reflink>]), Malaysia (Makol-Abdul et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref27">27</reflink>]) and Oman (Al Zaabi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Whilst Australian studies have reported similar results, they have generally lacked nationally representative samples. In 2009, 117 Australian parents completed an online survey with 97% of participants supporting school-based delivery of RSE and most wanted education to commence in primary school (Macbeth, Weerakoon, and Gomathi [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref29">26</reflink>]). In 2010, a qualitative research study conducted in Western Australia found most parents of adolescents wanted sexual health education covered in secondary schools, but wished to be informed about the content (Dyson [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]). In the State of Victoria, with parents of primary school students, only a small number of parents believed that sexual health education should be left to families to deliver, but even these parents agreed that not all parents would be willing or able to pass on such information to their children (Robinson, Smith, and Davies [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref31">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>More recently, qualitative interviews with parents of primary school students living in Queensland found that they were generally supportive of RSE in the primary school context (Moran and Van Leent [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref32">33</reflink>]). There has also been a nationwide online survey completed by 612 fathers with children aged 3–12 years (Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref33">46</reflink>]). Whilst this study did not specifically address school-based delivery of RSE, it did highlight that fathers strongly valued several sexuality-related ideals for their children and some findings were further associated with gender of the child, religiosity of the parent and/or socioeconomic status (Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref34">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, an online survey of 2,093 parents in Australia who had a child currently enrolled in a government school, asked parents to share their general attitudes towards RSE, their opinions on who should provide RSE to young people, and their desire to be involved with school-based RSE (Ullman, Ferfolja, and Hobby [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref35">47</reflink>]). Parents were also asked at which stage of schooling specific RSE contents areas should be covered. This work had a specific focus on gender and sexuality, with more than 80% of parents endorsing schools to address diverse gender identities and sexualities (Ullman, Ferfolja, and Hobby [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref36">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present study intends to build upon the current evidence base, to examine the attitudes towards school-based RSE among a national sample of parents (or caregivers) of school-aged children across Australia, that is inclusive of all school sectors. The study replicates much of the methodology and data collection tools recently used by a research team in Canada (Wood et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref37">53</reflink>]) to enable future cross-country comparisons. Specifically, the study sought to address the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How supportive are Australian parents towards school-based relationships and sexual health education (RSE)?</item> <p></p> <item> Do Australian parents support the inclusion of a wide range of RSE topics?</item> <p></p> <item> At what year level do Australian parents support specific RSE topics being introduced?</item> <p></p> <item> How do Australian parents perceive the quality of the RSE that their child/ren currently receive/s?</item> <p></p> <item> For all research questions above, are any differences associated with demographic factors such as locality, gender of parent, religious background or political affiliation?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0175069451-3">Materials and methods</hd> <p>An online survey was developed and administered, based on similar work recently undertaken in Canada (Wood et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref38">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-4">Sample</hd> <p>Participants were recruited by The Online Research Unit (The ORU), a professional market research company with ISO-accreditation. The ORU manages a proprietary panel of over 350,000 respondents across Australia who are incentivised to participate in online surveys. Respondents receive points for completing a survey, based on overall survey length, and these are redeemable for gift vouchers. The ORU was contracted to provide a random sample of at least 2,000 survey responses from across Australia, with approximately half males and half females. Geographic location aligned closely with recent Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-5">Instrument</hd> <p>The Canadian data collection instrument was replicated closely in this current study. Slight amendments were made to the wording of some items to better suit the Australian context. Prior to survey administration, a series of brief cognitive interviews were conducted online with a diverse sample of ten parents to confirm content validity. Some amendments to terminology amendments were made. Most importantly, the term sexual health education was replaced by relationships and sexual health education. Notably, both these terms differ slightly from the phrase relationships and sexuality education, which is the nomenclature currently used in the Australian school context.</p> <p>The survey questionnaire comprised four sections. Section one (five items) asked parents to confirm that they had a child currently attending a primary or secondary school in Australia, the school sector(s) attended, if any of their school-aged children had a disability and, if so, had it been formally diagnosed. They were then asked for their level of support for the statement: relationships and sexual health education should be provided in schools (response options: <emph>strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree</emph>, or <emph>I don't know/prefer not to answer</emph>). Section two listed 40 RSE-related topics that schools could potentially address. The list of topics closely aligned with the Canadian research and included issues focused on minimising risk as well as those seeking to enhance wellbeing. The order of these topics was randomly generated and different for each respondent. Parents were asked to indicate the grade level at which they felt a school should start teaching that topic (response options: <emph>kindergarten-2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, 9–10, 11–12, this topic should not be taught</emph>, or <emph>I don't know/prefer not to answer</emph>). Section three (16 items) asked a series of attitudinal statements regarding school-based RSE (response options: <emph>strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree</emph>, or <emph>I don't know/prefer not to answer</emph>). Parents were also asked to rate the quality of current RSE provision that their child/ren had received in school, their level of comfort discussing RSE issues with their child/ren, and the frequency of these conversations in the past year. Response options all involved a 5-point Likert scale. The final question in this section took the form of an open-field text box in which parents could share any comments related to relationships and sexual health education in schools. Section four (8 items) asked parents to respond to a variety of demographic questions including their age, gender, ethnicity, locality, religious affiliation, and political affiliation.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-6">Data analysis</hd> <p>The process of data analysis closely approximated that of the Canadian study. A respondent had to complete all five sections of the survey for their data to be included. