Parents’ perspectives on the inclusion of gender and sexuality diversity in K-12 schooling: results from an Australian national study

ABSTRACT

While educators, curriculum authors and policy makers alike are influenced by assumptions about parents’ dis/approval of gender and sexuality diversity, both generally, as well as specifically in relation to this topic’s appropriateness for K-12 classrooms, little empirical data is available to support these assumptions. What data does exist suggests that parents generally support the implementation of a comprehensive sexuality curriculum, inclusive of same-sex attraction, and view sexuality education as a school-parent partnership. Surveying a sample of Australian parents of children attending a government (public) school (N = 2093), whose responses were weighted to produce nationally representative estimates, this study sought to expand on previous findings by exploring the complexities of parents’ attitudes in relation to gender and sexuality diversity and its place within relationships and sexual health education. This paper provides a descriptive overview of parents’ ideas about the purpose of relationships and sexual health education and their views on the importance of including gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive content within related curriculum areas. Notably, over 80% of parents supported the inclusion of gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive relationships and sexual health education topics across primary and secondary government schools.

KEYWORDS:

• Gender and sexuality diversity
• Australian schools
• parents
• relationships and sexual health education
• curriculum
• quality education

Introduction

Although Australian national, and some state/territory, curricula and policies make provision for the inclusion of gender and sexuality diversity¹ (Ezer et al. 2020a), its presence across jurisdictions and documentation is variable. Even in Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE), inclusion may be superficial, avoided or vague (Ferfolja and Ullman 2014; Ullman and Ferfolja 2015; Ezer et al. 2019; Waling et al. 2020). This occurs despite the fact that gender and sexuality diverse young people are routinely discriminated against in education (Bradlow et al. 2017; Ferfolja and Stavrou 2015; Kosciw et al. 2018; Robinson et al. 2014; Ullman 2017, 2021; UNESCO 2016) and teachers reportedly downplay or ignore homo/transphobic harassment (Rasmussen 2004; Ullman 2015a). Such exclusion and discrimination results in a range of negative outcomes for gender and sexuality diverse young people which are well-reported in the literature (Kosciw et al. 2018; Robinson et al. 2014; Ullman 2015a, 2015b, 2021; UNESCO 2016).

Although educators can play a critical role in promoting supportive school environments, gender and sexuality inclusions are often considered controversial. Teachers are often silent about these issues even in health education classes (Ezer et al. 2019), and these classes may only incorporate an average of 10 hours of RSE across primary and secondary schooling (Mitchell et al. 2011). Teachers may appear ill-equipped or uncomfortable addressing such topics (Bartholomaeus, Riggs, and Andrew 2017; Ezer et al. 2020a, 2020b; Payne and Smith 2014) and express anxiety in relation to what they are permitted to discuss with young people in relation to gender and sexuality diversity. There is a frequently cited belief that mention of these topics will result in parental and community complaint (Bower and Klecka 2009; Cumming-Potvin and Wayne 2018).

This anxiety is perhaps well-founded, considering moral panics over educational inclusion in the public domain (Ferfolja and Ullman 2020; Robinson, Jones Diáz, and Townley 2019) with the most recent of these in Australia focussing on the Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA) initiative. SSCA, defunded by the Commonwealth Government as a result of a public moral panic and subsequently abandoned by several state education systems across the nation, was the first and only national initiative aimed at making schools safer places for gender and sexuality diverse individuals (see Law 2017 for a full review). It is understandable that teachers, as witnesses to such events, fear potential community reprisal if they include gender and sexuality diversity in their teaching. Such events can act as a considerable disincentive for teachers who are already wary of potential repercussions (Bartholomeaus et al. 2017; Leonard et al. 2010). For instance, Ezer and colleagues' (2020b) Australian study of 156 secondary sex education teachers who are generally responsible for sex and relationships education in schools, found that teachers were least comfortable teaching about gender and sexuality diversity and nearly two-thirds of respondents took care with the topics they addressed due to possible adverse community reaction.

However, there is relatively little research evidence supporting teachers’ fear of parents² in relation to gender and sexuality diversity inclusion in Australia. One quantitative study of 177 parents based in the Sydney metropolis, investigated parent attitudes towards sexual health education (Macbeth, Weerakoon, and Sitharthan 2009). The research found that the vast majority of informants (97%) considered that homosexuality should be featured in sexual health education. Other research has found that parents generally expressed confidence in schools’ capacity to provide suitable sexual education (Berne et al. 2000; Ollis, Harrison, and Richardson 2012). Robinson, Smith, and Davies (2017) found in their Australian study of 342 parents of primary school-aged children that although gender and sexuality diversity was perceived as controversial content for inclusion in school curriculum by some parents, it was also perceived as important.

International research likewise demonstrates that the ‘majority of parents support aspects of comprehensive education’ (Peter, Tasker, and Horn 2015, 75; see also Constantine, Jerman, and Huang 2007; Eisenberg et al. 2008) and are not necessarily ‘conservative gatekeepers when it comes to young people’s access to the knowledges that reflect the broad spectrum of human sexuality’ (Horn et al. 2013, 73). For instance, research from the USA has found that, of 1,715 parents who participated in a survey asking about their support for various health education programmes and practices, slightly more than half of the respondents (52%) approved of gender and sexuality diversity being included in the elementary school curriculum and 72% thought it appropriate in the secondary curriculum (Barr et al. 2014). Likewise, in their study of 1605 parents from the US state of Minnesota, Eisenberg et al. (2008) found that approximately two-thirds of respondents supported the inclusion of sexual orientation. Similarly, the vast majority of parents in an Irish study (McCormack and Gleeson 2010) supported the curriculum inclusion of sexual orientation (82%) and anti-homophobia education (90%) for their sons.

