Sex Education
Needless to say, sex education is a controversial topic. And rightly so. Sex and issues relating to sex have the potential to change, and even define, lives like little else. Parents know this, and care deeply about the issue. Policymakers must be extra vigilant, to make sure we get it right when it comes to sex ed. It is my belief that Utah’s existing sex education law largely is very good, but does leave some room for improvement.
Utah’s current sex education law attempts to establish strong parental choice provisions, focuses on abstinence, and prohibits discussion of some topics. The law allows contraceptive methods and devices to be taught in the classroom. And, most districts, including the Washington County School District, do teach contraceptives. However, my preliminary research suggests that uncertainties in the law work to discourage the teaching of contraceptives. For example, though my district nominally does allow teaching of contraceptives, my daughter’s high school actually does not teach contraceptives – as a result of a likely mixture of uncertainty regarding what is allowed and the personal preference of the instructor.
Current law requires that districts adopt sex ed materials that emphasize abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage, and prohibit instruction in “the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices.” (Utah Code, sec. 53A-13-101(1)(c)(iii)(A)(III). Some teachers worry that education regarding contraceptives could be deemed to constitute advocacy or encouragement. That language could be cleaned up.
Some parents are concerned that current law denies them options, where their district, school, or teacher decides not to teach contraceptives. I’ve had several parents state that, while they have good discussions with their children about sex, they (the parents) don’t know much about existing contraceptive choices and wish that the schools would supplement their teaching. That makes sense. Education is empowerment. And the reality is that most parents – I believe – would like to have some help in this area: even parents like Sara and I who break out the book at an early age and have the age-appropriate follow-up discussions.
Utah is seeing troubling health data, regarding teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases. In short, it seems to me that Utah teens and young adults are somewhat less sexually active than kids in some other parts of the country, but, when active, are stupidly subjecting themselves to risks and turmoil that a little better education about contraceptives might help address. Parents, if they want it for their children, should have the option of choosing health instruction with contraceptives.
Some parents, of course, don’t want their children to have any discussion of contraceptives at school. Likewise, they should have that option.
So, I do support some sort of “two-track” option – one with contraceptives and one that is solely abstinence. However, based on discussions with my district, I am concerned about how a two-track option would work fiscally. The reality is that the abstinence-only track likely would not have enough students from an entire school to fill a single classroom. In the Washington County schools that do teach contraceptives, only 1 or 2 kids opt out. Of course, we can’t afford an entire health class for 1 or 2 kids, and the current system of simply sticking those kids in the library while contraceptives are being discussed isn’t ideal either. So, we need some better thinking on how a real two-track option should work.
One last thought for this post: the Utah PTA came up with an idea that just might be brilliant. One of the mothers suggested that the contraceptives component could be taught primarily by a video presentation prepared by the State Office of Education. Though a video couldn’t fully handle the Q & A that would be required, it could go a long way toward informing (and comforting) parents (and, quite honestly, teachers) about what would be taught, establishing uniform and appropriate instruction, and empowering parents (in both tracks) to watch and supplement the presentation. Determining what should be in that video would be quite a donnybrook, but that takes us back to the start of this post: we fight over sex education, because it matters so much.
Utah’s current sex education law attempts to establish strong parental choice provisions, focuses on abstinence, and prohibits discussion of some topics. The law allows contraceptive methods and devices to be taught in the classroom. And, most districts, including the Washington County School District, do teach contraceptives. However, my preliminary research suggests that uncertainties in the law work to discourage the teaching of contraceptives. For example, though my district nominally does allow teaching of contraceptives, my daughter’s high school actually does not teach contraceptives – as a result of a likely mixture of uncertainty regarding what is allowed and the personal preference of the instructor.
Current law requires that districts adopt sex ed materials that emphasize abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage, and prohibit instruction in “the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices.” (Utah Code, sec. 53A-13-101(1)(c)(iii)(A)(III). Some teachers worry that education regarding contraceptives could be deemed to constitute advocacy or encouragement. That language could be cleaned up.
Some parents are concerned that current law denies them options, where their district, school, or teacher decides not to teach contraceptives. I’ve had several parents state that, while they have good discussions with their children about sex, they (the parents) don’t know much about existing contraceptive choices and wish that the schools would supplement their teaching. That makes sense. Education is empowerment. And the reality is that most parents – I believe – would like to have some help in this area: even parents like Sara and I who break out the book at an early age and have the age-appropriate follow-up discussions.
Utah is seeing troubling health data, regarding teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases. In short, it seems to me that Utah teens and young adults are somewhat less sexually active than kids in some other parts of the country, but, when active, are stupidly subjecting themselves to risks and turmoil that a little better education about contraceptives might help address. Parents, if they want it for their children, should have the option of choosing health instruction with contraceptives.
