Sex Ed in America: The Importance of a Comprehensive Approach
For many individuals, the first image that comes to mind at the utterance of the words sexual education is likely to be something along the lines of an awkward hour spent in a middle or high school health class. However, sexual education is so much more than listening to an unenthusiastic, uncomfortable lecture about the dangers of sexual activity outside of marriage and/or learning how to put a condom on a banana. Due to a wide array of opinions regarding the sensitive topics that fall under the umbrella term sexual education, there are differing methods of teaching; all of which face their own set of advantages and limitations, though some bear more of the latter. A number of people argue that abstinence should be the only topic taught, while many others believe in a more open and honest approach to educating young people. Supporters of comprehensive methods seek to arm the youth with necessary information in the hopes of encouraging safe and informed decision making and thus minimizing the occurrence of high-risk behavior. Likewise, there are individuals who fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, supporting a method that stresses abstinence, while also providing information regarding contraception as a means of preventing the spread of sexually transmitted infections. The importance of comprehensive sexual education is something that has been proven time and time again, and the reality that funding for these necessary programs is often challenged by federal policy makers is highly concerning.
Near the start of the 1980s, President Ronald Regan and his administration began to channel funding in the direction of “abstinence-only-until-marriage” programs. These programs provided little-to-no information regarding the practices of safe sex, options available in terms of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, and various other topics that are essential to maintaining one’s reproductive health. This inappropriate flow of funding can be attributed to either a lack of understanding on the policy-makers’ part due to the scarcity of research available at the time regarding the overall efficacy of certain programs. Additionally, the more conservative attitude towards human sexuality in general stemming from the Republican-majority that had control of the United States’ government may also have been a factor. Funding for these ineffective programs greatly increased during the Bush presidencies, and continued up until 2010 when President Barack Obama and his advisors eliminated two-thirds of the funding abstinence-only programs would receive during fiscal years 2010-11 (SIECUS).
At the start of 2010, approximately $190 million was made available to fund “evidence-based programs and innovative approaches” that would allow for more transparency between educators, students, and resources to promote comprehensive sexuality education among America’s youth (SIECUS). Not only did these newly allocated monies give students the opportunity to gain useful knowledge that would serve them for many years to come, but also allowed educators the chance to teach topics they deemed to be necessary, regardless of the controversy attached. However, once the money left the hands of those in federal positions, it became the responsibility of those at the state-level, which meant funding would be distributed according to each state’s policies. Without a federally mandated standard of what students have a right to learn in terms of reproductive health, states and those in charge of creating policies and distributing funds are left to decide what topics educators will teach and the age at which students are introduced to them. Of the fifty states in America, just twenty-four and the District of Columbia require sexual education be taught, with an even smaller number, thirteen, requiring the information taught be medically accurate (Guttmacher Institute). This divide between what is taught region to region can lead to a significant rift in what young people know depending on the area in which they grew up, and an overall lack of consistency in what future generations will go on to learn.
With sexual education requirements coming from the state and/or district levels, teachers face a number of limitations that inhibit their abilities to instruct students on certain aspects of vital information. According to an article published by the American School Health Association in the Journal of School Health, some of the greatest barriers facing teachers are concerns regarding the way in which parents, students, and administrators alike will react to the discussion of some topics. Additionally, there are other barriers such as a lack of time and materials, and/or a lack of teacher preparedness, as well as limiting policies and regulations. The teachers in one particular study were selected from different areas within the state of Minnesota and asked various questions. The questions were regarding the topics that were covered and those that were omitted, as well as the reasons for the omissions, and a list of topics that teachers felt were most necessary. According to the study “among the fourteen topics assessed in the survey, ten were endorsed by at least eighty percent of the teachers as content that should be included in sexuality education” (Eisenberg, et. al). However, when comparing what teachers felt should be taught versus what was actually taught, a staggering “sixty-six percent taught fewer topics than they thought [were necessary]” (Eisenberg, et. al). Although the sample group for the study was relatively small, consisting of 368 participants, it is not unusual to assume that teachers in other parts of the country experience similar limitations regarding what they are able to communicate to their students.