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all demographic and key variables, and any missing data was noted. For the variable examining overall support for school-based RSE, <emph>strongly agree</emph> and <emph>agree</emph> categories were collapsed. Similarly, <emph>strongly disagree, disagree</emph> and <emph>I don't know/prefer not to answer</emph> were collapsed.</p> <p>To examine levels of support for each of the 40 proposed RSE topics, the total percentage level of endorsement was calculated for the overall sample and for each state/territory. Topics were also ranked based upon the grade level at which the majority of parents felt a topic should first be addressed. Response categories were also recoded to primary school (K-6), secondary school (7–12), or not at all, so that regional differences could be examined.</p> <p>Finally, to examine the interactions between demographic variables and responses to questions of interest, cross-tabulations were conducted using Pearson's Chi-Square test and Bonferroni adjustments as necessary. The data analysis process and results related to the general attitude items, parental comfort to discuss RSE, and the open-field qualitative data that was collected will be reported separately.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-7">Ethical considerations</hd> <p>The ORU randomly notified all panellists who had previously indicated upon registration that they were the parent of a child aged 18 years or less. They were given a detailed Participant Information Sheet to read before providing consent and commencing the survey. Their decision to participate in the survey (or not) did not affect their relationship with the ORU, and they were free to skip items or to withdraw at any point prior to final survey submission.</p> <p>This research project was approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2021-0483) and all survey responses were de-identified by the ORU prior to forwarding to the research team for analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-8">Results</hd> <p>Data were collected during a two-week period in November 2021. The final response rate was 10.5% from distributed links and the median length of survey completion was 8.8 minutes. The final sample size was 2,427 participants, and just over half the respondents were female (56.5%).</p> <p>Respondents lived in a variety of states and territories across Australia, and the majority had a child enrolled in a government school (67.8% in a primary school, 57.8% in a secondary school). Several respondents noted that they had a child with a physical disability (2%), an intellectual/developmental disability (11%) or both a physical and an intellectual/developmental disability (1%). For these parents, 89% had received a formal diagnosis. Most identified their ethnicity as Australian (61%) and possessed an undergraduate university degree or higher (58.5%).</p> <p>The most common religious affiliations were no religion (38.7%), Catholic (21.3%) and Anglican (11.1%). The majority of participants rated religion as not at all important to their everyday life (40%), and 18% considered religion to be very important. Voting preferences were 26.7% for the Australian Labour Party, 25.1% for the Liberal/National coalition, 5.9% for another party and 23.6% undecided (Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>N</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Gender</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Man/Male</td><td>1046</td><td>43.10</td></tr><tr><td>Woman/Female</td><td>1371</td><td>56.49</td></tr><tr><td>Non-binary</td><td>1</td><td><.0</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know/prefer not to answer</td><td>1</td><td><.0</td></tr><tr><td>Unknown</td><td>8</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td><bold>State or Territory</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>New South Wales</td><td>624</td><td>25.71</td></tr><tr><td>Victoria</td><td>502</td><td>20.68</td></tr><tr><td>Queensland</td><td>388</td><td>15.99</td></tr><tr><td>South Australia</td><td>158</td><td>6.51</td></tr><tr><td>Western Australia</td><td>643</td><td>26.49</td></tr><tr><td>Tasmania</td><td>49</td><td>2.02</td></tr><tr><td>Australian Capital Territory</td><td>41</td><td>1.69</td></tr><tr><td>Northern Territory</td><td>22</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Child enrolled in a primary school</bold> (N = 1786)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Government</td><td>1167</td><td>67.81</td></tr><tr><td>Catholic</td><td>339</td><td>19.70</td></tr><tr><td>Independent (faith-based)</td><td>169</td><td>9.82</td></tr><tr><td>Independent (not faith-based)</td><td>111</td><td>6.45</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Child enrolled in a secondary school</bold> (N = 1407)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Government</td><td>784</td><td>57.82</td></tr><tr><td>Catholic</td><td>310</td><td>22.86</td></tr><tr><td>Independent (faith-based)</td><td>221</td><td>16.30</td></tr><tr><td>Independent (not faith-based)</td><td>92</td><td>6.78</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Currently have children in both primary and secondary school</bold></td><td>650</td><td>47.94</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Ethnicity</bold> (up to two options possible)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Australian</td><td>1484</td><td>61.15</td></tr><tr><td>Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander</td><td>39</td><td>1.61</td></tr><tr><td>European</td><td>283</td><td>11.66</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>308</td><td>12.69</td></tr><tr><td>UK</td><td>725</td><td>29.87</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Eastern</td><td>13</td><td>0.54</td></tr><tr><td>Russian</td><td>8</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td>African</td><td>12</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>South African</td><td>11</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>North American</td><td>12</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>Latin American</td><td>12</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>New Zealand (including Māori)</td><td>25</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>13</td><td>0.54</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Education</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>I have never attended school</td><td>1</td><td><.0</td></tr><tr><td>Year 1–6</td><td>5</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Year 7–9</td><td>16</td><td>0.66</td></tr><tr><td>Year 10</td><td>101</td><td>4.16</td></tr><tr><td>Year 11</td><td>43</td><td>1.77</td></tr><tr><td>Year 12</td><td>265</td><td>10.92</td></tr><tr><td>TAFE or apprenticeship</td><td>562</td><td>23.16</td></tr><tr><td>Undergraduate university degree</td><td>765</td><td>31.52</td></tr><tr><td>Postgraduate university degree</td><td>655</td><td>26.99</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know/prefer not to answer</td><td>14</td><td>0.58</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Disability</bold> (N = 626)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Has a child with a physical disability</td><td>46</td><td>1.90</td></tr><tr><td>Has child with an intellectual/developmental disability</td><td>262</td><td>10.80</td></tr><tr><td>Has child with both a physical and an intellectual/developmental disability</td><td>29</td><td>1.19</td></tr><tr><td>This disability has been formally diagnosed</td><td>289</td><td>11.91</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Religion</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>No religion</td><td>939</td><td>38.69</td></tr><tr><td>Catholic</td><td>518</td><td>21.34</td></tr><tr><td>Anglican (Church of England/Protestant)</td><td>270</td><td>11.12</td></tr><tr><td>Uniting Church</td><td>69</td><td>2.84</td></tr><tr><td>Presbyterian</td><td>52</td><td>2.14</td></tr><tr><td>Buddhist</td><td>56</td><td>2.31</td></tr><tr><td>Muslim</td><td>55</td><td>2.27</td></tr><tr><td>Greek Orthodox</td><td>47</td><td>1.94</td></tr><tr><td>Baptist</td><td>55</td><td>2.27</td></tr><tr><td>Hindu</td><td>66</td><td>2.72</td></tr><tr><td>Christian</td><td>70</td><td>2.88</td></tr><tr><td>Jewish</td><td>9</td><td>0.37</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>28</td><td>1.15</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know/prefer not to