Congress this spring "will dive once more into the war over sex education" as it debates whether to eliminate $176 million in federal funding for abstinence-only education programs, Amy Sullivan-Anderson writes in a Time opinion piece that will be published in the magazine's March 30 issue. Although advocates "will debate at top volume the merits of abstinence-only efforts vs. more comprehensive education programs that also teach about birth control and sexually transmitted infections, ... [t]hese arguments miss the point," Sullivan-Anderson writes. "We now have a pretty good sense of which sex-education approaches work," she says. A "[s]ubstaintial" body of research, including a 2007 Bush administration report, has shown that comprehensive sex education programs are "most effective at changing teen sexual behaviors," according to Sullivan-Anderson. She notes that comprehensive sex education programs are "largely uncontroversial outside Washington" and that "[v]ast majorities of parents favor" such programs.
What is missing from the sex education debate is "the political will and community investment necessary to educate kids about sexuality and healthy relationships in a truly responsible and honest way," Sullivan-Anderson writes. Students need programs that do not "end after two weeks" and that give them "a safe space to return to for answers and advice," she says. According to Sullivan-Anderson, an "innovative relationship and sex education curriculum" in an Anderson County, S.C., school district is an example of "what can happen when a community decides that it's crazy to spend more time teaching kids about decimals and fractions than about dating and sex." The program, which the school district runs in conjunction with a local teen pregnancy prevention organization, extends through three years of middle school and into high school, in addition to an after-school program for at-risk teens. Sullivan-Anderson writes that there is "growing evidence" that such programs "can be more effective than abstinence-only curriculums at persuading teens to behave more responsibly" and can reduce sexual risk in three areas: delaying the age at which teens first have sex, decreasing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom use among sexually active teens. The "crucial difference" between the newer comprehensive curriculums and their older counterparts is the "new emphasis on behavior," she says, adding that schools and parents are "increasingly putting their support behind the comprehensive approach."
South Carolina's 1988 Comprehensive Sex Education Act requires sex education from elementary school through high school, including a minimum of 12.5 hours of "reproductive health and pregnancy prevention education" during high school. The state law allows each school district "to make its own decisions about what sex education should involve," but "with federal funding limited to abstinence-only programs, local districts have a powerful incentive to restrict their sex education curriculums," Sullivan-Anderson writes. The program in Anderson County's District 3, called Impact, "is sometimes referred to as 'abstinence first' or 'abstinence plus' because it combines factual information about birth control and STIs with a strong message that kids should wait to have sex," according to Sullivan-Anderson. Other school districts in Anderson County are interested in replicating the program in their schools, but the "only thing stopping them is money," she says. Sullivan-Anderson writes that since District 3's program began, teen birth rates in the school district were stable for three years and then dropped the last two years.
However, "even if every community in America woke up tomorrow and decided to put an end to the sex-education wars -- laying aside the chastity belts and condom bananas and embracing comprehensive, abstinence-first education -- it's not clear that much would change," according to Sullivan-Anderson. Despite "all the battles over funding and policies, no one really knows how sex education is taught inside most classrooms," she continues. She writes that "very few" states and local school districts "set standards on how to give students factual information about sex or teach them to develop healthy relationships. Even fewer attempt to evaluate what is covered in the classroom, and 17 states don't even require sex education to be taught in public schools." She notes that the National Center for Health Statistics recently reported that teen birth rates in 2007 increased for the second year, reversing a decline that began in the early 1990s. "Taking sex education seriously isn't easy," Sullivan-Anderson writes, "But we can't afford to keep failing our children."
Sullivan-Anderson also profiles a 16-year-old student participating in the Impact program (Sullivan-Anderson, Time, 3/19).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий