About Counseling & Human Development Services
Parental Training and Involvement in Sexuality Education for Students Who are Deaf
American Annals of the Deaf, Washington; Jul 2001; Kamieka O. S. Gabriel; Yvette Q. Getch;
Volume: 146
Issue: 3
Start Page: 287-293
Abstract:
A study examined whether-schools for the deaf were providing services to assist parents in communicating with their children about sexuality and whether parents were involved in the sexuality education curriculum within their child's school..
Full Text:
Copyright American Annals of the Deaf Jul 2001
[Headnote]
The study examined whether schools for the deaf were providing services to assist parents in communicating with their children about sexuality (including sexual signs) and whether parents were involved in the sexuality education curriculum within their child's school. The Sexuality Curriculum Questionnaire for Educators of Students Who Are Deaf (Getch & Gabriel, 1998) was completed by 71 educators teaching sexuality curricula in schools for the deaf across the United States. Results indicated that parents were more likely to be involved in approval and development of their children's sexuality education than to receive assistance with sexuality education from the schools. Although the level of parental participation in curriculum development and approval is encouraging, the number of parents actually participating in curriculum development and approval remains low.
There are various issues that parents often do not want to face concerning their children. For example, Koblinsky and Atkinson (1982), as cited in Bundy and White (1990), found that parents were uncomfortable discussing "value-laden" topics with their children. One such topic is sexuality. However, despite the stress created by the thought of having "the talk," parents and children do want to communicate with each other about sexuality issues (Alexander, 1984; Bennett & Dickinson, 1980; Fitz-Gerald & Fitz-Gerald, 1987; McCabe, 1993). Unfortunately, parents have stated multiple reasons why they are unable to talk to their children about sexuality. Reasons noted in the literature include embarrassment or discomfort (Allensworth, 1992; Fitz-Gerald & Fitz-Gerald, 1987), lack of proper information about sexuality (Byer, Shainberg, & Jones, as cited in Bundy & White, 1990; Fitz-Gerald & Fitz-Gerald, 1987; Welshimer & Harris, 1994), and communication issues that may cause a gap in understanding between parent and child (Bundy & White, 1990; Fitz-Gerald & Fitz-Gerald, 1987).
Talking about sexuality causes particular concern for parents of children who are deaf. Despite the desire to communicate with their children about sexuality, this kind of communication rarely occurs (Fitz-Gerald & Fitz-Gerald, 1987). Although parents of children who are deaf encounter many of the same problems faced by parents of hearing children, they also face unique issues with regard to sexuality. One primary issue is communication. Ninety-six percent of children who are deaf are born to hearing parents (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2001). Such parents are often unskilled in sign language and can be troubled by their child's inability to speechread (Fitz-Gerald & Fitz-Gerald, 1987; Minter, 1983). Families of children who are deaf indicate that only 26% of family members use sign language on a regular basis (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2001). Furthermore, even hearing parents who know sign language may be unfamiliar with sexual signs, and thus can be thwarted in their attempts to have a meaningful discussion about sexuality topics with their child.
The issues that have prevented parents from educating their children about sexuality may partially explain the sexual dilemmas faced by youth who are deaf. For example, youth who are deaf are more apt to gain sexuality information from peers than from other sources (Fitz-Gerald & Fitz-Gerald, 1987; Minter, 1983; Sawyer, Desmond, & Joseph, 1996). Many of these discussions transmit myths and misinformation. Thus, a disproportionate number of individuals who are deaf lack accurate sexual knowledge (Bounds, 1987; Minter, 1983; Sawyer et al., 1996; Swartz, 1993; Tripp & Khan, 1986). Students who are deaf have also been reported to engage in more sexual activity than hearing students (Minter, 1983; Sawyer et al., 1996). In addition, lower rates of contraceptive use, as well as higher pregnancy rates, have been noted among nonhearing university students compared with hearing students (Sawyer et al., 1996).
It appears that youth who are deaf may not be receiving the sexuality education and guidance they need to make safe, informed choices. Parents seem to understand this and actually support schools' efforts to provide sexuality education to their children (Silverstein & Buck, 1986). Silverstein and Buck found that parents were not only supportive of sex education but that they agreed on incorporating a broad range of topics, including controversial ones, into the curriculum.