What is known about parents’ perceptions of the inclusion of gender diversity in the curriculum is generally less well reported. Gender and sexuality diversity-based research has traditionally examined these issues together as they are interrelated in many ways. Despite acknowledgement that gender diversity is a basic human right and not a pathology (Australian Human Rights Commission n.d.), hostilities towards trans people and the perpetuation of a discourse of ‘so called transgender ideology’ that is supposedly a threat to children’s binary gender identity (Davy and Cordoba 2020, 351, italics in original) has created a significant divide between supporters and detractors of trans+ subjectivities. Discourses of cisgenderism which ‘reinforce the idea that there are only two genders, that gender is determined on the basis of assigned sex … and that the mistreatment of people on the basis of their gender is thus legitimate and understandable’ (Riggs and Bartholomaeus 2018, 69) are rife in school cultures, with negative ramifications for all members of the school community (Bartholomaeus and Riggs 2017). Notably, recent Australian research has demonstrated that young people rated highest out of a list of topics, the need for greater inclusion about gender diversity (Johnson et al. 2016). Thus, the research reported herein is both timely and ground-breaking, through inclusion of questions that specifically reference gender and gender diversity, separate from sexuality diversity, as topics for inclusion in RSE.

Conceptual framework

In schools, dominant discourses of gender and sexuality normalise and celebrate heterosexual and cisgender subjectivities through policy, the formal and hidden curriculum, pedagogies, practices and relationships. Such subjectivities are unmarked and unquestioned and are simultaneously reified. All people are policed and regulated, but those who do not reflect hetero/cisnormativity within the school setting are often Othered and punished (Foucault 1978; Ferfolja and Ullman 2020). Thus, schools, as socio-cultural entities, and by the discourses constituted in and by them, produce normative gender and sexual subjectivities.

This normative production is reinforced by a particular ‘culture of limitation’ that is present in Australian society (Ferfolja and Ullman 2020). This phenomenon is reflected in complex, historically evolving, often media supported, underlying racism, sexism, homophobia and cisgenderism that intersects with neoliberal, neoconservative and patriarchal discourses that subjugate, limit and marginalise individuals and communities who do not fit the dominant, normative personage: perpetuated as heterosexual, cisgender, white, middle class and male. All other subjectivities are positioned as abnormal, immoral, problematic, non-contributory, and even socially perilous. Hence, such subjects and their associated knowledges must be repressed and distanced from young people who are universally socially-constructed through Western discourses of childhood.

This discourse, strategically utilised by those perpetuating a culture of limitation, and exemplified within the multi-year moral panic surrounding Australia’s SSCA (Law 2017), positions children and adolescents in binary opposition to adults, and thus, as innocent, naïve and in need of protections from the corruptions of adult knowledges (Robinson, Jones Diáz, and Townley 2019). Thus, schools are thwarted by those positioned in a culture of limitation, who vocally construct mention of gender and sexuality diversity in schools and curriculum as inappropriate and who strategically use the parent body as a spectre of fear (Ferfolja and Ullman 2017a) to quell efforts at inclusion and equity, particularly in relation to gender and sexuality diversity-related content.

This research sought to respond to the lack of large-scale, representative data on parents’ attitudes towards gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive education in government schools, particularly in light of educators’ concerns and broader oppositional discourses, as detailed above. Accordingly, a survey was developed, specifically targeting the parents of primary/secondary school-aged children from the government school sector, in order to provide much-needed information to key stakeholders. This paper offers an initial descriptive overview of the findings arising from the Australian parent sample.

Methods

Participants

Paid advertisements via social media (Facebook and Instagram) were used to conduct targeted diversity sampling advertising in order to recruit a sample of Australian parents. We supplemented this initial volunteer cohort of n = 1579 with an additional paid sample (n = 514) recruited through Qualtrics double-opt-in market research panels in order to meet our aim of greater than 2000 participants to enable sufficient analytic power. Attempted survey completions with more than 40% incomplete data (n = 3119) and visibly patterned responses on the included multi-dimensional scale (see Measures section below; n = 9) were removed through the data screening process.

Our final sample (N = 2093) was obtained through an opt-in mechanism, as already described. Such non-probability samples have an unknown selection mechanism and cannot be used to make design-based inferences with respect to the target population (Elliott and Valliant 2017). Further, simply weighting a non-probability sample on ‘primary’ characteristics (age, gender, location) can in fact decrease accuracy across other characteristics and behaviours (Yeager et al. 2011). An alternative approach is to use a high-quality reference (probability) sample to estimate the selection mechanism for the non-probability sample and to align it as closely as possible with the probability sample on key survey items. In this survey, the nationally representative reference sample was Life in Australia™, an online probability sample of Australian adults (Kaczmirek et al. 2019). We combined the two samples and derived propensity weights from a model predicting membership in the non-probability sample, conditional on survey responses available for both samples (Elliott 2009; Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983). The propensity weights were then formed into classes (Cochran 1968) to reduce the extent of extreme probabilities. Finally, the propensity class weights were adjusted to align with the reference sample for characteristics (gender, location, language spoken at home) and substantive responses (endorsement of content in RSE curriculum) that were most different between the two samples and most correlated with the survey’s key outcome variables. The adjustment was done using regression calibration (Deville, Sarndal, and Sautory 1993) which limits variation in the weights at the same time as ensuring they align with the target population. While non-probability samples are generally not as accurate as probability samples, the derived weights reduce errors as much as possible and enable inference with respect to the target population. Thus, and most importantly, our final, weighted sample yields estimates that are as representative of Australian parents of children attending government schools as possible and which can be described as (approximately) nationally-representative. As is the case with any survey, though, some level of bias will always remain.

Measures

Our online survey, developed using the Qualtrics platform, included parent and child-level demographic information. Specifically, survey items which pertained to individuals’ sex/gender, cultural background, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background, religious identification, linguistic repertoire and level of education were replicated from the 2016 Australian Census (ABS 2016). Additionally, parents were asked to provide their age, location and information about their oldest child currently attending an Australian public school (e.g. age; stage of schooling).

