Sometime after the fifth grade, every year the “sex education” lessons rolled around at school. At first it was just one afternoon or class period, but by high school it became an entire unit in health class. What was taught in these classes? I have no idea – I spent the time filling out unrelated worksheets or doing homework from other classes in the library. That is correct – I was one of those kids. My ultra-conservative parents pulled me from sex education lessons for “religious reasons.” Not that I really wanted to sit class with my peers learning about the birds and the bees, however, being that kid who was so conservative that I had to be extracted from class, certainly came with its own unpleasant stigma. One small consolation was that I was not the only one in this predicament; I was usually joined by one or two other students whose parents felt the same way. Having experienced this situation as a student and knowing the awkward feeling of being one of only a few who were not included in these classes, I have to wonder whether public schools should be offering sex education. If this topic is so controversial that some students must sit in the library not taking part in it, is sex education a proper topic for the young masses attending public school? If it is, what exactly should be taught – is it strictly a scientific matter or does sex education carry with it moral implications that should account for part of the instruction?
“For the past several decades, no other topic in American education has received more scrutiny, or raised more eyebrows in concern, than school-based sex education (SBSE),” (Parker, 2001, p. 1). In order to understand this hotly debated issue, it is important to know both sides of the argument. Those in favor of sex education in schools argue that it is necessary because students are engaging in sexual activity at younger and younger ages and not doing so in safe ways. Parker (2001) states, “The reality of the present generation is that the majority of American young people will engage in sexual risk-taking behavior prior to high school graduation,” (p.2). Because parents are not taking their role as mentors to their children seriously in this area, the job is left up to the schools to teach students safe sexual practices. These students who are sexually active too early in life are making uneducated choices that can often lead to sexually transmitted diseases and the most worrisome condition of all: the HIV infection. Parker (2001) claims that, “Each year, 20,000 young people between the ages of 13-25 are infected with HIV,” (p. 3). Advocates of school-based sex education believe that teachers and schools have the best opportunity to educate young students about the dangers of risky sexual behavior and prepare them for making appropriate choices when the time comes. Conversely, those who oppose school-based sex education believe that schools are encouraging students to have premarital intercourse and abandoning the moral and religious implications of doing so. Closely tied to this, many believe that these courses on sex education awaken the carnal desires of young students before their natural occurrence. Psychiatrist James Parsons (as cited in Public Schools: Sex in the Classroom, 1969) opposes any sex education in primary schools because, as he claims, “‘…there is a latency period, between the age of six and the time of puberty, of sexual interest.’ Forcing sex education on children in this period can cause them to ‘become over stimulated and obsessed’ and can ‘produce perversion in adults,’” (Public Schools: Sex in the Classroom, 1969). Critics of school-based sex education often believe that the place of this teaching should be in the home or the church. Both sides bring up valid points, but which argument is more prudent for the wellbeing of young students today?
The reality of the current debate is that it is not so much a question of whether or not sex education should be taught in schools (the answer is overwhelmingly: yes) but rather what that education should consist of. While there remain advocates of keeping sex education out of school entirely, Parker (2001) states, “In a recent poll, 93% of all American supported SBSE {school-based sex education} in high schools, and 84% supported SBSE in middle/junior high schools,” (p. 2). The question now has become: what components of sex education should be taught? Should teachers instruct students in a more “comprehensive” sex education, including topics such as contraception and sexual orientation, or maintain an “abstinence-only” stance, advocating that students simply abstain from sexual behavior and any other discussion about sexuality. Advocates of a comprehensive sex education claim that abstinence-only programs are antiquated and leave students vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases that could be prevented with the appropriate education. The truth is that, “Nearly half of students engage in sexual activity before the age of 19…How can schools be asked to leave students ill prepared to protect themselves once they’re sexually active?” (Stover, 2007, p. 43). On the contrary, supporters of abstinence-only curriculums state that, “…only abstinence can keep them safe from sexually transmitted diseases,” (Stover, 2007, p. 41) and that teaching students a comprehensive sex education is promoting “moral anarchy.” Joneen Krauth-Mackenzie, executive direction of WAIT (Why Am I Tempted? Training organization) claims and questions, “…most people would agree that sex within marriage is the healthiest and most emotionally satisfying – and is society’s ideal. So why not make that the standard?” (Stover, 2007, p. 44). In truth, the argument boils down to a question asked by Amitai Etizioni (1997), “Should we consider it (sex education) a matter of health and safety bereft of moral content?” (p. 20). Given that most Americans (excluding my parents and a few of their counterparts) agree that teachers should take the responsibility for teaching sex education, should it be taught as a mechanical, value-free curriculum or is it a moral matter that requires the incorporation of values instruction?