Despite parental support for sexuality education in the schools, parents of children who are deaf stress that they want to be the primary sexuality educator (Love, 1983; Pearson, 1979). This is significant because schools for the deaf are no longer expected to function in loco parentis (Moores, 2001). Most children who are deaf attend public, hearing schools. In fact, only 29% of these children attend a special school or center (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2001), and most of them return home every weekend. Some even go home every evening. Children, who are deaf, even those attending residential schools, are spending a large part of their nonschool hours at home with their parents. As a result, schools may no longer address sexuality education issues that once were handled by residential staff. Even though parents may want schools to educate their children about sexuality, data indicate that school personnel consider this a parent's responsibility. One study found that approximately three-fourths of the staff at a school for the deaf and blind felt that the home was the preferable place for sex education (Love, 1983). It is becoming increasingly important for parents to address sexuality issues, regardless of the type of school their child attends. Unfortunately, many parents are not prepared for this role and need assistance in providing sexuality education to their children.
Minter (1983) stated that "good child sex education evolves from good parent education" (p. 4). Parents of children who are deaf are in need of educational programs to help them communicate comfortably and effectively with their children. Workshops have been identified as beneficial in helping parents and children communicate about sex (Benshoff & Alexander, 1993; Bundy & White, 1990; Fitz-Gerald & Fitz-Gerald, 1987). It seems logical that the same institution that educates children about sexuality could also educate their parents about sexuality. In 1983, research indicated that there were no programs available to assist parents of children who are deaf with their children’ s education about sexuality (Minter, 1983). Current data on whether schools for the deaf provide services to assist parents in communicating with their children about sexuality are not available.
The purpose of the present study was to collect data on whether schools for the deaf are providing services to assist parents in communicating with their children about sexuality. In addition, the study was designed to determine whether schools for the deaf provide parents with training in the use of sexual signs and whether parents are involved in the development of sexuality education curriculum at their child's school.
Method
Procedures
The Sexuality Curriculum Questionnaire for Educators of Students Who Are Deaf (Getch & Gabriel, 1998) was mailed to 92 schools throughout the United States (primary, middle, and secondary) serving students who are deaf. A list of schools serving these students was obtained from the annual reference issue of the American Annals of the Deaf ("Schools and Programs," 1994) and from a website, the Deaf World Web ("United States: Schools for the Deaf," 1997). Included in the mailing were state schools for the deaf, private schools for the deaf, county special education programs, special day schools, and regional day schools for thedeaf. Oral schools for the deaf and hearing schools were excluded from the present study because we preferred to focus on programs that were more likely to use sign language-American Sign Language (ASL), some form of English based signing, or both-as a primary mode of communication for students who are deaf. The questionnaires were addressed to heads of schools (e.g., superintendents, principals, deans, headmasters), who were asked to distribute the questionnaires to all the educators teaching sexuality currici at their school.
Respondents
Sixty-two out of 92 schools responded to the questionnaire, a return rate of 67%. Thirteen schools returned two or more questionnaires because they had more than one educator teaching sexuality education classes at their institution. Of the 62 schools that responded, 51 fit the criteria of serving children who are deaf (although not being an oral school or hearing school), offering at least one sexuality education course, and having at least one educator complete the questionnaire. Questionnaires from 11 of the responding schools were not included in the study. A returned questionnaire could be excluded for any one or more of four reasons: (a) Sexuality education was not offered at the school; (b) sexuality education was offered outside the school; (c) the school did not answer the questions because it was an oral school or a public hearing school; or (d) the school did not have a sexuality education program. Seventy-one questionnaires were completed and analyzed.
The Questionnaire
The Sexuality Curriculum Question mire for Educators of Students Who Are Deaf (Getch & Gabriel, 1998) contains 26 items designed to elicit information about which sexuality topics are taught, as well as how and when those topics are taught. Respondents are asked to indicate, using a scale of 1 (not allowed) to 5 (required), which sexuality topics are taught in their class. They are also asked, by grade, whether a topic is taught, and, if so, if it is taught as part of a separate sexuality education class or an existing class, or by the staff after school either formally or informally.
