0 Comments
Email to a friend
Printer-friendly
Digg this
Sex, lies and federal funding
The continuing debate over abstinence-only sexuality education
Illustration by Shelby Kelley
If you’re a parent — if you’re not, just pretend — imagine sending your child off to school, backpack strapped on, lunch box in hand, ready for a day of growth and learning. Now imagine your sweet-faced son or daughter running home that afternoon, full of stories about the day’s events. When you ask what the class learned that day, you are told, in history, they learned about World War II but heard nothing of the Holocaust. 
Why? Maybe it’s because it’s unpleasant, and the teachers don’t want students to get any ideas. Sounds outrageous, doesn’t it? What kind of school system would teach a subject but leave out important details? Plenty would, when it comes to sex education. Across the nation, despite overwhelming parental support for comprehensive education, abstinence-only sex education programs are gaining popularity. And the reasons for their growth aren’t what you’d think. In Indiana, where the curricula changes with each community, anything goes — as long as it’s abstinence plus, which mandates that sex outside of marriage should be discouraged, but information about HIV/AIDS prevention must also be included. Many school systems argue that the only way to do this is through abstinence. In her two years as an educator/trainer for Planned Parenthood of Greater Indiana in Ft. Wayne, Judy Harris estimates she has only been asked to speak at two high schools about sexuality education. Kelly McBride, educator for Planned Parenthood in Bloomington, Indiana, on the other hand, is always on the go, teaching sexuality education in a community that is open to dialogue and new classroom techniques. Jennifer Staab, drug and AIDS educator for the Monroe County school corporation, says Bloomington schools tend to support comprehensive education. In fact, classes are increasingly emphasizing oral sex in response to a marked increased in orally transmitted STD among high school students. While arming students with information about both abstinence and contraception has been a common practice, the federal government is throwing an ever-increasing amount of money at schools that teach abstinence-only sex education. According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), three federal programs have been funded to the tune of more than a half a billion dollars. On February 13, Congress passed its appropriations bill to fund these programs, tacking on a $10 million increase. Though the push for federal funding for abstinence-only sex education began in 1981 under the U.S. Office of Population Affairs’ Adolescent Family Life Act, the approach was greatly expanded in 1996, when the federal government amended the welfare reform law to establish a funding program for abstinence-only-until-marriage education, sending $50 million a year for five years to schools that agreed to teach the government-approved abstinence-only curriculum. According to SIECUS, the schools that choose to accept the funds must teach that, “sexual activity outside the marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.” SIECUS also alleges these education programs provide inaccurate medical information and give students exaggerated statistics about STD rates and condom failures. The curricula often suggest that STDs are an inevitable side-effect of sex outside of marriage. Kathleen Baldwin, vice president of education for Planned Parenthood of Greater Indiana, the nation’s second-largest branch, says the rhetoric of the program is: “Don’t use condoms because they don’t work, and sex will kill you.” Esther Meier, executive director of the Carmel-based Creating Positive Relationships (CPR), a federally funded not-for-profit group that provides abstinence-plus educational programming, disagrees. “It’s easy to stereotype sex as bad or harmful, but it really is a beautiful thing,” she says. “When our group presents it as dangerous, students realize they’re into something they’re not ready for.” CPR, active since 1990, reaches 51,000 middle school and high school students in central Indiana each year. The five-day program includes a panel of five or six abstinent teenagers who engage in frank, unscripted conversation with the participants. Meier stressed that the program does not leave out facts or chastise students for being sexually active. “We are not shame-based,” says Meier. “Kids struggle with the aftermath of being in a sexual relationship, and we look at their education from a health perspective, both physically and emotionally.” CPR educators routinely work with high schoolers and even middle school students who are sexually active, and their goal is to encourage students to reclaim their virginity. In a letter to CPR, Eddie, a sexually active high school student turned panel member, wrote of his past sexual encounters. “I gave up my virginity to someone who I barely knew and I didn’t know anything about … I have had over 13 sexual partners since I was 15 … I have made the choice to become a 2nd virgin.” According to a survey conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), a nonprofit organization