Stereotypes, Stigma, and Silence: How New York Fails Students on Sex Ed

Introduction

Imagine two New York students. The first student attends a school where they receive comprehensive sex education that teaches medically accurate information, helps them build healthy relationships, and supports their understanding of who they are. The second student attends a school where their sex education class is barebones, using a homemade curriculum riddled with misinformation, internet memes, and inappropriate anecdotes – like a list of famous people who contracted sexually transmitted infections.

The second student leaves the class with the vague feeling that sex education is a joke. Without access to medically accurate information in school, they turn to Reddit and ChatGPT to try to teach themselves what they need to know.

The vast difference in these students’ experiences is a result of a patchwork approach to sex ed in New York, where what young people learn depends almost entirely on where they live. Our state does not require schools to teach comprehensive sex education and – as a result – the quality and content of instruction vary dramatically. Some students do not receive sex ed at all.

Back in 2012, the NYCLU published “Birds Bees and Bias: How Absent Sex Ed Standards Fail New York’s Students.” That report reviewed sex ed materials used across New York during the 2009-2010 and 2010-11 school years. We found lessons with widespread inaccuracies about reproductive anatomy and basic human functions, harmful gender stereotypes, and shame-based messages around sex and sexuality.

More than a decade later, too little has changed.

This report examined the 2023-2024 curriculum from 50 school districts in New York State, representing urban, suburban, and rural communities. We assigned each district an A-F grade based on their coverage of essential topics, the accuracy of the information provided to students, and the presence of bias or stigma.

Our analysis found:

Bad Science

18 districts (more than a third in our sample) used curricula that include medically inaccurate or misleading information, including materials dating back as far as the 1990’s. Of these districts, 44 percent used curricula that was medically inaccurate.

Gaps in Coverage

Lessons about or including LGBTQ+ people, prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), contraception, and abortion care were often missing.

• 14 districts (more than a quarter of districts we reviewed) omitted topics essential to a comprehensive sexual health education curriculum.
• Another 15 districts (30 percent) mentioned these topics but failed to do so accurately or with sufficient inclusiveness or depth.

Silence on the Topic of Consent

17 districts (34 percent) either failed to teach lessons on consent or presented the topic problematically.

• Among these 17 districts, more than half (58 percent) either lacked curriculum on healthy relationships, dating violence, or sexual assault or presented them in a harmful and misleading way.

Abstinence-Only Messaging

Despite decades of data proving its ineffectiveness, many districts still used abstinence-only or abstinence-focused curriculum.

• 20 percent of all districts reviewed had a strict abstinence-only approach and did not provide additional information on sexual health topics.
• 29 districts (58 percent) had curriculum with abstinence as a central focus, with information that would be included in a comprehensive sexual health curriculum either absent or lacking.
• In districts where additional topics were covered, there was a significant push towards abstinence as the “most effective” option, as was the case with 94 percent of districts in our review.

Bias and Stigma

Language around teen parenting, abortion, and STIs was often infused with shame and judgment.

• 14 districts (28 percent) ignored, misrepresented, or omitted any discussion or materials about STI prevention and treatment. All of these districts had abstinence as the central component of their curriculum.
• 32 districts (64 percent) omitted or ignored any mention of abortion. Three districts used materials created by anti-abortion organizations in classrooms.
• Less than two-thirds of districts discussed teen pregnancy. 11 of these 30 districts included materials stereotyping teen parents as low-income, single parents (often mothers) with emotional stress who rely on public assistance.

LGBTQ+ Erasure

Districts often excluded or marginalized anyone who was not cisgender and straight.

• 22 districts (44 percent of districts) shared curriculum that explicitly excludes LGBTQ+ individuals and their experiences.
• 12 districts that did mention LGBTQ+ individuals failed to provide meaningfully inclusive curricula, meaning students are left out of valuable – even life-saving – information.

Why Sex Ed Matters

Sexual health education impacts the decisions young people make about their bodies and their lives, ideally arming them with the tools and skills to keep themselves safe and healthy.

Our report comes at a time when President Trump and political leaders across the country are working hard to undermine the rights of LGBTQ+ people, restrict access to reproductive health care, and promote a narrow, regressive vision of gender, sexuality, and family life. At the same time, the Epstein files, the #MeToo movement, and increased allegations of campus sexual assault have made it clear that young people need every tool possible to protect their bodily autonomy.