Some parents, of course, don’t want their children to have any discussion of contraceptives at school. Likewise, they should have that option.
So, I do support some sort of “two-track” option – one with contraceptives and one that is solely abstinence. However, based on discussions with my district, I am concerned about how a two-track option would work fiscally. The reality is that the abstinence-only track likely would not have enough students from an entire school to fill a single classroom. In the Washington County schools that do teach contraceptives, only 1 or 2 kids opt out. Of course, we can’t afford an entire health class for 1 or 2 kids, and the current system of simply sticking those kids in the library while contraceptives are being discussed isn’t ideal either. So, we need some better thinking on how a real two-track option should work.
One last thought for this post: the Utah PTA came up with an idea that just might be brilliant. One of the mothers suggested that the contraceptives component could be taught primarily by a video presentation prepared by the State Office of Education. Though a video couldn’t fully handle the Q & A that would be required, it could go a long way toward informing (and comforting) parents (and, quite honestly, teachers) about what would be taught, establishing uniform and appropriate instruction, and empowering parents (in both tracks) to watch and supplement the presentation. Determining what should be in that video would be quite a donnybrook, but that takes us back to the start of this post: we fight over sex education, because it matters so much.
posted by steve u. at 10/27/2009
Subscribe
21 Comments:
Thanks for your thoughts on this Steve. I generally agree with you but am puzzled by what appears to be an inconsistency in your statements. You state that this issue is controversial and divisive and yet, near the end, suggest that very few parents would object to their children being taught about contraception. Really? I live in Salt Lake and believe that most of my neighbors would agree that their children should be taught with a contraceptive component to their instruction. But I would be surprised if more than three quarters of my neighbors agreed with me about that. I can't believe that in most other, more rural and heavily LDS, sections of the state the numbers objecting to instruction about contraception wouldn't be higher.
I like the idea of choice and the parent being in control however, I would have to worry that a 2 track system would create a segregation between different groups of students. Separating students into groups like this seems questionable.
Brian,
I, too, was very surprised by the low number of students who opt out of the contraceptives discussion. Even though few students opt out, I think parents still should have that ability, given the sensitive nature of the subject. By the way, opting out doesn't mean that contraceptives discussions aren't going on with those children. Parents could decide to take on the topic at home. (And the State Office video could help with that).
RD,
Agreed; however, that is what currently happens. To opt out of current contraceptives discussions, kids are stuck in the library. Perhaps we can figure out something that does not carry a stigma.
I think there's a lot of potential for distance education to solve the two-track problem. If there's a decent broadband network in place (you know my preferred solution, though UEN is also somewhat filling that need), a small class doesn't necessarily mean wasted dollars. Just setup a teleconference between the few students at each school and an instructor. Problem solved.
I don't understand why some folks think that teaching contraceptives will encourage sexual activity. It depends on how it is taught.
In my sex ed (in the San Francisco area, of all places), we were taught about contraceptives--but after discussing each contraceptive, they would tell us its failure rate. Even the most effective combination, the pill plus a condom combined, was still only 97% successful or something along those lines.
Want to scare kids from having sex like California did to me? (1) Focus on abstinence, (2) teach the importance of contraceptives both for preventing unintended pregnancy and preventing disease, and (3) teach clearly that even with contraceptives, you put yourself at risk.
If so few children opt-out and if you're concerned about the health effects, I'd respectfully ask Sen. Urquhart why you're not looking to change the law and make the non-abstinence only contraceptive track not only allowed but the normal curriculum?
You can then create a separate track for the smaller amount of children or parents that need/want an abstinence-only education.
That would seem to make more rational sense than what's currently going on.
Do you have the political will to do so?
Anon. (10:48),
Though I'm not sure, it seems you also are talking about 2 tracks.
I am in favor of giving parents options in this area. Currently, it seems that parents do not have the contraceptives option in some parts of the state. To me, it seems that the state curriculum should include contraceptives -- as that seems to promote safety and as that seems to be the will of the people.
I have little doubt that the people will make their will known on this one. Let's let the dialogue get out there a bit, and see what the reaction is.
I've had some small meetings, and received very positive responses. I'm looking forward to public meetings, do I can better attempt to gauge where the public is on this issue.
To address the issue of discussion after the video, I would suggest Health teachers all over Utah submit a list of the most frequently asked questions that come up during the Sex Ed unit. I would guess there are a lot of questions that come up everywhere, every time. Include in the video a classroom with a teacher where those questions are asked and answered properly and accurately.
"Some parents are concerned that current law denies them options, where their district, school, or teacher decides not to teach contraceptives. I’ve had several parents state that, while they have good discussions with their children about sex, they (the parents) don’t know much about existing contraceptive choices and wish that the schools would supplement their teaching. That makes sense."
