|
Changing the Course of Sex Education
"Abstinence-only policy isn’t working, and America has the chance to adopt a policy that does."
By Carey Jones
Whatever our standards for public schools, we can surely reach a consensus on what they should not do. No school should use curricula that have been proven ineffective; withhold critical information from students; value ideology over hard facts; encourage risky behavior; actively alienate some groups; or constrain the future opportunities of its students. Americans would tolerate none of this in the public educational system.
Except, apparently, when sex education is involved.
Every year the federal government spends 50 million tax dollars funding abstinence-only sex education programs-- despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that such programs, simply put, do not work.
All federally-funded programs must have as their “exclusive purpose” teaching the benefits of abstinence— meaning that contraception may not be presented in the classroom as a responsible choice. More than half of all teens are sexually active, and those who do not use protection stand a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within one year. Yet teachers in federally funded programs are not permitted to discuss the protection contraceptives can offer, or to instruct students in their use. In fact, the only mention of condoms in the classroom is in terms of their failure rates.
Abstinence-only advocates say that bringing contraception into the classroom encourages teenagers to be sexually active. But repeated studies have shown that comprehensive sex education, teaching about both abstinence and contraception, can actually delay teenage sex and increase condom use among sexually active teens. Abstinence-only education has done neither. In fact, teens in abstinence-only programs are significantly less likely to use contraception than their peers.
Sex education policy varies widely between and even within states, but since 1996, 49 states have applied for some amount of federal abstinence-only money- that is every state but California, which seems to be firm in its commitment to comprehensive sex education. The result? California's teen birthrate has dropped more than any other state’s: nearly 40%, compared with a national average of 23%. While a number of variables affect birth rates, their correlations with state policy are striking. Not one of the 15 states with the largest birthrate declines prohibits teaching about contraception, while all five states with the smallest birthrate declines do.
Abstinence-only education is all the more troubling in that it tends to be implemented in those states with the worst teen parenting crises. Of the nine states with the highest teen birth rates in 1995, eight chose a strict abstinence-only policy. Was their “just-say-no” message successful? Hardly. Eight years later, these states still had eight of the nine highest teen birthrates in the nation, falling 25% percent less than the national average.
Abstinence-only policy isn’t working, and America has the chance to adopt a policy that does.
The Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act, currently in both houses of Congress, would provide federal funding for comprehensive sex education programs equal to that of current abstinence-only funding.
Comprehensive programs do stress the benefits of abstinence, as they should—abstinence is the most effective way to avoid pregnancy and STD transmission. But concurrently teaching about contraception empowers sexually active teens to protect themselves. Promoting discussion about healthy sexual decision-making allows students to explore their values and, armed with credible information, come to responsible decisions about sex. Comprehensive curricula are scientifically based, relate to the circumstances of all students, reduce risky behavior, and ultimately promote safe teenage sexuality.
We have already seen the consequences of unsafe sex. The crisis of teen parenting in America undermines the opportunity of two generations to succeed—the mother, who is highly likely to drop out of school once pregnant, and the child, disadvantaged simply in being born to an often unprepared, unwed, financially unstable mother. An unplanned pregnancy will drastically alter a teenage girl’s life course and greatly inhibit her chances of success. Yet, in many areas, she is not being given the sex education that could help her avoid being in such a scenario.
We can give her back that chance. Through promoting and giving federal backing to comprehensive programs, the REAL Act would finally begin to implement effective sex education across America, take concrete measures to reduce teen pregnancy and thereby preserve the opportunities of millions of teenagers to go on and achieve the American Dream.
California has already learned the benefits of comprehensive sex education. It's time for the rest of America to do the same.
|
|
