Approaches, legislation, and statistics

The World Health Organization (OMS, 2018) states that affective-sexual education (ASE) is “a central aspect of being human that is present throughout life. It encompasses sex, gender identities and roles, sexual orientation, eroticism, pleasure, intimacy, and reproduction” (p. 3, own translation). In this regard, the theoretical framework that has been developed around the concept of ASE is based on scientific evidence and aims to provide socio-educational attention to sexualities, considering a perspective of sexual diversity (^{Calvo-González, 2021b}). This issue, which is also addressed by the 2030 Agenda, is reflected in two Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that emphasize universal access to sexual health (Goal 5) and the need for equitable and inclusive affective-sexual education (Goal 4).

As shown in Table 1, prior to the enactment of the Ley Orgánica para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa [Organic Law for the Improvement of Educational Quality] n. 8 (LOMCE) (2013), ASE was not addressed in any previous legal provisions. The fact is evident in the findings of the National Study on sexuality and contraception in Spanish youth (Sociedad Española de Contracepción [Spanish Contraception Society] [SEC], 2019) and the study conducted by the Liga Española de La Educación [Spanish League of Education] (LEE) in 2020.

The National Study on Sexuality and Contraception in Spanish Youth (SEC, 2019) highlights the alarming current situation. In a study involving 1,200 young people aged 25 to 26, it was found that the majority of them sought information about sexuality on the internet and forums (45.5%). Other findings indicated that some participants had not engaged in sexual relationships due to fear and insecurity (15%), while others reported experiencing forced sexual encounters and even considered the morning-after pill as a regular contraceptive method (0.7%).

In accordance with these findings, a study conducted by the LEE in collaboration with the Ministry of Health (2020) surveyed 1,500 young people between the ages of 14 and 22. The study revealed that 14% of participants had attended informative talks, 21% believed that women have less desire for sex than men, 19% considered penetration as the defining factor of a sexual relationship, and 18% believed that men always experience more pleasure. Additionally, the study found that young people preferred discussing sexuality with their friends.

Families, affective-sexual education, and schools

Families are the primary agents of socialization and promoters of social relationships (^{De León, 2011}; ^{Parodi et al., 2019}). The family, along with the internet and television, serves as the main source of information for students regarding sexuality (^{Bortolozzi et al., 2020}). Therefore, educational approaches should consider the shared responsibility between families and educational institutions (^{Gubbins, 2012}) as a key factor.

In this regard, we share the perspective of ^{Parodi et al. (2019}) that ^{Epstein’s proposal (2001}, 2007) contributes to improving the active participation of families by a) promoting dialogue between families, schools, and the community, b) facilitating family involvement, and c) encouraging family decision-making and its impact on the school context. This model has also served as a catalyst for authors like ^{De León (2011}) to propose new ways of improving the relationship between families and schools, advocating a) raising awareness among teachers about their role in engaging fa- milies, and b) breaking the notion of family intrusion.

Notably, the works of ^{Epstein (2001}, 2007), Epstein et al. (2019), and ^{Blasco (2018}) highlight the positive impact that family involvement has on student motivation, academic achievements, adaptation, and problem-solving. Furthermore, research studies such as those conducted by ^{Romagnoli and Gallardo (2010}) and ^{Valenzuela Miralles and Sales Ciges (2016}) demonstrate how family participation promotes positive self-esteem, reduces school absenteeism, improves grades and relationships inside and outside the classroom, collaboration, tolerance, and respect for diversity.

Despite the benefits that family involvement has on students’ development and learning, research by ^{Parodi et al. (2019}) and ^{Valenzuela Miralles and Sales Ciges (2016}) indicates that families perceive their participation as limited due to work schedules and the challenges of work-life balance. Collaboration between families and educational institutions becomes more complex when addressing affective-sexual education. In this regard, different educational models - moral, risk-based, revolutionary, biographical, and professional - (López, 2005) considering diverse sensitivities and perspectives have been proposed. Families may not fully grasp the importance of sexuality education, which suggests that any intervention that fails to consider the contributions of both contexts is likely to be unsuccessful (^{Orcasita-Pineda et al., 2018}). Cooperation between families and schools would foster greater trust between students and their families (LEE, 2020).

Method and focus

The research is grounded within the critical paradigm (^{Grundy, 1987}), and for this purpose, we have employed a mixed methodology with a strong qualitative orientation (^{Sandín-Esteban, 2003}). The main objective is to explore the perspectives and positions held by pre-service teachers from the University of Malaga (Master’s in Secondary Education and 1st-year students of Early Childhood Education) and families with school-aged children regarding ASE.

The data analysis

To analyze the information provided in the questionnaires, we utilized the IBM SPSS V.22 software. Subsequently, for the transcribed data from the focus group discussions, we used the qualitative analysis software Atlas.ti, version 9, to perform the process of inductive axial coding (^{Gibbs, 2012}) (Figure 1). The information obtained from the questionnaires and focus group discussions was identified with the letters C and GD, respectively. Additionally, the codes PM and DF were used to differentiate the participation of parents and teachers in training, and within the DF group, the initials MP were used to identify students from the Master’s in Teaching program and GI for those in the Bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood Education. The analysis revealed two polarized perspectives. On one hand, in the PM focus group, families expressed their support for participating in ASE. However, in the DF focus group (MP-GI), both the support and opposition to family involvement in ASE were observed.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Figure 1 Inductive thematic categories 

The analysis reveals two general categories: 1) Points of convergence and agreement from the perspective of education, and 2) Detected needs and divergences in the family-school relationship and in approaches to addressing ASE.