answer</td><td>193</td><td>7.95</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Importance of religion to everyday life</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Very important</td><td>440</td><td>18.13</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat important</td><td>459</td><td>18.91</td></tr><tr><td>Not very important</td><td>438</td><td>18.05</td></tr><tr><td>Not at all important</td><td>976</td><td>40.21</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know/prefer not to answer</td><td>114</td><td>4.70</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Political Affiliation</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Australian Labour Party</td><td>649</td><td>26.74</td></tr><tr><td>Liberal/National Coalition</td><td>608</td><td>25.05</td></tr><tr><td>Australian Greens</td><td>202</td><td>8.32</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>144</td><td>5.93</td></tr><tr><td>Undecided</td><td>572</td><td>23.57</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know/prefer not to answer</td><td>252</td><td>10.38</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 All figures add to 2,427 with no missing data</p> <p>Although the demographic variable had options for trans- and gender-diverse people to self-identify, only one person identified as non-binary and so was excluded from the analysis due to insufficient power. In addition, all those who selected I don't know/prefer not to say for the gender item were excluded from analyses for the same reason.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-9">Support for school based RSE</hd> <p>Overwhelmingly, 89.9% of parents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that relationships and sexual health education should be provided in schools. Whilst some variability was identified across different states and territories, this difference was not deemed to be statistically significant (p = 0.07) (Table 2). Females were more likely to either strongly agree and agree with the above statement than males and this difference was significant (females 91%, males 88%, p = 0.04).</p> <p>Table 2. Parental agreement that relationships and sexual health education should be provided in schools, Australia and states/territories.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Australia (N = 2427) % (n)</td><td>NSW (N = 624) % (n)</td><td>VIC (N = 502) % (n)</td><td>QLD (N = 388) % (n)</td><td>SA (N = 158) % (n)</td><td>WA (N = 643) % (n)</td><td>TAS (N = 49) % (n)</td><td>ACT (N = 41) % (n)</td><td>NT (N = 22) % (n)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Strongly agree</td><td>45.94 (1115)</td><td>43.42 (271)</td><td>39.84 (200)</td><td>47.42 (184)</td><td>41.77 (66)</td><td>336 (52.26)</td><td>55.10 (27)</td><td>48. 78 (20)</td><td>50.00 (11)</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>44.05 (1069)</td><td>43.75 (273)</td><td>48.80 (245)</td><td>43.56 (169)</td><td>50.63 (80)</td><td>259 (40.28)</td><td>34.69 (17)</td><td>43.90 (18)</td><td>36.36 (8)</td></tr><tr><td>Neither agree nor disagree</td><td>5.64 (137)</td><td>7.05 (44)</td><td>6.37 (32)</td><td>4.38 (17)</td><td>3.80 (6)</td><td>4.51 (29)</td><td>8.16 (4)</td><td>4.88 (2)</td><td>13.64 (3)</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2.22 (54)</td><td>2.56 (16)</td><td>2.59 (13)</td><td>2.84 (11)</td><td>1.90 (3)</td><td>1.56 (10)</td><td>2.04 (1)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly disagree</td><td>1.65 (40)</td><td>2.24 (14)</td><td>1.79 (9)</td><td>1.79 (5)</td><td>1.90 (3)</td><td>1.24 (8)</td><td>0</td><td>2.44 (1)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know/prefer not to answer</td><td>0.49 (12)</td><td>.96 (6)</td><td>0.60 (3)</td><td>0.52 (2)</td><td>0</td><td>0.16 (1)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 All figures add to 2,427 with no missing data</p> <p>Participants who indicated that they had no religious affiliation were significantly more likely to either strongly agree or agree with the statement than those who were religiously affiliated (p = <0.001). Conversely, those who were affiliated with Islam or selected other religion were significantly less likely to strongly agree or agree with the provision of RSE in schools than all other participants (p = <0.001). There were no significant differences related to level of support towards school-based RSE and any of the other religious affiliations.</p> <p>Those who considered religious affiliation as very important, were significantly less likely to endorse the teaching of RSE in schools (p = <0.001). Conversely, those who indicated that religion was not at all important were more likely to endorse this statement (p = <0.001). There were no significant differences found for those who rated religion as somewhat important or not very important.</p> <p>Separate analyses were conducted for parents who identified as Catholic, specifically because this group is represented by its own school sector within Australia. Amongst all parents who identified as Catholic (n = 518, 21.3%), cross-tabulations were run to examine the relationship between strength of religious affiliation and support for school-based RSE, but no statistically significant differences were found (p = 0.61). This meant that there was no association between the strength of an individual's affiliation to Catholicism and their attitude towards school-based RSE.</p> <p>Those affiliated with the Australian Labour Party were more likely to strongly agree or agree with the statement above (p = 0.005). Conversely those who voted for other parties were significantly less likely to show support for this statement (p = <0.001). No statistically significant differences were found regarding level of support for school-based RSE and affiliation with other political parties.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-10">Support for specific RSE topics and grade level for implementation</hd> <p>There were high levels of endorsement across the 40 listed RSE topics (supplementary materials Table A). Amongst all respondents, only three parents selected this topic should not be taught for all 40 items. Even the four topics with the lowest levels of support were still extremely well supported by parents overall, these being: information about masturbation (87%), gender identity (86%), abstinence (86%) and sexual pleasure (84%). Teaching about sexual orientation was supported by 89% of all respondents.</p> <p>Breakdowns were also provided for each state and territory, indicating that support for each RSE exceeded 80% in all instances, and in many instances there was 100% agreement for certain topics to be delivered by schools.</p> <p>Data was then reconfigured to highlight the grade level at which parents felt a topic should first be introduced (supplementary materials Table B). The majority of parents felt that seven topics should first be addressed during primary school grades: bodily autonomy and personal boundaries (e.g., a child's body belongs to themselves); the correct names for body parts, including genitals; personal safety (e.g., abuse prevention); body image; self-esteem and personal development; changes associated with puberty (e.g., physical, biological, psychological, emotional, social); and communication skills. Most parents then felt that the remaining 33 topics should first be taught in grades 7 or 8.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-11">Perceived quality of school-based RSE</hd> <p>The majority of parents rated the current quality of their children's school-based RSE as good (n = 661, 27.2%) (Figure 1). More than one-fifth indicated that they did not believe their child had received any relationships and sexual health education from school (n = 510, 21.0%), and these respondents were more likely to have a child enrolled in primary school (n = 487). These results did not differ significantly by state or territory (<emph>p = </emph>0.11).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Parents response (%) to the item "Overall how would you rate the quality of the relationships and sexual health education that your child/children have received in school?.