Prior to the commencement of gender and sexuality diversity-specific items, participants were provided with a list of relevant definitions to ensure common understandings of the key concepts covered in the survey. Defined terms included: gender diverse; trans/transgender; sexuality diverse; heterosexual; gay; lesbian; bisexual; queer; questioning; gender and/or sexuality diverse/diversities/diversity (GSD); and, gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive curriculum. This latter term was defined as including ‘school curriculum, teaching, and learning, which supports and values gender and sexuality diversity’. Approximately half-way through survey completion, parents were offered an optional definition ‘refresher’.

Parents were asked about their attitudes towards RSE, including their feelings about who is best placed to deliver this curriculum. These items were informed by previous explorations of parents’ expectations of RSE and their various concerns in relation to its delivery and scope (Ollis, Harrison, and Richardson 2012; Peter et al. 2015), including the authors’ in-depth qualitative exploration of Australian parents’ attitudes towards gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive education (Ferfolja and Ullman 2017b; Ullman and Ferfolja 2016). Furthermore, parents were asked how involved they wished to be in their child’s RSE education.

An additional series of items ascertained parents’ beliefs about the importance of various general and gender and sexuality diversity-specific content areas within the RSE curriculum and at which stages of schooling parents felt these topics should be covered, if at all. The set of relevant content areas provided to parents was informed by UNESCO’s International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (UNESCO 2018). While, typical of research in the field, most RSE content items combined the topic areas of gender and sexuality diversity, a number of items were designed specifically to focus on gender diversity in order to differentiate parental opinion. The final key content area explored parents’ sense of whether or not gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive education should extend beyond the Health and Physical Education curriculum area.³ Survey drafts were informed and revised in consultation with the project’s Advisory Board, consisting of RSE service providers, academic experts, and representatives from peak parental bodies across the country.

The survey also included an original multi-dimensional scale measure of parents’ perceived supports for- and barriers to gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive curriculum, the Parental Attitudes Towards Inclusiveness Instrument (PATII). While results from this element of the study are not reported here, more information about the development and psychometric validation of this measure can be found elsewhere (Hobby, Ullman, and Ferfolja 2021; Ullman, Hobby, and Ferfolja 2021).

Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 26 (IBM Corp 2020). Given the focus of this paper on broad trends in parents’ responses, results are primarily limited to the presentation of univariate, descriptive data. Chi-square analyses with follow-up binomial tests and paired samples t-tests were used to identify any significant differences between parental responses across certain areas of interest. Where t-tests were used, estimates of effect size, namely Cohen’s (1988) d and the common language effect size (CLES; McGraw and Wong 1992), were included. Benchmarks suggested by Cohen (1988) recommend effect sizes be interpreted as small (d = .20), medium (d = .50), and large (d = .80). However, given that these values are arbitrary and even small effect sizes can have large consequences, the CLES (McGraw and Wong 1992) was calculated to provide an additional, more intuitive (Lakens 2013) statistic. As per Lakens (2013), the CLES was calculated directly from Cohen’s d, expressed as a percentage, and is representative of the probability that, even after controlling for individual differences, a respondent has a higher observed value on one measurement than the other. Open-ended responses were analysed at the descriptive level with the use of the NVivo software (QSR 2019). An iterative process of coding (Creswell 2012) was used to identify first descriptive clusters and then broader categories (Saldana 2015) within these open-ended responses. For the purposes of this paper, an open-ended item which asked parents to articulate potential/assumed/actual RSE content which would prompt them to withdraw their child from classroom lessons was included.

Results

Demographic details

Our final sample of N = 2093 Australian parents consisted of 52.6% women (46.7% men and 0.7% reporting a ‘different identity’), who were primarily part of Generation X, born between 1965–1979 (54.4%) and currently living in one of Australia’s major cities (66.4%). Participants had one or more children attending government-run schools across both the primary and secondary schooling sectors, and represented the full range of ages/stages, from Kindergarten/Preparatory (11.3%) through to the senior years of high school (15.2%). Participants’ self-reported level of education and personal identity characteristics, including cultural and linguistic diversity and religiosity, are broadly reflective of those reported at the population level by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.⁴ However, it should be noted that no baseline population statistical information specific to the cohort of Australian parents of school-aged, public school-attending children exists for more direct comparison. Participants’ demographic statistics are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic variables

Variable	N	Percentage
Gender/Sex
Female/Woman	1100	52.6%
Male/Man	978	46.7%
Other	15	0.7%
(Non-binary)*	(7)	(0.3%)
Location, by Australian State
New South Wales	616	29.4%
Victoria	604	28.9%
Queensland	461	22.0%
Western Australia	174	8.3%
South Australia	140	6.7%
Tasmania	45	2.1%
Australian Capital Territory	40	1.9%
Northern Territory	13	0.6%
Age in years
18–34	401	19.1%
35–44	933	44.6%
45–54	614	29.3%
55+	145	6.9%
Stage of Schooling (oldest child attending public school)
Kindergarten/Prep (Early Stage 1)	236	11.3%
Years 1 or 2 (Stage 1)	264	12.6%
Years 3 or 4 (Stage 2)	308	14.7%
Years 5 or 6 (Stage 3)	314	15.0%
Years 7 or 8 (Stage 4)	293	14.0%
Years 9 or 10 (Stage 5)	360	17.2%
Years 11 or 12 (Stage 6)	318	15.2%
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
Yes	85	4.1%
No	2008	95.9%
Household Speaks Language other than English (LOTE)
Yes	611	29.2%
No	1482	70.8%
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) (incl. LOTE, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, Reported country of birth outside Australia)
Yes	732	35.0%
No	1361	65.0%
Highest Level of Education
Postgraduate Degree	397	19.0%
Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate	183	8.7%
Bachelors Degree	553	26.4%
Advanced Diploma or Diploma	326	15.6%
TAFE Certificate	420	20.1%
No post-school educational qualification	215	10.3%
Religious Identification
No religion	1022	49.4%
Christian	821	39.2%
Other religions (incl. Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism)	239	11.4%

All figures add up to 2093 with no missing data, unless otherwise specified.

