Let's talk about school based Sex Education

  1. there is a real movement afoot to demand evidence based sex education programs for our schools.
    http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleid=12609

    progressives' focus on scientific legitimacy in their critiques has put abstinence-only advocates, who have long enjoyed their favored status within the bush administration, on the defensive. they've resorted to citing non-peer-reviewed studies by outfits like the heritage foundation to back up the claim that their science is sound and accusing peer-reviewed journals of conspiring to silence them. "what they are saying is that, in order to be medically and scientifically accurate, you must be verified and supported in your research by peer review," focus on the family's linda klepacki told the christian examiner. "abstinence education cannot get into peer-review journals because the journals are controlled by far-left liberal organizations that do not allow us to publish. that automatically eliminates abstinence-only education, from their standpoint." right-wing groups benefit from the fact that the federal government doesn't even bother assessing the results of abstinence-only education. grant programs are classified as "effective" by the department of health and human services so long as they deliver all the information they're supposed to deliver -- for instance, about condom failure rates -- regardless of the effects such an education has on the students. in fact, the few analyses that have been done show that limiting sex ed to discussions of abstinence neither ensures that kids delay sex until marriage nor lowers rates of pregnancy and stds. one report by the association of state and territorial health officials found that most state-level abstinence programs have little to no measurable effect on teen behavior.
    change doesn't seem hard to envision. comprehensive sex ed enjoys great popular support; a 2004 kaiser family foundation poll showed that more than 93 percent of parents of junior-high and high-school students believe contraception is an appropriate topic for school sex-ed programs. when it comes to teaching abstinence, the public strongly backs comprehensive programs, sometimes called "abstinence-plus," that describe abstinence as the best and only guaranteed way to prevent pregnancy and stds, but still discuss contraception as well. the curricula are supported by groups such as the american medical association and the american public health association.
    •  
  2. 34 Comments

  3. by   CHATSDALE
    a parent should be able to pick their childs course of studies...how would an athiest like for church studies to be forced on their children

    there is nothing that shows that one set of parents explain sex and reproduction more than any other, if they chooe to teach their own values than the schools should not be allowed to make demands
  4. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from CHATSDALE
    a parent should be able to pick their childs course of studies...
    This non/un believer concurs.

    Please leave "values education" for my children up to me (and my SO)
    My children are my responsibility - not the school and specially NOT the State!


    cheers,
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Apr 3, '07
  5. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Apparently, only SOME 'values education' trigger the imaginary 'Separation of Church and State' wall. (Show me that phrase - or that concept - in the Constitution; it's not there.)

    For those that believe in the wall, anything THEY want to teach your children about morality obviously doesn't violate the rules. Why not? THEY made these rules so obviously they know how to interpret them.

    I have a better solution.

    If Gov't and Religion should be separate and school is the battleground, then HOW does gov't have any more an inherent right to that battlefield than Religion?

    I think it more likely to intepret 'Separation of Church and State' to conclude that it is unConstitutional for the STATE to use the schools as a vehicle to promote it's views. After all, in every local community, the values of that community are the most important foundation for the children that attend the schools. It is the FEDERAL gov't that is the interloper here.

    Or rather, how exactly, did we decide that God doesn't belong in the classroom, but agents of the state, do? Think about that. When it comes to local schools, stormstroopers yes, saints no.

    (and for schools that increasingly decide to take parents' moral rearing away from their children, by fiat, - the concept of gov't stormtrooper, as teacher, DOES come to mind).

    I just don't see how a prayer is just SOOO intolerable to those that don't believe in the concept and don't want their children exposed to it, but a condom, A CONDOM - why that's SO foundational to a child's education, that it must be taught, whether backwards parents that can't understand the value of such things want their children exposed to them, or not. That moral dichotomy represents a very arrogant hypocrisy (The morality of an issue is only in play if it violates MY morality as all other interpretations of morality cannot be germane to the public interest).