In 2024, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, or SIECUS, gave New York State’s Health Curricula a D-. This puts New York behind most other states in the review. New York has fallen decades behind without medically accurate and age-appropriate health curricula, and our students are paying the price.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, New York State ranks 10th in the nation for rates of chlamydia, 7th for gonorrhea, and 25th for syphilis, with chlamydia and gonorrhea rates continuing to rise each year. Young people aged 15-24 consistently have the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections. Similarly, communities already facing systemic barriers, including Black women and LGBTQ+ people, are disproportionately impacted and have the highest rates of STI transmission.

In the 2021 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 22.8 percent of young people reported being sexually active in New York (excluding New York City). Of those young people, 37 percent did not use a condom during their most recent sexual intercourse, and 13 percent did not use any form of birth control.

Gaps in sexual health education have even more serious implications for student safety. In the same survey, 14 percent of New York students who identified as female said someone forced them to have sexual intercourse, and 19 percent reported experiencing sexual violence more broadly. Decades of research demonstrates that consistent, accurate, and comprehensive health curricula improve attitudes towards others, increase knowledge around sexual decision-making, and reduce the incidence of sexual violence and dating violence among young people.

LGBTQ+ students report some of the highest rates of bullying and harassment, leading to negative impacts on their mental health and their feelings of connection and safety at school. When introduced in early grades, comprehensive, age-appropriate health education has been shown to improve attitudes towards LGBTQ+ students, reduce bullying and harassment rooted in traditional gender norms, and foster a stronger school culture of inclusion and respect.

By choosing not to require comprehensive health education, New York leaders are failing our students – especially those who have already experienced violence or are at greater risk of violence. Every day, New York schools are denying students the tools they need to protect their health, safety, and well-being.

Key Findings

1. Gaps in Coverage

Across many districts, sex education instruction lacked the necessary information to ensure students’ understanding of their relationships, bodies, and how to stay safe. Instead of providing a comprehensive curriculum, districts often omitted essential topics or presented them with no real depth, leaving students without the means to make informed choices. These gaps impacted not only the overall quality of education but also student wellbeing.

• 13 districts (26 percent) provided general overview documents, such as syllabi and instructional guides for sexual health education courses, without context regarding their classroom implementation. Assuming all items in these curriculum materials were taught and no others were added, only two of these 13 districts would have adequate content coverage. For example:
  • One district (Central Valley at Ilion Mohawk) only provided us with a list of books in their library about sexual health topics, including a Berenstain Bears book about pregnancy.
  • One district (Greater Amsterdam) provided only an outdated instructional guide and a scan of biology textbooks.
• 29 districts (58 percent) failed to provide adequate content coverage in their sexual health education curriculum, or to cover topics with the necessary depth, accuracy, or inclusivity – if not omitting them entirely.

Basic Anatomy

Four districts (Central Valley at Ilion-Mohawk, Elmira, Greater Amsterdam, and Syracuse) did not seem to cover even basic anatomy and reproduction in their sexual health curriculum.  It’s possible these topics were covered in health or other science classes, but omitting them from sex ed matters because students lose essential information about how their bodies work. Basic anatomy and reproduction are a foundational part of sex education and students can’t fully understand topics like puberty, consent, or sexual health without this baseline. Ultimately, failing to teach basic anatomy and reproduction limits students’ ability to make informed decisions and stay safe.

HIV/STIs

New York State requires all schools to provide HIV/AIDS instruction as part of their health education curriculum. Despite this mandate, the materials provided by districts showed that there is no guarantee that students would receive accurate or comprehensive information about HIV or other STIS.

• 14 districts (28 percent) in our study completely ignored or misrepresented STI prevention.
  • Example: The only information Akron sent us about HIV/AIDS was in the form of four WebMD articles and graphics that dismiss the severity of the topic. One included a flowchart discussing the “spreading of AIDS.”

Sex education curriculum that does not fully cover core topics such as healthy relationships, HIV/STIs, and consent undermines student wellbeing. Without clear, age-appropriate instruction, students are left to navigate boundaries and make decisions about their bodies and their relationships using potentially inaccurate information from their peers or the digital world. Gaps in knowledge can also perpetuate shame and stigma, discouraging students from asking questions or seeking support. Comprehensive sex education creates an environment of open communication, empathy, and respect. When critical lessons are missing, it can directly compromise students’ emotional, mental, physical, and social safety, which weakens the overall school climate.