*This group was a sub-cohort of the participant group who indicated an identity other than woman/female; man/male.

Attitudes towards RSE

Prior to any items specific to gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive curriculum, parents were asked about their sense of the overall purpose of school-based RSE and who they felt was/were the most suitable provider(s) of this education. Tables 2 and Tables 3 provide these results. Items related to the purpose of RSE were structured on a continuum ranging from an abstinence-only focus, through to a more expansive and inclusive approach. An additional item here allowed participants to indicate that RSE should not be included in schools in any way. Chi-square analyses revealed significant differences among parental perspectives regarding the purpose of RSE, $\chi$² (3, N = 2093) = 565.24, p < .001, with subsequent binomial tests determining the specific nature of these differences. As can be seen in Table 2, the majority of parents of school-aged children attending Australian government schools felt that, in addition to biology and reproduction, RSE should ‘teach that sexuality is a positive part of life, and focus on empowerment, choice, consent and acceptance of diversity’ (46.5%). Parental endorsement of this most comprehensive version of RSE was significantly higher (p = .006) than the second largest group, who endorsed a biological and reproductive focus for RSE (32.6%). Compared to a biological purpose, significantly fewer (p < .001) parents felt that RSE should include abstinence only education (15.3%). 5.6% of parents felt that RSE should not be taught in schools at all, a significantly lower percentage of parents (p < .001) than those who endorsed an abstinence-only purpose of RSE.

Table 2. Purpose of relationships and sexual health education (RSE)

Which BEST describes your attitude towards RSE?	N	%	Comp Group	Binomial test* p-value
1. ‘RSE should not be taught in schools at all.’	118	5.6%
2. ‘RSE is a moral issue and should promote abstinence before marriage as its main goal’	320	15.3%	1	< .001
3. ‘RSE should focus on biology and reproduction, including contraception and safe sex methods to avoid pregnancy and sexually-transmitted infections.’	682	32.6%	2	< .001
4. ‘In addition to covering biology and reproduction, RSE should teach that sexuality is a positive part of life, and focus on empowerment, choice, consent, and acceptance of diversity.’	973	46.5%	3	.006

*Omnibus test statistic: $\chi$² (3, N = 2093) = 565.24, p < .001; N = 2093; Comp Group = Comparison Group. Values in bold indicate statistically significant results.

Table 3. Providers of relationships and sexual health education (RSE)

Item	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Somewhat Agree	Agree	Strongly Agree	M (SD)	Comp Group	t-value p-value (Cohen’s d) CLES
1. ‘Providing RSE must involve a number of stakeholders (such as parents, schools, teachers and students).’	72 3.4%	87 4.1%	103 4.9%	393 18.8%	671 32.1%	767 36.7%	4.82 (1.28)	2	.249 .013 (.05) 53%
2. ‘Parents are the most appropriate providers of RSE.’	16 0.8%	56 2.7%	168 8.0%	617 29.5%	633 30.3%	602 28.8%	4.72 (1.09)	3	11.61 < .001 (.25) 60%
3. ‘Experts from external organisations should be brought into schools to provide RSE.’	193 9.2%	131 6.2%	203 9.7%	572 27.3%	572 27.3%	422 20.2%	4.18 (1.49)	4	13.24 < .001 (.29) 62%
4. ‘Teachers should be responsible for providing RSE.’	170 8.1%	191 9.1%	292 14.0%	841 40.2%	459 22.0%	140 6.7%	3.79 (1.29)	5	−31.08 < .001 (−.68) 75%
5. ‘Religious or faith leaders are the most appropriate providers of RSE.’	844 40.3%	394 18.8%	281 13.4%	311 14.9%	185 8.8%	78 3.7%	2.44 (1.53)	6	.116 .907 (.003) 50%
6. ‘Children and adolescents should not be provided with RSE.’	850 40.6%	366 17.5%	364 17.4%	251 12.0%	129 6.1%	133 6.4%	2.45 (1.56)

N = 2093; Comp Group = Comparison Group; CLES = common language effect size. Values in bold indicate statistically significant results.

In terms of the providers of RSE, parents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements outlining various stakeholders’ provision of this education, including individuals both within and external to the school. Referring to Table 3, parents were most likely to suggest that the provision of RSE must involve a number of different stakeholders, including parents, schools, teachers and the students themselves, with 68.8% indicating that they either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with this statement (n = 1438). 12.5% of parents either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the idea that children and adolescents should not be provided with RSE (n = 262).

Paired samples t-tests demonstrated significant differences between the successive means for parental preference for providers of RSE. Most notably, parental endorsement of a ‘number of stakeholders’ was highest, and this was significantly higher than their endorsement of ‘parents’ (with the second highest mean) as the most appropriate providers of RSE. The CLES indicated that, after controlling for individual difference, the likelihood of a parent rating ‘a number of stakeholders’ as higher than ‘parents’ was 53%. No significant difference was found between the two lowest mean levels: parents who felt RSE should not be taught at all and those who felt religious/faith leaders were the most appropriate providers of RSE.

Parental involvement in RSE

Parents were asked about their desire to be involved with their child or adolescent’s learning in school-based RSE (y/n), with approximately 68% of parents responding in the affirmative (n = 1427). Of this group, 84.3% (n = 1203; or 57.4% of the survey cohort) indicated that they would like the opportunity to make sure that certain topics are discussed in the curriculum. A follow-up open text box provided parents with the opportunity to specify which areas of the RSE curriculum they wished to flag for inclusion, with n = 1163 providing a text-based response. Descriptive coding of this item showed that the largest subgroup, covering 40.7% of these responses (n = 463, or 22% of the survey cohort), included reference to gender and/or sexuality diversity-inclusive RSE curriculum content.

