Moral Education?
The Good News: The Kansas Board of Education, hot on the heels of their recent success re-introducing an evolution-oriented curriculum in science classes, has canned abstinence-only sex education.
The Bad News: They've replaced it with "abstinence plus" education, which stresses abstinence before marriage, while also urging schools to give students information about birth control and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
While it's a step in the right direction, and I believe teenagers desperately need to know about birth control and safer sex, I think they're missing a pretty big point here. They're addressing the question of what morality (and facts) they should teach instead of the question of whether or not schools should teach a morality curriculum of any kind.
Here's how I see it. There are a very wide variety of people in this country who believe many different things when it comes to morality. And quite a few of those kids go to public schools. Why does the school have the right to teach all of them the same moral code -- isn't that their parents' choice (and responsibility)?
While I wouldn't necessarily teach my kids to stay abstain from sex until marriage and I don't really think it works, I believe in other peoples' right to raise their children with the moral codes they believe in. And when you really come down do it, the question of abstinence is completely a moral one. Shouldn't the schools teach the facts (including the one where the only totally safe sex is no sex) and leave the morality up to parents, churches, and so on? Is there any other area of school curriculum where public schools with no religious affiliation teach moral codes that children should get from other places?
I think we should stick with the facts and let parents do their job by instilling the moral values they find important in their children, just like mine did. I didn't take any classes that encouraged me to be abstinent until marriage, and I think I turned out just fine in the morality department.
On a loosely related note:
The Nice Guys Happy Hour is on Friday and there are bribes involved. Be there or be square.
10 comments:
surely you mean "be there or be the product of a number multiplied by itself." ;)
and please clarify--the difference between using the phrase "the only safe sex is no sex" and "abstinence" is....
yeah, I got nothin'.
maybe the implication of the word? but really, it just means "The act or practice of refraining from indulging an appetite or desire, especially for alcoholic drink or sexual intercourse."
it's not that they're saying "God says wait." They're just saying "wait." It's the God part that makes it "moral," not the word or idea itself. And the logic they present is that if both people wait until marriage then neither of them will catch diseases, get (another) pregnant, etc.
cold hard fact, methinks.
besides they don't mention God in school ('cept for the pledge), so I think it's a-o-k to teach abstinence plus.
that said, I'm all about the step Kansas has taken though. Maybe my Okies will wise up...maybe.
"The only safe sex is no sex" lets people make their own educated decisions regarding risk. "Don't have sex" is a moral call. And "don't have sex 'til you get married" is definitely an attempt to force other people's morality on these kids. You're right that they don't mention God in schools, but you're confusing morality with religion. I think parents should have the right to teach their kids right and wrong in all the subjects where that call is subjective. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God.
I've worked in the education industry for years. I've been saddened about what parents *don't* or are unable to teach their kids. You are assuming that all parents are like yours- I wish they were, but they're not. I'm not sure I want to rely on people's parenting skills to be responsible for the moral direction of the next generation. (Though I'm not sure I'd want to rely on the schools either...) Ugh! I have no easy answers to this one.
Abstinence? That's the green stuff you get in Prague that makes you hallucinate, right?
My high school bio teacher said the only way to practice safe sex is absence.
The thing about abstinence-only programs in particular? They don't work. The number of partners and age of first sex is similar for those who do and do not get this type of education:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=3048738&page=1
I really think the biggest factors in what a kid chooses to do are his family and his peers. But honestly educating kids about the ramifications of decisions will be the most effective tool. Don't we want to do most what we're told we can't do??
::sighs:: what a crazy topic. My school was crazy about this stuff, afraid to even touch it. Hoenstly, I don't even remember the actual lessons we learned, I just know it was abstinence-only education... but considering how many girls got knocked up at my high school, it clearly did zero good.
See you Friday!
you know what though? I actually feel for the educators.
I have a friend who teaches sex ed in virginia (and boy, if anyone knows about how to have lots of sex and not get pregnant, it's her). Anyway, the list of words she's "not allowed to say" is like a mile long.
I think you're splitting hairs here.
abstaining from sex and the only safe sex is no sex is the same thing in my book.
now, what REALLY throws a kink in the marriage logic is our divorce rate, hmmmm?
My kids are 18 and 20. I firmly believe that the hardest part of raising them was teaching them about sex.
I did the best I could do, starting with providing what I thought was the right example. I had an active sex life after their father and I divorced, but that didn't take place under their noses. I never had - still haven't had - a boyfriend spend the night if they're home and I never introduced them to any of the men I dated, until I met the man I married the second time.
In my conversations with them, I tried to emphasize that it wasn't about whether sex was right or wrong, it was about them being ready to handle not only the physical part, but the emotional and mental aspects of having sex.
Talking about the how-to was easy. Condoms and bananas was easy. Clinton made talking about oral sex easy. The different ways A goes into B was easy.
Explaining to them how getting naked with someone changed everything was harder.
Frankly, I still don't know if I did the right thing. I know they were both 17 before they had sex for the first time, so I almost feel like I succeeded. But am I sure? Absolutely not.
And I absolutely did not want some teacher being their only source of information. How do I know what s/he thinks about sex? How do I know what they think about abortion or birth control? No, absolutely not.
Schools are welcome to teach the mechanics of sexual activity, but they need to stay out of the morality of it.
Sorry to use all the bandwidth!
I can say that the education I got from my parents was minimal, at best. Does that mean I think the school should be doing it? Nope.
Teach "health class" the same way you teach your other subjects. Tell kids what the risks are from that perspective in the classroom. Just because the parents might not be doing their job, doesn't mean it's the place of a public school to step in, either.
I had a health class in high school that strictly taught health and a tiny bit on sex, STDs, etc. They weren't big on teaching abstinence either. My mom did a fine job with teaching me morals and the facts. See, nowadays, these teenagers are curious about everything! So it's very important that parents teach them the facts whether they may think they are too young or not.
Post a Comment