2. Medical Inaccuracies

Many districts relied on materials that were outdated, medically inaccurate, or misleading. This undermines the purpose of health education. Students who receive incorrect sexual health information from sources they trust, like teachers, are at greater risk of harm and are less prepared to identify trustworthy sources of information. We found that misleading information often coexisted with stigmatizing curriculum, which creates an environment that promotes harmful messaging, fails to include current science, and often excludes LGBTQ+ students.

• 14 districts (28 percent) provided sexual health education materials that were largely misleading, outdated, and inaccurate.
• Six districts (12 percent) provided outdated information about HIV/AIDS, in violation of state law: Akron, Baldwinsville, Cairo, Greater Amsterdam, Ticonderoga, and Sewanhaka.
• Greater Amsterdam sent us an instructional guidebook from 1995.
• Sewanhaka sent us materials that contained HIV/AIDS statistics from 2002.
• When we wrote our 2012 report, Cairo provided a worksheet that had medical misinformation about HIV transmission. The district sent the exact same worksheet once again following our 2024 FOIL request.
• Eight districts (16 percent) provided a sexual health curriculum that was largely misleading and contained outdated information: Cairo-Durham, Central Valley, Greater Amsterdam, Madrid-Waddington, Poughkeepsie, Syracuse, Wells, and Yorkshire Pioneer.
• These eight districts excluded topics essential to a comprehensive sexual health education or failed to discuss topics with necessary depth, accuracy, or inclusivity. For example, all these districts excluded discussion of LGBTQ+ people.
• All but one of these eight districts used curriculum that was abstinence-focused or provided abstinence-only sex education.

Having incomplete or – worse – inaccurate information about contraception, pregnancy, STIs, or anatomy leaves students with misunderstandings that can put their health and safety at risk. Bad information can also reinforce myths that contribute to shame and discrimination, fracturing the trust that students have in their educators and schools.

3. Inadequate Information on Consent

Many districts ineffectively addressed consent, healthy relationships, and boundaries. Some curricula only provided surface level lessons about consent, while others omitted the topic entirely or framed it problematically. Frequently, materials failed to provide in-depth, age-appropriate discussion of affirmative consent, boundaries, and respect. This lack of comprehensive instruction hinders students’ ability to recognize dangerous behavior, develop respectful relationships, and communicate personal boundaries.

• 16 districts (32 percent) omitted discussion of consent in any curriculum materials provided.
• 10 districts (20 percent) submitted curriculum which mentioned consent briefly but failed to provide the depth necessary for meaningful discussion or presented consent in a problematic way.
• 12 districts (24 percent) omitted any discussion of healthy relationships, sexual assault, or dating violence, or presented these topics problematically: Central Valley, Greater Amsterdam, Lansingburgh, Longwood, Poughkeepsie, Schenectady, Sewanhaka, Shenendehowa, Springville-Griffith, Syracuse, Waterloo, and Wells.
• For example, one of Smithtown’s presentations included a slide titled “Behavioral Clues of a Potential Rapist,” which listed such “clues” as a history of family violence, a fascination with weapons, and putting down partner/friends. Although the slide listed behavioral traits that may signal unsafe or controlling behavior, it invited stereotyping and false accusations. It failed to provide any meaningful skills to get away from a dangerous person, and it lacked nuance, trauma-informed language, and context around consent and healthy relationships.

Without instruction on consent, respect, and boundaries, schools leave students without the tools they need to navigate relationships safely. Without these tools, young people are less likely to understand other people’s boundaries, have healthy communication skills, or recognize coercive or abusive behavior. When educators treat consent as an afterthought or present the topic in outdated ways, it undermines efforts to prevent relationship violence or sexual harassment and assault.

While some districts omitted discussion of consent or presented the topic in problematic ways, other districts did a much better job of incorporating consent and related issues into their curricula.

• 24 districts (48 percent) provided adequate or excellent curricula regarding healthy/unhealthy relationships, sexual assault, and dating violence.
• These districts were more likely to provide medically-accurate information on a wide range of topic areas.