While educators may fear the responses following the teaching of controversial topics from parents of the children, research has shown that a large majority of those parents are supportive of comprehensive sexual education. A study conducted in Florida, and also published in the Journal of School Health, focused on parental support for earlier introduction to sexual education. Through the use of randomized phone calls made between January 2009 and January 2010 to willing participants that fit specific criteria, researchers were able to conclude that “the majority (79.3%) of parents would allow their children to participate in age-appropriate sexuality education”, and 76.8% of respondents supported either comprehensive or abstinence-based education (Barr, et. al). Additionally, an interesting and previously underrepresented aspect of this study was the focus placed on offering sexual education to students as early as the beginning years of elementary school. Even when holding controls for various different demographics, such as race, age, and education level, the results of the study held constant that fewer than thirty percent of parents who provided responses preferred the methods used in abstinence-only programs.
With data showing that the majority of parents, teachers, and political leaders are supportive of a comprehensive approach to sexuality education, the gap between what is taught and what most believe should be taught is still cavernous. This observation may lead one to question why educators are not getting down to the nitty-gritty and teaching the topics that may not be the easiest to explain, but are imperative to the student’s overall understanding of what sexual health truly is. A possible explanation for this discrepancy may be a lack of teacher preparedness and educational background in public health, or any kind of health for that matter. A large study which included a total of 89, 286 middle and high school teachers found that those who had been “professionally prepared”, meaning they had a degree of some sort in health education, were significantly more likely to provide their students with information covering a wider array of topics than those who were not what the study considered to be professionally prepared (Hammig, et. al). It is important to note that all teachers included in the study were educated professionals with adequate credibility to be teaching the youth, however those who taught strictly health classes were more likely to be “professionally prepared” than the teachers who taught another subject that incorporated aspects of health (Hammig, et. al). This lack of instruction and understanding on the part of the teachers could lead to a multitude of new barriers when it comes to addressing sensitive material.
In some schools, rather than having a class dedicated solely to topics concerning health, taught by a public health educator or someone with a similar background, students are left to rely on their biology or physical education teachers for instruction of lessons related to reproductive health. If an educator is specifically trained in health education, the chances that s/he will feel comfortable providing a straight-forward, honest, and educational response to questions are more likely than with an educator who is trained to answer questions about other topics. Regardless of specified backgrounds and subjects taught, the apprehension of teachers to cover certain topics can also be related to the negative views society tends to take on adolescent sexuality as a whole. In my opinion, the overall attitude toward sexuality here in America can be considered somewhat prudish in terms of what is deemed appropriate and socially acceptable topics of conversation; particularly when looked at in comparison to some European nations, as explained in research conducted by Parker, et. al. While some adults in America would rather turn a blind-eye to the activities executed by teens and young adults, continuing to pretend that abstinence is taking place, ignorance is not always bliss, as evidenced in many different situations throughout life.
Being a California resident, it is alarming to look at the policies and standards of other states regarding what is taught to youth across the country; these concerns are likely due in part to the requirements placed on schools here to offer comprehensive sexuality education to all students. According to a letter addressed to the parents/guardians of students enrolled in Chico Unified School District, California’s health educators are required to cover ten topics, ranging from abstinence to sexual harassment and sex trafficking; as well as including different methods of contraception, information about abortion, and even the safe surrendering of parental rights for infants under seventy-two hours after birth (McKay). Additionally, the letter offers parents/guardians the information needed should they choose to exclude their children from certain lessons or sexual education altogether. While some individuals may seek to shelter their children from information regarding sexual activity and all things related, it may be difficult for others to understand why one would choose to inhibit a child from gaining useful knowledge that has the potential to greatly impact their lives for years to come. Oftentimes, when a child is not given the opportunity to learn about all aspects of sexual health, it is linked to religious beliefs that do not condone sexual activity before marriage.
Although there are reasons for some individuals to support abstinence-only sexual education, or even abstinence-based programs, which were not addressed in this text; the benefits of following a comprehensive approach seem to far outweigh any cons that can be found. By teaching children about the dangers of high-risk behavior and how to avoid unfavorable situations, the welfare of these young people can be greatly increased through the garnering of information that will allow them to make well-informed decisions throughout their lives. Offering comprehensive sexual education is beneficial to all parties involved, it allows students to develop a deeper understanding of what goes in to sexual health, as well as providing teachers the opportunities to make real differences in the lives of those who need it the most.