“You have to be a bit of a rogue teacher” – A qualitative study of sex educators in Metro Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comprehensive sex education (CSE) is evidence-based, addresses a wide variety of topics, and is inclusive of sexual and gender minority (SGM) experiences. However, teachers are often not trained to deliver CSE and are uncomfortable teaching it. This can lead to the omission of important topics and leave youth dissatisfied with their sex education. Thus, more research is needed to understand educator needs/approaches when delivering sex education and how educators incorporate SGM-affirming content. We conducted fifteen interviews with sex educators in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), Canada, in autumn 2021, to understand current approaches to and gaps in the provision of CSE. We used an interpretive descriptive methodology. Personal and structural factors constrain the delivery of CSE in BC. Personal factors include motivation, teacher comfort/knowledge, personal trauma, and fear of pushback. Structural factors include inequitable access to parent advisory council funding, Learning Standards design, and the peripheral nature of sex education. Participant recommendations for the future of sex education include increased mandatory pre-service and in-service training, the implementation of “sex education mentors” in each district, an online hub of resources, and government funding for community-based educators. We recommend (1) that government funding be allocated for at least one trained sex educator in every school district who can coach and mentor teachers; (2) the creation and promotion of an online information hub which includes lesson plans, videos, and resources for teachers; (3) and that teachers’ colleges create mandatory courses on teaching CSE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".