4. LGBTQ+ Students are Often Excluded

Curricula in many districts relied heavily on a heteronormative framework, leaving LGBTQ+ students unacknowledged or excluded. Frequently, materials from these districts offered only a superficial inclusion of gender/sexual diversity in lessons on relationships, health, or development. This narrow framing (often no more than a few definitions) limits students’ understanding of diverse experiences and identities and can reinforce stigma.

Heteronormative Instruction:

• Nearly 70 percent of materials provided omitted any mention of transgender and gender nonconforming identities.
• Two districts provided documents that used the outdated and derogatory terms “transsexual” and “transvestite.”
• Only six districts (12 percent) explicitly used terms for discrimination against LGBTQ+ people such as transphobia, homophobia, and heterosexism.
• Just four districts used curricula in their sexual health education courses that went into depth about transgender identity and presented an accurate definition.
  • But these four districts also presented a cisnormative definition of gender identity, where the experiences of cisgender individuals (those whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth) were presented as the “default” or “norm.” Transgender and nonbinary children and teens may already be grappling with harassment, discrimination, bullying, and isolation, so materials like this can be especially stigmatizing.
• 34 districts (68 percent) provided materials that only briefly mentioned LGBTQ+ people in their sexual health curriculum or excluded them entirely.
• 23 districts (46 percent) used cis, heteronormative language to refer to “male” and “female” sexual health and only referred to heterosexual relationships.
• 16 districts (32 percent) were generally inclusive of LGBTQ+ people, with only minor gaps in their materials.
• 11 districts (22 percent) had a strong curriculum surrounding gender identity, gender expression, and other related topics.

A sex education curriculum that marginalizes LGBTQ+ students fails to meet those students’ fundamental health and educational needs. This exclusion reinforces discrimination and creates an environment in which students may not feel comfortable asking questions or seeking help. Exclusion impacts all students by pushing a narrow view of family structures, human development, and relationships. Students lose opportunities to learn about the diversity of people they will encounter in their schools and beyond.

5. Abstinence-Only Still Exists

In New York, abstinence-focused and abstinence-only education remained common in quite a few districts. While students should learn that they can choose abstinence, districts that presented it as the only moral or safe option dismissed and stigmatized other harm prevention strategies, like condoms and contraception. The exclusion or distortion of essential sexual health information limits students’ ability to make fully informed decisions.

Importantly, studies have consistently shown that abstinence-only curricula fail to delay sex among teens or reduce risk behavior.

• 47 districts (94 percent) presented abstinence as the “most effective” option, pressured students to commit to abstinence and even centered it in their curriculum.
• 29 districts (58 percent) had curriculum centering abstinence, with little to no discussion of topics necessary in a comprehensive sexual health education.
• 15 of these 29 districts entirely omitted or taught misinformation about STI treatment, prevention, and testing.
• Seven of these 29 districts provided curriculum that was largely medically inaccurate or outdated.

Abstinence Only

• 10 districts (20 percent) provided a strict abstinence-only approach to sexual health education, with little to no mention of contraception or STI prevention: Baldwinsville, Bayshore, Central Valley, Evans Bryant, Olean, Poughkeepsie, Syracuse, Waterloo, Wells, and Yorkshire Pioneer.
• 80 percent of these 10 districts completely ignored or presented misinformation regarding STI prevention, treatment, and testing: Baldwinsville, Bayshore, Central Valley, Poughkeepsie, Syracuse, Waterloo, Wells, and Yorkshire Pioneer.
• 90 percent of these districts did not teach about contraceptive use.

Abstinence-Focused

• 19 districts (38 percent of all districts reviewed) had a curriculum that was predominately abstinence-focused but included some limited information on other sexual health topics.
• Six of these districts ignored or presented false information about STI prevention, treatment, and testing.

Abstinence as One Option

• Only three districts (six percent) provided a comprehensive sexual health curriculum discussing abstinence as one option among many. All of these districts provided adequate or excellent curriculum regarding STI prevention and consent.

Districts that center abstinence as the sole option – downplaying or omitting evidence-based information on STI prevention, healthy relationships, and contraception – limit students’ ability to make informed decisions. As a result, students may face sexual situations without complete knowledge, placing them at increased risk for unintended outcomes and harm. These curricula spread misinformation, weaken autonomy, and fail to provide the full range of tools necessary for long-term safety and health.

