“This report confirms that these interventions are not like vaccines,” said Harry Wilson, associate commissioner of the Family and Youth Services Bureau at the federal Administration for Children and Families. “You can’t expect one dose in middle school, or a small dose, to be protective all throughout the youth’s high school career.”Yeah, but the federal government has been spending $176 million a year on this!
Damn it! That reminds me I still need to finish my taxes. Was the report released this week for maximum effect?
But why is the federal government spending any money on propaganda aimed at American kids? Well, obviously, it's a sop to social conservatives. But can we stop now?
Wilson's idea is that the lack of results shows why we ought to be spending even more money and absorbing even more of kids' time telling them what to do with their lives. Why not spend the money on teaching them how to read, research independently, analyze, and critique? That would be real education, that would justify taking up their time, and that would put them in a position to think for themselves about what is the right way to live. And maybe, just maybe, it actually is to be abstinent until marriage.
If you really believed in the good of your own philosophy/religion, you'd want them to think for themselves.
Posts
51 comments:
IT's an old saw, but really, the government should tell kids that sex and drugs are cool and that they should avoid studying math.
The real question, since abstinence education obviously doesn't work, duh, is how many of those who undergo the education wind-up with venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies. But I'm sure that catching a disease because one never learned to wear a condom is a risk that the bible-thumpers are willing to take with other children's lives.
That Bush policy apparatus sure is results-oriented.
If you really believed in the good of your own philosophy/religion, you'd want them to think for themselves.
Or raise your children in a framework that fostered his/her growth within your philosophy/religion rather than in the public school system.
Abstinence education would be far more effective were it given a catchy name like Head Start or something.
As for sex education generally, Gerry, I think it should be taught as a science class. There could also be an ethics class, taught in an academic way, with the rigor of philosophy.
I don't accept the government's appropriation of a child's time unless it meets a high standard. Compulsory education is only acceptable if it is really education. To capture an audience for the purpose of propaganda is to abuse power.
Bissage: How does "Head Stop" grab ya?
Compulsory education is only acceptable if it is really education. To capture an audience for the purpose of propaganda is to abuse power.
So, should we be requiring students to stay in school until age 16, as the current system demands?
I didn't need a study to tell me that abstinence education was a complete waste of money.
Public schooling should be concerned with rigorous academic and vocational education, and extracurricular activities that develop the individual - athletics, music, art. Public schools have no business in serving as a place for sex education. School as a socializing vehicle? Only once America's academic scores rival the best. This PSA kind of education has no more place in public schooling than does religion.
Gosh, this whole idea of evaluating programmatic effectiveness seems very dangerous. Are the law schools and biglaw firms of the world going to abandon their diversity programs? Fortunately, academic evaluations always find that the problem with liberal nostrums is that they aren't being implemented thoroughly enough.
That the report represents less than 1% of Title V sexual abstinence programs in existence should speak volumes.
The idea that you could go through four classes, with no followup, and have a great impact is absurd. We teach nearly every other subject differently, pounding away at math or history, year upon year.
Also, I just wonder at the methodology of getting accurate answers on sexuality anyway. There was a "dark time" in my history, when I was between jobs and went to work at a Mathematica Policy Research location in Plainsboro NJ (near Princeton, but not in Princeton, though most businesses in the area like to blur that distinction).
I was on a Department of Labor study, trying to get the results of some youth program. One of the difficulties was that when we were actually able to reach the home of participants, we then had to get permission from parents to ask the questions. Some of the questions involved criminal and sexual history. Some of the parents had no intention of saying yes when asked, "Oh can I ask your 14 year old daughter about her sex history and drug use."
The point being, getting an accurate sample of how a program works can be affected by the parents who act as gatekeepers. Their might be a bias toward parents who have no problems with sexuality with their children. (Or, even, there could be a bias the other way, with kids being less honest with granny sitting there monitoring their answers).