Results and analysis

Following the chronological process of the research development, we present in Table 3 the descriptive results of the questionnaire [Phase 4]. The findings demonstrate the significance that families attribute to ASE and how the teacher trainees positively value the involvement of families in ASE education.

Points of convergence and agreement

Both families and trainee teachers agree that there is a need to improve family training in ASE. In this regard, some teachers indicate that - families should have information from qualified individuals regarding the topic - (C-DF-GI. F13:4, 55:55), because - most of the time families have a great lack of knowledge about these topics (C-DF-GI. F12:4, 55:50) -, as they believe that families are not adequately trained in ASE. Families confirm their lack of knowledge in ASE by stating that - it is a complicated issue, and I must say that the training I have regarding this topic is what I have learned through searching or from my own experience (GD-PM F13:5, 43-43) -, and - I think when they are in the last year of primary school is a good age, but I’m not sure if I will know how to address this topic with my children when the time comes (C-PM F10:3, 23-22).

All participants acknowledge the complexity of the matter and recognize that they need to be trained by professionals, as they believe that social situations, terms, socio-affective relationships, group behavior, and individual behavior have changed over time. Therefore, both groups require guidance and specialized training to address ASE.

We need to educate ourselves to understand issues that are challenging for us due to a lack of knowledge about topics such as gender, transgender, homosexuality, sex, etc., in order to help and respond to our children. (GD-PM, F24:12, 12:9).

We need to educate ourselves because there are things that escape me when I talk to my child. Moreover, it’s not like in our time when what was seen in books was enough; they need more because times change. (GD, PM, F22:10, 8:10).

It is important for families to participate, but we must be clear about which concepts and ideas should be conveyed. Not everything is acceptable or valid just because they see it that way. (GD-DF-GI, F14:3, 26-22).

Currently, I don’t feel capable of providing education in ASE to students or families. We should receive more specific training because it’s not the same working on this with young children as it is with older ones. (GD-DF-MP, F4:2, 13:5).

Both groups agree on the importance of receiving training in ASE to acquire knowledge that enables them to use information, concepts, and terms that meet the needs and concerns of the students they work with, and that are appropriate for their developmental level. This helps to avoid contradictions, the use of derogatory or xenophobic terms, and dogmatic, personal, or subjective comments. As the participants indicate, training in ASE within school settings is a valued option.

If possible, parents should participate in the training provided to teachers and be educated to address this topic at home. (GD-MP, F22:4, 20:20).

Parents have the right to know what is being taught to our children, and what better way to get involved in their education than by attending these beneficial training sessions for everyone. (GD-PM, F14:2, 23:23).

In particular, a portion of the teacher trainees believe that family training alone is not enough. They suggest that for it to be effective, coordination between educational institutions and families should be improved in order to address the same topics from different perspectives and unify the message being conveyed, as ASE is a shared responsibility.

If we want students to understand the importance of this topic, close family members and the surrounding environment must correspond with a similar message. To achieve this impact, coordination is necessary. (GD-DF-MP, F18:5, 17:17).

Families should be part of this training by sharing their knowledge and experience. It would also be very beneficial for both students and the institution, as well as the teaching staff in general, to discuss the same ideas. (GD-DF-MP, F10:2, 16:15).

As evidenced, families and teachers emphasize the importance of training and the participation, involvement, and collaboration of both groups as key factors in improving ASE for primary and secondary school students. In this regard, Figure 2 highlights terms such as “knowledge”, “family”, “information”, “more”, or “should”, which allude to the topic of training and increasing families’ knowledge in ASE.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Figure 2 Word cloud of the category points of convergence and agreement 

Detected needs or divergences of training

The complexity of addressing ASE from a shared perspective is evident in the discourses of the teacher training participants, as some of them are opposed to the involvement of families. They argue that the lack of training among families is a key reason for ASE to be exclusively addressed within educational institutions. Thus, these teachers display an inflexible and power-oriented discourse and stance towards families.

We, or rather qualified individuals, should be the ones participating in this. Families, I believe, can confuse things even more. (C-DF-MP, F58:58, 14:12).

Many families are not prepared or interested in addressing these topics, so it’s better to work on them directly from the school. (C-DF-MP, F28:7, 8:8).

I’m not sure if families should also be familiar with the content being taught or not. Many families lack the training to address these topics and provide confidence to their children. (GD-DF-MP, F36:3, 17:17).

Similarly, some teacher training participants believe that allowing families to partici- pate in their children’s ASE could be detrimental. They argue that it is better to exclusively address ASE within educational institutions because families may convey contradictory and subjective messages.