In a later open-ended item, n = 551 parents provided examples of topics which would prompt them to remove their child from RSE classes at school. Of this group, n = 168 responses (8% of the survey cohort) specifically named gender diversity, gender fluidity or transgender identities as areas where they would withdraw their child, with n = 103 responses (4.9% of the survey cohort) specifically mentioning same-sex relationships, same-sex attraction or same-sex sexual practices as areas where they would withdraw their child. Another subgroup of responses (n = 67) specifically named content either taught by religious providers or influenced by religious faith; abstinence-only education; and RSE which was not inclusive of gender and sexuality diversity as areas/situations where they would withdraw their child.

RSE curriculum content and stage

Additional items asked parents to comment on their sense of the importance of selected, specific RSE content areas, including items related to family, relationships, biology, reproduction, sexuality and the influence of normative expectations. In an effort to isolate how the overt inclusion of gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive content might alter parents’ sense of the topics’ importance and appropriate stage for inclusion, the same set of RSE content areas were provided to parents again; however, specific reference to gender and sexuality diversity topics was added. For example, an open RSE content area item asked parents about the importance of students learning about ‘different types of families’; this was followed later in the survey by an overtly gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive version of this content, specifying ‘different types of families, including GSD families’. Participants ranked each of these specific 18 RSE content areas in terms of perceived importance, ranging from ‘not important’ to ‘high importance’. Table 4 outlines parents’ responses across content areas.

Table 4. Importance of relationships and sexual health education (RSE) specific content areas

[Open RSE Specific Content Area/ Articulated Gender and Sexuality Diversity-Inclusive RSE Specific Content Area]	Not Important	Low Importance	Moderate Importance	High Importance	M (SD)	Comp Group	t-value p-value (Cohen’s d) CLES
1a. ‘People can get sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as a result of having sex with someone who already has an STI.’ 1b. ‘GSD people can get sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as a result of having sex with someone who already has an STI.’	1.0% 9.7%	3.6% 8.1%	20.7% 23.4%	74.7% 58.8%	3.69 (.59) 3.31 (.98)	1b	18.23 < .001 (.40) 66%
2a. ‘There are ways that people can lower their risk of getting an STI.’ 2b. ‘There are ways that GSD people can lower their risk of getting an STI (e.g., condoms can be used across all relationship types).’	1.8% 10.8%	5.3% 10.1%	21.1% 23.4%	71.8% 55.7%	3.63 (.67) 3.24 (1.02)	2b	18.89 < .001 (.41) 66%
3a. ‘Puberty is a time of physical and emotional change that happens as children grow and mature.’ 3b. ‘During puberty, GSD young people experience physical and emotional changes as they grow and mature (e.g., comfort or discomfort with their bodies).’	0.8% 16.7%	5.3% 11.9%	28.2% 32.7%	65.7% 38.7%	3.59 (.63) 2.93 (1.08)	3b	26.52 < .001 (.58) 72%
4a. ‘Engaging in sexual behaviours comes with responsibilities for your own and your partner’s wellbeing.’ 4b. ‘Engaging in sexual behaviours comes with responsibilities for the wellbeing of GSD people and their partner (e.g., consent is required for all relationship types).’	2.7% 13.6%	5.8% 11.8%	27.6% 24.8%	63.9% 49.8%	3.53 (.73) 3.11 (1.07)	4b	19.44 < .001 (.43) 67%
5a. ‘Reproduction is a process that includes conception, pregnancy, and birth.’ 5b. ‘Reproduction is a process that includes conception, pregnancy, and birth, and this is relevant for GSD young people (e.g., fertility options for same-sex couples).’	1.4% 18.2%	4.7% 13.6%	30.1% 30.5%	63.8% 37.8%	3.56 (.65) 2.88 (1.11)	5b	26.42 < .001 (.58) 72%
6a. ‘There are healthy and unhealthy relationships.’ 6b. ‘There are healthy and unhealthy relationships, including some GSD relationships.’	3.3% 14.4%	7.8% 13.1%	26.8% 29.3%	62.1% 43.3%	3.48 (.78) 3.01 (1.07)	6b	22.19 < .001 (.49) 69%
7a. ‘Modern contraception can help people prevent or plan pregnancy.’ 7b. ‘Modern contraception can help people prevent or plan pregnancy, including for gender diverse people.’	2.8% 13.0%	7.1% 11.2%	28.9% 25.9%	61.1% 49.9%	3.48 (.75) 3.13 (1.06)	7b	16.67 < .001 (.36) 64%
8a. ‘Certain behaviours can be defined as bullying and violence.’ 8b. ‘Certain behaviours towards GSD people can be defined as bullying and violence (e.g., verbally abusing two men holding hands in public).’	3.4% 12.1%	7.7% 11.7%	31.0% 29.5%	58.0% 46.7%	3.44 (.78) 3.11 (1.03)	8b	16.57 < .001 (.36) 64%
9a. ‘Effective communication is needed to express personal needs and sexual limits.’ 9b. ‘Effective communication is needed for GSD young people to express personal needs and sexual limits.’	2.8% 15.5%	8.8% 13.3%	31.0% 28.3%	57.4% 43.0%	3.43 (.77) 2.99 (1.09)	9b	20.42 < .001 (.45) 67%
10a. ‘Body parts have particular names and functions, including the sexual reproductive organs.’ 10b. ‘Lessons about body parts and their functions should be inclusive of gender diverse young people (e.g., a trans young man may still have their period).’	1.4% 22.2%	7.2% 15.1%	34.9% 27.1%	56.5% 35.5%	3.46 (.69) 2.76 (1.16)	10b	26.05 < .001 (.57) 72%
11a. ‘There are myths and facts about sexual behaviours.’ 11b. ‘There are myths and facts about GSD sexual behaviours (e.g., that all gay people are promiscuous).’	8.2% 19.7%	14.5% 17.0%	34.5% 27.0%	42.8% 36.3%	3.12 (.94) 2.80 (1.13)	11b	16.31 < .001 (.36) 64%
12a. ‘There are many different types of families.’ 12b. ‘There are many different types of families, including GSD families (e.g., two gay Dads, a transgender Mum).’	9.7% 19.0%	17.5% 18.2%	33.8% 27.7%	39.0% 35.1%	3.02 (.98) 2.79 (1.12)	12b	13.96 < .001 (.31) 62%
13a. ‘Individuals can challenge stigma and discrimination to promote inclusion and social harmony.’ 13b. ‘Individuals can challenge stigma and discrimination against GSD people to promote inclusion and social harmony.’	8.8% 14.9%	18.6% 17.7%	33.7% 30.3%	38.8% 37.1%	3.03 (.96) 2.90 (1.07)	13b	7.94 < .001 (.17) 57%
14a. ‘Gender roles and peer norms (e.g., a student’s belief that his/her friends approve of and engage in a behaviour) may influence decisions and behaviours related to relationships and sex.’ 14b. ‘Gender roles and peer norms may influence decisions and behaviours related to relationships and sex for GSD people.’	7.6% 16.5%	13.7% 15.1%	43.5% 32.5%	35.2% 35.9%	3.06 (.89) 2.88 (1.07)	14b	10.14 < .001 (.22) 59%
15a. ‘Culture, religion, and society influence our understandings of sexuality.’ 15b. ‘Culture, religion, and society influence our understandings of gender and sexuality diversity.’	7.7% 12.2%	21.6% 21.4%	37.9% 34.8%	32.7% 31.7%	2.96 (.92) 2.86 (1.00)	15b	5.12 < .001 (.11) 55%
16a. ‘People’s sexual attractions may change over time and are not always fixed.’ 16b. ‘GSD people’s sexual attractions may change over time and are not always fixed (e.g., a straight woman identifying as a lesbian later in life).’	13.2% 18.5%	17.4% 18.0%	36.7% 31.1%	32.7% 32.4%	2.89 (1.01) 2.77 (1.09)	16b	7.62 < .001 (.17) 57%
17a. ‘There is a difference between biological sex (identity based on physical characteristics such as a penis or vagina) and gender (a personal sense of how we see ourselves as a man, woman, or neither).’ 17b. ‘There is a difference between biological sex and gender; this is the reality for gender diverse people.’	21.5% 19.4%	16.9% 15.9%	28.3% 28.8%	33.3% 35.9%	2.73 (1.14) 2.81 (1.12)	17b	−4.79 < .001 (−.11) 55%
18a. ‘Romantic relationships can be negatively affected by gender roles (how we are expected to act based on our sex e.g., men should be strong) and gender stereotypes (generalising based on gender e.g., women are better at cooking).’ 18b. ‘Romantic relationships involving GSD people can be negatively affected by gender roles and gender stereotypes (e.g., in a lesbian relationship, the belief that one partner must be more masculine).’	14.1% 20.3%	19.3% 19.1%	35.5% 29.0%	31.1% 31.6%	2.84 (1.02) 2.72 (1.11)	18b	6.26 < .001 (.14) 56%