But then again, the phone people there made about $8 per hour, and I am sure the actual researchers "upstairs" would most certainly adjust for various anomalies involving survey participation and honesty.
After all, that's why polling is so accurate. Sorta.
If sexuality is going to be an integral part of public schooling, I would like to see some instruction on the emotional repercussions of youthful sex. Maybe my thoughts are influenced by old-fashioned religious doctrine, but it seems to me that young males still view sexual conquest as a form of competition, while young females succumb to demands for sex as a sacrifice needed to a sustain a romantic relationship.
I think there are at least three different issues here being treated as if they were one. They are: teaching abstinence as the best option, teaching only abstinence without any additional education on matters like STDs and contraceptives, and whether the Federal government should be involved in this stuff in the first place.
I tend to think that federal interference in education approaches the definition of acting to "directly displace the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions," Usery, 426 U.S. at 852, and so I would prefer to remove federal involvement from decisionmaking on sex education entirely (something that does not require the that principle to once again command the support of a majority of the Supreme Court for Congress to act on it). But regardless of the level at which the decision is taken, I do believe that while sex education should be abstinence first, it should not be abstinence only. Some kids are going to have sex, no matter how often - with all due respect to Harry Wilson - one administers a booster shot to the abstinence message. My concern is that those kids who slip through the net may not always know enough about contraception, and all of a sudden we're looking at ground zero for teenage pregnancy, which very often becomes teenage abortion, which accounts for cira 20% of all abortions carried out in the United States. Something is very wrong if someone describes themselves as pro-life but opposes comprehensive sex education without explaining why the two don't link up.
"Pro-life" and "anti-abortion" aren't synonyms: you have to be the latter to be the former, but being anti-abortion, freestanding, isn't enough. You have to think about the forces that drive abortion and how those pressures can be eliminated or redirected. Comprehensive sex education strikes me as one way to accomplish that. Death penalty opponents have occaisionally suggested that the execution of a single innocent person is sufficient indictment to shut down capital punishment. I have reluctantly come to agree with that position. Similarly, I tend to think that one abortion of a teenage pregnancy that could have been prevented by comprehensive sex ed is enough to override virtually any other concern, systemwide.
Invisible Man said...
"That Bush policy apparatus sure is results-oriented."
What orientation should a policy apparatus have other than results?
Ann, you said,
"If you really believed in the good of your own philosophy/religion, you'd want them to think for themselves."
I would love for America's children to be well-informed about all of the various belief systems that predominate in our society, including, but not limited to, Deism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and atheism/agnosticism. However, I doubt that public schools will ever provide an appropriate forum for honest comparisons of religious "diversity".
And Simon, "results-oriented"? That kind of talk is anathema to government funded programs. Midnight basketball, anyone?
Omaha1 said...
"If sexuality is going to be an integral part of public schooling..."
That thought hadn't even ocurred to me when I broke the question into three parts. Sexuality education, which seems to have connotations of a curricula distinct from sex education, is yet a fourth issue.
$176 million is approximately $580,000 per person per year. What ever happened to conservatism? Aren't those clowns supposed to want the federal government to stay out of people's lives? So it funds this enormous spending program telling people how to have sex? How did anybody ever think this was a good idea?
Wade, your calculations are a bit off unless you accept a census of approximately 300 US citizens.
Wade_Garrett said...
"$176 million is approximately $580,000 per person per year."
Just on a very quick google search, the census bureau estimated that there were 53.3 million children ages 5 to 17 as of July 1, 2003. Even assuming, falsely, that all those kids are getting sex ed classes, that means that $176m equates to roughly three bucks per kid per year. At Wade's school, they don't need sex ed so much as basic math. Is that your final answer, Wade, or would you like to phone a friend?
Sorry, the link for the 53.3m number was this.
You're right, I screwed up that math, I don't know what I was thinking.
Either way, it is an ENORMOUS waste of money.