As is generally the case, I find that there must be an appropriate middle ground for this debate that will allow for the best possible education and protection of young students today. While I myself am a “religious” person, I find that the reality of young students’ risky sexual activity makes this topic impossible to ignore. I believe that the answer lies in educating students in the full gamut of their options, as well as instructing them in the moral implications of their choices. As Warren A. Nord and Charles C. Haynes (1998) affirm, “…if we are to include controversial issues in the sex education curriculum, then, as always, students must hear the different voices – secular and religious, conservative and liberal – that are part of our cultural conversation,” (p.193). Education of any sort cannot leave out the prominent voices that shape the debate – students must hear both sides and be informed in making their decisions. The truth is that students should be receiving a moral education all throughout their public school years and when the time comes to make such a substantial moral decision, they should be prepared to do so. Finally, I believe that this sensitive education of students should not be left to schools alone. Parents remain the biggest influences on their children’s lives and have the ability to shape students’ decision-making. Etzioni (1997) states, “The fact that some of the responsibility for sex education is delegated to schools does not mean that parents have lost their right and duty to be involved in decision making concerning the education to which their children are subjected, especially with highly charged and normatively loaded issues. Parents should be involved in education for intimacy. They have both rights and responsibilities in this area, (p. 23). Parents who do not approve of the school’s message still have the right to pull their children from the classes and instruct them at home. However, parents also have the ability to answer questions and supplement students’ instruction in the subject, especially in the area of morality. The key idea here is that the more informed students are – the better choices they will make. Therefore, I advocate a curriculum that discusses both the scientific aspects of sex education as well as the moral implications; I also propose that parents not leave these matters solely up to the school’s instruction. Parents should be encouraged to supplement this knowledge with their family beliefs and carry on a running dialogue in which students feel free to ask questions and ponder such big decisions before making them.
“In the debate over sex education, one thing is undisputed: The average kid today is immersed in sexual imagery,” (Masland, 2011, p.1). Sex is a part of the world today and kids are bombarded with it from a very young age. The idea of leaving sex completely out of education is no longer even a realistic discussion. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that school-based sex education is the answer to prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies in young students. While the debate now rages about whether to promote a more comprehensive or an abstinence-only program, I believe that the most beneficial answer for students is to accept that this is an issue that is not going away, and educate students thoroughly about the subject. Leaving students in the dark about such a sensitive and loaded topic as their sexuality is exactly what will cause them to make poor choices. Finding a middle ground that advocates abstinence but also provides age-appropriate sex information seems to be the most responsible approach to take. This is not a matter for schools to take on alone. Etzioni (1997) states, “As educators, we cannot single-handedly deliver all the desired outcomes,” (p.23). Parents play a significant part in influencing the decision-making of their children. Together, parents and teachers can work to shape the moral awareness of students and create opportunities for students to be appropriately informed about their responsibilities in this subject area. Students cannot be forced to make “good” decisions, but they can choose to make informed decisions if they are aware of the consequences of their actions, both physical and moral.
Resources:
Allen, L. (March 10, 2009). ‘It’s not who they are it’s what they are like’: Re-conceptualising sexuality education’s ‘best educator’ debate. Sex Education, 9, 1, 33-49.
Etzioni, A. (January 01, 1997). Education for Intimacy. Educational Leadership : Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.e.a, 54, 8, 20.
Masland, Molly. (2011). Carnal Knowledge: The Sex Ed Debate. Msnbc.com. Retrieved from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071001/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/
Nord, Warren A. & Haynes, Charles C. (1998). Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Parker, J. T., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. (2001). School-based sex education: A new millennium update. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Public Schools: Sex in the Classroom. (1969). TIME. Retrieved from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901130-2,00.html
Stover, D. (January 01, 2006). Should We Be Teaching Sex Education or Sexual Abstinence? Education Digest, 72, 5, 41-48.