Sex Education, Part 2
To follow up on my previous sex ed post, I see that a few articles were written about the sex ed issue (here and here). Mostly, these articles are about the PTA's push to promote Parents Speak Up, an excellent resource for parents to use when talking with their children about sexual matters.
I'm quite pleased that the dialogue is taking place. Good things come from open dialogue. Sometimes in the policy arena, the importance of an issue and the passion surrounding that issue can actually work to stifle dialogue (e.g., think of the feds' inability to address illegal immigration and social security) -- which, of course, means that we fail to adequately address some very important issues. Here, I haven't met anyone who doesn't have some pretty strong opinions about sex ed. The designated arena where opinions compete to shape actions on state policy is the legislature (and in this case, also the state school board). I am cautiously optimistic that matters which could affect teen pregnancy rates and rates of sexually-transmitted diseases will be discussed in the policy arena. They need to be discussed.
One point I would like to clarify. My intention is not to liberalize what is taught regarding contraceptives, but to make our curriculum consistent. Current law allows excellent sex education, including discussion of contraceptives. However, sex education really is coming down to the personal preferences and comfort level of the individual teacher. That's not a sound basis for curriculum. I want to make sure that excellence becomes the norm, that parents have the option of abstinence-only or an additional contraceptives component, and that kids who go the abstinence-only route aren't just stuck in the library as currently happens. So, what currently is and is not allowable regarding contraceptives discussion is where I intend to end -- but I want all parents to have that educational option for their children, if they so choose.
I'm quite pleased that the dialogue is taking place. Good things come from open dialogue. Sometimes in the policy arena, the importance of an issue and the passion surrounding that issue can actually work to stifle dialogue (e.g., think of the feds' inability to address illegal immigration and social security) -- which, of course, means that we fail to adequately address some very important issues. Here, I haven't met anyone who doesn't have some pretty strong opinions about sex ed. The designated arena where opinions compete to shape actions on state policy is the legislature (and in this case, also the state school board). I am cautiously optimistic that matters which could affect teen pregnancy rates and rates of sexually-transmitted diseases will be discussed in the policy arena. They need to be discussed.
One point I would like to clarify. My intention is not to liberalize what is taught regarding contraceptives, but to make our curriculum consistent. Current law allows excellent sex education, including discussion of contraceptives. However, sex education really is coming down to the personal preferences and comfort level of the individual teacher. That's not a sound basis for curriculum. I want to make sure that excellence becomes the norm, that parents have the option of abstinence-only or an additional contraceptives component, and that kids who go the abstinence-only route aren't just stuck in the library as currently happens. So, what currently is and is not allowable regarding contraceptives discussion is where I intend to end -- but I want all parents to have that educational option for their children, if they so choose.
posted by steve u. at 10/29/2009
Subscribe
10 Comments:
Thanks for clarifying. I'm happy to hear that you don't intend to liberalize the curriculum, and I understand where you're coming from by trying to make it "consistent."
This approach still concerns me, however. If there are parents who are truly concerned that their kids don't have a comprehensive option, then is it not logical to assume that these parents are responsible enough and care enough to research the "comprehensive" portion of the curriculum using non-public school resources and then teach that to their children themselves? Why do the schools, or any government entity, need to fulfill this parenting role?
By the way, if students are "stuck in the library" because their parents choose that option, isn't that the choice of the parent? As long as they know that's happening isn't that their choice?
So does this mean you are on the record as not supporting a change in the law that allows schools to "advocate or encourage the use of contraceptive methods or devices"?
Sorry, another very important question that is central to this debate:
Do we have any empirical evidence -- not simple anecdotes from family, friends, neighbors, or teachers -- that Utah parents are teaching their children less about sex than previously? Just because STD rates are increasing does not necessarily mean that parents are not doing their job. No matter what parents teach or don't teach their children, children are influenced by many other factors, and they have the freedom to make their own choices.
So is there any empirical evidence that Utah parents are not doing their job or that they are doing anything less than they used to do?
JHP,
Great comments. I think we agree on your first comment; if parents don't want a comprehensive course, then, yes, their kids don't have to take a comprehensive course. So, no, the State won't take over that parental role. As I explained just now in a comment on my last post, I envision an option where parents and the school can reinforce each others efforts, like we do in reading, math, etc.
Second comment re "advocate/encourage": the intent of the language must remain -- contraceptives education cannot undercut the abstinence focus of sex ed. The application of the language, though, needs to be clarified: it does not -- nor was it intended to -- prohibit factual education regarding contraceptive methods and devices.
Third comment re evidence: I don't know of empirical evidence regarding the job parents are doing re sexual matters, and I don't think that's really the issue. We do, though, have evidence that youth have mountains of misinformation regarding sex, STDs, contraceptives, etc., as probably could be expected. Again, the point is empowerment through education.
My response to comment 3 was too brief. Though I know JHP has seen it, I will include a more thorough response for the benefit of other readers. From my earlier post:
"You raise a point that is raised fairly often -- home v. school. I greatly appreciate your points and the civil way you raise them; so, I ask you to elaborate. Must it (or should it) be an either/or?"
"I don't see this as an either/or thing. Education typically is a home AND a school thing. At times, I can teach my kids in ways that the school can't. At other times, the school can teach my kids in ways that I can't. Ideally, home and schools are reinforcing each other."
