Comprehensive Sex ed Needs to be Federally Funded for all Public Schools

Emily Taussig
Dr. Zerwin
SLCC
16 November 2010

What is School-Appropriate Sex Education?

There is no doubt that young adults need sexual education. To ensure that every American teenager receives a complete education, comprehensive sex education programs must be in all public schools and should be Federally funded.

It has long been debated whether our schools or our parents should should be responsible for teaching our youth how to safely participate in our ever increasingly sexual society. The only way to avoid (with certainty) teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease is to abstain from sexual activity.  But, the vast majority of young people faced with the decision of whether or not to delay becoming sexually active for when they’re married ultimately choose not to wait.
    The argument that the only appropriate way for schools to handle sex education is to teach abstinence, is dated and ultimately ineffective in reducing the rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In a study done by John Jemmott, a social psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, over 600 middle school students were taught  abstinence-only, for sex education. Sixty-seven percent of these students abstained from sexual intercourse for the first two years; compared to forty-eight percent of students who were not exposed to any sort of sex education at all. However, after two years, most of these teens had become sexually active. Thus, teaching abstinence was only temporarily effective. Programs such as this one were heavily funded (Federally)  twelve years ago. During those twelve years, kids have  matured, in many ways, at younger ages, while also being exposed to a more sexually explicit world. In the above-mentioned program in particular, the  number of students who were not sexually active and, thus the effectiveness of the education diminished greatly in a short time. These programs may seem both logical and effective when analyzed over the short-run; but, there is an important, lingering issue. Once these students decide to become sexually active they will not have had the opportunity to learn how to do so safely.
    If not provided in school it is assumed that parents will take on the role of educating their children in such matters. Depending on what these parents are deciding to teach, their student may or may not come away with what they need to know when it comes to sexual matters. Without some sort of regulation parents have full control over what is being taught and what their kids are learning. “It is a dense and serious subject. You have to have training to teach it. It's not something you can go over lightly” says Rebecca Terrell, executive director of Memphis Center for Reproductive Health. This is the problem, more often than not parents choose to go over it “lightly” avoiding those more uncomfortable details. Those who support sex ed being taught at home often use the argument that “teens are more comfortable learning about sex at home”, but lets be honest, what teenager has any desire to sit down with their parents and talk about sex?

Providing a solid comprehensive sex education that emphasizes abstinence until marriage gives students everything they need to make an educated decision when faced with sex. In Texas, a state with one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country, thirty-eight percent of teens in public school admitted to be sexually active (Moore). At this point and with numbers like this teaching an abstinence only sex ed would be useless. To prevent teen pregnancies and the spreading of STD’s among sexually active young adults requires knowledge. Knowledge of how to protect yourself.

Comprehensive sex education’s sole purpose is safety which is not limited to one’s teenage years. Knowledge gained in sex education in school lasts a life time and can allow a married couple to determine when and if they are going to have children.

Federally funded sex ed programs will save money for the American tax payers . A total of thirty states do not have any laws that require schools to teach any form of sex ed. Each school district can choose for themselves to add a comprehensive sex ed program but with federal funds dwindling it becomes difficult to find money to run such programs. As reluctant as the American people are to pay more taxes this has proved its self necessary. Every year Americans spend around 7 billion dollars on social services for teen parents (Maynard). In Athens, Georgia alone nearly one million tax dollars in one year would be saved if the birth rate amongst teen moms decreased by only five percent (powerpoint). It comes down to what we want to pay for, sex ed or children born to teen parents.

Furthermore teenagers are fully capable of handling comprehensive sex ed in a school setting. We are surrounded by sexuality every day, all day. Adding a sex ed class to our daily schedules would do nothing to change that and would in fact help us deal with it. As a teenager, I was placed in a comprehensive sex ed class as a sophomore in high school and didn’t have a single problem with any of my classmates having difficulty handling the material. Most teenagers have realized their independence by high school and are ready to decide on their own whether or not the receive an education in sexuality. Ultimately parents have the right to withdraw their students who are under 18 from these classes if they find the curriculum too much for them.

Any sex ed program is progress against the rising number of teen pregnancies and STD’s. Abstinence only programs are only one approach and would fit easily into a comprehensive program that takes this lesson further by teaching about contraceptives among other things. American’s are dedicated to the education of their youth and the idea of equality for all. Adding the same, equal comprehensive sex ed programs to each public high school will allow every student to learn how to safely be sexually active.

Works Cited

Roberts, Jane. "School board considers adding its voice to fight the rising teen pregnancy rate." Commercial Appeal, The (Memphis, TN) 17 Oct. 2010: Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.

Cheryl Wetzstein, THE WASHINGTON TIMES. "'Lack' of sex ed is exaggerated." Washington Times, The (DC) (2010): 5.Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.

Moore, Amy. "Condom talk helps students use them." Beaumont Enterprise, The (TX) 05 Oct. 2010: Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.

MELISSA, BLOCK. "Study: Abstinence Education Yields Results." All Things Considered (NPR) (n.d.): Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.

http://www.uga.edu/iws/WAGG/wagg08powerpoints/schlanger.pdf