Abstinence-Only Education time for a change
72A couple of days ago Bristol Palin gave an interview during which she said she wished she had waited 10 years before she had children. Bristol of course is 18 and famous for being pregnant during her mother, Governor Sarah Palin’s campaign as Vice President. Another one of Bristol’s answers during this interview was in response to a question regarding abstinence-only education, both she and her mother expressed doubt that this was the most effective approach to education in our public school systems today, perhaps Governor Palin said it best: “It sounds naïve, life happens.” Bristol has said she wants to be an advocate against teen pregnancy, who better than a young person with the ability to get prime time coverage. Sarah Palin is clearly rethinking her position as well now that the shoe has dropped and she is a grandmother long before she had planned. With all this being said, is it time this country step back from our stance of the past? The stance that says if we teach young people how to protect themselves from accidental pregnancy and STD’s we are inviting them to participate in sexual promiscuity, which has always been the cry of those who demand abstinence-only programs.
The answer has to be a resounding yes. We should not fool ourselves young people know about sex they know the basics and in many cases are sexually active long before they are emotionally ready for the consequences. If we continue to bury our heads in the sand we will fail our children and of course their children, our grandchildren. To address the needs of young people today we should be using our educational system to deliver information necessary for them to understand the decisions they make and the dangers they face. Despite the plethora of information available to youth today via the media and entertainment, they remain ignorant of their bodies and the consequences of their choices. Socially we cannot afford to ignore the obvious; our children are sexually active at much earlier ages in most cases than we were. Young people today are at risk for STD’S including Aids as well as pregnancy at very early ages. To address these risks and the needs of our children to understand themselves and avoid offending the sensibilities of those who believe Sex Education is equal to teaching sex lets’ call it Life Education. The approach to Life Education would be a more appropriate after all encompassing the complete needs of our young people.
What is this Life Education and what would be the content of the courses? It would first have to be a continuing education course structured to be age appropriate. Life Education would work with young people to dispel rumors, media hype, and schoolyard misinformation in a manner that would provide them with fact based biological knowledge of their bodies. Young people, as they mature need information. Parents and churches are responsible for the moral and ethical education with messages of abstinence and marriage first. Educators are responsible for providing facts and dispelling myths such as pregnancy and STD’s can be avoided by voiding the bladder after sex, or simply by scrubbing very well.
The plan to implement Life Education would be very simple and in fact, some school districts have parts of this plan in place today, the problem is that they implement it after a young person is pregnant. To ensure that parents are involved and knowledgeable content materials would be provided; at every stage, parents could opt their child out of the education process if it was contrary to their religious beliefs. I believe strongly that parents must be part of their child’s education so if a parent has a moral issue with their child learning fact based biology, fact based Life Education they should not sign the consent form for their child to attend these courses.
The following approach to Life Education is based on observation of how my children were taught in a progressive school system, how I was taught years ago; and finally on my own thoughts on what would best serve our young people. I am not a professional educator but I am a concerned observer of society. That being said here is my approach to Life Education for young people.
1. Fifth / Sixth Grade (age 10-11): Biology Human Sexual Maturity taught gender segregated. This class intended to ensure that boys and girls know what is happening to their bodies and make them sensitive to each other.
2. Middle School (age 12-15): Human Biology (7th Grade), Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Prevention (8th Grade), Human Sexuality and Behavior (9th grade): I would like to add to this list a course on responsible decision-making, childcare, and what we use to call Home Economics for all ninth graders. My Home Economics would focus on the cost of bad decisions including having a child before graduating high school.
3. High School (age 15-18): Advanced Biology, Advanced Human Sexuality and Gender Roles, Advanced Home Economics and Life Sciences: All courses to be the final building blocks of what has been taught previously. No course would provide moral or ethical frameworks only scientific and factual information. Home Economics would focus on managing household finances and decision-making based on different choices open to students. Life Sciences and Advanced Sexuality would indeed discuss birth control methods and safe sex versus abstinence.
By the time young people enter High School they have been exposed to sex in the media, and usually within their own peer group. Some of their friends may have already had a child or at the least a pregnancy scare. Many young people will be struggling with their own sexual and gender identity. School, especially public should be a place of learning and life preparation. By providing age appropriate information to our children we are potentially providing them with options and a way to make better choices. Religious based morals do not belong in public education. We can see clearly that the past seven years of Abstinence only education hasn’t worked. Something different needs to be tried.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I had a standard UK sex education, which included considerable detail (when older) on all the different types of contraception available, for whom they were suitable, and the pros and cons.
Unlike Bristol Palin, who had the "advantage" of abstinence only education, I could not have been pregnant at 17 or 18. Unless I was following in the VIrgin Mary's footsteps.
