Indiana's Sex Ed Policy Turns Heads
Should the topic of consent be included in sex ed?
It’s been quite the whirlwind out of Indianapolis as Indiana’s 2025 legislative session comes to a close this month. Arguments over property tax relief, school choice, and the state’s budget have taken center-stage.
Over the last week, however, issues surrounding Indiana’s sex education policy boiled over when Republican Senator Gary Byrne suggested that teaching the topic of consent should be removed from any form of sex education in the state. I’m referring to Senate Bill 442, which set out to make sex ed more transparent by requiring that materials be posted online, and controlled by the government closest to those teaching sex ed: school boards. The amendment to ban teaching on consent drew immediate criticism from Democrats, so much so that Byrne removed the said amendment.
The back and forth highlighted a contentious topic in our socially conservative state. The question legislators must be asking themselves is: Whose role is it to teach kids about sexual health, and which level of government should formulate sex ed?
I became interested in this question after attending a research exhibition earlier this month hosted by IU Columbus students. One such study benchmarked Indiana’s current sex ed policies with three other states, and offered improvements to our current model.
Titled “Improving Sexual Education Policy in Indiana: A Research-Based Advocacy Approach,” the project’s student researcher, LaShawnda Kirk, and faculty mentor, Dr. Stephanie Serriere, highlighted that Indiana’s current sex ed policy “falls under the “No Mandate, No Medical Accuracy” (NMN) category.” This means that Indiana state law “does not require schools to teach sex education, nor does it mandate that instruction provided be medically accurate.” When sex ed is implemented by school districts, according to Kirk, the most common model followed is “limited or abstinence-focused education.”
Kirk argues that Indiana should implement “comprehensive, medically accurate, and mandated (CMAM) sex education.” Kirk points to Indiana’s elevated teen pregnancy and STI rates when compared to Colorado, Michigan, and Alabama. According to Kirk’s research, Indiana scored the lowest when ranked on overall knowledge of sexual health when compared to those states. In three concise recommendations, Kirk believes Indiana should “Mandate sex education statewide,” “Require medical accuracy,” and “Adopt a comprehensive curriculum.”
Now, my thoughts.
I have very little recollection of my own sex education growing up in BCSC schools. All I can really remember is that the boys and girls were separated in 4th grade one afternoon to watch a video on puberty on the good ol’ TV-on-wheels. Later in my academic career, sex education was revisited in 8th & 9th grade health class. It was cringy and uncomfortable, yes, but I believe necessary. I roll my eyes looking back on my sex ed experience, but the reality is nothing to sneeze at. There are teens in Indiana that grow up thinking that the only way to get pregnant is when a man and a woman love each other very much; or that HIV is a gay disease — and I think that’s unacceptable. That is not how I would raise my children.
On the other side of the coin, parents should have some level of control over what content is taught to their children in school — especially when it comes to the issue of sex education. Parents should absolutely know what is being taught to their children. That’s why it’s so important that Indiana maintain its opt-out status in sex ed. Some parents may find that having the birds & the bees conversation is best had at home. I do not believe that “mandating” one sex ed curriculum throughout the state will meet the needs of every child nor satisfy every parent.
Now, I would have to imagine that part of the calculus behind SB442 is Indiana’s social conservatism and the ongoing national culture war. There are many parents in Indiana that find conversations with their children about sex and sexual health from their teachers to be inappropriate. Those views should be respected, not demonized by state legislators and advocates.
That’s why SB442’s motives are so important. What SB442 set out to do, making sex ed more transparent and controlled by school boards, makes sense. Additional language that was added to require the viewing of an ultrasound video of human development is also a step toward “medical accuracy.”
I think attempting to remove the topic of consent from sex education was a mistake.
Conversations on sex ed are uncomfortable and ultimately divisive. I commend state lawmakers for attempting to provide transparency in sex ed curriculum throughout the state through SB442. If you don’t like the way sex ed is conducted in your community, speak up during a school board meeting. If that doesn’t work, vote for someone different.