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-12">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175069451-13">Support for school-based delivery of relationships and sexuality education</hd> <p>This study is the first national examination of parental attitudes towards school-based delivery of relationships and sexuality education (RSE) within Australia that is inclusive of all school sectors. Across all states and territories, there was resounding support from parents for schools to deliver RSE in both primary and secondary schools. Critically, the survey utilised a stratified random sample drawn from the ORU's proprietary panel. This sampling frame has greater scientific rigour than a convenience sample (Crosby et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref39">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>These results replicate previous international findings, clearly demonstrating that parents and families are highly supportive of RSE within schools (Al Zaabi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>]; Ganji et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]; Kee-Jiar and Shih-Hui [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref42">24</reflink>]; Makol-Abdul et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]; Wood et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref44">53</reflink>]), as well as a recent study of Australian parents who had a child currently enrolled in a government school (Ullman, Ferfolja, and Hobby [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref45">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Gender differences were modest but significant. Women in the study were more supportive of school-based RSE than men. This aligns with previous studies that have shown women to take on the role of sexuality education in the home more readily than men (Flores and Barroso [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]). Thomas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref47">46</reflink>]) provide a robust summary of the current literature surrounding fathers as sexuality educators. They also challenge the media to provide a more positive and evidence-based portrayal of parental attitudes, in an effort to consolidate RSE efforts (Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref48">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Whilst it appears that support for school-based RSE varies slightly across the country, differences were not statistically significant. Some religious and political differences were also evident. Critically, despite the rhetoric that Catholic families are not supportive of schools delivering RSE, this was not supported by the data in this study. Even Catholic parents who were strongly affiliated with their religion, overwhelmingly supported school-based delivery of RSE. In contrast, Islamic parents were more likely to withhold support for RSE and this is a phenomenon that warrants further investigation.</p> <p>This work appears to the first effort to document the possible associations between political affiliation and support for school-based RSE within Australia. Parents affiliated with the centre-left Australian Labour Party were most likely to support school-based RSE.</p> <p>Internationally, it is recognised that religious institutions and conservative political parties are active opponents of school-based implementation of RSE (Ketting and Ivanova [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref49">25</reflink>]). Whilst such groups are also known to drive resistance towards RSE programmes in Australia (Ezer et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>]; Shannon and Smith [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref51">41</reflink>]), it appears these groups are overstating the level of dissent held by their members. Within this study, the vast majority of parents who either identified as Catholic, or as supporters of the Australian Liberal/National Coalition (i.e., a political party that generally advocates for conservative policies) were also highly supportive of schools to deliver RSE.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-14">Support for schools to address specific relationships and sexuality education topics</hd> <p>Beyond overall support for school-based RSE, when parents were presented with an extensive list of possible RSE-related topics, there was overwhelming support for schools to address all areas. Whilst some parents were less supportive of schools providing education specifically related to abstinence, gender identity, masturbation, and/or pleasure, it should be noted that support for these topics still exceeded 80%. There was also a trend for most parents to nominate that most areas of RSE are best suited to the secondary school context. Similar data were recently reported by Ullman, Ferfolja, and Hobby ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]). Whilst the parents in their sample only represented the government school sector, they also strongly endorsed the inclusion of a range of specific RSE content areas (n = 18). However, for 5 out of 6 broad content areas, most parents felt schools could address these issues within the primary school context (Ullman, Ferfolja, and Hobby [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref53">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Taken together, these findings provide some interesting challenges for those working in RSE advocacy. Further effort may be required to inform parents, schools and the general public of the evidence-base regarding school-based RSE, specifically the best practice principles related to content and timing of delivery.</p> <p>The International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (Revised Edition) outlines eight key areas of RSE that all schools should address: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>) relationships, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>) values, rights culture and sexuality, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>) understanding gender, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>) violence and staying safe, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref58">5</reflink>) skills for health and well-being, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>) the human body and development, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref60">7</reflink>) sexuality and sexual behaviour, and (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref61">8</reflink>) sexual and reproductive health. It argues that all these concept areas can and should be addressed in age appropriate ways from the first years of schooling (i.e. ages 5–8 years) upwards (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref62">49</reflink>]). Interestingly in this study, the majority of parents felt that most RSE topics should first commence in grades 7–8. Concerted effort may be needed to show both school staff and families that there are age appropriate ways to introduce RSE concepts in the earliest years of schooling.</p> <p>Although 14% of parents indicated they did not want schools to provide education about abstinence, this finding should be viewed cautiously. The authors assume these parents likely did not want schools to provide an 'abstinence only' perspective in their RSE. This is based on the finding that support for schools to provide education regarding contraception and safer sex skills exceed 95% nationally.</p> <p>Lessons that affirm diversity of sex, gender or sexuality have traditionally been challenging areas for schools for schools to address (Ullman, Ferfolja, and Hobby [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref63">47</reflink>]; Ezer et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref64">9</reflink>]). Sadly, it is widely known that current school-based delivery of RSE within Australia fails to affirm these diverse identities, and members of these populations report feeling unrecognised and disconnected from the school system (Strauss et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref65">44</reflink>]; Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref66">18</reflink>]; Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref67">43</reflink>]; Jones [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref68">20</reflink>]). Based on the findings from this study, schools should feel confident that they have significant parental support to affirm non-heteronormative perspectives. However, continued work is required to better understand dissenting viewpoints.