In September 2025, the Philippine Department of Education announced that it would replace its policy on Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) with a new framework called Reproductive Health Education (RHE). The new policy, which applies to students aged 10–19, repeals previous guidance on CSE and instead aligns education with the country’s Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law. Topics include adolescent development, prevention of discrimination, protection from sexual abuse and gender-based violence, responsible behaviour, teenage pregnancy, rights, and relationships.
At first glance, the change appears minor.
After all, if students are still learning about relationships, rights, health, safety, consent, and wellbeing, does changing the title really matter?
Yet the decision raises a much bigger question: what should we call this area of education, and why do names seem to provoke such strong reactions?
The Evolution of Names
Around the world, this field has been known by many different titles:
- Sex Education
- Sexual Health Education
- Relationships and Sexual Health Education (RSHE)
- Relationships Education
- Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE)
- Health Education
- Reproductive Health Education (RHE)
Each name reflects a slightly different emphasis.
“Sex Education” often focuses attention on sexual activity.
“Relationships Education” shifts the focus towards friendships, families, communication, respect, and consent.
“Health Education” places the learning within a broader wellbeing framework.
“Comprehensive Sexuality Education” attempts to recognise that sexuality is more than sexual behaviour. UNESCO’s guidance includes relationships, values, rights, gender, safety, wellbeing, body development, sexuality, and reproductive health. In theory, sexuality is viewed as a normal part of being human rather than a narrow discussion about sex. However, the term itself can provoke strong reactions.
Is the Problem the Curriculum or the Name?
One interpretation of the Philippine decision is that it reflects growing discomfort with the word “sexuality.”
For many educators, sexuality is an academic term encompassing identity, relationships, feelings, values, rights, attraction, and health. Yet for many parents, the word may be understood very differently.
Ask a parent what they think of “relationships education” and they may picture lessons on friendship, respect, consent, and healthy communication.
Ask the same parent about “sexuality education” and they may immediately think about sexual behaviour.
Whether that interpretation is accurate is almost irrelevant. Perception often shapes public opinion more powerfully than definitions.
The debate raises an uncomfortable question for advocates of comprehensive education:
If parents support the content but object to the terminology, is the name becoming a barrier to the learning itself?
The Shadow of Contemporary Culture Wars
The timing of this shift is also interesting.
Across many countries, public debate about sexuality education has become increasingly linked to discussions about gender identity, transgender rights, sexual orientation, and broader cultural change.
In many cases, concerns about these issues become attached to the phrase “sexuality education” regardless of whether they form a significant part of a curriculum.
The result is that the term itself can become politically charged.
Some policymakers may therefore view terms such as “reproductive health education” or “relationships education” as less controversial and more likely to secure public support. Indeed, supporters of the Philippine change have argued that reproductive health education aligns more closely with the country’s reproductive health legislation and cultural values.
But there is also a potential risk.
When language narrows, does the curriculum narrow with it?
If we focus only on reproductive health, do we unintentionally reduce opportunities to discuss relationships, consent, identity, emotions, digital safety, and the social dimensions of growing up?
Does the Name Matter to Students?
Perhaps the most important question is whether young people care what adults call it.
A fourteen-year-old worried about consent, online exploitation, body image, peer pressure, pornography, relationships, or sexual health is unlikely to be concerned about whether the lesson falls under CSE, RSHE, Health Education, or RHE.
What matters is whether the education is relevant, accurate, inclusive, and delivered by confident educators.
Yet names still matter because they influence what gets taught, who supports it, and whether schools feel able to deliver it.
A title can open doors or close them.
Which Name Is Best?
There may not be a perfect answer.
“Comprehensive Sexuality Education” arguably provides the most academically accurate description of the broad range of topics involved. Yet, it could also be the most publicly sensitive, particularly when the term “sexuality” carries different meanings and emotional responses for different audiences.
“Relationships and Sexual Health Education” offers a more explicit and accessible framing. It clearly foregrounds relationships, which are often more acceptable and less contentious in public discourse, while also maintaining a focus on health and wellbeing.
“Reproductive Health Education” may be politically acceptable in contexts where discussions about sexuality are contested. However, excludes clear indication that healthy relationships are also being taught.
“Health Education” may attract the least resistance but risks becoming so broad that important relationship and sexuality topics become diluted.
Sometimes a name is a curriculum decision.
Sometimes it is a political decision.
And sometimes it is a communication strategy designed to secure the support needed for the curriculum to exist at all.
The Philippines’ shift from CSE to RHE reminds us that debates about sexuality education are rarely just about content. They are often debates about language, values, trust, and who gets to decide how young people learn about some of the most important aspects of their lives.
At Choice and Consent, this distinction has been deliberate. The decision to use Relationships and Sexual Health Education reflects an intention to prioritise clarity, accessibility, and trust with parents and communities, while still addressing the full breadth of learning young people need.
Questions for Reflection
What should matter more: accuracy, political acceptability, or public understanding?
Would parents be more supportive of the same curriculum if it had a different name?
Is “sexuality” an educational term that has become politically difficult to use?
Can changing terminology improve community buy-in without changing educational outcomes?
Does a narrower title risk narrowing the curriculum itself?
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/09/04/2470327/reproductive-health-education-set-grades-5-12