Who will teach sexuality education to out-of-school children?

By Filbert Idha Ajax

Last April, a small study commissioned by Reproductive Health Uganda (RHU) was published. The study carried out in Luwero, Iganga and Kampala sought views of Ugandans to get a ‘Ugandan' definition of ‘sexuality education' and its content.

This followed the ban on "comprehensive sexuality education'' by Parliament of Uganda in August 2016 given lack of agreement on values, practices and behaviours that are being promoted by the players in sexuality education. Thankfully, Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Sports (MoESTS) now has proposed a framework to address this dilemma.

Certainly, the content discussion is not over, but the RHU study recommendation was that primary beneficiaries of sexuality education should be youth 10-24 years of age (in or out of school) and adults/married people with ‘insufficient knowledge' on sexuality issues as secondary beneficiaries.

However, the MoESTS framework proposal seeks to guide development of ‘sexuality education' curriculum for Children "as long as they are in the school system". Limiting the target to those in the schooling system will not reduce the prevailing vulnerability of children and youth. This targeting portrays the framework in a bad light - as discriminatory, blind to prevailing reproductive health issues young people face and challenges of access to and retention in school. And these are my reasons.

Firstly, at the prevailing school dropout rate, significant number of Ugandan children will have dropped out of the school system long before they get adequate informational foundation to make responsible, informed and safe sexuality choices. Uganda National Examinations Board figures for those who sat Primary Leaving Examinations against MoESTS enrolment figures at primary 1 in 2006 showed 71% of the children who enrolled in Primary 1 did not sit the exams. Another estimate by a 2012 UNESCO report says nearly 33% of Ugandan children joining primary 1 progress and finish primary 7 within the stipulated period.

Secondly, a significant number of children in some regions of Uganda cannot access school, and so will miss out on intended benefits of a school-bound sexuality education. For instance, UNICEF 2015 report on Situation Analysis of Children in Uganda cites Karamoja as having the lowest enrolment rates in the country at primary level and less than one in 10 secondary-aged children being at school. Worse still, over half of the girls aged 10-19 and nearly 75% of those aged 15-19 are out of school.

Thirdly, 2016 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey report estimates 24% of teenagers in Uganda get pregnant before the age of 18, implying that significant number of pregnant girls dropout of school either permanently or temporarily. Then what happens to these teenage mothers who drop out permanently as far as their need for sexuality education is concerned? The risk of another pregnancy soon after the first one is even higher for this category since they have one of the lowest contraceptive use rates.

Therefore, the proposed sexuality education framework needs to map out all those in need of sexuality education. Even if MoESTS chooses to focus on those in the school system, a comprehensive framework would create avenues for other ministries like Health and Gender to play their part in completing that which MoESTS cannot do for those outside the school system. The truth is, they mingle in every manner possible when in the community!

The school system is not only the best way to reach majority of the children in school but could be the perfect entry point into the community to reach out-of-school children. UNESCO's sexuality education framework recommend using the school to reach out to the community - through health clubs and groups run by school staff, organisations, religious and cultural leaders, parents and local healthcare staff. Ugandan NGOs like RHU have proved the feasibility of this model through Community Youth Centres, which we can build on.

A critical dimension of the school-community linkage is access to youth friendly health services. For instance, repeat pregnancy for a teenager who dropped out of school due to pregnancy is very high. So who attends to such an adolescent? This is where such linkages would help.

In presence of a framework to guide us, we should trust each other because we shall all be teaching from the same guide. We have the chance to reduce youth vulnerabilities by ensuring all of them, in or out of school, to get access to the same useful information

The writer is teacher and population scientist