</p> <p>Whilst various curricula in Australia espouse a strengths-based model that seeks to help students identify and apply individual skills relevant to their learning needs (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>]; Government of Western Australian, School Curriculum and Standards Authority [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref70">16</reflink>]; NSW Government, NSW Education Standards Authority [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref71">35</reflink>]; Victorian Government, Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref72">51</reflink>]), students and teachers report that health lessons seldom include notions of pleasure or sexual wellbeing (Ezer et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref73">9</reflink>]; Fisher et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref74">10</reflink>]). While some parents remain uncomfortable about schools addressing sexual pleasure and activities such as masturbation, it is critical that RSE discourse moves beyond a framework that prioritises fear-based messages, which do not align with evidence-based principles (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref75">49</reflink>]; Mark, Corona-Vargas, and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref76">28</reflink>]; Sladden et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref77">42</reflink>]; Zaneva et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref78">54</reflink>]). Recent literature has also encouraged a move away from a risk-based approach, towards a framework of adolescent sexuality programmes that focus on healthy sexuality and sexual wellbeing (Kågesten and van Reeuwijk [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref79">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Current discourse in Australia has focused on the importance of strengthening education efforts related to respectful relationships and consent (Marson [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref80">30</reflink>]), and the most recent national curriculum review provides clearer guidance to schools in these areas (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>]). Whilst these topics are worthy of inclusion and attention, it is critical that all stakeholders appreciate that comprehensive delivery of RSE involves many additional areas of focus and has many positive outcomes in addition to reducing violence against women. Based on the findings presented here, schools should feel confident that parents are highly supportive of schools addressing a wide array of topics, including the correct naming of body parts, skills to engage in safer sex practice, skills to critique social media and sexually explicit imagery, and affirmation of diverse gender identities and sexualities.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-15">Perceived quality of school-based relationships and sexuality education</hd> <p>Similar to recent findings in Canada (Wood et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref82">53</reflink>]), most Australian parents perceived the quality of current RSE provision in schools to be good, as opposed to very good or excellent. Significantly, in both countries, it was common for many parents to either report that their child had not received any RSE at school (15.7% Canada, 21.0% Australia), or to state they did not have enough knowledge about school RSE programmes to provide an opinion (8.4% Canada, 12.3% Australia).</p> <p>The notion that Australian schools could improve RSE efforts is widely supported by sexuality educators (Ezer et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref83">9</reflink>]) and young people themselves (Fisher et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref84">10</reflink>]). Beyond improvements to mainstream education, significant effort is required to provide RSE that is culturally appropriate (Mukoro [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref85">34</reflink>]) and affirms young people living with disability (Frawley and O'Shea [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref86">12</reflink>]; Michielsen and Brockschmidt [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref87">32</reflink>]; Strnadová, Danker, and Carter [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref88">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>In accordance with evidence-based guidelines (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref89">49</reflink>]), it is critical that all Australian schools keep families informed regarding RSE delivery, so that school-based learning can be reinforced by home-based discussion. The recent work of Ullman and colleagues has shown that 68% of Australian parents within the government school system are keen to be involved with their child's school-based RSE (Ullman, Ferfolja, and Hobby [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref90">47</reflink>]). Keeping parents informed about the RSE programmes offered by schools also aligns with a key tenet of the whole-school approach (Sawyer, Raniti, and Aston [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref91">40</reflink>]). To strengthen the alliance between parents and schools, Australian schools might look to legislative changes recently enacted in England. Here, in addition to the mandatory provision of Relationships Education in all primary and Relationships and Sex Education in all secondary schools, each school must also develop a specific RSE policy in consultation with parents (Department for Education [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref92">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-16">Strengths, limitations and future directions</hd> <p>Whilst the sampling frame used in this study enabled a large sample size and a diverse range of participants, there remain several limitations that warrant discussion. Some of these limitations were previously identified by our Canadian colleagues (Wood et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref93">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although location proportions closely matched population level data, the sample may not be truly nationally representative based upon other characteristics such as gender or age. Furthermore, baseline population data pertaining to Australian parents who have a child currently enrolled in a primary or secondary school is not available for direct comparison with this sample.</p> <p>Despite strong representation nationally, capturing a greater number of parents within each state and territory would enable more specific statistical analyses to be conducted at this level. The ORU specifically oversampled parents within Western Australia so that a specific report could be generated for this region. Future work may benefit replicating this approach nationally, particularly because primary and secondary schools are managed at the state government level. It will be particularly useful to establish if there are any state/territory-specific issues related to parental support towards RSE.</p> <p>When parents were asked to rate the overall quality of RSE provision, this item did not account for multiple children, who would likely sit across different grade levels and may attend different educational institutions. Additional research should seek to better understand what specific factors lead a parent to rate their schools' provision of RSE as anywhere from excellent to poor. Comparisons should also be made between parental perceptions of RSE delivery in comparison to the quality of other learning areas. The list of RSE topics (n = 40) that was given to parents provided no detail regarding how each topic might be delivered at particular grade levels. This additional detail may have influenced responses.</p> <p>Whilst potential participants were randomly approached by the ORU to complete this survey, some level of response bias is still possible. Parents with either strong views towards school-based delivery of RSE, either positive or negative, may have been more likely to complete the survey. We have no information regarding the parents who opted not to participate.