The compulsory education should be for the parents to learn how to teach their children about sex. A tax refund for attending class. Community service (AIDs clinic, abortion clinic, orphanage, etc.) for skipping class. Someone else do the math please but that ought to save a few cool mil in unnecessary taxes.
Wade - I don't necessarily agree that it's a waste of money, but presumably we can at least agree that it's money that the Federal government, at least, shouldn't be spending.
Sexual behavior and standards of morality are inextricably linked in the real world. Efforts to address the former, while pretending that the latter do not exist, are unrealistic and doomed to failure, regardless of who provides the funding.
Definitely, it is a waste of Federal government money. However, if the program isn't working at all - if the age of first intercourse is virtually the same, regardless of whether or not the students receive this education - then how is it not a waste of money, regardless of where that money comes from?
Mainly, I think that schools are the wrong people to teach this stuff. I'm not a parent, but I think it is ENORMOUSLY pussy of parents to defer this sort of education to public school districts. If I may create a term, it is parental malpractice.
Secondly, the reason I waited longer than the 14.9 year average was not because of any church's teachings, or because of any education I received, but because I was informed of the risks involved. Any type of sex education is doomed to fail if it preaches "just say no" while neglecting to teach kids important truths about their bodies.
Wade_Garrett said...
"Definitely, it is a waste of Federal government money. However, if the program isn't working at all - if the age of first intercourse is virtually the same, regardless of whether or not the students receive this education - then how is it not a waste of money, regardless of where that money comes from?"
My point was that you don't think the feds should be spending it because you think it's a waste of money, and I don't think the feds should be spending it because sex education is a subset of education, and I think all education is a state concern. I was just looking for a point of agreement, and we can both agree that the federal government shouldn't be spending the money, even if we have different reasons for thinking that.
Wade Garrett - the "age of first intercourse". I suppose that this an important statistic since it can be objectively measured. In my opinion, it would be more helpful for girls to understand the emotional repercussions of submitting to youthful sex. I doubt that this is ever addressed in the classroom, despite its lasting effect on their self-esteem.
I homeschool and when the question "what do you do for drug education curriculum?" or "what do you do for sex education curriculum?" come up the general homeschooler reaction tends toward a vacant stare as they try to parse the question.
I need a curriculum for that?
As it is, my 14 year old daughter took the "how adult are you" online quiz linked from Instapundit the other day and scored 100% on the sex knowledge part. (www.howadultareyou.com)
As I think of it, the podcast discussion that went with it with the author of the quiz and a book about adolescence might have more answers on *why* sex education fails so badly. He talked about how we try to force young people to stay children and how they respond by all the sorts of destructive behavior that can get them instant adult status (such as having a baby.)
We don't expect our young people to show judgment or self-control. One of the most common objections to abstinence that I hear is that young people *can not* show maturity and judgment because of their age. Since we're keeping them children so very hard, that's not surprising.
I've even heard an advocate of abstinence explaining how it can't work without being accompanied by an all around emphasis throughout a young person's life on having a deliberate self-discipline.
Which is why *any* program that includes "just say no" as a concept is sort of pathetic.
Invisible Man --
There is no significant evidence that any form of in-school sex education whatsoever works at reducing pregnancies or transmission of disease at all. There is only completely unsubstantiated faith by supporters of both contraceptive-centered and abstinence-based programs that their favored program must be working, somehow, even if it never shows up in the statistics.
Accordingly, the "bible-thumpers" are not putting anyone at any more risk or any less risk than those who advocate education about contraceptive methods. Both are are irrational, faith-based, wastes of time and money.
As it is, my 14 year old daughter took the "how adult are you" online quiz linked from Instapundit the other day and scored 100% on the sex knowledge part.
Well, I hope that any 14 year old would know the answers to appallingly basic sex questions in that quiz.
There is no significant evidence that any form of in-school sex education whatsoever works at reducing pregnancies or transmission of disease at all.
How about all of freaking Western Europe? All the countries in western Europe have more comprehensive sex education than this country and their children are more sexually active than ours yet they have lower teen pregnancy rates and lower rates of STDs. The country that has the highest rate of STDs and teen pregnancy in Europe (England) also has the least comprehensive sex education programs. The more uptight a nation is about sex, the worse the problem.
Mainly, I think that schools are the wrong people to teach this stuff. I'm not a parent, but I think it is ENORMOUSLY pussy of parents to defer this sort of education to public school districts. If I may create a term, it is parental malpractice.
While nice in theory Wade, parental malpractice is not a actionable claim in this country. Unfortunately, the public schools have to take up for a lot of slack where the parents just don't want to deal with the issue (hell, a lot of parents don't know much about sex themselves). Teenage pregnancy, abortion and STDs are a public health crisis. Ignoring it by saying it is the duty of the parents to deal with it or pushing bullshit solutions like abstinence only programs are completely irresponsible.
Freder, it's hear-say but I'd heard that young people in Europe actually have sex (statistically) later than young people in the United States. That it's actually a reaction against the free-sex habits of their parents.
Seven Machos, yes, you're quite right. People who want to have sex ought to. Asking them not to is completely unreasonable. Feel the itch, fella, go for it.
The idea of being faithful is a crock. You might be attracted to anyone at any time and if they are willing, why who's to say no? Sexual feelings should always be acted on. It's foolish to expect anyone to do anything but act on their sexual feelings.
Sorry Seven, were you being sarcastic?
And Freder, of course the questions are basic. How and when is pregnacy possible? How are STD's transmitted?
I'm not sure what you think students are supposed to know.
You seem very concerned about this public health crisis. Where do you think this "crisis" came from? A lack of knowledge? One of my aunts thought she was dying when she got her period. Several others hadn't a clue about sex well into adulthood (which made wedding nights either traumatic, comical, or both.)
This was, of course, in the "pre-crisis" days. So where did the crisis come from? I'd expect most any 14 year old to have basic knowledge about sex and reproduction, far more than in previous generations, so what is the cause of the crisis?
Are you willing to be honest about that?
It can't be knowledge, so what is it?
Unless I am missing something, the actual write up of the study suggests that it was not well designed and impossible to replicate as reported here: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
I was unable to find in the study a description of the control group other than they were student's on a waiting list. Waiting lists are notoriously poor control groups, particularly in behavioral and social science investigations.
From the study, we have no idea what the control students were exposed to. There does not appear to be an attempt to offset the possible effects on program students being in some sort of 'special' group. For example, a more effective control group might involve placing control students in a program that is comparable to the abstinence only program in every possible way with the exception of the core abstinence interventions. Indeed, even if there was a favorable effect for the abstinence intervention, because the abstinence and control groups were so different in so many ways, we would not be able to confidently say that it was due to the presentation of abstinence messages. This study's random assignment of students into treatment and control groups did not take care of the serious control group problem cited above.
Moreover, from my reading of the study, there was no attempt to control for allegiance effects. Allegiance effects are those in which superior outcomes are attributable to the researcher’s affinity for the treatment being assessed. Some scientists suggest that, in behavioral and social science, allegiance effect can account for over fifty-percent of the effectiveness of a treatment intervention.
Ultimately, the abstinence only program apparently could not even muster 'placebo' effects.
Freder - Fair enough. Ideally, kids would get something at school AND something at home. However, the "you're better served not having sex until marriage" lecture should come from your parents, if anybody, and its selfish for parents to pawn this responsibility off onto public school teachers.
Schools SHOULD be teaching kids about sex, but in a more scientific way - this is how sex works, these are the risks involved, this is how you can avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. But they shouldn't be moralizing.
Okay, you weren't being sarcastic. I think I know where you are coming from.
We are facing a strange time when we expect young people to remain and act like children far far past sexual maturity.
But grandma didn't necessarily get married at the age of 15 or 17, and she most likely *wasn't* having sex like a rabbit before she did get married. But yes, people found mates in a more reasonable time-frame considering when they were biologically ready for that.
