Intergrated Sex Education Curriculum is Best
...e who have alternative religious beliefs? Planned Parenthood also states that “abstinence-only programs force-feed students religious ideology that condemns homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and contraception” (par. 1). How do these judgments and discriminations ooze into our education system? This all seems to be partially due to the lack of communication between teachers and students. Often, as Paulo Freire describes in his composition “The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education”, the teachers “task is to ‘fill’ the students with the contents of his narration-contents which are detached from reality, disconnected…” (259). Teachers and school officials may not be listening to the needs of the students. After all, abstinence-only programs devote 0% of their curriculum to open-ended discussion, as Shannan Martin and others report from the Heritage Foundation (VI). So maybe there are faults to pro-abstinence programs, but do they work? Planned Parenthood claims that there is very little evidence that teens who participate in abstinence-only programs abstain longer than other teens that have not and the teens who have participated in these programs are less likely to use contraception (Abstinence… par. 17). It is the right of the student to be provided with accurate, unbiased facts and then apply it to their own lives. Of course, there are two sides to every story. The most recent trend in sex education is the abstinence-only program. This method consists of teaching students that the only way to guarantee prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy is to abstain from sexual activity. A TIME Magazine Online article titled “Mixed Reviews for Abstinence-Only Programs.” reports that in 1996 the federal welfare reform developed the abstinence-only program for schools and community groups to use in their sex education curriculum (par. 2). This program was developed due to the increase of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies among teens. According to a recent article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Andrea Iglar reports that there are about 4 million cases of teens diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease each year (2). In 2001, there were over 2,000 cases in Allegheny County alone (Iglar pg.2). The abstinence-only programs were developed as a means to decrease these numbers. Prospectively, if there are so many cases of sexually transmitted diseases, there must be too many teens having sex. With these figures being so alarming, the government felt that it had to step in and enforce educational guidelines, so it set aside $50 million for the cause (Mixed…par. 2). Not surprisingly, it’s not just sexually transmitted diseases that harm teens that have sex. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation reports that other consequences of teens who become sexually active at an early age include increased probability of pregnancy, increased “maternal and child poverty”, and increased depression (par. 2). The purpose of teaching teens that abstinence is the only option is to reduce these effects. Those who support abstinence-only education believe that other sex education curriculum, such as those that promote contraception, are ineffective. Melissa Pardue of the Heritage Foundation reports that 3 out of 4 parents of teens disapprove of such curriculum otherwise referred to as comprehensive sex education or abstinence-plus programs (par. 13). The Heritage Foundation reports that comprehensive sex education devotes less that 5% of the teaching material to abstinence (par. 8). Abstinence-only curriculum does not promote contraception. Teens may get the wrong message from a sex education program that leaves them with so many options about sex. Abstinence education only provides the option of waiting until marriage for sex. Teens who support the ideas of abstinence can even promise to not have sex by participating in pledge activities. Rector reports that teenage girls who take the “virginity pledge” are 40% less likely to become pregnant before being married (par. 5). There are also the extreme pro-abstinence supporters like Dr. Melvin Anchell who criticizes comprehensive sex education and even describes it as “devastating” (1). Anchell reports that since the initial establishment of comprehensive sex education over 20 years ago, teens admitted to hospitals for depression has tripled and teen suicide has increased 200% (6). It is implied here that sexual activity at an early age leads to devastating results and talking openly about sex in the class room gives teenagers permission to have sex. Anchell also bashes comprehensive sex education by saying it teaches values which characterize with those of prostitutes such as approaching sex with “indifference” and without guilt (par. 6 and 7). Even the non-extremist concludes that material in comprehensive sex education programs contain too many controversial and explicit aspects and may directly encourage or arouse engagement of sexual activity. Abstinence-only education is reformed to edit any ideas about sex. Teens are taught that their lives will be better without sex before marriage and free of the emotional and physical repercussions it will cause. Those who support the abstinence-only programs have developed statistical data which support the program. The Heritage Foundation, who provides facts and information about abstinence education, reports that there are 10 nationwide studies that prove abstinence-only program...