</p> <p>Finally, this online survey was administered at a time when there had been a significant and ongoing discussion in Australia regarding teaching about consent in schools, and a sustained focus on issues related to violence towards women and children (Hendriks [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref94">17</reflink>]; Kang [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref95">22</reflink>]; Mathews [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref96">31</reflink>]; Williams [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref97">52</reflink>]) It is possible that these events may have influenced the way participants responded to the survey items.</p> <p>The authors have made several recommendations throughout the discussion regarding how schools and RSE advocates should interpret and apply these findings. Further to these points, it is important that future research uses qualitative approaches to better understand the perspectives of certain sub-populations. For example, we need to better understand how to respectfully and effectively engage families with strong religious affiliations or diverse cultural backgrounds. There may also be additional challenges faced by families living in regional areas, and families with a child who is living with a disability. Implementation of school-based RSE will be greatly improved if we better understand these unique perspectives.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>Opponents to school-based RSE may be a minority in Australia, but these groups are usually more vocal than those who are supportive. Their views are therefore given a disproportionate weight by the media and, consequently, those with the power to ensure RSE implementation. Because parents are the primary educators of young people, it is vital they are engaged in RSE, both in the school and at home. These data provide greater insight into what parents and families want for their young people when it comes to RSE, allowing for relevant and strategic responses. They also combat the missive that parents are opposed to RSE, wholesale or in respect of particular topics. These findings should provide key stakeholders, such as schools and politicians, with assurance that in Australia RSE implementation is nowhere near as controversial as certain groups may lead us to believe.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-18">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We thank the Canadian research team who made their instrument available for our use, Claudia Hodges who conducted the initial cognitive interviews for the survey instrument, Jun Chih who provided technical assistance, and all the parents who completed the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-20">Data availability statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0175069451-21">Supplementary material</hd> <p>Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2023.2169825</p> <ref id="AN0175069451-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref28" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Al Zaabi, O., M. Heffernan, E. Holroyd, and M. Jackson. 2019. " Islamic Parents' Attitudes and Beliefs Towards school-based Sexual and Reproductive Health Education Programmes in Oman." Sex Education 19 (5): 534 – 550. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2018.1553708.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref55" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. 2022. " The Australian Curriculum." https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Carman, M., A. Mitchell, M. Schlichthorst, and A. Smith. 2011. " Teacher Training in Sexuality Education in Australia: How Well are Teachers Prepared for the Job?." Sexual Health 8 (3): 269 – 271. doi: 10.1071/SH10126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref39" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Crosby, R. A., L. F. Salazar, R. J. DiClemente, and D. L. Lang. 2009. " Balancing Rigor against the Inherent Limitations of Investigating hard-to-reach Populations." Health Education Research 25 (1): 1 – 5. doi: 10.1093/her/cyp062.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref58" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Department for Education. 2019. " Statutory Guidance: Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education." https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education">www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref30" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dyson, S. 2010. Parents and Sex Education in Western Australia: A Consultation with Parents on Educating Their Children about Sexual Health at Home and School. Melbourne : Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society La Trobe University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ezer, P., C. M. Fisher, T. Jones, and J. Power. 2021. " Changes in Sexuality Education Teacher Training since the Release of the Australian Curriculum." Sexuality Research and Social Policy 19 (1): 12 – 21. doi: 10.1007/s13178-020-00520-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref50" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Ezer, P., T. Jones, C. Fisher, and J. Power. 2019. " A Critical Discourse Analysis of Sexuality Education in the Australian Curriculum." Sex Education 19 (5): 551 – 567. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2018.1553709.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref7" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Ezer, P., J. Power, T. Jones, and C. Fisher. 2021b. " 2nd National Survey of Australian Teachers of Sexuality Education 2018." https://opal.latrobe.edu.au/articles/report/2nd_National_Survey_of_Australian_Teachers_of_Sexuality_Education_2018_pdf/13207265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, C. M., A. Waling, L. Kerr, R. Bellamy, P. Ezer, G. Mikolajczak, G. Brown, M. Carman, and J. Lucke. 2019. " 6th National Survey of Australian Secondary Students and Sexual Health 2018." Melbourne : (ARCSHS Monograph Series No. 113). Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society La Trobe University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flores, D., and J. Barroso. 2017. " 21st Century parent–child Sex Communication in the United States: A Process Review." The Journal of Sex Research 54 (4–5): 532 – 548. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1267693.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frawley, P., and A. O'Shea. 2020. " Nothing about Us without Us': Sex Education by and for People with Intellectual Disability in Australia." Sex Education 20 (4): 413 – 424. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2019.1668759.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganji, J., M. Emamian, R. Maasoumi, A. Keramat, and E. Merghati-Khoei. 2018. " Qualitative Needs Assessment: Iranian Parents' Perspectives in Sexuality Education of Their Children." Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Sciences 5 (4): 140 – 146. doi: 10.4103/JNMS.JNMS_42_18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldfarb, E. S., and L. D. Lieberman. 2021. " Three Decades of Research: The Case for Comprehensive Sex Education." Journal of Adolescent Health 68 (1): 13 – 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.036.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldman, Juliette, D. G. 2008. " Responding to Parental Objections to School Sexuality Education: A Selection of 12 Objections." Sex Education 8 (4): 415 – 438. doi: 10.1080/14681810802433952.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Government of Western Australian, School Curriculum and Standards Authority. 2022. " K-10 Outline." https://k10outline.scsa.wa.edu.au/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hendriks, J. 2021. " Not as Simple as 'No Means No': What Young People Need to Know about Consent." The Conversation. 23 February 2021. https://theconversation.com/not-as-simple-as-no-means-no-what-young-people-need-to-know-about-consent-155736</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, A. O., A. Lyons, J. Jones, I. McGowan, M. Carman, M. Parsons, J. Power, and A. Bourne. 