Should the schools offer sex education programs and, if so, what kind?

Jim: I don't think there's any doubt that the schools should be offering a sex education program. Just look at the number of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases that occur each year in the U.S. It's obvious that many parents are either not educating their children about sex or are not instilling values that would deter teenagers from having sex. Given this situation, the schools are the logical place for sex education to occur.

Kevin: Although I think the correct place for sex education to occur is in the home, I agree with you that many families are shirking this responsibility. However, I firmly believe that the only kind of sex education program that ought to be taught in schools is the "abstinence only" program. Telling teenagers that they should refrain from having sex, and then teaching them how to use condoms and other birth control devices sends a conflicting message. How can they believe abstinence is the best route to follow when they're taught ways to have sex and avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases?

Jim: I'd like to believe that the abstinence only program would work, but the evidence indicates that a comprehensive sex education program is more effective at preventing pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Kevin: I have a problem with that statement. Abstinence only programs haven't been around long enough to document their effectiveness. So, saying that research proves that comprehensive sex ed programs are more effective, isn't giving abstinence only programs a fair chance to prove themselves. More research should be coming along soon, since the federal government has lent its support to abstinence only programs. In fact, all the federal money available for sex education can only be used for abstinence only programs.

Jim: Boy, talk about having it both ways! The No Child Left Behind Act has said that educational practices should be based on "scientifically based research," but when it comes to sex education programs, the federal government ignores the scientifically based research that supports comprehensive sex education programs in order to promote unproven abstinence only programs.

Kevin: Even though they don't have research support yet, this decision makes sense to me, both ethically and medically. Parents and educators overwhelmingly agree that teens and preteens should not be having sex. And, since condoms are hardly foolproof as prevention for pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, a strong, clear "abstinence only" message is what we should be sending to students.

For more information on sexuality education and abstinence programs, visit these web sites, then reflect on the questions that follow.

Web Links

Surgeon General's Call to Action
In this 2001 publication, the Surgeon General recommends abstinence plus sexuality education programs, on the basis of their superior research support.

SIECUS
The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States has launched a national campaign against federally-funded abstinence only education programs.

West Virginia Abstinence Project
Here is one example of a statewide abstinence only education program.

Guttmacher Report
This 2002 Issues Brief from the Alan Guttmacher Institute suggests that some legislators are working to expand federal support for sex education to include comprehensive programs.

For Further Reflection

1. What do you believe is the best way for the states and the national government to reduce rates of teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases?
   
   
2. As a teacher, would you feel more comfortable teaching abstinence only or a more comprehensive sex education curriculum? Why? How would explain your choice to students' parents who voice a desire for another approach?