Thank you Katyzzz for your comments. I am quite passionate about the dismal state of our public education, this is only one of the issues but a very important one. I found the interview with Bristol and her mother quite interesting especially given Sarah Palin's previous stance on Abstinence-Only education.
We really must, as adults, begin to take a very pragmatic view of where we are as a society. We must start to see our children as human beings rather than some small extensions of ourselves, without human responses and feelings of their own. We must take a stand and begin to protect them from a world that has little sympathy and no pity.
Yes taking responsibility is a grand thing indeed. But first you have to have the tools. That means education! While the standards, morals, ethics, and values of social intercourse and religion are wonderful they belong in the home and church. The simple function of sexual maturity and what happens to our bodies and at what stage, that is just not something that we should hide from anymore; it is not an issue of morality.
London Girl you were fortunate in your education believe me. I grew up and attended school in the US in the 60's and early 70's. I attended a "progressive" school, I also was fortuante and didn't have near the issues that my children faced 20 years later. Of course I also didn't face STD's that could kill you!
I find it stunning that parents would rather their children risk HIV than expose them to factual sex education and how to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy. One would think that for those who are pro-life, the idea that pregnancy prevention would be a great idea, less unwanted pregnancy = less abortion. But no, the very same people who want to end a womans right to choose also want to continue abstinence-only sex education for our children.
Go figure.
Syphillis was around in the early 60s and 70s, though (-:
I just find it very odd that people can still seriously think that telling a group of teenagers, "Just say no!" is going to get them anywhere.
Being taught about contraception doesn't make people go and have sex. Decent sex education, which includes focusing on the difficulties and vulnerabilities of sexual relationships probably delays it.
I couldn't agree more with you LondonGirl. I know that when my my sons were teenagers I was the one to "inform" them and I was also the one to try to help them make pragmatic decisions about when and with whom. It was a very strange process. My youngest made very bad first choices while my eldest waited and then made great first choices. Yet all told they both made wonderful final choices in partners.
I am fortunate I guess, something ultimately sunk in.
As to STD's from my era, yeah they existed and most of us didn't have a clue.
My wife and I raised FOUR GIRLS and TWO BOYS!! Sorry, I didn't mean to yell, but you can just imagine the drama of when they were teenagers, just dripping in hormones, we were very blunt about sex in a scientific way, my R,N. wife and her graphic pictures of std's did more to discourage them than anything. To my daughters I told them boys are like dogs in heat they want to breed with everything,they are genetically wired that way. Girls instinctively want a family and boys are genetically wired to spread their seed far and wide. That is where we as parents teach them the differences between acting like animals and humans. We trained them through church activities positive reinforcement and that includes the constant STD pictures my nurse wife would gross us out with.
What exactly is your point? That you believe we should not include age appropriate education in our public schools?
I commend you and your wife for your approach in your home, that you included your personal moral value system through your church activities. This is where I believe moral value systems belong, in the home and in the church of your choice.
I and your neighbors may not subscribe to your personal standards. You don't have the right to drive these into public life, including education which is paid for by tax dollars collected from a broader constiuency. This is a secular country guaranteed by the US Constitution. If a family wishes to train their children in religious standards and values they must either do so in their home or they must send their children to private schools supported by the church of their choosing.
Public schools must serve the broader public good. If a parent(s) wish to opt out they should be given the option to do so, I agree with this. Nevertheless, there is an epidemic of young people having children long before they are ready for the responsibility. It is our responsibility to give them the tools to prevent pregnancy. Abstinence only education clearly doesn't work, did it we would not have so many young unwed mothers.
I guess I should have brought to bear that it takes proper secular education in the schools and at home.I believe in a separate church and state. In public school sex education should be mandatory period, if you want to opt out by all means go to a private school. Unwed mothers put a tax burden on society because as you stated they don't start in the schools at an early enough age and on through school for them to be fully aware of their bodies. I don't disagree with you, I just don't always preface things as I should.
katyzzz says:
10 months ago
I think we need to teach females just how vulnerable they can be sexually, and how they can create a fantasy lover from an ordinary guy; there have always been unwanted pregnancies, we must teach our children they have something to lose by what can only be considered promiscuous behaviour in ones so young.
Males should be taught that sexual licence is NOT the way to go.
Each needs to realise that sex requires responsible behaviour not instant gratification, at least Sarah Palin's daughter had her baby.
There is something drastically wrong with our whole society and until a concerted effort is made to understand what is needed to stop the licence for people of all ages to do as they please, not accepting responsibility for their own actions and the obligations they have to themselves and society as a whole.
Of course it needs much more than my few comments.
But certainly ACTION is needed, we seem to be getting nowhere, and I am so pleased you raised these issues in your hub.
No-one seems to like straight talk nor being told what they should do, unfortunately.
Well done with your effots. They are very praiseworthy