N = 2093; Comp Group = Comparison Group; CLES = common language effect size. Open RSE specific content areas are not italicised; articulated gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive RSE specific content areas are italicised for ease of distinction. Values in bold indicate statistically significant results.

For the open RSE content areas, parents rated items pertaining to sexual safety and health, reproduction and the prevention of pregnancy as the most important, with more than 85% of participants rating these as either of ‘high-’ or ‘moderate importance’. Content areas covering the socio-cultural elements of RSE, including gender roles, family structures, and the influence of broader cultural norms on sexuality and relationships, though nevertheless ranked as either of ‘high-’ or ‘moderate importance’ by the majority of the cohort, were ranked as less important or not important in larger percentages than others.

Comparatively, the majority of Australian parents rated the specific gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive content as either of ‘high-’ or ‘moderate importance’ (between 60.6% and 82.2%, across all 18 areas). Sexual health, safety and wellbeing were similarly ranked of highest importance overall for gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive content. The largest discrepancies, with greater than a 15% difference in parents rating the content as ‘not important’, were apparent in content areas related to puberty and education about body parts and reproduction, where parents were far less likely to view gender and sexuality diversity-inclusions as important.

Paired samples t-tests showed that parents rated 17 of the gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive specific content areas as significantly less important than parallel content areas where gender and sexuality diversity inclusions were not explicitly named, with one exception. The diversity-inclusive content area 17b ‘There is a difference between biological sex (identity based on physical characteristics such as a penis or vagina) and gender (a personal sense of how we see ourselves as a man, woman, or neither)’ was rated as significantly more important than its standard, non-inclusive counterpart.

Additional items asked parents to indicate the schooling stage (Early Stage 1, Kindergarten/Prep through to Stage 6, Years 11 and 12) where they felt each of six broad content areas should be introduced to students. Parents were provided with an additional response option to indicate their belief that this RSE content area should not be discussed at any stage. As with the previous set of 18 RSE specific content areas, the six broad content areas were shown to parents on two occasions during the online survey: both with and without overt gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive content. As can be seen in Table 5, the majority of parents felt that each of the six broad content areas, across both gender and sexuality diversity-exclusive/inclusive items, should be introduced to students by the end of Stage 4 (Years 7 and 8), with many introduced by the end of primary school.