    Mind you, I'm not advocating prayer in a gov't school. Far from it. I'm advocating the abolishment of gov't schools. Voucher the school system back to local control and kick the gov't out of schools. They don't belong. It's a 'violation of Church and State' for the gov't to be in schools.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Apr 3, '07
  6. by   indigo girl
    [QUOTE =Zashagalka...I'm advocating the abolishment of gov't schools. Voucher the school system back to local control and kick the gov't out of schools. They don't belong. It's a 'violation of Church and State' for the gov't to be in schools.
    [/QUOTE]

    I think that I would have to agree.
    Last edit by indigo girl on Apr 3, '07
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    Maybe someone will open a ghetto school of Ebonics and rhyme. We taxpayers can pay for vouchers so parents can send their kids there. (Just kidding)

    Anyone a fan of "No Child Left Behind"
  8. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from spacenurse

    Anyone a fan of "No Child Left Behind"

    Not me.


    steph
  9. by   Soup Turtle
    I'm for sex ed in school, but I think it should be about physical health and not morals. I was a pretty "street smart" kid, but I had plenty of friends who were sheltered. The sheltered, religious girls are the first ones to get taken advantage of because they don't know anything but what their parents think they need to know. It's really sad.
  10. by   sanctuary
    Quote from TurtleSoup
    I'm for sex ed in school, but I think it should be about physical health and not morals. I was a pretty "street smart" kid, but I had plenty of friends who were sheltered. The sheltered, religious girls are the first ones to get taken advantage of because they don't know anything but what their parents think they need to know. It's really sad.
    No kidding.
  11. by   Tweety
    I see nothing wrong with teaching the biology of sex in schools. There's so many myths out there "can I get sex from kissing", "my boyfriend says if he loves me I can't get pregnant".

    Parents are doing a rotten job at it.

    On the other hand, since so many people put a moral and religious experience to sex they should have a say so in what their kids learn.

    I don't have kids so don't listen to me. But my 17 year old neice has an 8 month old. Fortunately she's smart and finished high school online, but her bright college future plans are on hold.
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    Maybe someone will open a ghetto school of Ebonics and rhyme. We taxpayers can pay for vouchers so parents can send their kids there. (Just kidding)
    I'm all for it. If the local community wants schools that teach ebonics and rhythm to the exclusion of the three Rs, let them find an audience of parents that will dedicate their vouchers to it.

    I think you will find that MOST parents want THEIR children to be armed with the tools to lead a better life. As a result, I cannot imagine that such a school would long survive.

    People, I suspect, will not be very willing to so existentially experiment with the future of their children.

    IF such a program could prove useful to the future of a parent's child, I suspect that it would find a footing. IN THAT CASE, what would be wrong with that?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Like the government paying me to create a school for kids to learn non standard English and become the next generation od rap performers?

    WHY should taxpayers agree to pay me to do that?
    ---------------------

    The Land Ordinance of 1785 was adopted by the United States Congress on May 20, 1785.
    It established a mechanism for funding public education. Section 16 in each township was reserved for the maintenance of public schools. In the original thirteen states many modern schools today still are located in section sixteen of their township

    http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/...nce1785def.htm
  14. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    Like the government paying me to create a school for kids to learn non standard English and become the next generation od rap performers?

    WHY should taxpayers agree to pay me to do that?
    There is simply a more rational basis than generic taxpayers at issue here. Parents want what is best for their children.

    The more relevant question is: Why should PARENTS agree to pay me to do that? Why, indeed?

    As far as your quote about public schools. That was FINE, when the gov't wasn't so antithetical to religion. 225 yrs ago, gov't VALUED religion. And rightly so. Read the Federalist Papers if you have any doubt. The Constitution does NOT demand that the gov't not value the positive benefits of religion, only that they don't take it to the next level and ESTABLISH a SPECIFIC religion.

    The mere mention of religion is NOT an establishment of religion. Indeed, demanding no mention of religion comes CLOSER to the establishment of a specific religion: secular humanism.

    Get the gov't out of the business of demanding that our national religion be secular humanism and THEN we can talk about gov'ts being in schools. In the meantime, if religion doesn't have a place, neither should gov't teaching its OWN religion.

    And the gov't's established religion of secular humanism is EXACTLY on point to the idea of the gov't teaching moral values to our children. I'll pass. Not on the concept of sex ed, mind you: on the gov't's concept of sex ed, through the lens of secular humanism. THAT crosses the ESTABLISHMENT boundary. And, it does so more pervasively than a school prayer does.

    BTW, at MY gov't high school, which I attended from 1983-1987, a school prayer was given over the intercom every morning EXCEPT for the week that the accreditation people were there. The school officials simply turned the intercom over for 3 minutes each morning, in turn, to each of the school clubs, and each, in turn, used their alloted time to let the student President of FCA (Fellowship of Christian Atheletes) speak. There you go. As far as I can tell, I wasn't harmed, even THOUGH she didn't believe exactly as I do, and that showed in her prayers, from time to time.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Apr 7, '07

close