Young people aren't stupid and preventing pregnancy and STDs should be a no-brainer even for those who are sort of stupid. Even for teenagers. Recognizing that a sexual relationship makes you physically and emotionally vulnerable should also be a no-brainer.
Does anyone really not know this stuff?
Sex ed that explains biology (this is where babies come from) might take all of one afternoon with a internal organ chart, so what is the purpose of sex ed or abstinence education but to try to bully kids into behaving properly. (What is considered "properly" varies a bit but either approach is essentially aiming for the same control over young people's behavior.)
I just don't see that it even begins to address the reasons that they *don't* behave properly, which I've been saying for a long time, is primarly about wanting to be grown up.
If it doesn't make much sense to do risky or unwise things in an effort to be grown up, consider that sex is biological maturity and having sex is establishing and demonstrating that maturity.
If it's the only option given you, it's pretty much the only choice to take.
The "oh fine, have sex then, just do it safely" is a sad poor substitute for offering young people actual opportunity to practice and demonstrate maturity and start practicing being an adult.
It's sort of saying, "We can't stop you doing this, but by golly we're gonna make you stay children if it's the last thing we do."
Yes, getting married young tends not to work well in our society but that's probably as "biology based" as hollywood marriages not tending to work well.
"Young people aren't stupid and preventing pregnancy and STDs should be a no-brainer even for those who are sort of stupid. Even for teenagers. Recognizing that a sexual relationship makes you physically and emotionally vulnerable should also be a no-brainer.
Does anyone really not know this stuff?"
Synova, if you asked 10 teenagers they'd probably all agree that its better to wait to have sex and sex can cause emotional problems blah blah. Fast forward a few days; a hot date on a Friday night; kissing leads to petting etc. etc. Do you want one of the kids to have a condom or don't you? I remember age 16 and 17, the sheer physical imperative was very hard to resist. My parents are good sorts but didn't think their little girl would have sex until at least 25 and thus didn't bother with any home discussion of sex. Luckily I had a good sex ed book and knew enough to use condoms and go to planned parenthood and get on the pill.
I would bet that you have never hung out with an average crowd from an average high school, or you wouldn't be asking those questions.
The last few comments suggest that sixteen-year-olds having sex is OK, as long as they are aware of the risks involved, and take appropriate precautions. I just want some assurance, that with all the "instruction" these young people are getting, that the women know not to submit to sex for the purpose of securing a commitment from the target of their affection.
In spite of my lingering moral objections, I suppose that if both sixteen-year-old partners have acknowledged the purely recreational nature of their sexual activity, it would be more-or-less acceptable to me.
Omaha, I agree that is a very important point. I really don't know if young girls feeling they need to "give it up" to keep their boyfriend is still a strong influence on teens (like in Grease). The problem I hear from some of my friends in the 25 y/o age range is that they're embarassed they're still virgins, b/c no guy wants to be responsible for deflowering. I tell them they're crazy and they'll be happy when they meet right guy without any emotional or physical baggage to interfere with the relationship, but they don't seem to get it.
I said "should" and I said "should" on purpose. If I'd meant "is" I would have said "is."
Romances these days include condoms in the love making. An historical romance might do without but one set in our time seems to require it.
Also, in romances these days, it's not at all unlikely for the man to utter something like, "I don't mind not being the first, so long as I get to be the last."
I don't believe it. Well, okay, if he can't be the first it's sort of foolish to fret over the fact.
My best guess, Amy, is that if guys are unwilling to deflower a girl it's because the accept the very old fashioned idea that "good girls" are for getting married to, and not so good girls are for having fun with. If they were interested in any sort of permanent they'd like the idea that she hadn't been with anyone else.
I wouldn't assume that abstinence based school programs actually mention sex or abstinence.
I worked for a children's non-profit for 17 years. When our traditional volunteer organizational structure started to break down as more people worked outside of the home, we started working more and more with students during the school day.
