Dutch sex education: up to date or ready for change?

Introduction

On October 5, 2022, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport (2023) outlined a policy aiming to enhance Dutch residents’ sexual health by ensuring accessible, quality care and empowering informed choices. They emphasize that the Dutch education system plays an important role in ensuring that these goals are achieved. Since 2012, it is mandatory for schools in the Netherlands to provide sexual education that pays tribute to cultural diversity, sexuality and sexual diversity. This is established by law in three core objectives, that focuses on the importance of educating students in a way that they become respectful Dutch citizens, that are aware of cultural and sexual diversities (Van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart, 2012).

These core objectives are based upon European guidelines, established by the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2009). The Dutch knowledge and expertise centre of sexuality, Rutgers (2016), has translated these guidelines to the Dutch language and context. Parents and professionals can use these guidelines to obtain direction in providing sex education. However, Dutch schools are free in choosing how to implement these core objectives and guidelines. Schools can flesh out the adapted core objectives as they see fit, for example in subjects, in projects or as specific information activities (Van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart, 2012). There are different teaching materials to choose from that are approved from government sources such as Gezonde School, Centrum Gezond Leven, or Seksuelevorming.nl(Rutgers Kenniscentrum Seksualiteit, 2016). Yet, this is not mandatory, and as a result not every school or professional gives the same content or quality of sexual education (de Looze & van Ditzhuijzen, 2022). The WPR approach will be used to answer the following question: How is the current policy about sexual education lacking behind?  

Analysis

The “What’s the Problem Represented to be” (WPR) is an analytic strategy to approach policies and governmental practices. Instead of viewing these policies as an answer to a ‘fixed’ problem, the WPR approach argues that in the making of these policies, it actually formulates and construct the knowledges of the ‘problem’. By stating that something needs to be resolved, it automatically creates a new reality in which the problem configures. How and by whom a policy is created influences the way we look at the ‘problem’. (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016)

The WPR approach uses seven questions to grapple to how knowledges and realities on ‘problems’ are produced by policymaking. For our analysis, we will use question one, two en four. The first question is “What’s the problem represented to be in a specific policy or policies” (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). When we look at the policies and objectives made by the Dutch Government on sexual education for schools, the problem underlying these policies is that the already existing programs focus too little on cultural and sexual diversity. Making it mandatory for schools to pay attention to these topics during sex education, ensures that every child or teen can obtain knowledge on these diversities, which makes them more respectful and aware of the multicultural Dutch society. Formulating these core objectives as mandatory insinuates that the knowledges surrounding sexual and cultural diversities need to be collectively known in Dutch society. 

Assumptions about (the organization of) education 

The second question in the WPR approach is “What deep-seated presuppositions/assumptions/knowledges (about people and the world) underlie this representation of the “problem” (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). Although the Dutch government stated sexual education is of great importance, the policy does not go beyond core objectives to which schools should adhere (Roubroeks, 2022). Schools could fill in the core objectives according to their own wishes (Rutgers and Soa aids Nederland, 2022). In the first place, this implies that schools have a responsibility within the education of sexuality (Gendi, 2023). Moreover, this implies that schools have the means (time, money etc) to arrange proper classes/subjects/project weeks about this theme without receiving extra (financial) means. Additionally, another assumption is that all schools know how to provide proper sexual education or how to find the right programs for sexual education. The policy is thus very much based on the professionalism, expertise and independence of schools regarding the field of sexuality (Roubroeks, 2022).

Assumptions about sexuality 

The policy portrays sexuality as a fundamental aspect of human existence, intimately tied to culture (Roien, Graugaard, and Simovska, 2021). First, it presupposes that sexuality is a product of culture. While acknowledging the biological facets of sexuality such as reproduction, the policy emphasizes its cultural and societal dimensions. The core objectives of the policy aim to educate students about respecting sexuality and diversity within society. Second, the policy implicitly assumes that children and adolescents inherently possess a sexual dimension to their beings. The very inclusion of sexuality education from the age of four reflects this presumption. (Roien, Graugaard, and Simovska, 2021) Furthermore, the core objectives stress the importance of learning about diversity to create inclusive and participatory school environments. The curriculum endorses a societal perspective in teaching about diversity, recognizing that “attention to sexuality and sexual diversity is crucial for sexual resilience, sexual health, a safe school climate, and the tolerance and respect of homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender identity” (Rutgers & Soa aids Nederland, 2022). 

The silences in education

To answer the fourth question of the WPR approach, “What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the “problem” be conceptualized/thought about differently?”, we need to investigate who and what is left out of the policies regarding sexual education. The three core objectives give a lot of room for interpretation for schools and professionals (Van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart, 2012). Although research institutions such as WHO (2009) and Rutgers (2016) made age appropriate guidelines for professionals, this way of broad policymaking causes differences in schools in the quality of the given sexual education. For example, this negatively impacted a Dutch woman (22), who we were allowed to interview for this article. She went to a Christian high school, which never provided sex education on sexual diversity:

I find sex very complicated and notice I have a weird relationship with it. And school has never been much of a help in that or anything, nothing learned from school about what I would like, only how I should make babies (or prevent them).

Moreover, without specific guidelines or trainings from the government on how to give adequate meaning to the core objectives, professionals are left in a bind. 

