Schools stumble over sex education
Two camps have emerged over the years: Teach abstinence only, or teach safer sex. But both these approaches may fall short of what teens need most.
In some classrooms, sex education means a dark message about the frightening potential consequences of sex outside marriage. Yet in others, a class of the same title involves graphic, practical information about contraceptives, presented with the casual expectation that these are things every teen needs to know.
There are few topics in US public education that ignite more emotion - or bridge more divergent viewpoints - than sex ed. In an age when Americans talk about sex more freely than ever, they still struggle with the question of what to tell their children.
When it comes to deciding what should be taught about the subject in school, it is hard to find an inch of common ground in what has become a highly polarized battleground.
"[Sex education] has become an ideological war, full of very fuzzy thinking," says Douglas Besharov, the Jacobs Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "I blame this whole thing on the adults - on the left and the right - who have confused this mightily."
On the one side of the divide are proponents of "abstinence-only" programs. These programs teach that sex outside of marriage, at any age, is wrong. Because advocates of this approach are concerned about presenting a mixed message, most insist that these classes may not include any information about contraceptives.
On the other side are those who favor what is called "comprehensive" sex education. This approach may include teaching students that abstinence outside marriage is either one option or perhaps even the best course, but this message is followed up with practical information about sex. Generally this focuses on how contraceptives work, where to get them, and why they are important.
The two sides find themselves almost entirely at odds.
Abstinence-only supporters protest that comprehensive sex ed confuses teens by encouraging promiscuity. But those who favor comprehensive sex ed worry that failing to give kids basic information about sex - and particularly about contraceptives - only increases the danger of sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies.
However, somewhere in between these two sets of concerns, some argue, lies a broad middle ground in which students are being deprived of something more essential: enough context in which to understand the information they're being given.
It's hard sometimes to be patient with either side of this debate, Mr. Besharov says. The abstinence-only supporters are so adamant about preventing sex outside marriage that they may squelch useful information. But at the same time, he says, those who favor comprehensive sex ed often fail to distinguish between the needs of a 12-year-old and those of a 17-year-old.
They fail to appreciate that, "beyond some kind of moral issue, having sex too early can be horribly damaging to young people," he says.
When sex ed was first introduced into US public schools in the 1940s, it was not done with concern for the morals or emotions of teenagers but rather to control sexually transmitted diseases and cut back on teen pregnancies. But in recent years conservative politicians have embraced abstinence programs as the most effective approach to questions of teen sex.
