Fields and Payne (2016) draw on ‘place’ as the material construct of the school itself, in a tangible respect of visibility. It is within certain places, such as schools, that meaning is constructed by learners and their actions; thus, ‘schools become schooling’ and ultimately become ‘actions’ rather than just a place within a certain location. In conjunction with the need to curb risks of unsafe sexual practices, it is important to acknowledge the importance of changing core values and destructive gender norms within classroom spaces (Cobbett-Ondiek 2016), and thus not to place sole focus on changing places as prime focuses of intervention. A contextual approach to such an understanding is needed as teaching about sex and sexuality is not limited to the classroom as a place of learning, but also towards the outside place of the school setting and community as a whole (Haberland & Rogow 2015; Mthatyana & Vincent 2015 Thus,). Thus, DePalma and Francis (2014) argue the need for intercultural dialogues to enter school spaces as a means to establish critical sexuality education that engages multiple levels of the learners’ contexts and consequently a multi-stakeholder approach thereto.

However, school spaces often neutralise gender and sexuality, desexualising learners, and in turn create perceptions of retaining learner innocence through silencing the topic of sex and sexuality (Shefer & Ngabaza 2015). Vavrus (2009) reflects on the argument that school spaces are dictated by social norms, which is to the disadvantage of teaching the content aimed at national policy benchmarks. Sociological order and normative discourses have established the dichotomy of ‘male’ and ‘female’ as the culturally accepted norm by which masculinity and femininity are compared, learnt and subsequently acted upon (DePalma 2013).

Educational spaces are salient spaces of socialised gender expectations and gender-specific triggers. This is visible in the division of single-sex-based schools and mixed-gender schools (Swanepoel & Beyers 2015), each carrying specific challenges and norms by which school ethos is realised. Gender and sexuality serve as strong regulators of how power manifests and is exerted within educational spaces (Carrera, DePalma & Lameiras 2012), especially at secondary schooling level, with the onset of adolescent puberty and sexual exploration and experimentation. However, sexuality and gender already manifest as strong socialised structures in primary school spaces, which are often overlooked and mistakenly classified as spaces where sex and gender evade the need for teaching, mistakenly classifying primary schools a zones of sexual comfort, innocence and adult-based exclusivity of knowledge (DePalma & Janette 2010).

Drawing extensively on the emotional underpinning of teacher discomfort, Reygan and Francis (2015) refer to heteronormative attitudes within which sexuality pedagogies are situated. Francis (2016) further echoes the work of Beyers (2013) in the discomfort of teachers in responding to, or acknowledging, these relations of hegemonic control in the classroom by either complete silence surrounding sexuality or by playing it ‘safe’ as a means to eliminate emotional triggers and stay within safe socially accepted spaces of gender and sexuality when teaching about what is healthy sexual behaviour (Beyers 2013). It is clear that, whether explicitly or implicitly, teachers approach sexuality, frustration and fear with messages which often manifest situational knowledge within spaces that promote the marginalisation of sexuality and gender.

There is an urgent need to gain understanding as to how educators utilise schools and classrooms as spaces of social change during sexuality education (Cobbett-Ondiek 2016). This study aims to understand how schools within the same contextual space of the Free State province manifest and mediate sexuality education. As schools are contextually different, it is understandable that there will be contextual factors which differentiate different schools in their approach to sexuality education. The main question guiding this study is thus: how do schools, at a systemic level, mediate sexuality education in relation to space, place and culture?

The underpinning for this article’s theoretical framework arises from the work of systemic thinking, more specifically cybernetics from a first- and second-order perspective. Banathy and Jenlink (2003) draw on cybernetics in the self-regulator manner in which systems manifest and sustain order at structural level. More specifically, systems are continuously influenced by feedback processes and the manner in which systems subsequently respond thereto and regulate themselves as a means to maintain structural integrity and homeostasis. At first-order level, emphasis is not on the meaning of such feedback, or noise, and subjectivity thereto is thus not relevant. Focus is placed on the ‘what’ counterpart of how systemic structure is maintained, as opposed to ‘why’ the components of the system behave as they do. Through a first-order cybernetic perspective, the patterns that underlie systemic structure are investigated, and the patterns of interactions are explored, which subsequently create rules and boundaries (Becvar & Becver 2012). This theoretical perspective is valuable from a first-order perspective in understanding what components of sociopolitical space and geographical place influence schools’ systemic boundaries. It is furthermore useful to establish and investigate boundaries and interactional feedback patterns within schools and community systems that underlie sexuality education within unique contexts.

However, Hoffman (1985) argued against the control exercised through acting as mere observer of a system and explaining interactional patterns without considering the role of the self within the system, and in turn the influence of the self as a stakeholder and researcher within the process as well. For this reason, the qualitative research investigation of this study will further be underpinned by the perspective of the researcher as a part of the systemic interaction and not merely an ‘objective’ observer (Heylighen & Joslyn 2001), with reflexivity and feedback also being incorporated at systemic level of the narratives. The researcher will thus co-construct narratives with participants and will form an integral part in constructing data that are contextual to the realities of the participants’ contexts and the manner in which the researcher, as both a participant in narrative construction and as an observer, understands and explains the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of sexuality education within specific settings. The use of both these theoretical underpinnings provides the researcher the opportunity to first, through a literature analysis, establish the core stakeholders and components of sexuality education in South Africa. A broad view can be gained about how the South African system is structured and what current feedback processes and disruptions to the systems have been found to influence sexuality education. While the aforementioned use of first-order cybernetics can account for the system in such a way that the use of second-order cybernetics provides the researcher with the opportunity to become a part of the system, and thus be immersed into the context where semi-structured interviews and conversation with participants become the focus. During this process, the researcher may gain a broad systemic view of sexuality education while also gaining a deeper, more contextualised, point of view.

A total of 12 stakeholders within the primary context of education and schools were purposively sampled. Non-probability sampling was utilised, and schools were specifically chosen on the contextual differences underlying them, as well as the culturally diverse places (Blanche et al. 2006). As such, schools were sampled and approached for gatekeeper consent (the principal being the primary gatekeeper), and permission was then granted to conduct research within the school at managerial level and teacher levels. While eight schools were initially approached as a means to provide an equal distribution between rural and urban schools, only six of the schools consented to participate. Participants are thus spread through the sampled schools. The total number of participants (n = 12) are thus spread across urban (8) and rural (4) schools. The demographics of the participants are as follows (see Table 1): eight were males and six were females, seven participants were Life Orientation teachers, while the remainder of the participants subsumed managerial roles within the school at various levels (n = 6).

Data gathering was done through semi-structured interviews with participants. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 min. The study primarily comprised individual interviews; however, because of time constraints, schools 1 and 6 requested a focus group interview. The researcher assisted in creating a dialogue within which the participants provided contextual information regarding their perceptions and experiences of sexuality education. Knowledge is, from a contextual and qualitative approach, a co-constructed concept. As such, the first-order cybernetics primarily informed the desktop review of literature and aspects within the results and discussion section through looking at the ‘what’ counterpart of systemic patterns. However, at a second-order cybernetic level, the researcher was active in the construction of knowledge, and as such stimulated the debate as a means to better understand the contexts the participants face in relation to sexuality education (Becvar & Becvar 2012; Blanche et al. 2006). There is thus a complimentary manner in which the researcher stimulates the information and probes from various sides, and the subsequent analysis to determine patterns and themes that emerge. This study was accordingly guided through Tesch’s (1992) method of data analysis. Interviews were transcribed and similar patterns were identified and coded. Certain themes emerged from these codes, with this article specifically focusing on the theme of space, place and culture. While the data were viewed in their entirety at the end of data collection and transcription, it is important to note that the data analysis was already initiated during the interviews, providing the researcher with the opportunity to better stimulate contextual factors and patterns that emerged during the other interviews. What about the focus groups for schools 1 and 6?