The questionnaire also elicits information on the training of the educator, the educator's availability to train parents in sexuality education and sexual signs, parental involvement in sexuality education, who is responsible for curriculum development and approval, what instructional media are used and how effective they are, and the educator's level of comfort with specific sexuality topics. The effectiveness of instructional media used in sexuality curricula is measured by having the educator rate each type of media (e.g., videotapes, handouts, tactile objects) used on a scale of 1 (inadequate) to 5 (exceptional). Also, a scale of 1 (very uncomfortable) to 5 (very comfortable) is used to measure how comfortable teachers are about teaching various sexuality topics (e.g., hygiene, reproduction, sexual identity).
A demographic section on the questionnaire elicits information on the educator's gender, age, race or ethnicity, hearing status, education level, sexuality education teaching experience, and signing skills. Questions are also asked about student characteristics, type of course in which sexuality is taught, and communication methods (i.e., type of sign language).
Although the data were part of a larger database, the focus of the present study was on parental training and involvement in sexuality education. Therefore, results for items specifically pertaining to this topic are reported. Summaries of demographic and communication data from the study are also reported. úAdditional information on sexuality and the status of sexuality education at schools for the deaf can be obtained by referring to Getch and Gabriel (1998).
Results
Educator Characteristics
Educators who participated in the present study were mostly female (73.9%), between the ages of 40 and 49 years (57. 1%), White (87.10/6), and hearing (75.4%). Seventy percent held a master's degree (see Table 1; see also note on percentages at Table 1). Nearly all of those surveyed (97. 1%) considered their sign language skills good or excellent.
Most of the educators (63.9%) had some formal training in sex education, and all of the educators stated that they knew sexual signs. Nearly all had no experience teaching sex education to students without disabilities or with a disability other than deafness (91.9% and 96.8% respectively). Ninety-seven percent had some previous experience teaching sex education to students who are deaf.
Student and Classroom Characteristics
Sex education was provided primarily as part of an existing class (i.e., in 74.3% of instances). In other instances, human sexuality was taught as a separate class (18.6%) or by residential staff (7.1%).
The most common mode of instruction was small group discussion (70%); far smaller percentages of educators said they used large group discussion, lecture, or one-on-one instruction (see Table 2; see also note on percentages at Table 2). The most frequently cited primary modes of communication in the sex education classroom were a combination of communication methods (including signing, writing, and speaking) and ASL (see Table 3).
Sexuality Curriculum Topics
Most sexuality-related topics (e.g., hygiene, anatomy, birth control/contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS/HIV, abstinence, relationships) were included in the educators' sexuality curricula. Most of the educators stated that the sexuality-related topics were acceptable, or should be suggested or required for inclusion in sex education curricula. A few educators stated that teaching about birth control/contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS/HIV, unwanted or forced sex, sexual assault or rape, and sexual identity was discouraged or not allowed. One respondent stated that teaching about reproduction was not allowed (see Table 4).
Parental Involvement
According to 21.7% of the surveyed educators, parents were involved in sexuality education.
Specifically, 12 educators (17.4%) stated that parents were involved in curriculum development, and 17 (24.6%) indicated that parents were a part of the sexuality curriculum approval process (see Table 5; see also note on percentages at Table 5). Only five teachers responded that parents received training in how to discuss sexuality education with their children. Only three teachers
stated that parents received training in sexual signs.
Discussion
Sexuality education for students who are deaf is provided primarily by educators who are female, middle-aged, White, hearing, and in possession of a master's degree. The majority of these educators have received formal training in sex education, know sexual signs, and have had some experience teaching sex education to children who are deaf Also, most sexuality-related topics are included as part of the educators' sexuality curricula.
One purpose of the present study was to establish current data on whether schools for the deaf are providing sexuality education services for parents of children who are deaf. Results of the study indicated that only 8 of the 51 schools that submitted usable responses were providing any sexuality education for parents. Even fewer schools were offering parents specific training in sexual signs. A study by Minter (1983) indicated that there were no programs to educate parents. The present study indicates that there has been some progress, but the number of programs that provide sexuality education to parents continues to be extremely low.