"To me, though it requires senstivity, sex ed is yet another thing to be taught/learned; it seems the home and school approach to sex ed has been, and will be, effective. I'm simply looking to improve the availability of that option."
"The moral aspect of sex ed clearly is an at-home item, and I feel for children who don't have those discussions with parents (because they're having them with someone). But the policy of the State to allow facts and information regarding contraceptives to be shared at school seems appropriate to me."
"You're right that this is a health issue. But, we've determined that some health issues are best shared in the school setting, since so much about public health is education."
"The birds and the bees what they are, I would not take your wager about all the education in the world stopping kids from getting pregnant and contracting STDs. But, education can empower individuals to improve behavior. That is why Sara and I talk to our kids about sex and why we hope they also will learn some facts in a different setting that might reinforce/re-emphasize what we're teaching."
"I think we agree on your first comment; if parents don't want a comprehensive course, then, yes, their kids don't have to take a comprehensive course. So, no, the State won't take over that parental role."
I think I may have miscommunicated what I meant here, but if I didn't, then you totally side-stepped my argument. No, I don't think we agree on this.
"I don't know of empirical evidence regarding the job parents are doing re sexual matters, and I don't think that's really the issue. We do, though, have evidence that youth have mountains of misinformation regarding sex, STDs, contraceptives, etc., as probably could be expected."
I think empirical evidence does matter. If parents aren't doing anything different today than they have previously, then we shouldn't say that parents are the problem behind increasing STD rates, which is what I heard at the interim committee meeting last week. And if parents are doing alright with this, then there is little reason to change the law or curriculum. Again, we can address increasing STD rates through non-school resources and keep the law/curriculum the same.
Who exactly is providing all this misinformation? The media? Friends? Parents? School teachers?
If it is parents, does government have the right or responsibility to correct what they teach their children? If school teachers are contributing to it, then why are we teaching sex ed in school? Can the schools really do better than parents?
JHP said: So does this mean you are on the record as not supporting a change in the law that allows schools to "advocate or encourage the use of contraceptive methods or devices"?
Sen. Urquhart replied:
Second comment re "advocate/encourage": the intent of the language must remain -- contraceptives education cannot undercut the abstinence focus of sex ed. The application of the language, though, needs to be clarified: it does not -- nor was it intended to -- prohibit factual education regarding contraceptive methods and devices.
I think this is a mistake. If you want to say abstinence is the only 100% preventative measure, then do so. But the law should be changed to say that for students who are NOT going to be abstinent that we as a community DO in fact advocate that you understand, know how to, and will actually use effective contraception. To do otherwise is what has led us to having problems with teen pregnancy and STDs. It's the lack of education and advocacy that leads children to not ask for information or to utilize contraceptives. I urge Sen. Urquhart to promote a more comprehensive education rather than to hide behind the current ineffective law. Thank you.
Thanks for the good commentary.
JHP,
I think you might be arguing against points I didn't make and don't believe. As I have explained a few times, education on contraceptives doesn't mean that parents are failing. That's not my argument. Parents and schools can help each other out in many ways. If parents don't want the school's reinforcement regarding contraceptives, they can opt out. Pretty simple. Parents are in control. Other than stating that, I can't make sense of how that would have anything to do with the State overriding parents in any way. Learn about contraceptives at school or don't; parents' choice.
Anon.,
Take a look at the state law (a link is in my original post). It allows for education regarding contraceptives. So, I don't think it's that aspect of the law that is the problem. The problem is that some schools aren't utilizing that opportunity to share information regarding contraceptives. They should. However, if you're saying that parents then shouldn't have the ability to opt out, regardless whether one thinks that is wise or not, it simply defies political reality. As JHP argues -- and as our citizens believe -- parents raise kids, not schools or the State. If parents don't want their kids to get education on contraceptives at school, they won't. But, remember, where offered (and I'm attempting to have that be everywhere), very few families opt out.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you think parents are failing. I meant that I heard a lot of other senators/representatives making that assumption during the committee meeting last week, and I hear that a lot in the media and discussion generally. I think that assumption is dangerous and likely incorrect.
I understand your position to be that parents want help and so why not give them an option in the schools? That is reasonable, even if I disagree with it. Again, I don't necessarily disagree that government can do something to help (although it would be better if government can stay out of it), I just don't think the school system is a very effective or appropriate setting for such discussions. It may be convenient because all the kids are there at one time, but the convenient option isn't always the best one.
We tend to expect public schools to shoulder the burden of all our social problems, but they don't have the time, money, resources, or ability to do it. They should focus on what they do best -- teaching kids the basics of academics.
Anyway, I think we've come full circle and will just be rehashing arguments at this point. Thanks again for the discussion, Senator. I look forward to seeing how your bill looks like.
No, I was saying that the current state law says that contraceptive use cannot be "advocated" by teachers. I agree with you that teachers currently can teach the students information about contraceptives.
I'm arguing that you and the legislature should change the state law to say something like this only more eloquent: "Although abstinence is recommended because it is the only 100% effective prevention method for unwanted pregnancies and STDs, we STRONGLY advocate and recommend that those students who become sexually active should understand, know how to, and actually should use effective contraceptive methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs."
And yes, as you say, parents who disagree with this curriculum are certainly free to opt their students out of it.
<< Home