2021. " Writing Themselves in 4: The Health and Wellbeing of LGBTQA+ Young People in Australia. National Report, Monograph Series Number 124." https://<ulink href="http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/publications/writing-themselves-in-publications/writing-themselves-in-4">www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/publications/writing-themselves-in-publications/writing-themselves-in-4</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Igor, K., E. Ines, and Š. Aleksandar. 2015. " Parents' Attitudes about school-based Sex Education in Croatia." Sexuality Research and Social Policy 12 (4): 323 – 334. doi: 10.1007/s13178-015-0203-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, T. 2016. " The Needs of Students with Intersex Variations." Sex Education 16 (6): 602 – 618. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2016.1149808.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kågesten, A., and M. van Reeuwijk. 2021. " Healthy Sexuality Development in Adolescence: Proposing a competency-based Framework to Inform Programmes and Research." Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 29 (1): 104 – 120. doi: 10.1080/26410397.2021.1996116.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang, M. 2018. " How #metoo Can Guide Sex Education in Schools." The Conversation, 21 March 2018. https://theconversation.com/how-metoo-can-guide-sex-education-in-schools-93268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kantor, L., N. Levitz, and E. U. Syed. 2017. " Parents' Views on Sex Education in Schools: How Much Do Democrats and Republicans Agree? " PLOS ONE 12 (7): e0180250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180250.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kee-Jiar, Y., and L. Shih-Hui. 2020. " A Systematic Review of Parental Attitude and Preferences Towards Implementation of Sexuality Education." International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education 9 (4): 971. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20877">http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20877</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ketting, E., and O. Ivanova. 2018. " Sexuality Education in Europe and Central Asia: State of the Art and Recent Developments. An Overview of 25 Countries." Federal Centre for Health Education, BZgA & International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network, IPPF EN. (Cologne). https://<ulink href="http://www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user%5fupload/Dokumente/BZgA%5fIPPFEN%5fComprehensiveStudyReport%5fOnline.pdf">www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user%5fupload/Dokumente/BZgA%5fIPPFEN%5fComprehensiveStudyReport%5fOnline.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macbeth, A., P. Weerakoon, and S. Gomathi. 2009. " Pilot Study of Australian school-based Sexual Health Education: Parents' Views." Sexual Health 6 (4): 328 – 333. doi: 10.1071/SH09040.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makol-Abdul, P. R., A. S. Nurullah, S. S. Imam, and S. A. Rahman. 2009. " Parents' Attitudes Towards Inclusion of Sexuality Education in Malaysian Schools." International Journal about Parents in Education 3 (1): 42 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mark, K., E. Corona-Vargas, and M. Cruz. 2021. " Integrating Sexual Pleasure for Quality and Inclusive Comprehensive Sexuality Education." International Journal of Sexual Health 33 (4): 555 – 564. doi: 10.1080/19317611.2021.1921894.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marson, K. 2019. " Ignorance Is Not Innocence: Safeguarding Sexual Wellbeing through Relationships and Sex Education." https://<ulink href="http://www.churchilltrust.com.au/project/the-peter-mitchell-churchill-fellowship-to-research-new-practical-and-effetive-methods-to-prevent-sexual-violence-through-youth-education—germany-netherlands-uk-ireland-canada-usa/">www.churchilltrust.com.au/project/the-peter-mitchell-churchill-fellowship-to-research-new-practical-and-effetive-methods-to-prevent-sexual-violence-through-youth-education—germany-netherlands-uk-ireland-canada-usa/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marson, K. 2021. " Consent a Low Bar: The Case for a Human Rights Approach to Relationships and Sexuality Education." Australian Journal of Human Rights 27 (1): 161 – 169. doi: 10.1080/1323238X.2021.1956739.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathews, B. 2021. " 10 Things Australia Can Do to Prevent Violence against Women and Children." The Conversation, 8 September 2021. https://theconversation.com/10-things-australia-can-do-to-prevent-violence-against-women-and-children-167277</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michielsen, K., and L. Brockschmidt. 2021. " Barriers to Sexuality Education for Children and Young People with Disabilities in the WHO European Region: A Scoping Review." Sex Education 21 (6): 674 – 692. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2020.1851181.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moran, C., and L. Van Leent. 2021. " Primary School Parents' Perspectives on Relationships and Sexuality Education in Queensland, Australia." Sex Education 22 (2): 184 – 197. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2021.1908982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mukoro, J. 2022. " Five Narratives on the Intersections between Sexuality Education and Culture." Globalisation, Societies and Education 1 – 14. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2022.2027746.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NSW Government, NSW Education Standards Authority. 2022. " NSW Curriculum and Syllabuses (K-10)." https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/understanding-the-curriculum/curriculum-syllabuses-NSW</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Brien, H., J. Hendriks, and S. Burns. 2020. " Teacher Training Organisations and Their Preparation of the pre-service Teacher to Deliver Comprehensive Sexuality Education in the School Setting: A Systematic Literature Review." Sex Education 21 (3): 284 – 303. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2020.1792874.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Rourke, K. 2008. " Time for a National Sexual and Reproductive Health Strategy for Australia." Public Health Association of Australia, Sexual Health & Family Planning Australia, Australian Reproductive Health Alliance.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rob, U., T. Ghafur, I. Bhuiya, and M. N. Talukder. 2006. " Reproductive and Sexual Health Education for Adolescents in Bangladesh: Parents' View and Opinion." International Quarterly of Community Health Education 25 (4): 351 – 365. doi: 10.2190/G52U-1301-2444-0138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, K. H., E. Smith, and C. Davies. 2017. " Responsibilities, Tensions and Ways Forward: Parents' Perspectives on Children's Sexuality Education." Sex Education 17 (3): 333 – 347. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2017.1301904.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawyer, S. M., M. Raniti, and R. Aston. 2021. " Making Every School a health-promoting School." The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health 5 (8): 539 – 540. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00190-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shannon, B., and S. J. Smith. 2015. " A Lot More to Learn than Where Babies Come From': Controversy, Language and Agenda Setting in the Framing of school-based Sexuality Education Curricula in Australia." Sex Education 15 (6): 641 – 654. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2015.1055721.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sladden, T., A. Philpott, D. Braeken, A. Castellanos-Usigli, V. Yadav, E. Christie, L. Gonsalves, and T. Mofokeng. 2021. " Sexual Health and Wellbeing through the Life Course: Ensuring Sexual Health, Rights and Pleasure for All." International Journal of Sexual Health 33 (4): 565 – 571. doi: 10.1080/19317611.2021.1991071.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, E., T. Jones, R. Ward, J. Dixon, A. Mitchell, and L. Hillier. 2014. " From Blues to Rainbows: Mental Health and Wellbeing of Gender Diverse and Transgender Young People in Australia." https://<ulink href="http://www.latrobe.edu.au/%5f%5fdata/assets/pdf%5ffile/0007/598804/from-blues-to-rainbows-report-sep2014.pdf">www.latrobe.edu.au/%5f%5fdata/assets/pdf%5ffile/0007/598804/from-blues-to-rainbows-report-sep2014.