It is evident that parents are not receiving the assistance they need in their role as sexuality educators for their children. Past studies have shown that parents want assistance from their child's school in educating their child about sexuality (Love, 1983; Pearson, 1979). Unfortunately, the need to assist parents with sexuality education is either not being communicated effectively, or schools for the deaf do not consider parental training regarding sexuality issues a priority. It is necessary to determine what factors may be preventing parents and schools from working together to provide children with the most effective methods of communication and education regarding sexuality issues. One complicating factor is that schools, particularly state schools for the deaf, serve children whose parents are dispersed across the state, making it difficult to provide educational services to these parents. Further research should be conducted to determine what educational methods would be feasible for these parents and what materials need to be developed to assist in sexuality education efforts. Two possible solutions are distance education and computerbased educational programs for parents.
It is also important to determine what specific types of programs are being provided by the institutions that indicated that they offered services to parents. A few sexuality education programs for parents have been cited (i.e., Bundy & White, 1990; Hardoff & Millul, 1997; Pendler & Hingsburger, 1991).
These programs focused primarily on teaching parents to understand sexual development and providing general sexuality information, assisting parents to communicate more effectively with their children and feel more comfortable communicating with their children about sexuality, and providing support to assist parents in reducing their anxiety and accepting their children's sexuality. These programs may provide a framework for schools to use in the development of their own educational programs and services to support parents in addressing sexuality issues with their children. Unfortunately, most of the existing sexuality education programs for parents do not specifically deal with the needs of children who are deaf.
One of the few available resources that focuses on the needs of children who are deaf in regard to sexuality was developed by Fitz-Gerald and Fitz-Gerald (1987). They discussed the importance of parents not only conveying the necessary sexuality information to their children, but also the importance of the communication process. For example, they wrote about the significance of nonverbal communication when communicating with a child who is deaf and how parents need to have nonverbal language that is commensurate with what they are saying when talking with their children.
Another purpose of the present study was to determine whether parents of children who are deaf were involved in the development or approval of the sexuality education curriculum within their children'sschool. Although the findings on parental involvement in curriculum development or approval were more heartening than the findings on parental education, they were still meager. Parental involvement in the development and approval of sexuality education curricula empowers parents to assist in their child's learning and allows them to become familiar with what their child is learning. When parental involvement occurs, parents are likely to feel more comfortable communicating about the sexuality topics that need to be discussed with their children. Finally, successful sex education programs are more likely to include parental involvement (Scales, 1982). Schools educating youth who are deaf about sexuality issues cannot be the only system helping youth make informed, safe sexual choices. Parents play a significant role in the sexuality Education process. Even though parents may not want to envision their children becoming sexually active, children do grow older and eventually engage in sexual activity. Children and youth are faced with a variety of sexuality issues. Parents cannot stop sexual activity from occurring, but they can open lines of communication within the household and provide their children with the knowledge they need to make healthy sexuality choices.
Parents, especially parents of children who are deaf, cannot provide sexuality education alone. Often, communication barriers make it especially difficult for these parents to discuss sexuality issues with their children. Many parents need assistance from the educational institutions attended by their children. Assistance should include education on various sexuality topics, sexuality signs, and more important, how to communicate sexuality information effectively. Schools can empower parents by inviting them to become involved in their child's sexuality education curriculum. "Good sex education evolves from good parent education" (Minter, 1983, p. 4). Effective sexuality education can occur if parents and schools serving children who are deaf form a strong alliance with each other.
Future Research
In future research, data should be gathered from oral and public hearing schools that serve students who are deaf on specific ways in which parents are involved in sexuality education. There is a also a need to examine current educational programs for parents, how these programs are administered, and whether they are beneficial. Investigating existing programs' content, how these programs are used by parents, and how often these programs are made available to parents would be beneficial in providing a foundation for developing exemplary sexuality education programs for parents of children who are deaf. Finally, it is necessary to identify barriers that may be preventing parents and schools from collaborating with each other. If effective methods of communication and education regarding sexuality issues are to be developed for parents of children who are deaf, it is imperative that school personnel and parents develop effective, collaborative relationships.
