2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2005 > November > 22 > Entry
Sex ed’s quiet decline
Philadelphia Inquirer science writer and sex columnist (and one of my journalist pals) Faye Flam recently wrote a provocative column about the subtle steps backward in sex education. (Registration required at philly.com)
While groups on the political left have lined up to oppose the movement toward teaching intelligent design in science class, Flam points out there has been little outrage about the national movement toward “abstinence only” sex education in schools. Flam answers my question from a couple months ago: What should sex education actually look like in public schools?
Flam argues that abstinence only programs fail to give kids information they will need and also fails to convince kids that abstinence is the best choice. She say all we have to do is look at what kids are up to sexually (even at school!). And compared to other countries, the statistics show our kids end up with more sex-related trouble in life.
There’s no doubt abstinence works when kids adhere to it. The question is if its realistic to expect abstinence alone to work in the face of stats that say otherwise and if abstinence ONLY gives kids the information they need. Or would a more well-rounded sex ed programs do better?
Any advice for schools struggling with this issue?
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Sex Education
Comments
By Ivory
December 2, 2005 6:46 PM | Link to this
I never met a sex ed teacher that wanted kids to have sex. That’s just silly. What I want for my kids is for them to know how to protect themselves from the horrible debilitating diseases that unprotected sex can bring and how to be responsible about pregnancy. All adults need to know this and if they don’t learn it in high school, when will they?By Rick
November 24, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
I know there would be a poster like Charlie with the line, “All teenagers are having sex.” Well, they’re not. Yes, a lot are. One of the reasons that adults are promiscuous themselves. Another significant reason is that adults give them “permission.” How do they do so? By the argument of the underlying assumption. For instance, in sex education class, if the underlying assumption is that all, or almost all, kids are having sex, you have told them they are expected to have sex. I believe that is what many who design sex education courses and their associations want. They want more kids to have sex.By Charlie
November 22, 2005 2:26 PM | Link to this
The sad fact is, Abstinence is a fairy tale that never has a happy ending. When I was in high school and junior high in the 1980’s sex ed dealt with the reproductive cycle of flowers and mitosis of cells. Funny thing is, I know alot of people that ‘reproduce that way’ -but that’s another story. Fact of the matter is, for everytime we ignore the obivous -kids are having sex, and each and every kid that doesn’t have the correct information has the chance of that un-happy ending.By Mary
November 22, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this
I would say stick with the scientific, social, statistical, and economic “facts” and theories as we humans know them - whether its sex education, religion or science. Teach students the scientific method, theories and the facts we humanly know about fossils, sexually transmitted diseases, biological structure of the sexual organs,social and economic risks of “out of wedlock” pregnancies, etc. Offer theories regarding religion, morality and creationism through comparative religion classes and classes in literature and foreign culture. Classes in religion and science should both embrace, not fight, facts and the truth. They are different disciplines approaching life issues from different angles. Do not prosyletize about any of it.