Posted on 12/10/2004 9:32:28 AM PST by shrinkdavid
As Goes Montgomery County, So Goes the Nation? The Story of how Social Policy Crept into a Sex Education Curriculum
By David Blakeslee, Psy.D
What are parents and educators to do when they are presented with a curriculum touted as “scientific” and asserts that it will help reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in adolescents and the incidence of bullying and harassment of gays and lesbians? Such was the situation for parents and educators when the Montgomery County School Board presented to them last month their Annual Report of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development. The results of this two year project were about to be implemented county wide to 8th and 10th graders.
Many parents were appreciative of the schools efforts to help protect and educate their children. They were concerned, however, that the actual curriculum designed during this two year process may have unintended consequences that would undermine the very purpose of the proposed changes. And so they decided to look closer.
What they found was a curriculum that makes five critical errors in sex education. In a recent report titled, Health Education as Social Advocacy, co-author, Warren Throckmorton and I critique the proposed curricular changes and examine problems in detail.
First, the curriculum may present too much too soon. As in many schools, material is offered to 8th and 10th grade students. We have an observation and concern about this practice. Durex, the condom manufacturer, did a world-wide survey on sexual behavior and sex education. In analyzing their data, we came to a startling conclusion: there is a statistically significant linear relationship between onset of sex education and onset of sexual behavior. Simply stated, the earlier an adolescent is educated about sex, the earlier he is likely to engage in sex. This observation is so remarkable because it remains true across a worldwide tapestry of cultures which have different political systems, ethnic makeup and religious systems. This disturbing finding raises the provocative question: Are there unintentional negative consequences from merely the presentation of sexual education programs?
Second, adolescents are not adults. There is a growing body of research which indicates that the adolescent mind is undergoing a huge renovation: from thinking concretely to thinking abstractly. During this renovation, however, research suggests that adolescents process their decision making in a highly emotional and impulsive manner. Material in the curriculum which educates about condom flavors and creates an artificial line between sexual behavior of adolescents and high risk sexual behavior in adolescents overlooks this central feature of the adolescent mind. While this is not news to anyone who has one or was one, adolescents are predisposed to think and act impulsively when contemplating sexual behavior because that emotionally driven behavior easily overwhelms their compromised decision-making ability.
Third, biology is not destiny. When discussing sexual orientation, the curriculum is permeated by a world view which sees same sex attraction as determined by one’s biology. This “born-that-way” position is used by advocacy groups to strengthen their arguments for civil rights in the current political climate. It is not a position supported by research into same sex attraction. Furthermore, the curriculum ignores a competing view in academia which holds that sexual attractions are acquired via an interaction of environment and temperament. Why would the Montgomery County school board present only one view on this topic when the actual research picture is so much more complex?
Fourth, health education is not an appropriate venue for social advocacy. The curriculum cites resource materials which come from advocacy groups and completely overlooks peer reviewed scientific studies which present more educationally sound material. This is one of the saddest parts of the curriculum, because it so clearly undermines the most cherished value of every educational system: credibility. Credibility leads to trust and trust accelerates the learning experience by defeating unnecessary skepticism and cynicism. This is especially harmful to adolescents who are just learning to think critically. Why would Montgomery County allow their credibility as an educational system to be needlessly undermined by advocacy based education?
Fifth, tolerance does not require distortion of facts. The curriculum, in an effort to teach tolerance completely obscures the overwhelming benefit of the two parent family. It defines family in a nearly meaningless fashion: “two or more people who are joined together by emotional feelings or who are related to one another.” It implies that those who have significant concerns about the destruction of the family over the last 40 years are “intolerant:” The curriculum states: “American families are becoming more complex and the greater variety of households encourages open mindedness in society.” There is no discussion of the significant and still growing body of evidence that shows that these “complex” and “various” households have significantly higher negative outcomes for children and women. This is education, in service of tolerance, becoming a vacuous exercise in social persuasion.
Despite recent attacks on abstinence education in the media and by politicians licking their wounds from the November election, recent data suggest that this type of education is making a difference. Teen pregnancies during the last ten years have declined over 20%. Furthermore, children who take virginity pledges delay their first sexual experiences by 3 years (from 16-19 years). Older children making decisions about sexual behavior is likely going to lead to more mature, responsible decision-making. Finally, significant risks for gay identified adolescents and young adults persist: although gay men account for only 2-3% of the general population, they account for 44% of the new cases of HIV. Maybe virginity pledges for gay identified adolescents will help lower the incidence of HIV for these vulnerable adolescents.
The sexual revolution has been a tremendous success for adults who did not contract incurable STD’s and for publishers of sexually explicit material. For nearly everyone else it has had devastating consequences. Let us make sure that during this process of educating our children that we tailor our information to the tried and true and to the developmental needs of our children.
David Blakeslee, Psy.D. is a Clinical Psychologist in Lake Oswego, Oregon. He is co-author, along with Warren Throckmorton, PhD and Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the College Counseling Services at Grove City College (PA), of the recent report, Health Education as Social Advocacy, which is available at http://www.drthrockmorton.com/montgomery.pdf.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Then many parents have been adrift from reality for the last 30 years.
