haalbaarheid educatie scholen

Waarom educatie op scholen niet haalbaar is in de nabije toekomst:

In the mid-1990s, the Russian Ministry of Education decided to introduce systematic sex education in Russian schools. The decision was prompted by high levels of teenage pregnancies and abortions as well as by the dramatic increase in STDs, reports on increasing sexual violence, and the potential risk to youth being completely unprepared for a sudden inflow of pornography brought through television, films, video and other media. The idea was to help young people, through sex education, to be more responsible, to make informed decisions and to avoid health risks.
Initially, one of the Dutch firms producing hygienic goods and contraceptives acted as a partner to the Russian Ministry of Education. Then the Ministry turned to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) with a request for funding for a project aimed at providing a model for the sex education curriculum in schools during the last three compulsory years (that is for the seventh, eighth and ninth grades), making use of the experience of various countries implementing such programmes. UNFPA agreed to fund the project and appointed UNESCO to carry out the project in collaboration with the Ministry and with the help of experts from the Netherlands Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. The Ministry and UNESCO set up a local manage- ment and requested Russian experts (psychologists, sociologists, curriculum experts) to take part in the project to ensure that it was designed and carried out in a way suitable to the Russian situation and Russian culture. In particular, to ensure cultural acceptabil- ity, curricula and textbooks were to be developed by Russian experts, making use of knowledge and experience from several countries and with the input of technical assistance from foreign experts.
The planned duration of the project, ‘In-school Sex Education for Teenagers in Russia’, was 3 years, 1996–98. It would comprise the development of different curricula for the three levels; textbooks and manuals for teachers, school medical personnel and pupils; training for teachers and school medical workers; and an information brochure for parents. The medical staff were participating to give backing to the teachers, but also to be prepared to meet the possible needs for individual counselling. It must again be emphasised that the project in itself aimed at developing a model, and training teachers for conducting sex education in school classes, with a particular stress on behaviour and attitudes among young people.
Eight regions were chosen for a pilot project, with two schools in each region. Two teachers who had volunteered to participate in the scheme were selected from each school to form a team with the medical/paramedical person at the school. The school director was also part of the team. At the regional level, representatives of the educational and medical authorities were involved in the project. Surveys were to be carried out in the designated regions to assess needs and to evaluate results on completion of the project.

The project was developed quite successfully. In particular, a curriculum for seventh to ninth grades was developed. The course, covering a wide range of topics, was devised for children aged 12–14 and was to be tested in 16 schools throughout Russia. The course contents included the following key subjects, which, with necessary adaptations, were represented in the materials for all three grades:

• anatomy and physiology;
• hygiene and health;
• sociocultural aspects of sexuality and gender-role socialisation (including law, religion, traditions, etc.);
• psychosexual development and sexual behaviour; and
psychosocial nature of sexual relationships (values, personal features and skills, decision-making and negotiating).

Textbooks offered precise biological information, stressed health risks of teenage pregnancies and abortion, called for ‘tolerance for sexual minorities’ and advocated safer sex, including the use of contraceptives.
The course began with a questionnaire, designed to assess pupils’ knowledge of the subject and their attitudes and behaviour. However, as soon as the survey was conducted, a strong counteraction to the introduction of the programme in schools emerged. Among the most aggressive opponents were representatives of a Russian counterpart of the ‘Pro-Life’ organisation, the Russian Orthodox Church, some conservative deputies, vocal parents and even some professional psychologists and psychiatrists. These people were ostensibly shocked at the openness about sexual conduct and the use of terms that were traditionally taboo in Russian culture (such as masturbation, petting, intercourse, homo- sexuality, safer sex).

The public scandal was instigated by the media and fuelled by two additional factors. First, the Ministry of Education failed to organise a preliminary explanatory campaign in educational establishments and the media. Second, at the same time, it published and recommended for use in school five alternative programmes on sex education which had been developed outside the UNFPA project. These programmes, not subject to prelimi- nary high-quality expert evaluation, were associated in the public mind with the project and therefore helped to discredit it. As a result, the Minister of Education ordered the suspension of the project while the opponents tried to sue the authors of the question- naire for corrupting the young. Fortunately, the attempt failed.

Then the Ministry decided to abandon direct work with pupils and to concentrate on work with teachers and parents. Later, under pressure from parliamentary and religious opposition in the general condition of political instability, the Ministry decided not to work with schoolteachers either and to target teacher trainers, teachers and students at teacher training colleges. By doing so, the Ministry tried to avoid the criticism blaming it for ‘promoting corruption of schoolchildren’.
Thus, the project was turned into a project named ‘Healthy Lifestyle for Russian Adolescents’. In this new programme, issues of reproductive and sexual health, sexual relationships and behaviour were retained among others. At the same time as the programme was reoriented towards teachers, educators and students of teacher training colleges, immediate access to schools and direct instruction of schoolchildren was in fact forbidden.

Today the project is developing in three directions:

• creating a source book for teachers, teacher trainers and teacher training college students (questions of sexuality and sexual behaviour are ‘hidden’ and such themes as masturbation, safe sex and homosexuality are hardly ever raised);
• integration of the relevant issues in four school disciplines: biology, history, literature and safe life skills; and
• training teachers for out-of-class work.

AAARRG!*@^&$

To be realistic and to take into account the current atmosphere surrounding the federal sex education project as well as the slowness and rigidity of the bureaucratic machine, direct school-based or out-of-school sex education for teenagers is not feasible for the immediate future. Both health and education systems in Russia are inadequately ananced. Thus, the prospect of the introduction of the sex education programmes at the national level through the federal ministries is not bright, and children in the meantime remain without real help. That is why, first, developing and implementing sex education and STD prevention in Russia needs international expertise, financial assistance and informative materials. Second, in the near future, it seems more promising to promote direct educational work with adolescents on a local basis and in cooperation with some foreign experts within the framework of separate projects at the regional level. Partner- ship with local authorities seems to be more effective (as, for example, a Dutch project currently implemented in five small Russian towns). Partnership with more flexible independent organisations such as the Russian Family Planning Association, ‘Anti- AIDS’ or non-governmental organisations (the third sector) can also be quite effective.
There are enough human resources in Russia: teachers, medical and social workers, parents and volunteers are deeply concerned for the destiny of Russian children. They are enthusiastic supporters of in-school sex education but they do not have the necessary knowledge and educational skills. And they would try to do their best in meeting adolescent needs, promoting and strengthening the health of Russian children—who represent Russia’s future.

Toch nog een beetje hoop…


Yet, the overwhelming majority of young people discuss the problems of changes at puberty more often with their peers than with adults (parents, teachers, medical workers). Although about 80% of teachers believe that parents should be the main agents of sex education, less than 20% of teenagers think it acceptable to talk about sex with their parents.

Moeten we dit niet alsnog overwegen?

School-based Sex Education in Russia: the current reality and prospects
BORIS YU. SHAPIRO, The Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences, Russia (2001)