focusing on reproductive health research, 35% of America’s schools choose to teach sexuality education classes similar to CPR. The programs teach students to value their minds and bodies and wait to have intercourse, and they indeed work for some, but critics are concerned about outcomes for students who do not make Eddie’s decision. A 2001 report from then-Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher notes that abstinence-only education could be deterring contraceptive use among sexually active teens. SIECUS studies also show that comprehensive education helps delay sexual activity in teens, reduces their number of sexual partners, and increases contraceptive use. So why teach one-sided, potentially ineffective information? Many school districts are strapped for cash, and there are currently no federally-funded programs that advocate teaching both abstinence and contraception. Schools can access abstinence-only funds simply by agreeing to ditch the old “rolling the condom over a banana” lesson plan. Baldwin argues that, no matter the financial benefits, teaching abstinence-only information is irresponsible and misleading. “For government money to support misinformation like that is really problematic,” she said. “There isn’t any other subject matter that legislation dictates should be incorrect information. It’s terribly frustrating that we can’t get consensus that it isn’t okay to lie to kids.” So far, the lure of money seems to be working. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in 1988, one in 50 sexuality educators nationwide taught abstinence-only education. One year later, that number had risen to one in four. In Indiana, school districts can apply for the federal money, but state funding to teach abstinence-plus education is also available. Sue Errington, director of public policy at Planned Parenthood of Greater Indiana, says more competition exists for the state money than the federal funds. Although Indiana schools seem to be in favor of the more comprehensive plan, advocates of comprehensive sexuality education say there is still the concern that some districts will adopt abstinence-only approaches in order to gain access to federal funds. “I think Indiana is always going to go where the money is,” says Theresa Browning, Planned Parenthood’s director of communications. Indiana polls show support for medically accurate sexuality education, and nationwide, 93% of parents think their high school aged children should receive comprehensive education. (This 93% figure is cited by the SIECUS-Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.) Indiana residents do not all agree, however. Rep. Eric Koch (R-Bedford) introduced a bill during the 2003 session requiring schools to teach that “the best way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and other associated health problems is to establish a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage.” On the other side of this issue is Rep. Greg Porter (D-Indianapolis), who introduced House Bill 1862, requiring all sexuality education information to be medically accurate. Neither bill received a hearing this session, but Planned Parenthood supports Porter’s stance and continues to advocate for comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education. Though Porter’s bill requires medically accurate information, it still stresses the importance of abstinence. This is not enough for some groups, like the Indiana Family Institute, which opposed Porter’s medically accurate bill, arguing, “The true aim of the bill is to advance the Planned Parenthood agenda of promoting contraception and abortion on demand.” Research from the Alan Guttmacher Institute shows that most sex ed teachers agree that contraceptive methods and sexual orientation should be taught in high school. One in five sex ed teachers believes restrictions on sex education prevent them from teaching what their students need to know. Statistics back this up. According to the annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 45.6 percent of high school students have had intercourse, which would seem to question the value of teaching content on abstinence but not contraception to students who are already sexually active. Support for comprehensive education may be gaining steam in the face of this reality, even among conservatives: a 2002 Othamer Institute survey of registered voters found that only 13 percent of Republican respondents favored abstinence-only sex education programs. (The Othamer Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood of New York.) Despite the current state and federal political climate favoring abstinence education, Planned Parenthood’s Baldwin notes that “there are some pretty heroic teachers out there on a limb” who are trying to teach the most comprehensive information they can. “We’re leaving people without alternatives,” says Baldwin. “People have a right to information.”
Post a comment
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||
 |
||
Oct 12, 2008
Downtown
Booker’s art, which quickly gained notoriety when she first began making sculpture from the discarded rubber in the late ’90s, is breathing n...
Do you sleep in the nude?
[ view results ]