[Footnote]
Research for the present study was funded by a grant from the University of Georgia Research Foundation.-The Authors.
References
Alexander, S. J. (1984). Improving sex education programs for young adolescents: Parents' view. Family Relations, 33, 251-257.
Allensworth, D. (1992). Parents are their children's first sex educators. PTA Today, 17, 22-23.
Bennett, S. M., & Dickinson, W. B. (1980). Student-parent rapport and parent involvement in sex, birth control, and venereal disease education. journal of Sex Research, 16, 114130.
Benshoff, 3. M., &Alexander, S. 3. (1993). The family communication project: Fostering parent-child communication about sexuality. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 27, 288-300.
Bounds, C. A. (1987). Consciousness-raising with deaf female adolescents. In G. Anderson & D. Watson (Eds.), Innovations in the habilitation and rehabilitation of deaf adolescents (pp. 225-234). Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Persons Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.
Bundy, M., & White, P. N. (1990). Parents as sexuality educators: A parent training program. 3ournal of Counseling and Development, 68, 321-323.
Fitz-Gerald, M., & Fitz-Gerald, D. R. (1987). Parents' involvement in the sex education of their children. Volta Review, 89, 96-110.
Gallaudet Research Institute. (2001, January). Regional and national summary report of data from the 1999-2000 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
Getch, Y. Q., & Gabriel, K. 0. (1998). A sexuality curriculum for deaf students: A cause for concern and action. Deaf Worlds, 14, 20-26.
Hardoff, D., & Millul, J. (1997). Education program on sexuality and disability for parents of physically handicapped adolescents. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 9, 173-180.
Love, E. (1983). Parental and staff attitudes toward, instruction in human sexuality for sensorially impaired students at the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind. American Annals of the Deaf 128, 45-47.
McCabe, M. P. (1993). Sex education programs for people with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 31, 377-387.
Minter, M. (1983). The status of health education and sex education programs for the Deaf What implications does this have for health educators? Providence, RI: Eastern District Convention of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 228 175)
Moores, D. F. (2001). Educating the Deaf Psychology, principles, and practices Oth ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Pearson, C. S. (1979). Sax education: A survey of parents with deaf adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 124, 760-764.
Pendler, B., & Hingsburger, D. (1991). Sexuality: Dealing with parents. Sexuality and Disability, 9, 123-130.
Sawyer, R. G., Desmond, S. M., & Joseph, J. M. (1996): A comparison of sexual knowledge, behavior, and sources of health information between deaf and hearing university students. Journal of Health Education, 27, 144152.
Scales, P. C. (1982). Offset outrage: Let parents help plan your sex education program. American School Board Journal, 169, 3233.
Schools and programs In the United States. (1994). American Annals of the Deaf 139, 174-243.
Silverstein, C. D., & Suck, G. M. (1986). Parental preferences regarding sex education topics for sixth graders. Adolescence, 21, 971-980.
Swartz, D. B. (1993). A comparative study of sex knowledge among hearing and deaf college freshmen. Sexuality and Disability, 11(2), 129-147.
Tripp, A. W., & Khan, 3. V. (1986). Comparison of the sexual knowledge of hearing impaired and hearing adults. Journal of Rehabilitation, 193-4), 15-18.
United States: Schools for the deaf. (1997). Retrieved April 28, 1997, from the Deaf World Web: http://deafworldweb.org/dww/int/us/schools.html.
Welshimer, K. J., & Harris, S. E. (1994). A survey of rural parents' attitudes toward sexuality education. Journal of School Health, 64, 347-352.
[Author note]
KAMIEKA O.S. GABRIEL AND YVETTE Q. GETCH
Gabriel is a doctoral student in the Counseling Psychology Program, University of Georgia, Athens. Getch is an assistant professor and coordinator of the Rehabilitation Counseling Program, Department of Counseling and Human Development Services, University of Georgia.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
|
|
 |