Grants were the usual way to pay for such programs and abstinence based money was the most plentiful. We usually took the approach that children who saw choices in their future would be less likely to engage in risky sex but we didn't actually discuss sex and certainly didn't utilize any religous doctrine for saying that you shouldn't have sex. Instead, programs focused on teaching children about self-sufficiency and benefits of further education.
I personally concluded that neither does much good if the parents are either not involved enough to know or don't care. If a parent doesn't keep their 8th grade daughter from dating a guy over 21, its tough for the school or any other group to influence her to act differently.
BTW, I left that agency in early 2000 so this issue is not a new one.
The paradise that is western europe (and Cuba, land of great health care!). The STD data, like that of infant mortality, have to be disaggregated before they can be reasonably compared. Surprisingly enough, systems that tend to be nationalized tend to use data that makes their systems' performance look the best. Its what bureaucracies do.
This is a good demonstration of what has gone wrong with the education system. Oh, this study shows that your education methodology / system / paradigm doesn't have the desired effect? No problem. That just means we haven't SPENT ENOUGH time and money on the thing. When you read this latest study, where you see the term "abstinence" you could insert so many different education buzzwords and get the same result - multiculturalism, inclusion, new English / math, self-esteem reinforcement.....
PS. ...it is comparing the effect of abstinence only programs not against nothing, but against the programs already in place in schools...
Gerry, I wondered about that also. The problem is that there are few schools that don't teach one or the other, therefore the control group is omitted as it doesn't exist.
Sounds to me like the best thing to do would be to let some areas, particularly where the population is more culturally attuned to these approaches, implement them full scale, from elementary school through high school. Then we could compare the costs and the results.
NO! This is a simple opportunity cost cost argument. each hour we spend teaching these subjects is one less hour we have to teach our children vital language and logic skills. Stop waisting our time on these and other experiments and get back to teaching our kids how to read and write and perform math, things that will help them advance in the world.
I think that abstinence until marriage is a good ideal, as is monogamy - although they have historically been honored more in the breach than in the observance.
I think the value of such ideals rests in whether a society holding them up as desirable behaviors gains a net benefit by doing so.
Given the fact that the loss of our ideals has had very real human costs, I have a hard time with those who mock them.
As a society we don't live up to any ideals - but we are poorer without them.
I'd rather live in a society that promulgates strict standards that I may fall short of, rather than one where the prevailing ethic is summarized by "if it feels good, do it" and "what's in it for me?"
It seems to me that the discussion begs the question, "What is the problem?"
Is the problem that too many teens are getting pregnant? Too many teen stds? Too many teens hurt by sexual involvement before they are emotionally ready to deal with it?
What are the problems people?
Trey
Abstinence education has about the same effect as the Catholic church's position on birth control. One guarantees more Catholics and the other seems to guarantee more puzzled but "it was fun while it lasted" republicans.
And maybe, just maybe, it actually is to be abstinent until marriage.
Well, possibly. I'm sure someone has pointed this out already, but abstinence education is about as likely to succeed as any other kind of education nowadays, given the state of our public schools. If children haven't absorbed basic literacy in 13 years of formal schooling, it strains credulity to believe that a single health or sex-ed class -- almost certainly one of those joke classes anyhow -- is going to have the slightest effect on their behaviour.
The ethic of abstinence was maintained, in the past (however imperfectly), not by telling young adults that they ought not have sex, or trying to reason with them that, yes, it's awfully dumb to have sex and risk pregnancy and STDs and all that before monogamy and marriage. That's an approach doomed to failure. Young adults are characterised, in the main, by impetuosity and poor impulse control. Instead, abstinence was achieved through the widespread use of chaperones. Don't let a young man and a young woman alone in a room with the door closed! Always have someone's spinster aunt at their side! That will put the damper on their sexual adventures.
Generally, sex education is a science. Science of human reproduction. la culona
Post a Comment