No ... the consequences are absolutely intended by those developing and promoting sex education programs. They may be *surprising* consequences to parents, but they are not "unintentional."
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
I did read the whole thing and it is EXCELLENT. Reasoned in tone, no "gay bashing" here. Just the facts, and the facts tell the story.
Another MUST READ.
Let me and Its etc etc.
Ping
Ping
http://www.recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com/
Parents are trying to do something about it, but will probably get nowhere. Solution: pull kids from the public school system and let the school board know why.
First, the curriculum may present too much too soon... Simply stated, the earlier an adolescent is educated about sex, the earlier he is likely to engage in sex... Second, adolescents are not adults. There is a growing body of research which indicates that the adolescent mind is undergoing a huge renovation: from thinking concretely to thinking abstractly. During this renovation, however, research suggests that adolescents process their decision making in a highly emotional and impulsive manner.
An excerpt from "It's 1984 in Massachusetts – And Big Brother Is Gay"
"... A prominent psychiatrist says the sex-ed curricula at these schools can lower children "to the level of animals" and inflict lasting harm. "Massachusetts schools' systematic promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity fosters sexual confusion and experimentation," says Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former clinical director of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Center in New York. "They dilute and trivialize [the capacity for] faithful sexual passion which should [later] be the cement of these children's marriages. Unstable youngsters may become particularly vulnerable to homosexuals who actively recruit them."
There are teachers all over North America quietly mainstreaming homosexual behavior to children as young as 5 years old. As widely reported, on "Gay Days" classes are cancelled and students led to compulsory activities where homosexuals explain their "lifestyles." The mind-control techniques are straight from Soviet schools..."
Do you have a link for this article?
Excerpt from: David Blakeslee: Name-calling undermines search for truth in gay marriage debate:
Saturday, March 20, 2004
DAVID BLAKESLEE
Recent articles, news stories and letters to the editor have often been supportive of gay marriage. Those who disagree with that point of view are often discredited as bigots or religious zealots. Twenty years ago, courageous members of the Gay Rights movement embraced their most derogatory description, "faggot" and "fairy," in order to get their message out. Calling people names is a way to control the discussion of important social issues. The issue of gay marriage is too important for such tactics because our ultimate decision has wider ramifications for our society.
The argument for gay marriage is rooted in three popularized false propositions: 1) that same sex attraction is biologically determined; 2) that the challenges facing gays are primarily due to society's oppression of gays, and 3) gay relationships are essentially the same as heterosexual relationships. A recent book by professor J. Michael Bailey, Ph.D. ("The Man Who Would Be Queen") debunks these arguments, exposing them as myths of the politically correct. His book has been called, "Absolutely splendid," by preeminent gay researcher, Simon LeVay.
Before any analysis of the data is begun it is important to understand gay researchers dominate the research on gays. Bailey suggests that gays make up about 50% of the researchers in this field (whereas gays make up between 2-4% of the general population). We should look with skepticism on their results when they lead to conclusions that gays are no different than heterosexuals. It is sort of like Louisiana Pacific doing studies on the benefits of clear-cutting on wildlife habitat: their results may be true, but we should be skeptical because the research agenda can be easily dominated by bias. If Louisiana Pacific found the oppositewell, that would be quite another thing. The research in gay genetics and behavior is beginning to point in the opposite direction we would expect given the field's dominance by gay
researchers. -snip
bttt
Parents do look to educators for guidance. By increasing the scientific credibility that educators provide, maybe we can restore this broken trust. Educators need are support when they are unwittingly manipulated by advocacy groups. Some for sure are deliberately using flawed materials, many educators, however, use the material that are provided and only later discover they have been duped. Educators at the school level want to maintain a positive rapport with students and parents. Good scientific information helps them maintain that rapport.
If parents look to educators for guidance, then their children are truly hooped.
Get rid of all 'educators', and replace them with teachers - that would be a start at school reform.
I am not sure if this works in this format, but here goes: http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=114. It is currently being hosted also by Traditional Values Coalition website http://www.traditionalvalues.org/index.php
(see right margin). Thanks for your interest.
That's because parents have been hornswoggled for the last 40 years or so ... they actually believe that it takes an "expert" to teach a 6-year-old to read and add, or to explain to a teenager why it's stupid and immoral to have sex outside marriage.
I appreciate your position, but I think it's mistaken, and ultimately unproductive, to encourage parents to look to "educators" for guidance in matters that are the province of parents.
I am very interested in your position. We are an expert culture and presume advanced training turns out a better product. If you have information about comparisons between lay persons and professional educators on teaching reading, math and other things, I would be intrigued. I think my phrase: 'look to educators' is meant to imply collaboration not deference or dependency. Part of this expert culture we live in leaves parents as the only non-experts...yet they are the ones who are the most motivated and bonded and interested in how their children develop.
Yes, thats from Warren. He is quite gifted presenting scientific information in a warm and humorous manner. Visit his website often for good stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.