Bellbrook graduation 2012
Fairfield Senior 2012 graduation
Kroger Aquatic Center opens
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > March > 22 > Entry
Strickland: Feds can keep their sex ed money
My colleague Laura Bischoff today wrote an interesting story about Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan to dump “abstinence only” sex education by declining federal money that funds many of the school-based programs.
With this, Strickland wades into some of the hottest waters of education-related debates.
There are a long line of abstinence-only critics who say teaching abstinence as the only way is teaching pure fantasy and that not teaching “comprehensive” sex ed puts kids at risk for pregnancy, disease and other potentially life-altering problems. There’s even some evidence about the lack of effectiveness of abstinence-only programs here in Ohio.
But the Bush administration has pushed for abstinence-only funding. Under this administration, it’s the only way to get federal funding for sex education. This approach is backed by ideologically by social conservatives and some religious groups who argue that teaching kids, say, how to use a condom sends a subtle message endorsing pre-marital sex.
But has the abstinence-only push actually harmed students? Therein lies the debate.
What’s your take on this touchy subject? Should Ohio reject federal money and dump abstinence-only programs?
Permalink | Comments (12) | Categories: Sex Education
Comments
By keith
March 25, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this
Four young mothers-K-8 building. The problem is not knowing what sex is about. They are having babies because they feel it’s cool in their culture, from videos to home to other girls having babies around them. The young mothers are probably parading their little ones around to all the other girls showing how wonderful it is to be a mother at 14. Then they leave the baby with grandma to take care of and rear. There are even social services people who help these young mothers get all the tax-supplied services they’re entitled to get, even including an apartment. The other youngsters decide all those programs are free money as well as having the baby gets attention. What’s wrong here? Home and culture is. Absinence only isn’t going to work where the problem actually is in society. Fix the responsibility chart and the money flow chart.By wellwhynot
March 25, 2007 12:00 AM | Link to this
We have 4 young mothers in our K-8 building. (There’s no mention of the fathers.) We need a realistic sex education program in the public schools. Abstinence only is not working. Even if abstinence is stressed, young people need alternatives.By Rick
March 24, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
It is my understanding that abstinence-only based sex education was successful.By Keith
March 24, 2007 8:21 AM | Link to this
Isn’t this what schools have become? The politicians “know” what should be taught and how because of their perceived consituency (donor) group or because of their personal beliefs or just because they went to school once and then are experts on schools? Therefore they pass out the funds but with attachments. Even the lottery money was two-faced; they gave the lottery money but took away general funding money. Example of dual purposes is Husted’s comments in DDN about the groups suing over charter school’s funding, “They (charter opponents) have not been afraid to file lawsuits to make education policy in the past…I trust parents and children will make the best choice, not the government.” But the politicians use their personal will to make choices for schools and education of our children all the time with their mandates. What hypocrisy. Fund the schools. Let the health teachers decide sex education contents and presentation.By Mary
March 24, 2007 7:25 AM | Link to this
I find myself actually agreeing with “old prof” again. There seems to be a “program” for everything in K-12 and college. The ones that really crack me up are the “football program”, the “basketball program”, the “band program”, etc. These terms are thrown out like they are part of the Manhattan project of education.By Oldprof
March 23, 2007 6:54 PM | Link to this
Another angle on this story: we don’t spend government revenue for education; we spend it for programs. Once upon a time, education money was collected and sent to the school district with the expectation that it would be spent wisely. Now, it’s carved like an apple tart into dozens of little pieces, each attached to an initiative of dubious foundation and often no clear connection to the larger goals of the curriculum—and usually with a mandatory administrator-in-charge. I don’t mind centralized standards—I’m quite in favor of them—but when this legislator does the syllabus for health, that legislator schedules phys ed., and the executive branch controls the social studies curriculum, it’s no wonder why our schools wind up over-administered, under-funded, and generally confused.By keith
March 23, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
We’ve seen the reports about the faith-based money company taking the money in Ohio and Virginia and a 15% cut on top to do nothing. Lots of religion there! NOT. We don’t need more of the religious right controlling who learns what just so they can feel good about themselves. I’ll take sex ed the way it should be taught-holding nothing back.By dps teacher
March 23, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
Scott, Could you get us the numbers of unwanted teen pregnancies, AIDS numbers, STD numbers for teenagers in the state of Ohio? I teach 13 and 14 year olds, and I’ve had 4 pregnant students this year. Obviously, this can’t be blamed on our state’s sex education, since the parents should really be the ones dealing with these issues. However, since parents aren’t handling it, I think the schools need to seriously address issues about pregnancy, STD’s, etc. Thanks.By Barb
March 23, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
As a military brat who attended DODS schools overseas, sex education started in the 4th grade, every year, until we returned stateside. During 10th-12th grade at Beavercreek HS (class of 1991) I never had a sex ed lecture. I’m lucky I was exposed routinely and early to practical knowledge about my body, changes, STDs, and protection methods used to keep from getting pregnant and/or STD’s (including condoms, abstinence, pills, etc.) I remember the discussions being frank and open. I don’t know if I count as a success story, but I refrained from sex until my second-year of college, am now in my 30’s, and have never contracted an STD or suffered an unwanted pregnancy. Obviously the programs in which I participated were completely federally funded (and during the Regan years). So I’m at a loss as to why there’s such a disconnect 20 years later regarding informing young people about the realities of sex. We feel comfortable teaching our children how to safely get out of a house on fire; but don’t want to give them the facts about keeping their bodies safe from disease. I applaud the Governor’s move to start educating our children and teens; and not withholding the facts.By Mary
March 23, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
Another thought - to even be having this conversation shows how stupid and backwards our culture and education system are. We are quibbling over birds and bees lectures with money attached interspersed with religious concepts. Physics and foreign languages are not even on the radar screen in our culture’s education system. A little bit of sex ed and a little bit of football, basketball, showchoir, band, etc. That just about sums up American high schools. Oh, I forgot about prom!By Mary
March 22, 2007 8:54 PM | Link to this
Maybe, maybe not. Tonight’s Paula Zahn/CNN had an interesting segment about a Florida church that lectures about good sex for married couples. Some people have objected to the billboards advertising the church’s sex discussions. School sex education should be very straight about the science, risks and social and moral issues of sex without providing all the answers or directing all the choices. I think these discussions can include religious moral issues among other considerations without proselytizing.By MrO
March 22, 2007 8:51 PM | Link to this
While the research does not support Abstinence only education as being effective at preventing STD’s or pregnancy, I have to wonder how much of that comes from teachers not fully supporting it (such as regularly commenting that they want to give out more information but “can’t”.) Likewise, at what point do we draw a line from instruction to providing of contraceptives? I applaud a govenor willing to stand their ground on an issue like this. It’s just a shame that the Left and the Right can’t find a middle ground on this….