H -°, L 22° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 4°In 1919, before schools really got in on the act, the Department of Labor released a report advocating that all students in the US receive some form of sex education. The authors observed that “the worries and doubts and brooding imposed on boys and girls of the adolescent period as a result of lack of simple knowledge is a cruelty on the part of any society that is able to furnish that instruction.” Now, however, what has become one of the most venerable and contentious institutions of adolescence may be no more if opponents of a recently signed Wisconsin bill have their way.
The Healthy Youth Act, signed yesterday by Gov. Doyle, requires that human growth and development courses taught in Wisconsin provide, among other things, accurate information about the uses, benefits and side effects of contraception. Sex ed classes will also have to be conducted in a way that will not create bias on the basis of sexual orientation, sexual activity, gender, race or religion. This is an important step in the right direction for Wisconsin schools; there is no excuse for allowing into the classroom curricula that promote a particular moral or political project by withholding information from students or deliberately teaching inaccuracies.
Several studies published in the Journal of Adolescent Health suggest that parents overwhelmingly support the teaching of at least some sex education in public schools. They’ve also found that a majority of parents support curricula that cover STI’s and contraception. Nevertheless, opponents of Healthy Youth said that if it is signed into law, they would lobby school districts to drop sex ed classes rather than comply.
In such a polarized environment, it is reasonable to think we would be better off if schools did get out of the sex education business, or at least avoided the controversial aspects. There are two parts to teaching human growth and development. First is the biological part. This encompasses both the nitty gritty of puberty — periods, pubic hair, pimples and the like — as well as the abstract scientific and mechanistic knowledge of human reproduction. Most parents agree children should learn these things in school, the same way they discover pistils and stamen or amphibians and reptiles.
Once schools move beyond the biology of puberty and begin to explore sex and sexuality as social acts with real world implications, they move into the second part of human growth and development teaching. This is where things get contentious, because the social and cultural meaning of sex, especially as it involves teenagers, varies wildly between different people. For those concerned about the shrinking influence of the traditional family, the myth of the out-of-control teen is an important symbol and rallying point. Others see heavy-handed moralizing sex ed curricula as threats to those advances in reproductive freedom so painstakingly eked out in the 1960s and 1970s.
In this context the teaching — or omission — of facts about birth control, STI’s and abstinence cannot help but acquire an ideological bent. If there are school districts in which the majority of parents believe so vehemently that the moral values they are trying to instill in their children will be upset by the mandates of Healthy Youth, it would be best if they dropped the subject altogether. Doctors, educators and policy experts may find some parents’ anxiety over the potential moral corruption from learning about female condoms and IUD’s as misplaced. In the end, parents, not experts, bare the majority of responsibility for the moral education of their children. It is better that schools remove themselves from this task than go about it in a way that promotes one viewpoint by teaching incomplete or inaccurate information.
This does not excuse schools from the responsibility of covering the first aspect of human growth and development: pubertal changes and the basic biology of reproduction. Kids need to know what a period is, what a tampon is and why they have to wear deodorant. They also need to learn where babies come from and the theory behind how they get here. Both of these can and should be taught in a non-ideological way to every child in Wisconsin, despite the intense consternation caused by Healthy Youth.
Geoff Jara-Almonte ([email protected]) is a third year graduate medical student.
IP hash: d0076cb8
To suggest that schools should somehow limit sexual education to the “basic biology of reproduction” is to deny these children access to very crucial knowledge. School administrators, counselors, and teachers cannot assume that all children will be provided with an adequate sex education at home, especially not by an appropriate age. Well over half of teenagers have sex by the time they graduate high school. These kids need vital information to protect them against abuse, STIs, and unwanted pregnancies by middle school, when many start to become sexually active.
Parents may be reluctant to talk to their kids at this age. Other parents may (often wrongly) assume that their kids will remain abstinent until a much later age (perhaps until marriage). Many kids lack any kind of significant parental support system. Angry parents can simply opt their kids out.
But are schools acquiring an ideological bent by covering issues such as STIs, contraceptives, and sexual assault? YES.
The ideology is this: we care about kids.
IP hash: f151ec33
The problem of adopting an educational program that is acceptable to parents only arises because government education is, by its nature, a violation of their rights.
Government education takes all parents’ money (and non-parents too) via taxes, whether they like it or not, and then tries to solve the problem of how to accommodate differing opinions on how to educate children. Could it be that not taking their money in the first place, allowing them to choose schools offering different programs and educational methods, might be the moral and practical solution?
In response to a previous comment, “angry parents” can not simply “opt their kids out.” They are forced to pay for government education; opting out means they must either forgo the education or pay for it twice.
Parents should not have to opt-out of education. They should be left free to opt-in to schools they value without having to pay for ones they don’t value.
IP hash: a56d7c9d
Since when do people have a right to money or their earnings? As a practical matter it’s a good idea, but making this into an issue of rights is a bit far fetched.
Also, parents can ‘opt out’ by moving to a theocracy
IP hash: a56d7c9d
Additionally, kids are not the property of parents. Usually parents have broad discretion in deciding what is best for their kids, but in situations like this - some parents are wrong. By making sure children have a good education - academic and sexual, we are maximizing the freedom and protecting the rights of the children rather than the parents.
Although I share a distrust of the nanny state, especially on social issues, depriving your children of knowledge that can have a severe material effect on their quality of life is such a major issue that the opinion of these parents should be ignored.
No one should be able to purposefully cripple another who does not have the power, intellectually or legally, to defend themselves
IP hash: f151ec33
Kids are neither the property of parents nor the state. (And parents’ money is certainly not property of the state.)
We are not talking about depriving children of an education. We are talking about allowing parents to provide their kids with a good education. Parents have both the responsibility and privilege to educate their children. The state is depriving them of this right.
IP hash: d0076cb8
Angry parents can opt their kids out of the sex education program, not necessarily the school altogether. Permission slips are still a requirement for these sex ed programs.
IP hash: 1d71bc71
When you restrict sex education and leave it up to the parents, you have people like me who was not properly educated and my parents never talked to me about sex. I resent it completely now that I am older and have learned about all of the diseases, and proper precautions. It is just the better way, do not hide this information from youths. If you want less pregnancies and less teenage abortions, which all who value traditional family values despise, then you have to realize that preaching abstinence will only create more curiosity about sex. It works in the opposite way that you traditional family values people think. Look at the facts, in places where abstinence is preached in schools, what do you think happens to teen pregnancy rates?