Table 5. Schooling stage for introducing relationships and sexual health education (RSE) broad content areas

[Open RSE Broad Content Area/ Articulated Gender and Sexuality Diversity-Inclusive RSE Broad Content Area]	Primary/Elementary School				Secondary/High School				M (SD)	N Comp Group	t-value p-value (Cohen’s d) CLES
	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	Never
1a. The human body and its development 1b. The human body and its development for GSD people	13.7% 7.0%	9.5% 5.2%	18.6% 14.5%	30.8% 23.1%	18.1% 17.5%	5.2% 8.3%	2.8% 4.9%	1.4% 19.4%	2.38 (1.48) 3.04 (1.55)	1682 1b	−20.26 < .001 (−.49) 69%
2a. Discrimination/bullying 2b. Discrimination/bullying of GSD people	36.8% 17.9%	21.1% 11.0%	15.1% 12.8%	12.0% 18.1%	7.3% 16.0%	2.4% 6.9%	2.7% 5.6%	2.6% 11.7%	1.38 (1.53) 2.51 (1.81)	1833 2b	−32.68 < .001 (−.76) 78%
3a. Sexual and reproductive health 3b. GSD people’s sexual and reproductive health	2.1% 2.4%	1.2% 2.3%	7.4% 7.2%	25.2% 21.3%	34.6% 26.9%	17.9% 13.4%	8.2% 6.9%	3.5% 19.6%	3.65 (1.22) 3.67 (1.33)	1670 3b	−.92 .36 (−.02) 51%
4a. Relationships and families 4b. GSD relationships and families	25.4% 19.0%	12.1% 9.8%	13.9% 11.8%	18.3% 12.8%	15.1% 15.3%	7.3% 8.8%	3.8% 4.0%	4.1% 18.5%	2.00 (1.73) 2.44 (1.86)	1690 4b	−12.70 < .001 (−.31) 62%
5a. Sexuality and safe sexual behaviour 5b. GSD people’s sexuality and safe sexual behaviour	2.8% 2.7%	2.1% 2.8%	7.7% 7.0%	22.1% 21.2%	35.6% 27.6%	18.0% 12.8%	6.5% 6.4%	5.3% 19.4%	3.60 (1.28) 3.63 (1.34)	1674 5b	−1.31 .19 (−.03) 51%
6a. Understanding gender 6b. Understanding gender diversity	13.9% 10.9%	10.7% 9.6%	15.6% 14.2%	18.6% 16.8%	13.7% 16.3%	5.8% 7.6%	5.5% 5.2%	16.2% 19.5%	2.45 (1.68) 2.68 (1.69)	1626 6b	−7.67 < .001 (−.19) 57%

N = 2093 for frequencies; N for mean comparisons is excluding ‘Never’ category; Comp Group = Comparison Group; CLES = common language effect size; 0 = Early Stage 1 (Kindergarten/Prep); 1 = Stage 1 (Years 1 & 2); 2 = Stage 2 (Years 3 & 4); 3 = Stage 3 (Years 5 & 6); 4 = Stage 4 (Years 7 & 8); 5 = Stage 5 (Years 9 & 10); 6 = Stage 6 (Years 11 & 12); Never = ‘It should not be discussed at any stage’. Open RSE broad content areas are not italicised; articulated gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive RSE broad content areas are italicised for ease of distinction. Values in bold indicate statistically significant results.

Looking specifically at the open RSE broad content areas, very small percentages of parents felt that this material should not be discussed at all (between 1.4 to 4.1%). For general inclusions, the content area ‘Understanding Gender’ appeared to be the most divisive; nevertheless, nearly 84% of parents wanted this discussed, with 72.5% of parents endorsing these discussions by the end of Stage 4. Looking at the gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive broad content descriptors, while over 80% of parents felt that each area should be included in the public school RSE curriculum, paired samples t-tests revealed that parents indicated gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive content areas should be taught at later stages than the equivalent general RSE areas for four of the six broad content areas. Notably, there were no significant differences in the stage at which parents wanted the standard and articulated gender and sexuality diversity inclusive areas of ‘Sexual and Reproductive Health’ and ‘Sexuality and Safe Sexual Behaviour’ taught in the curriculum. Parents were most likely to endorse content inclusion related to discrimination against, and bullying of, gender and sexuality diverse individuals, with 88% of parents advising that this content should be included in the curriculum and, of these, most (59.8%) advising that this content should be introduced to children during primary school.

Gender and sexuality diversity inclusion across the curriculum

Three items asked parents about their attitudes towards the ‘boundaries’ of gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive content; namely, whether this should appear (if at all) within the health and physical education (HPE) curriculum, be incorporated into additional curriculum areas beyond HPE, and/or be included at the whole-school level (Table 6). As shown in Table 6, the majority of participants agreed in part with each statement, with approximately 60% of parents agreeing with gender and sexuality diversity inclusion, either only within HPE (59.8%) or as a whole-school ethos, extending beyond discrete curriculum areas to broader community events and practices (59.1%). Paired samples t-tests revealed that parents were significantly more likely to endorse the inclusion of gender and sexuality diversity at a whole-school level than they were to endorse inclusion within other subjects. The CLES indicated that, after controlling for individual difference, the likelihood of a parent rating ‘whole-school’ inclusion as higher than ‘other subjects’ was 58%.

Table 6. Gender and sexuality diversity inclusion across the curriculum

Item	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Somewhat Agree	Agree	Strongly Agree	M (SD)	Comp Group	t-value p-value (Cohen’s d) CLES
1. ‘GSD content should only be included in the Health and Physical Education curriculum.’	389 19.4%	179 9.0%	237 11.9%	559 27.9%	387 19.4%	251 12.5%	3.56 (1.65)	2	2.25 .05 (.05) 52%
2. “GSD content, including the contributions of GSD people, should be included across other subjects (e.g. English, Art, History.)	499 24.9%	164 8.2%	261 13.0%	443 22.1%	329 16.4%	306 15.3%	3.43 (1.78)	3	−9.05 < .001 (−.20) 58%
3. ‘GSD content should be included at a whole-school level, reflected in school polices, practices, ethos, events, and community.’	471 23.5%	157 7.9%	190 9.5%	420 21.0%	377 18.8%	387 19.3%	3.62 (1.83)	1	.91 .37 (.02) 51%

N = 2002, missing values excluded; Comp Group = Comparison Group; CLES = common language effect size. Values in bold indicate statistically significant results.