The Future of Sex Ed

New York Students Deserve Comprehensive Sex Ed

The disparities documented across these 50 school districts are the result of a policy vacuum New York should have already fixed. At a time when STI rates among young people continue to rise, when sexual violence remains a pervasive issue, and when LGBTQ+ youth face disproportionate levels of bullying and harassment, the need for accurate, inclusive, and comprehensive health education has never been more urgent. The disparities uncovered in this report showed that relying on districts’ discretion produces inequities. Without statewide standards, students’ access to essential health information depends entirely on where they live, leaving many young people unprepared to navigate their relationships, bodies, and identities.

While many districts fell short of providing comprehensive, accurate, and inclusive sex education, our review also revealed meaningful bright spots that demonstrate what is possible when schools commit to providing this essential instruction. Nearly half of the districts we reviewed provided concrete lessons on healthy and unhealthy relationships, dating violence, and sexual assault, giving students concrete skills to navigate boundaries, communicate consent, and recognize unsafe behavior. A smaller but significant group of districts also offered strong instruction that included and affirmed LGBTQ+ people. These districts moved beyond superficial definitions and instead provided thoughtful, developmentally appropriate lessons that acknowledged the diversity of students’ identities and experiences.

At the same time, New York City’s sex education curriculum illustrated both progress and persistent challenges. NYC has become more structured and inclusive in recent years, with clearer guidance and updated evidence-based materials. The city has strengthened LGBTQ+ inclusion through dedicated training and supplemental lessons, added more explicit content on identity and healthy relationships, and standardized annual HIV instruction across all grades. However, significant gaps in implementation remained.

These examples show that comprehensive sex education is not only achievable but also already happening in classrooms across New York. The successes of these districts offer a roadmap for statewide improvement and demonstrate the positive impact that accurate, inclusive, and age‑appropriate instruction can have.

For decades, New York lawmakers have introduced bills to require comprehensive sex education and never acted on them. New York must require comprehensive sex education that gives students the tools they need as they head into young adulthood. Students who receive this education feel represented in the classroom, better prepared for sexual health situations they may encounter, more comfortable with who they are, and better accepted by their peers. It is time to end New York’s patchwork system for good.

About the Data

Methodology

The primary aim of our review was to assess whether sexual health education materials from the selected districts met the criteria of the National Sex Education Standards. The National Sex Education Standards outline what students should learn about topics like puberty, consent, relationships, and sexual health. They include clear benchmarks for each grade level, using a developmentally appropriate, medically accurate framework. These standards were created by leading health and education organizations, including Advocates for Youth and SIECUS: Sex Ed for Change, to give schools a clear, research-grounded roadmap so young people can receive the knowledge they need to make healthy, informed decisions.

District Selection and Enrollment

We sent Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests to 50 districts, requesting sexual health curricula and materials for students in grades K-12. We selected a diverse sample of districts, paying particular attention to regional location and district size (defined as number of students enrolled according to available data from the most recent school year). All the districts in our study contained at least one high school and served both general education and special education students.

This analysis cannot be utilized to make inferences about other school districts in New York or similar districts nationwide. Rather, this study evaluated district‑provided materials against National Sex Education Standards to identify gaps in instruction and highlight the potential consequences those gaps create for students’ safety, wellbeing, and access to accurate information.

Using 2023-2024 school year data from the New York State Department of Education (NYSED) and New York City Public Schools, the total student enrollment for all districts in our sample was 1,179,921 students, roughly 49 percent of statewide public-school enrollment for that year. In terms of enrollment, the smallest district in our study is Wells Central School District, with 125 enrolled students, while the largest is New York City Public Schools, with 938,189 students.

Because of their huge impact on New York’s student body, our sample included the five largest school districts in the state: New York City Public Schools¹, Syracuse City School District, Buffalo Public Schools, Yonkers City School District, and Rochester City School District.

Analysis

All 50 districts provided documents in response to our FOIL requests.

The amount of information districts chose to send us varied. Some districts provided only a handful of documents while others sent hundreds of pages. We deemed the received materials responsive to our request if they included content related to sexual health education. Documents that were unrelated, such as math worksheets, were deemed non-responsive to our requests and omitted from our review.

Additionally, some districts chose to send us district and board policies related to student health and well-being, as well as copies of federal and state research studies and educational guidance. We omitted those materials from our analysis as our review focused on curriculum intended to educate students and guide classroom discussion on sexual health education topics.

