The controversy that surrounds sexuality issues often results in their marginalization in schools, which means that sexuality educators also play a pivotal role in campaigning for space and resources to meet the needs of students (Paechter, 2004; Buston & Wight, 2001; Buston, Wight &
Hart, 2002). Epstein and Johnson (1998) in Humprey, Undie and Dunne (2008, p.22-23) observe that ‘sexuality education is paradoxically both present and absent in schools, while on the other hand, schools tend to emphasize disembodied cognitive subjects and attempt to repress sexuality both for teachers and students, expressions of sexuality provide an important discursive resource in everyday school life for students and teachers as they construct their identities’. These authors further contend that schools are sites for the active making of such identities and meanings around sexuality even though talking about sexuality and schooling in the same breath can be seen as disturbing in many societies. In addition, they argue that studies are a clear indication that even though schools are sites for the construction of sexual and other identities, the taboo nature of sex and the presumed innocence of children lead to a silence in schools regarding children’s emerging sexualities. They claim that the idea of childhood sexual innocence inhibits attempts to alter the terrible and oppressive tangles which form part of child-adult relations because sexual and other social identities are produced in relation to the cultural repertoires and institutional conditions of schooling.
Deloris et al. (1996) argue that the education fraternity is vital for educating children. Young adults have a responsibility to assume positions in a changing society. Such maturity requires of them becoming knowledgeable and accountable in the decision-making initiatives regarding their sexual and social lives. As Gordon (2008) observes, in most countries children between the ages of five and thirteen in particular, spend relative amounts of time in school. Thus, schools provide practical means of reaching large numbers of young people from diverse backgrounds in ways that are replicable and sustainable. Furthermore, school systems benefit from an existing infrastructure, including teachers likely to be skilled and trusted sources of information and long-term programming opportunities through formal curricula. Buston, Wight and Hart (2001) observe that
during classroom interactions the teacher’s personal traits are influential. Furthermore, these authors note that it would be naive for communities, parents and learners to assume that classroom teachers would solely carry all the burdens that the curriculum demands without their assistance and co- operation.
Trudell (1992, p.6) contends that ‘the conspiracy of the classroom provides platform for educators to manoeuver’. Milton (2003) argues that sexuality education address anti-ignorance and anti- homophobic principles, and teachers should apply such viewpoints so that programmes address the needs of learners. O’Rogan (2001, p.118) posits that ‘the diverse nature of South African schools is defined by the teachers’ level of professionalism and competencies in rural, township and urban settings’. Wiley and Wilson (2009, p.3) attest to this notion to further argue ‘that classrooms preserve a ‘conspiracy of silence’ that infringe on young people’s abilities to construct better decisions in life’. Morrell’s (2003) study on the spread of HIV and AIDS among South African teachers and students reveals that the schooling system is a site for producing silence, and argues that silence is an effect of unequal power dynamics which exists within relationships and prevents negotiations of safer sex exploration of self, and expresses vulnerability. This silence is an important factor in the problematic nature of intergenerational sex talk where adults, especially teachers, are expected to teach ‘innocent’ children about sexual matters. The dominant cultural values, beliefs, religions and traditions which have served as benchmarks in our diverse communities have been exerted as a major influence on the knowledge, the attitudes and behaviours with regards to sexuality education. The notion that children are seen and not heard has and still is in some societies, communities and families the unspoken rule. Many communities and families still view children as ‘innocent’ and ignoring the changing times and space of living. Adults tend to choose the safer path that has been treaded by the older generation or their forefathers whereby children were raised knowing their place in the family and only speak when spoken to. Some adults deliberately ignore the subject because they do not want to be implicated and condemned by their communities as teaching children ‘immorality’. It might be for this reason, among other reasons that
children seek for information elsewhere rather than from the people close to them. There appears to be an invisible wall between adults and children which separate them.
Schools are perceived as safe havens with an ethical and authorized responsibility to learners (Dalloway, 2000). Shaik (2004, p.9) asserts ‘that those who advocate the introduction of sexuality education in schools are of the view that sexuality education aims to make young people become self-conscious, that is, increase their self-worth and consciousness of themselves. Moreover, it helps learners appreciate and incorporate sexuality into their lives, providing accurate information and teaching learners the needed skills to make informed decisions, including decisions regarding sexual relationships. It further explores different values and attitudes in order to help each learner develop his/her own moral framework’. Halstead and Reiss (2003, p.13) point out to ‘the critical role that schools play in the promotion and development of their values, equipping learners with skills that will assist them in active engagement through discussions, manifestations and their interpretation of these values. In particular, their role promote and conform to the values which the broader society deem as important especially where these have emerged through open debate and democratic search for shared values, to remove barriers that might inhibit their intuition, including their understanding of core values, and to encourage children to pick a rational path through a variety of influences that impinge on their experiences and so construct their own developing value framework through a process of critical reflection’. Arnstine (1995, p.183) asserts that ‘there is a tendency for schools to create a false impression of a collective representation while in actual fact, schooling conditions are authoritarian’. The system promotes and maintains the status quo of well- defined structures of dictatorship, strained and prejudice attitudes inherent in social groups. In pursuit to accomplish this purpose, adults as perceived legitimate instruments, mould the young throughout their school life. Materials contained in sexuality education display elements of suppression, contradictory information and injustice.