Through the data analysis, it became clear from participant narratives that the space provided from the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) for Life Orientation bids either to closed or too open boundaries during the teaching of Life Orientation and its counterpart of sexuality education. Participant 4 illustrated the boundary of time and the curriculum as a closed boundary to optimal sexuality education in her school, as reflected through the below narrative:

She then further elaborates on the manner in which this closed boundary leads to learner attitudes, further restricting the space within which sexuality education is taught:

Participant 5 (female, urban school demographic) also reflected on the limitations of the CAPS, as seen through the following narrative between them and the researcher:

Participant 5 reflects a narrative of critical reflection as to the limited space of content of the CAPS and the boundaries thereto within which teachers teach sexuality education. Her narrative reflects the manner in which the, often too open, space teachers have to interpret content can lead to open or closed boundaries depending on the teachers’ perspectives of content relevance and personal choice. Research into sexuality education and its implementation within South African spaces has shown that emphasis is largely placed on the physical aspect of sexuality, thus placing importance on aspects such as HIV and AIDS, condom usage and abstinence versus safe sex practices. This emphasis deflects from the overall aim of holistic development in limiting the space within which sexuality education is mediated to not include aspects of sensuality, pleasure and the emotional underpinnings of relationships and sexual practices (Francis 2010).

The boundaries which mediate the type of sexuality education that teachers deliver, as deduced from the narrative extracts of participants, are twofold. Firstly, the personal backgrounds of teachers implicate the manner in which content is interpreted and presented, and secondly, the aspect of school place and location further plays a critical role therein. It is again evident from the following extracts and discussion that sexuality education in South Africa is highly entrenched in the sociopolitical climate, which is contextuality-based. What is important through the discussion hereof, especially from a cybernetic perspective, is the manner in which teachers are not solely responsible and accountable for what content is taught. The CAPS thus provides contextual space to accommodate the sociopolitical climates of different schools and takes into account the needs of different spaces and places depending on province and overall geographical location in accordance with other schools. There is thus a space within which the teacher can provide and interpret different messages to learners, depending on their own personal beliefs and experiences (Francis 2017), or ideally can tailor messages relevant to learners’ backgrounds.

The teacher is merely one counterpart in a larger system, encompassing not only the curriculum, but he or she is also placed within a space where the larger suprasystem of place and culture comes into being, playing equally mediating roles. The role of culture and teacher background knowledge, for example, is drawn upon by participants 9 and 10. This lack of background knowledge often leads to misinformed teaching, causing teachers to draw on information which is not applicable to the needs of the learners (Swanepoel et al. 2017). This is seen through the following narratives:

In analysing the system within a ‘what’ first-order cybernetic perspective, the first level of the system, which dictates the space within which sexuality education is taught, accounts for the personal background of the educator, specifically religion:

While participant 10 takes on a very direct approach of abstinence because of Christian beliefs, participant 6 (female, urban school demographic) illustrates a more contextual approach that accommodates diversity of views and religion. This once again links with the manner in which the CAPS opens space for debate and critical conversation, or as in the previous participant’s narrative, a space for the personal interpretation in how sexuality content is addressed at practical level within the classroom:

Participants 6 and 10 are situated within the same school; however, both reflect different manners of approaching sexuality education from the vantage point of their own backgrounds and culture. Probing further into how participant 10 teaches from the positioning of a perspective based on abstinence only, it becomes evident that the broader community and system are directly linked to the manner in which educators approach subjects during classroom practice, as well as the perception of educators as to their spatial movement and freedom to mediate content freely. Consider, for instance, the below narrative in which the educator reflects on spatial limitations to her approaching sexuality education to include community level boundaries, specifically the geographical context between urban and rural spaces, as well as parental level boundaries that mediate the space within which her content is positioned:

The above narrative from participant 6 in an urban setting is confirmed by the narrative between participant 8 (male, rural school demographic) and the researcher, a school principal within a rural setting in the Free State province. The below narrative reflects how the positioning of sexuality education is specific to the setting where the school is located, thus creating specific contextual boundaries to the type of content and approach to teaching that is undertaken during Life Orientation:

Participant 6 earlier referred to the informed nature of the learners within her class, stipulating that the education at the school where she teaches will differ from that in townships and rural settings. Through a second-order cybernetic perspective, and adopting a ‘why’ lens, I question whether learners in different settings are truly more or less informed in comparison, and whether the information and relevance thereof are rather different and contextually applicable. This once again indicates that knowledge is contextual, and that schools are contextually different in both place and space, thus forming different boundaries to sexuality education. However, all schools fall under the broader boundaries of the Free State and South Africa as a whole. This is clear from the narrative between participant 4 (male, rural school demographic) and the researcher, specifically stating that there are geographical boundaries to the teaching of sexuality education:

Culture once again becomes evident as a strong mediator as to how sexuality education is introduced within the classroom. The above narrative had convinced me to further probe into how gender differences of teachers may cause limitations to sexuality education. Participant 9 (female, rural school demographic) articulated this to the researcher when asked about how the initiation culture influences her classroom practice. It is also important to note that a new stakeholder is introduced, namely, the community leader; this is a specific strategy employed by the school within a rural area. This lends validity to how different systems manifest and sustain sexuality education, and in turn that teachers are merely one of a myriad of stakeholders in the process. This was valuable in understanding how boys react to a female teacher teaching about sex and sexuality after they have undergone initiation, as well as their response to a female teacher:

These narratives are indicative of the need to expand the space within which sexuality education takes place. It is therefore needed to not isolate the process to the classroom itself, but to involve stakeholders, such as parents and intuitions, in the process in order to allow for successful teachings to manifest. The dominant discourse of the teachers within rural areas emphasised the need to include the community and external sources. It is interesting to note from the following narrative that an urban school managerial team sustains the system internally, and that the school has a multi-stakeholder account of the dynamics within the school itself:

Participant 10, a school principal within an urban context, also draws on the limitations of the teacher in teaching sexuality education. The participant reflects on broadening the space within which sexuality education is taught, encompassing community-based interventions to bridge the gaps of the teachers’ limited knowledge:

I, however, question the approach undertaken by the school in separating boys and girls. The principal reflects on the limitations of the teacher in approaching a mixed class of boys and girls, and thus to intervene with programmes that create separate spaces where male and female learners are educated. This itself creates little space for learners to converse and learn about differences, and further dichotomises gender as only being male or female. I challenge this method of separation, in line with Francis (2017), in that schools are often places of gender categorisation, thus suggesting that gender diversity beyond the spectrum of male and female falls silent (Swanepoel & Beyers 2015).

The contextual manner of different schools also becomes clear through the following narratives. While I have argued the difference in sexuality education between different schools, it becomes evident that the contextual space of the province also plays an important role. Consider, for example, how participants 9 and 10 reflect on the contextual differences related to provinces:

Participant 6 referred to her previous teaching experience, drawing on how the differences in contexts mediate her teachings. She compares the type of teachings in Johannesburg to her current context of the Free State:

From the above narratives and discussion, it becomes clear that the context of schools largely influences how sexuality education manifests and ultimately how the teacher responds to both the curriculum and learners. This context is shaped by the geographical underpinning of the school, which in turn reflects individual challenges, within the school and outside, specifically reminiscent of cybernetics and how the schools system is constantly responding to community-based input, as well as wider scale influences, such as the sociopolitical and historical influences from the province and the country as a whole. Each school, whether within the same province or same country, will be uniquely situated within a context that elicits different challenges with different systems responding thereto with different boundaries and reactions which either influence new information to enter the system or cause rejection thereof to retain systemic integrity.