If these parents truly are responsible and want to teach their children about contraception, how hard is it for them to search online or ask a health professional about existing contraception? If their children can learn it in a brief class in school, can parents not research this information for themselves and share it with their children so that they and their children know the latest methods? It sounds like these parents want the school to do their parenting homework for them.
"Utah is seeing troubling health data, regarding teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases."
Please keep in mind that the latest report of statistics from the Health Department says that increases in Chlamydia and Gonnorhea were due at least, in part, to “increased testing,” “increased detection,” and “better technology.” This doesn't mean that rates haven't increased or that this isn't a problem, but I do think these numbers have been blown out of proportion.
Finally, is the money really an issue? How long does it take to cover sex ed? It's one minor portion of the entire health curriculum. I don't like a two-track system, but I don't think money is the problem. The problem is that schools are trying to tell parents how to do their job or to do it for them.
Why are we even considering a two track system when the curriculum already allows discussion of contraception and very few parents choose to opt out. Let's just clear up the "fear factor" in the statute. The bigger challenge is identifying how much information about contraception is useful and appropriate in a classroom setting and for what ages. Most parents agree it should be taught but often become alarmed when they see the actual content. General contraception information about what it is with its benefits and limitations are appropriate. Explicit info on every contraceptive device would be more appropriate in a one-on-one setting with a medical professional - particularly if a child is sexually active and needs to be tested. The video idea could help provide consistency with the right amount of info and allow parents to view how it is being taught which usually allays fears.
JHP,
You're clearly correct that sex education and many other things should happen in the home. You might also agree that the State has health and welfare responsibilities.
Sexually-transmitted diseases and teen pregnancies are health issues that the State should address. Every year, the State spends a lot of time and resources dealing with health concerns over the flu, for example. However, more Utahns likely will get chlamydia this year than the flu. Because of the manner in which chlamydia is spread, the State rightly takes a different approach in its educational efforts. But, that doesn't mean it's something the State shouldn't concern itself with.
Grandma,
Give me some German cooking and frosted cookies to go with your wisdom, and I'll happily feel like I'm back at Bingle Road again. The two-track system (or whatever we want to call the allowance of abstinence-only education) is necessary, to give parents choice. It is a political non-starter (in almost all states, I would think), to force contraceptives education on unwilling parents and children. Sex is too sensitive an issue; I understand, and fully support, parents' right to opt their children out of contraceptives discussions. Opting out doesn't mean that education isn't going on. As JHP argues, parents could simply decide that they will cover it at home.
Senator,
Thanks for your response. I agree that the state has some health and welfare responsibilities -- as the very last resort. Are we to the point of last resort for STDs? Are parents really doing such a poor job that the state must intervene?
I believe that most parents are doing a decent job, whether that's teaching their children to abstain based on their values system or if they teach them about contraception. I wager that there are many teens who will get pregnant and contract STDs no matter what their parents, neighbors, friends, doctor, or school teach them. In the end, they make their own decisions. So are we really prepared to assume that parents aren't doing their job and that the state needs to fill that role for them? I'm not. I think that teaching this stuff in the schools will only discourage parents from teaching it to their children because they assume the school will do it for them.
Here's another idea to consider: are STDs a "public health" issue? Most people agree that the state should intervene for "public health" issues, and "public" usually means a health problem that can be transmitted freely among people without any effort on their part (E.g., influenza, smoking, bronchitis, the Bubonic Plague, etc.). From my understanding, STDs are only transmitted through sexual contact. You must choose to engage in such contact in order to contract the disease. Therefore, is this really a public health issue or is it the result of very private decision-making?
Sorry this is getting long, but even if we assume that government should offer advice/care for STDs, is a public school the appropriate place to do so? How about the Department of Health and other government entities that typically try to prevent the spread of communicable diseases? I don't deny that the spread of STDs is a problem, I just don't think the state should take on a parenting role in a way that discourages responsible parents from doing their job, and I don't think the school setting is an appropriate place to address this issue.
Thanks for reading and for the dialogue.
JHP,
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 pregant 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.
Good question, Senator.
I don't see the biology of sex as an either/or proposition, but I do see the mechanics, values, and anything more explicit than the biology of sex as an either/or, and that role falls on the parents.
By biology, I mean, for example, anatomy, fertilization process, development/birth process, puberty.
In other words, this is not "sex" education, this is reproductive education. Now, if we want to teach students about STDs, then that would logically fall under the communicable disease section of the curriculum. Just like they'd learn about the causes and symptoms of, say, cancer, or the Swine Flu, they can learn about the symptoms and causes of STDs. Just like they'd learn some preventive measures for cancer and Swine Flu, they can learn that abstinence/fidelity are the best ways to prevent STDs/pregnancy, and that there are also other methods available that people use, but those methods are less effective. However, if students want to know which methods of prevention are most appropriate for them, whether for cancer or for STDs, then they should ask their parents or a doctor. If they want details on how contraceptives work, how to use them, or anything more explicit than that they exist and aren't the best mode of prevention, then they should talk to their parent or doctor. If they don't have a parent or doctor, then they can always look it up online, go to a free health clinic, or even go to Planned Parenthood. Those matters are private, sensitive matters that need to be individualized for each person and that are not appropriate to discuss in a public setting, especially in a room full of awkward teenagers. This is how I see it.
