Society is changing and schools must change with it. This includes changes in the way that sex education is presented to everyone in the school setting. Reputable experts agree that sex education is not inclusive of all genders and sexualities and change is needed. 10 years ago gay marriage was legalized; and, yet this progression is not reflected in the school system. LGBTQ+ students deserve to be recognized and educated about safety between same-sex relations. Schools must also recognize that times have changed and abstinence-only education and outdated notions are not realistic. Sex education in schools must be more comprehensive to allow for the inclusion of today’s student body.
Abstinence as the only form of sex education needs to be altered. Students’ lack of knowledge regarding pregnancy protection results in high rates of teen pregnancy and leaves students who do have sex at an increased risk of teen pregnancy. Kathrin F. Stanger-Hall Ph.D. and David W. Hall Ph.D. wrote a research article, Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S, speaking on the ineffectiveness of abstinence teaching. The authors state that “The appropriate type of sex education that should be taught in U.S. public schools continues to be a major topic of debate, which is motivated by the high teen pregnancy and birth rates in the U.S., compared to other developed countries” (Stanger-Hall and Hall 2). The United States as a whole is behind on sex education. Although some schools may teach about all types of pregnancy protections, far too many do not. Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, and at least 15 other states teach abstinence-only sex education. Teen pregnancy rates are objectively higher in the states that have abstinence-only teaching. Not only is abstinence-only sex education being taught but such programs are supported by federal funding. Research shows that “Funding for abstinence-only programs in 2006 and 2007 was $176 million annually (before matching state funds) ...under the federal funding regulations, most of these programs cannot include information about contraception or safer-sex practices” (Stanger-Hall and Hall 3). After 14 years, these programs are still alive and being used by schools. Students who attend these schools are at an increased risk of teen pregnancy if they are sexually active and are also at a higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases because they are uninformed. John Santelli, professor of Population and Family Health at the Mailman School says, “The weight of scientific evidence shows these programs do not help young people delay initiation of sexual intercourse...While abstinence is theoretically effective, in actual practice, intentions to abstain from sexual activity often fail. These programs simply do not prepare young people to avoid unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases” (Santelli 1). Schools are not helping students by teaching them abstinence-only; they are withholding relevant information. The risk of teen pregnancy and STDs can be diminished if the education system made its students fully aware of what comes with being sexually active.
This issue of abstinence-only sex ed is more than just an opinion from experts the general public is in agreeance that more needs to be taught. A study was done by Amy Bleakley, Ph.D. to review what United States citizens believe is the best way to teach sex education.
The results of the study are as follows,
“Approximately 82% of respondents indicated support for programs that teach students about both abstinence and other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Similarly, 68.5% supported teaching how to properly use condoms. Abstinence-only education programs, in contrast, received the lowest levels of support (36%) and the highest level of opposition (about 50%) across the 3 program options. Self-identified conservative, liberal, and moderate respondents all supported abstinence-plus programs, although the extent of support varied significantly” (Bleakley 3). Not only do experts believe that there needs to be a country-wide shift from abstinence-only education to comprehensive education but a majority of the public does as well. As this research is from 2006, society has become more and more progressive one can assume that they want for a comprehensive program has grown. Naomi Starman Ph.D. conducted a study on STDs to find out what type of STDs are most prominent and in what age group. She estimated that by the end of high school nearly two-thirds of American students are sexually active. Less than half of United States public schools supply students with information on how to obtain contraceptives. It is clearly evident that the United States is in desperate need of a well-formed sex-ed program. In theory, abstinence-only sex education seems like the best option to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs; however, it is obvious that it has not worked for decades and school systems must listen to the experts and make a change to fully support their students.
A high school is a place for students to learn about themselves. Schools must be prepared to teach LGBTQ+ relations in sex education.
Leslie Kantor, assistant professor of Population and Family Health at the Mailman School of Public Health and Vice President of Education at Planned Parenthood Federation of America spoke on this,
“Young people have a right to sex education that gives them the information and skills
they need to stay safe and healthy. Withholding critical health information from young
people is a violation of their rights. abstinence-only-until-marriage programs leave all young people unprepared and are particularly harmful to young people who are sexually active, who are LGBTQ, or have experienced sexual abuse” (Kantor 5) The education system is refusing to acknowledge the issues its students face every day. Homophobia is deeply rooted in the school system their sex-ed programs reflect that. How can a school expect its students to be safe and smart if it does not teach them properly? This lack of awareness in schools is causing LQBTQ+ students to feel underrepresented and, even more so, putting them at health risk if they are sexually active. The LGBTQ+ community being unrepresented is not a new issue, this has been going on for centuries. Mickey J. Eliason Ph.D. and John P. Elia Ph.D. head of The Department of Health Education at San Francisco State University say, “glaring evidence that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) issues and individuals have been left out. This has had negative repercussions on LGBTQ youth and heterosexually identified youth alike. Sex education, particularly since so many abstinence-only-until-marriage-until marriage programs have received federal funding since 1996, has discriminated against sexual others (those who do not identify as heterosexual)”(Eliason and Elia 2). The discrimination that the authors talk about is unacceptable and needs to advance from this decades-old program. High school students in the U.S. are speaking out about how schools are failing them but education still turns a blind eye. Mira Debs Ph.D. a professor at Yale University conducted a study in 2017 on how LGBTQ+ students feel about their school environment. These were the results: “More than half of LGBT-identifying students report feeling unsafe at school, the majority reporting having experienced direct verbal harassment (The 2015 National School Climate Survey). Not only are they facing this bullying, harassment, and discrimination on a personal level, but many still face this treatment on an institutional level”(Debs 4). Students are not only being attacked verbally and physically by their peers but they are also facing poor treatment from the school system itself.
