Impact of School Climate on the Implementation Quality of Sexuality Education in Mongolian High Schools

• In Event: Examining Inclusion, School Climate, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Decolonial Perspectives

Proposal

Although often regarded as a secondary subject, sexuality education plays a crucial role in fostering a healthy, safe, inclusive, and just society. Sexuality is a complex, multi-dimensional aspect of human life (WHO, 2006a), and learning about it is part of children’s rights to education (Convention on the Rights of Children), as sexual rights are human rights. Ample research shows that sexuality education has positive impacts on the development of young people. While many countries have policies and curricula to support sexuality education programs, the definition of comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) varies by region, and its coverage and implementation are often not comprehensive (UNESCO, 2015; UNESCO, 2023). Scholars have called for more research on effective implementation, particularly in the context of developing countries, where the whole school approach is recognized as an important factor. However, there has been limited attention to how school climate influences the quality of sexuality education implementation.

This study explores the impact of school climate on the implementation of sexuality education in high schools in Mongolia, a developing country where adolescents can particularly benefit from high-quality sexuality education. Challenges faced by adolescents, such as bullying, teenage pregnancies, self-harm, and high suicide rates, can be effectively addressed through quality sexuality education delivered using the whole school approach. However, the effectiveness of this approach hinges on the presence of a positive school climate. Therefore, this study poses the following research questions: 1) How does school climate affect the quality of sexuality education implementation? 2) Which domain(s) within the school climate have the most significant influence?

Theoretical Framework

To explain how school climate influences sexuality education implementation, this study draws on the systems approach (Senge, 1990). The systems theory framework, commonly used to address complex problems across various fields (Arnold & Wade, 2015), emphasizes the interconnectedness of elements within a system. In the context of schools, the implementation of sexuality education is influenced by multiple levels, including the classroom (nano level), school climate and structure (microsystem), interactions between school, community, and family (mesosystem), broader socio-cultural and educational systems (macrosystem), and trends over time (chronosystem).

Methodology

This research employed a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design, beginning with a quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase to elaborate on the quantitative findings. The quantitative data included surveys on school climate and sexuality education implementation from students at six high schools in Mongolia. Schools were selected from the city center (middle-class students), the ger district (areas with limited access to clean water and electricity), and borderline schools located between the city center and ger district. SPSS was used to analyze the quantitative data.

The qualitative phase consisted of focus group interviews with students from each school group, aiming to deepen the understanding of how school climate influences sexuality education implementation. Thematic reflexive analysis was employed to produce themes connecting school climate and sexuality education.

Findings

The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences in school climate across the three groups of schools (Table 1). The city center schools scored significantly higher on dimensions such as school connectedness, teacher support, rule clarity, peer connectedness, and school environment. In contrast, the borderline group had the lowest scores across most dimensions. Interestingly, the Ger district and borderline schools showed similarly low scores in peer connectedness and rule clarity. One outlier, a school in the city center, scored significantly higher across all dimensions of school climate. However, environmental and teacher-student relationship domains were low across all schools.

The Kruskal-Wallis test also showed significant differences in sexuality education implementation quality across the three school groups (Table 2). In some components, borderline and ger district schools outperformed others. Qualitative analysis revealed which aspects of school climate were critical for students' well-being and engagement in sexuality education. Students highlighted the importance of relationships and the school environment on their well-being. Regarding sexuality education, they reported that they want to know more about sexuality, engage their parents, and improve the learning environment. Additionally, online platforms were identified as significant in peer relationships, but also as spaces for cyberbullying, with schools lacking control over this issue. Students reported confusion due to conflicting messages they encounter online, indicating a need for clearer guidance on critical thinking regarding online information.

Conclusion

The most important school climate domains affecting the implementation of sexuality education are relationships, teacher competence, school size, and leadership. This study contributes to the understanding of how school climate shapes the implementation of sexuality education in the lesser-known cultural context of Mongolia, highlighting students as the primary stakeholders.

Author

• Oyundelger Enkhtur, Osaka University