Conclusions and implications

A few limitations related to item wording became apparent during the analysis. First, parents were not asked about their confidence in teachers’ capacity to effectively deliver RSE and gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive RSE. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain how many respondents may have been apprehensive about teachers’ ability. It is possible that respondents who disagreed with the statement ‘teachers should be responsible for providing RSE’ disagreed because they had concerns about teachers’ capacity to do this well, rather than because they felt it was not a teacher’s place to provide this content. Likewise, given parents’ polarised responses to the open-ended item which asked which topics would prompt them to remove their child from school-based RSE, it is probable that two distinct participant groups endorsed ‘parents’ as the most appropriate providers of RSE. Both parents who do not support school-based delivery of RSE and those who do support school-based delivery of RSE alike may have chosen this option, with the latter harbouring concerns about a lack of inclusion of particular topics and/or insufficient delivery. Additionally, where parents indicated disagreement with gender and sexuality diversity content only being offered within HPE, while other responses offer clarity as to parents’ positionality, it is unclear from this survey item alone whether this is because they do not think it belongs anywhere at all or because they think it belongs in other places as well.

Multiple items combined content coverage related to either gender and sexuality diversity under the same descriptor: gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive curriculum. This design choice was justified by both a practical (survey brevity) and an empirical rationale. The inclusion of a number of items which articulated gender (as a concept separate from biological sex) and gender diversity as separate topics of study in RSE, evidenced some parents’ particular resistance to this content. Accordingly, further research is warranted to examine how discourses of cisgenderism (Riggs and Bartholomaeus 2018), including perceived threats to children’s binary gender identity (Davy and Cordoba 2020), may be implicated in parents’ attitudes towards relevant curricular content.

The message from the research findings is clear: despite Australian teachers of sexuality education expressing concern about teaching gender and sexuality diversity (Ezer et al. 2020b), the large majority of Australian parents want to see this content included in the government school curriculum. The Australian media deploys the ‘conservative parent argument’ against gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive curricula (McDougall 2015; Smith 2019), despite there previously having been no nationwide, representative research of parents of children attending government schools. Accordingly, these findings constitute a substantial move forward on this issue. Over 80% of parents supported gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive RSE topics across primary and secondary government schooling. Approximately 60% of Australian parents endorsed a whole-school approach to gender and sexuality diversity-inclusivity in government schools.

Looking specifically at the question of discrete inclusions as compared to whole-school approaches, it is noteworthy that 24% of Australian parents ‘strongly disagreed’ with gender and sexuality diversity being included at a whole-school level in government schools. These parents need to be engaged in meaningful ways in order to understand their views and the nature of their disagreement with whole-school approaches to this issue. Although some within this cohort may remain steadfast in their beliefs, the 8% of parents who ‘disagreed’ and, in particular, the 10% of parents who ‘somewhat disagreed’ with whole-school approaches to inclusivity are possibly more open to engaging with school leadership and other stakeholders to explore the practicalities and parameters of whole-school approaches in terms of curricular/policy resources. This finding sits in contrast to findings on parents’ suggested stages for gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive broad content areas, where between 88% and 81% of parents endorsed the inclusion of each of six areas at some stage across primary/secondary school.

Teachers have a duty of care to ensure fair and equitable learning environments for all in their charge, and to enable all students to be fairly represented in and by the curriculum. Gender and sexuality diversity-inclusive content, like all other knowledge areas, requires professionals to have both understanding and confidence for classroom delivery. Research clearly indicates that teachers often do not feel comfortable or equipped to broach gender and sexuality diversity-related issues in the classroom and are wary of parent/community/media surveillance and reprisal if they do so (Bartholomaeus and Riggs 2017; Cumming-Potvin and Martino 2014; Ferfolja 2019; Frohard-Dourlent 2016; Martino, Kassen and Omercajic 2020; Payne and Smith 2014).

This landmark research highlights the need for state/territory and federal Departments of Education and curriculum developers to recognise parental endorsement for gender and sexuality diversity-related inclusions in government schools by reviewing and amending current policies, curricula, support documentation and resources to ensure inclusion of gender and sexuality diversity. In order to achieve this at the school-level, most teachers and pre-service teachers across all key learning areas will require targeted support and training to consider how Australia’s current culture of limitation (Ferfolja and Ullman 2020) with regards to gender and sexuality diversity continues to inhibit inclusion; to heighten their awareness of the negative ramifications of exclusion on their gender and sexuality diverse students and their families; and to appreciate how an inclusive environment can enhance belonging and engagement for all.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project DP180101676). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or Australian Research Council.

Notes

1. Throughout the manuscript, we use the term ‘gender and sexuality diverse/diversity’ in reference to individuals who do not identify as heterosexual and/or cisgender and related, inclusive subject matter. We acknowledge that using the word ‘diverse’ within this context can have the unintended consequence of centring heterosexual and cisgender identities. Nonetheless, we have mindfully employed this term to respect and reflect the growing number of identities beyond lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ); to acknowledge the fluid nature of gender and sexuality; and to include individuals who choose not to label their gender/sexuality identities. We use the acronym GSD as shorthand for the term gender and sexuality diverse (i.e., used when speaking about individuals/families), but not for the term gender and sexuality diversity.

2. The term ‘parent/parents’ is used throughout this paper to encapsulate all carers of children.

3. In the Australian context, subject matter pertaining to gender and sexuality diversity is most often engaged with within the Health and Physical Education curriculum key learning area.

4. See https://www.abs.gov.au/census for comparative 2016 Census data.