The silences in intersectionality

The concept of “sexuality” is a topic of ongoing discussion because people have different opinions about it (Jones, 2011). In the Netherlands, sexual education often focuses on preventing discrimination but tends to view sexuality from a certain cultural perspective (Derks & Van Den Berg, 2020). This perspective sees sexuality mainly when it’s openly shown and links it to breaking free from cultural and religious rules. What is left unproblematic in the policies we discussed, is that the wishes of the parents and cultural preferences are not taken into account. The policies are based on European Guidelines and global scientific consensus on the beneficial effects of sex positive sex education (Van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart, 2012). However, because it is mandatory for schools to give sex education that focuses on cultural and sexual diversity, parents or guardians have no to little say in how and when their children should receive this kind of information. From some cultural or religious standpoints, talking about sex or sexual preferences that differ from more traditional views can not be justified (Derks & Van Den Berg, 2020). Additionally, because schools are free to decide how to teach sexual and cultural diversity during sex education, to whom and what the education is given may be coloured by a Western view of sexuality and gender. Sexual education about diversity might unintentionally keep biases about culture and religion alive by emphasizing certain ways of expressing sexuality and ignoring the experiences of people who are often left out (Derks & Van Den Berg, 2020).

Conclusion 

The current state of sexual diversity and sex education in Dutch schools presents a complex web of issues, necessitating a holistic and inclusive approach. Often, sexual diversity is narrowly defined, neglecting the intersectionality of discrimination (Derks & Van Den Berg, 2020). This limited perspective on sexual diversity education isolates a minority of students and fails to confront the systemic violence experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals. Additionally, separating sexuality from these intersecting dimensions makes it challenging to acknowledge the unique experiences of religious LGBTQ+ students. Moreover, existing policies often overlook parental preferences and cultural variations, potentially promoting a Western-centric perspective in sexual education. Dutch sex education policies lack clarity, placing a significant burden on schools and educators, presuming they possess the requisite expertise, time, and knowledge (Van Amerongen, 2022). A structured and unambiguous framework for sexual education is conspicuously absent, with schools left to determine their approach. A manifesto, supported by various stakeholders, highlights the necessity of establishing a structured and standardized framework for sexual education (Manifest – Seksuele vorming, 2023). This is imperative to ensure equitable access to vital information and to foster a safe and inclusive school environment for all students. 

References

Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Making politics visible: The WPR approach. Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice, 13-26.

De Looze, M., & van Ditzhuijzen, J. (2022). Op naar een sekspositieve toekomst! Waarom een positieve benadering van seksualiteit zo belangrijk is in het seksuele vormingsonderwijs. Tijdschrift Voor Seksuologie, 46(1).

Derks, M., & Van Den Berg, M. (2020). Public discourses about homosexuality and religion in Europe and beyond. Springer Nature.

Jones, T. (2011). A Sexuality Education Discourses Framework: Conservative, liberal, critical, and Postmodern. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 6(2), 133–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2011.571935

Gendi. (2023, 8 juni). Wat is verplicht? Gendi. https://www.gendi.nl/inspiration/onderwijswetten-over-seksuele-diversiteit-en-veiligheid/

Manifest – Seksuelevorming.nl. (2023, 14 maart). Seksuelevorming.nl. https://seksuelevorming.nl/manifest/

Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport. (2023, 14 februari). Kamerbrief over beleidsvisie Seksuele Gezondheid. Kamerstuk | Rijksoverheid.nl. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2022/10/05/kamerbrief-over-beleidsvisie-seksuele-gezondheid

Roien, L. A., Graugaard, C., & Simovska, V. (2021). From Deviance to Diversity: Discourses and Problematisations in fifty years of sexuality education in Denmark. Sex Education, 22(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2021.1884060

Roubroeks, S. (2022, 6 juni). Seksuele voorlichting in Nederland: hoe het nu is en wat er mist. VPRO. https://www.vpro.nl/lees/specials/2022/seksuele-voorlichting-in-nederland.html

Rutgers & Soa aids Nederland (2022, 31 mei). Kerndoelen m.b.t. seksuele vorming in het onderwijs. Seksuelevorming.nl. https://seksuelevorming.nl/visie-beleid/overheidsbeleid-en-regelgeving/kerndoelen/

Rutgers Kenniscentrum Seksualiteit. (2016). Richtlijn seksuele en relationele vorming : Visie, doelen en uitgangspunten. Geraadpleegd op 6 oktober 2023, van https://shop.rutgers.nl/nl/webwinkel/richtlijn-seksuele-en-relationele-vorming/110081

Van Amerongen, A. (2022). Docenten willen meer aandacht voor seksuele vorming in onderwijs. Rutgers. 

Van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart, M. (2012). Besluit houdende wijziging van de kerndoelen onderwijs op het gebied van seksuele diversiteit. In https://www.loketgezondleven.nl/documenten/kerndoel-43. Ministerie van onderwijs, cultuur en wetenschap. Geraadpleegd op 10 oktober 2023, van https://www.loketgezondleven.nl/documenten/kerndoel-43

WHO Regional Office for Europe and BzgA. Standards for sexuality education in Europe. A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists. Cologne: Federal Centre for Health Education, BzgA 2010.