I doubt that families will be able to provide the necessary approach to address this freely and without taboos. It’s better to leave this task to educational institutions. (GD-DF-GI, F36:8, 17:17).

Their [families’] conversations at home will likely discuss other things using language that aligns with their own way of thinking and understanding sexual education, sending messages contrary to what is taught in school. (GD-DF-MP, F31:4, 20:10).

On the other hand, some families express a traditional discourse, believing that ASE should be addressed from both the school and the family perspectives. They argue that certain topics and content should be addressed by families.

We [families] should teach all of this alongside the school. There are topics that I believe will be difficult to explain in the same way in class, so it’s better for each side to handle their own part. (GD-PM, F34:4, 12:12).

I don’t understand why we need to merge perspectives because the school should not interfere with how I educate my children about sexuality. (GD-PM, F25:25, 1:3).

When teacher training participants were asked about the relationship between families and schools in contributing to ASE, many expressed an attitude and discourse opposing the participation and collaboration of families in joint activities or workshops in educational institutions, and for that reason they indicate:

I doubt I would call parents to come and participate. It could lead to trouble, with parents saying this or that... If it’s not mentioned anywhere, I don’t think I would do it. (GD-DF-MP, F41:2, 14:14).

I wouldn’t feel comfortable if some parents started expressing different opinions and sharing things that are different from what we [teachers] intend. They are not prepared for that, and I also think it would undermine the respect of the class. (GD-DF-MP, F24:2, 10:10).

In the schools I have been to, no one has mentioned that we should involve families when addressing these topics. Besides, these topics are rarely discussed, and no one has brought in family members. I’m not sure if it’s mentioned anywhere. (GD-DF-MP, F31:6, 13:13).

As evident from the findings, many families and teachers, especially those in teacher training programs of the Teaching master’s Degree, hold perspectives that are opposed to collaborative approaches and unified positions and terminology in addressing ASE. Both perspectives express the divergences and discrepancies surrounding such a complex and controversial topic as ESD for primary and secondary education students (Figure 3).

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Figure 3 Word cloud of the category detected Needs or Divergences of training 

Discussion and conclusions

Based on the evidence presented, there are both convergences and divergences regarding how pre-service teachers and parents perceive and approach ASE. Both groups agree on the need for improved training in ASE for both families and teachers. However, there are differing opinions on who should take responsibility for ASE and how it should be addressed.

Regarding the first dimension, and as evidenced by other research, it is observed that pre-service teachers demonstrate limited knowledge in ASE due to a lack of initial university training (Martínez et al., 2013). Similarly, the work conducted by Martínez et al. (2011) indicates the scarcity of continuing education programs in ASE, factors that largely contribute to either the omission of ASE in educational institutions due to lack of teacher training or the integration of ASE with subjective teaching discourses. Furthermore, ASE training should align with specific curricular elements, as the few ASE-related topics covered in educational institutions have historically focused on moralistic and biologistic perspectives through subjects such as Religion and Biology (^{Calvo-González, 2021a}; ^{Martínez-Martin & Bejarano-Franco, 2021}; ^{Mañas Olmo & González Alba, 2022}) or through cross-cutting elements like Health Education, Peace Education, or Gender Equality (^{Garzón-Fernández, 2016}). It is noteworthy that families express their limitations in addressing ESE with their children and demand training from professionals. The limited ESE training for families is a reality also highlighted in studies conducted by ^{Shin et al. (2019}) and ^{Jin (2011}).

The divergence arises when discussing who should be responsible for ASE. While a majority of participants believe that parents should be responsible for sexual education, there is also a lack of trust between schools and families. This may be due to discomfort or embarrassment that parents experience in discussing these topics outside the family environment (^{Lee & Kweon, 2013}). Recognizing the need for training in this area is crucial for creating openness, overcoming fears and prejudices, and building trust between families, educational institutions, and children (^{Jerman & Constantine, 2010}; ^{Jin, 2011}).

ASE is influenced by factors such as school culture, country ideology, morality, and religion, it is also acknowledged in scholarly literature that comprehensive sexual education is a collaborative and constructive process that necessitates the involvement of both educational institutions and families (^{Movilla-Ricaurte, 2022}). However, it is a constructive process that should involve both schools and families. Many families and teachers adhere to a moralistic view of sexual education (^{Fallas-Vargas et al., 2012}), which is associated with different approaches to ASE, such as the moral model, the risk model, the revolutionary model, and the biographical and professional model (López, 2005). The latter model emphasizes information, critical attitudes, and the joint participation of families, students, school counselors, and teachers across all educational stages.

In conclusion, both pre-service teachers and families recognize the importance of training in ASE for their respective roles. It is important to reflect on these findings and consider several final dimensions.

ASE is a topic that has received limited research due to its complexity and controversy. On one hand, it is an important aspect of students’ education. On the other hand, there are differing opinions on what, when, how, and by whom it should be addressed. Therefore, further research is needed to explore the knowledge and perspectives of the educational community in order to develop a school project that takes into account their differences and provides evidence-based training. Although this study has some limitations, its results indicate the need to reconsider certain aspects and encourage other researchers to expand this field of study.