No student should have to feel unwelcome in their work environment. The research paper Associations of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning–Inclusive Sex Education With Mental Health Outcomes and School-Based Victimization in U.S. High School Students created by Chelsea N. Proulx M.P.H, Robert W.S. Coulter Ph.D., M.P.H, James E. Egan Ph.D., M.P.H., Derrick D. Matthews Ph.D., M.P.H., and Christina Mair Ph.D., M.P.H. zones in the effects of discrimination in schools. “Homophobic school climates are related to increased victimization for sexual minority youth (SMY), leading to increased risk of adverse mental health outcomes. Interventions that promote a positive school climate may reduce the risk of victimization and adverse mental health outcomes in SMY. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ)–inclusive sex education is associated with adverse mental health and school-based victimization in U.S. youth...” (Mair 7). Schools want to help their students do their best! However, a student does their best if they are being victimized by their school: Homophobia needs are eradicated from schools and this means including same-sex sex education, gender identity lessons, sexual orientation lessons, ex… This should be a nationwide expectation for all schools. Hilary Burdge head of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network worked with Shannon D. Snapp Ph.D. and Adela C. Licona Ph.D. on a research paper titled Students’ Perspectives on LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum.
This paper states:
“LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum rarely met standards of social justice education, though opportunities for critical conversations about systemic oppression regularly emerged. For instance, teachers often failed to intervene in LGBTQ bullying and missed teachable moments conducive to inclusive curriculum. Some students learned positive LGBTQ lessons and highlighted the ways such curriculum reflected their identities and created a supportive school climate”(Burdge 5). To break the chain of homophobia by not making it a taboo subject. Heterosexual and homosexual relations should be seen as the same and neither should have a hierarchy over the other. Schools teaching a comprehensive curriculum would help educate homosexual students on how be safe if they decide to have sexual relations, as well as break down decades of deep-rooted homophobia.
The solution to fix the incomplete and exclusive sex-ed programs currently being taught in most United States schools is simple. A universal comprehensive sex-ed program should be created to fully encompass the needs of all students. Comprehensive sex education would equip high schoolers with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values they need to determine and enjoy their sexuality- physically and emotionally. Naomi Starman Ph.D. performed a study on comprehensive sex education which emphasizes the benefits of abstinence while also teaching about contraception and disease-prevention methods. This program has been proven to reduce rates of teen pregnancy and STD infection. This idea is not impossible Sweden, France, The Netherlands and many other countries have nationwide comprehensive sex education. A well-made comprehensive sex-ed program will help so many struggling teens find themselves as well as educate teens on safe sex and pregnancy prevention. Help should no longer be inaccessible to students and schools have the power to change things.
It is essential that schools create a nationwide comprehensive sex-ed program so they can fully support and include their students. Abstinence-only education is leaving teens ill informed and causing teen pregnancy. High school students who are a part of the LQBTQ+ community are neglected by the education system and are at risk. This lack of education and neglect can be easily resolved by creating a sex-ed program that teaches students that abstinence is preferred, as well as preparing them for a sexual experience with any gender. The school system must do better in educating its students.
Works Cited
Amy Bleakley, Ph.D. “Public Opinion on Sex Education in US Schools.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, JAMA Network, 1 Nov. 2006, jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/205706.
Elia, John P. “Dangerous Omissions: Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage School-Based Sexuality Education and the Betrayal of LGBTQ Youth.” Taylor & Francis, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15546121003748848.
Hall, Kelli Stidham, et al. “The State of Sex Education in the United States.” The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, U.S. National Library of Medicine, June 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426905/.
Kirby, Douglas Bernard. “Research on Effectiveness of Sex Education Programs.” Taylor & Francis, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00405848909543398?journalCode=htip20.
Proulx, Chelsea N., et al. “Associations of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning–Inclusive Sex Education With Mental Health Outcomes and School-Based Victimization in U.S. High School Students.” Journal of Adolescent Health, Elsevier, 26 Jan. 2019, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X18307973?casa_token=OR_3Uhgx+https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fhl&lr=&id=ZkxjSnI2e0UC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=lgbt%2Bexclusion%2Bin%2Bschools&ots=QmMwtfLacL&sig=QOF0RrGpoEfT8R71uU6RLwu7_1o#v=onepage&q=lgbt%20exclusion%20in%20schools&f=false.
“Queering Sex Education: Young Adult Literature with LGBT Content as Complementary Sources of Sex and Sexuality Education.” Taylor & Francis, www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19361653.2012.714167?scroll=top&needAccess=true.
Rajani, Naomi Starkman and Nicole, et al. “The Case for Comprehensive Sex Education.” Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., Publishers, 5 July 2004, www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/108729102320231144.
Santelli, John S., et al. “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage: An Updated Review of U.S. Policies and Programs and Their Impact.” Journal of Adolescent Health, Elsevier, 22 Aug. 2017, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X17302604.
Stanger-Hall, Kathrin F., and David W. Hall. “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S.” PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024658.
Comments