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, P., A. Cook, S. Winter, V. Watson, D. W. Toussaint, and A. Lin 2017. " Trans Pathways: The Mental Health Experiences and Care Pathways of Trans Young People. Summary of Results." https://<ulink href="http://www.telethonkids.org.au/projects/past/trans-pathways/">www.telethonkids.org.au/projects/past/trans-pathways/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strnadová, I., J. Danker, and A. Carter. 2022. " Scoping Review on Sex Education for High school-aged Students with Intellectual Disability and/or on the Autism Spectrum: Parents', Teachers' and Students' Perspectives, Attitudes and Experiences." Sex Education 22 (3): 361 – 378. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2021.1941842.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, K., K. Patterson, R. Nash, and K. Swabey. 2021. " Sex Ed Dads: What Australian Fathers Want Their Teens to Know about Relationships and Sexuality." Sex Education 22 (4): 447 – 464. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2021.1951197.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ullman, J., T. Ferfolja, and L. Hobby. 2021. " Parents' Perspectives on the Inclusion of Gender and Sexuality Diversity in K-12 Schooling: Results from an Australian National Study." Sex Education 22 (4): 424 – 446. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2021.1949975.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. 2016. " Review of the Evidence on Sexuality Education. Report to Inform the Update of the UNESCO International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education." Paris : UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000264649</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. 2018a. " International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education: An evidence-informed Approach (Revised Edition)." <ulink href="http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media%5fasset/ITGSE%5fen.pdf">http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media%5fasset/ITGSE%5fen.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. 2018b. " International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education: An evidence-informed Approach for Schools, Teachers and Health Educators " Paris : UNESCO. <ulink href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002607/260770e.pdf">http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002607/260770e.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Victorian Government, Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. 2022. " The Victorian Curriculum F-10." https://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, B. 2021. " In 2021 #metoo Finally Made It to #auspol – What Happens Next? " The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/in-2021-metoo-finally-made-it-to-auspol-what-happens-next-173153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, J., A. McKay, J. Wentland, and S. E. Byers. 2021. " Attitudes Towards Sexual Health Education in Schools: A National Survey of Parents in Canada." The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 30 (1): 39 – 55. doi: 10.3138/cjhs.2020-0049.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaneva, M., A. Philpott, A. Singh, G. Larsson, L. Gonsalves, and L. Mao. 2022. " What Is the Added Value of Incorporating Pleasure in Sexual Health Interventions? A Systematic Review and meta-analysis." PLOS ONE 17 (2): e0261034. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261034.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jacqueline Hendriks; Katrina Marson; Jennifer Walsh; Tasha Lawton; Hanna Saltis and Sharyn Burns</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref97"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1409836
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Support for School-Based Relationships and Sexual Health Education: A National Survey of Australian Parents
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jacqueline+Hendriks%22">Jacqueline Hendriks</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1177-8980">0000-0002-1177-8980</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katrina+Marson%22">Katrina Marson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6512-6219">0000-0001-6512-6219</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jennifer+Walsh%22">Jennifer Walsh</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tasha+Lawton%22">Tasha Lawton</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hanna+Saltis%22">Hanna Saltis</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7539-9170">0000-0002-7539-9170</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sharyn+Burns%22">Sharyn Burns</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1551-2805">0000-0002-1551-2805</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Sex+Education%3A+Sexuality%2C+Society+and+Learning%22"><i>Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning</i></searchLink>. 2024 24(2):208-224.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Education%22">Sex Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Role%22">School Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Characteristics%22">Individual Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Controversial+Issues+%28Course+Content%29%22">Controversial Issues (Course Content)</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/14681811.2023.2169825
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1468-1811<br />1472-0825
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Despite significant evidence worldwide that parents support school-based delivery of relationships and sexuality education (RSE), Australian data has generally lacked larger, nationally representative samples. Furthermore, misguided perceptions of parental attitudes are known to impact delivery. In response, online survey data were collected from 2,427 parents (56.5% female) nationwide, to examine their attitudes towards school-based RSE. Most had a child enrolled in a government school (65.3% primary, 55.7% secondary); and reported diverse religious affiliations (38.7% no religion, 21.3% Catholic, 11.1% Anglican) and voting preferences (26.7% Australian Labour Party, 25.1% Liberal/National, 23.6% undecided). Overall, 89.9% of parents supported schools to deliver RSE, with some modest differences being associated with particular demographic variables. Beyond widespread support for RSE, parents emphatically endorsed schools to address a diverse range of RSE-related issues (n = 40 topics). Parents' responses also provided insight regarding when certain topics should first be introduced and the quality of current RSE provision in schools. Findings from this descriptive overview challenge the currently overstated assumption that parents do not support RSE in schools. Such persistent and obstructive discourse is counterproductive to evidence-based strategies that seek to strengthen young people's personal and social development in a comprehensive and contemporary manner.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1409836
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1409836
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/14681811.2023.2169825
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 208
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sex Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Controversial Issues (Course Content)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Support for School-Based Relationships and Sexual Health Education: A National Survey of Australian Parents
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jacqueline Hendriks
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Katrina Marson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jennifer Walsh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tasha Lawton
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hanna Saltis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sharyn Burns
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1468-1811
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1472-0825
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 24
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning
              Type: main
ResultId 1