We analyzed each document based on a 28-point grading rubric developed using the National Health Education Standards. Each document received was assessed on a 1-4-point scale for seven key components of comprehensive sexual health education:

1. Content Coverage: Covered essential topics such as anatomy, reproduction, STIs, contraception, consent, and relationships. Included LGBTQ+ people.
2. Medical Accuracy: Information provided was factual, science-based, and free of misleading claims.
3. Inclusivity and Equity: Represented diverse perspectives, including LGBTQ+ students, different cultural views, and the full spectrum of gender identities.
4. Consent: Taught students about bodily autonomy, boundaries, and affirmative consent and communication.
5. Healthy Relationships: Educated students about healthy vs. unhealthy relationships.
6. Abstinence Versus Comprehensive Approach: Balanced abstinence education with comprehensive information on contraception use and safe-sex practices.
7. Harm Reduction & STI Prevention: Provided clear guidance on STIs, protection methods, and harm reduction.

If a district received a score of one or two in a category, that meant it failed to adequately meet the required criteria outlined by the National Sex Education Standards for that content area. Likewise, if a district scored three or four in a category, it met or exceeded that criteria.

It is our hope that this study inspires readers to learn more about sexual health education in their own district and identify which guidance and standards (if any) are utilized in curriculum development. We encourage others to replicate this study in the assessment of sexual health education curriculum materials in other districts and to conduct a future evaluation of districts we reviewed.

Limitations

Materials included in our analysis were limited to those which we were able to obtain under the Freedom of Information Law. We were unable to measure whether these materials were actively implemented in classroom discussions or the extent of their use.

Our study also proceeded under the assumption that if a topic in our rubric was omitted in materials provided by a district, said topic was not taught. But it may be the case that districts did not send these materials for other reasons such as clerical error, or a topic may be taught through means other than written materials (e.g. lecture not listed on a syllabus). We were not aware of any district informing us of such situations.

Likewise, in terms of examining content coverage, districts that sent only general overviews of their sexual health curriculum materials were assessed under the assumption that they taught the materials they listed.

We did not analyze videos and movies shown in sexual health courses, though we did note titles and descriptions of any videos referenced in the materials.

Many districts also provided presentations and other materials from guest speakers on topics related to sexual health education. The inclusion of guest educators was a limitation in our review because their presentations were not part of a district’s formal, written curriculum and may vary widely between classrooms or school years. There was nothing wrong with districts relying on these speakers and organizations to fill gaps, but without consistent documentation, we were unable to determine how often they are used, what content they cover, or whether the information aligns with national standards. This made it difficult to evaluate guest presentations with the same rigor as official curriculum materials, but we included them in our assessment as we did not wish to diminish their contributions.

Many districts provided supplemental materials originating from external sources, such as nonprofits and websites of varying credibility. We included these documents in our analysis if they provided information on sexual health education topics, and assumed these materials were included in curriculum.

Some materials indicated the intended grades and courses for the specific material, and we noted this information in our findings. We applied the standards based on the age and grade noted. However, many of these materials did not include this information, which limited our ability to apply grade-level specific standards. As such, we reviewed these materials using a broad application of the standards as they are specified in our rubric.

Because we only requested district‑level curriculum and not the materials used inside individual schools and classrooms, we could not guarantee that every class was represented here. Teachers might have supplemented district curricula, while some might have skipped it altogether. We could not evaluate the consistency or quality of instruction within districts.

Finally, we requested materials used in schools for the time range covering the 2017-2018 school year through the 2023-2024 school year (when we sent the requests). While some materials were timestamped as falling within these school years, others were dated decades in the past, and some were undated. We assumed that these materials were used in the classroom between 2017 and 2024. We were unable to assess with certainty whether these materials were currently used. Readers are encouraged to follow up with your individual school district to learn more.

1. Following the publication of Birds, Bees, and Bias in 2012, New York City Public Schools implemented a sex education mandate for all public middle and high schools, with citywide instruction beginning early that same year. Prior to the implementation of this law, the principal of each school decided whether their school would provide sexual health education.In the 2012 report, we omitted New York City Public Schools from our analysis to maintain consistency in our comparison scope, which examined school districts as opposed to individual schools. More than a decade has passed since the implementation of this citywide mandate, and we are pleased to include a review of sexual health education materials taught at New York City Public Schools in this study, beginning with the 2017-2018 school year.