By the way, I'm interested in your opinion on whether or not this is a public health issue. Is this truly a "public" health issue or not? And even if it is, if we have a department of health and many private health organizations that do this kind of thing, then why teach it in the public schools?
Thanks for the continuing dialogue.
JHP,
Yes, this is a public health issue. Diseases propogate in various ways, but, from a public health perspective, they are no less diseases by the manner they are spread; they simply require different strategies.
You and I agree on much it seems. Our area of disagreement is whether contraceptives should/should not be included in a health discussion on STDs. That disagreement could be extrapolated to everyone else in the State: some think contraceptives should be included; some think they shouldn't. To me, a 2-track approach (as most schools currently have) accommodates that legitimate disagreement nicely.
"That disagreement could be extrapolated to everyone else in the State: some think contraceptives should be included; some think they shouldn't. To me, a 2-track approach (as most schools currently have) accommodates that legitimate disagreement nicely."
That is a very clever way to support your position, but I'm not following your logic. If half the people in the state think it should be included and half don't (as a matter of public policy, not as a preference as a parent), and we do include it, then that means that the first half wins and the second half gets nothing. That's not much of a compromise.
"Current law requires that districts adopt sex ed materials that emphasize abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage, and prohibit instruction in “the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices.”
From an educator's standpoint, where exactly is the line between teaching "about" methods of contraception and "advocating" that they be used when a student is already sexually active to prevent unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease?
It seems that this overbearing language in the law is making Utah's teachers walk a tightrope. What are the penalties a teacher faces, should a student go home and tell the parents that the teacher was "promoting" the use of condoms?
For those in the LDS community.....here is the way I view sex education.....The prophet of the LDS church talks about pornography. Is he promoting pornography? NO. He is addressing reality. He is talking about it because it is happening. It is a current problem. He is teaching how not to get addicted. I think comprehensive sex education should be taught, not because we endorse risky behaviors, but because it is what is currently happening. Students will face it. Students will learn about it if not from informed resources such as sex ed class, they'll hear about it from friends (with questionable truths).Knowledge is power. We can inform the students about reality and also teach them the options/choices that they can consider. LDS children need to know the facts of life. They need to be presented with knowledge and then it is up to them to decide their own behavior.
JHP,
I said that "some" want contraceptives include and "some" don't. Based on opt-out data, I don't think it's anywhere close to half that don't want it taught. In any event, you seem to regard this as a zero-sum game. For those parents who don't want it taught to their kids, they currently win and will win in the bill I am contemplating; their kids won't be taught contraceptives. If you're saying that a broader public doesn't want contraceptives taught in the schools, that's not accurate. Our current law does allow for inclusion of contraceptives, and over 90% of the school districts (at least claim to) include it with almost no opposition or opt out.
Ali B.
That's exactly what I'm hearing from teachers. Though they are supposed to teach contraceptives, and though the believe they should, the language makes them fear for their jobs; so, they don't teach it. That is contrary to the intent of the existing law, and should be addressed.
This post is one of the more level-headed statements I've seen about sex education from a Utah politician and that's a good thing. But . . .
The emphasis on parents misses a huge and hugely important question - what are the needs of teens and young adults? Many parents are in deep denial about their teenager's sexual activities - if we limit our classes to what parents want their kids to know, are we actually teaching what teenagers need to know?
Language about parental control strikes me as little more than rhetoric. Teens need more information about sexuality than most parents want them to have and are curious about more issues than parents could imagine. The logic of saying "We can't teach some things" escapes me. If students want to know something, what's the advantage of not teaching it? The idea of preventing "advocating" contraceptive usage is absurd - if kids are going to have sex (and by every measure they are having it) shouldn't be advocating and encouraging them to use contraception? Kids are smart to understand "For many persons it is healthier to delay sexual activity, but many persons choose not to do so. If you are one of those persons, use contraception - you want to avoid unplanned pregnancies and STDs." Teens are smart enough to hear that message exactly as it is and not think, "Wow, now I have permission to go have sex."
It is easy to say that the "intent" of the language in the law was not to limit or discourage discussion of contraceptives in Utah's schools, but any reasonable person reading the law that was passed can see that is simply not the case.
The fact is that the ultraconservatives in the legislature spurred on by Gayle Ruzicka and the Eagle Forum pushed the inclusion of that language in the original bill. The certain opposition to relaxing the language to make it easier to teach about contraception in the upcoming session will bear this out.
<< Home