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.
- Arthur J. Delaney, “The Grotesque World of Today’s Sex Education,” New Oxford Review, p. 16, May 1996.
( posted here )
Gosh, just when this is getting really interesting, my son wants the computer to play "Oregon Trail"! I hope I'll be able to get back to this discussion later ... thanks for your patience, and although I picked nits on your article, I think the general approach you and your collaborator are taking is outstanding!
Absolutely. If parents know the facts they can interact more persuasively. But they must not abdicate. Only in the most rare cases does anyone care for a child more than their biological parents.
Some thoughts on the "expert" issue: Parents since ... when? Dr. Spock's day? ... have been told they're not competent to rear their own children without "experts." Now, if that's true, how did the human race survive between Adam and Eve and 1952? (One answer, of course, is "By reading the Bible!" but that's another issue.)
My point is that most things are just not that hard. Anyone who can read can teach a young child the alphabet and basic phonics, and then help the child to practice reading until he's fluent. Many of us remember being taught to read by an older brother or sister who was tired of reading to us! "Educators" decided that was too easy ... didn't give them enough prestige, since anyone could do it ... and invented all the failed "reading" education programs of the last century.
Similarly, with sex education ... obviously people from day one have figured out how man and woman come together to produce a baby. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. Most people throughout history have also emphasized NOT doing it outside of marriage, for very good reasons, as your excellent article discussed. However, "experts" aren't satisfied with that, either!
This, I feel, has more tangled roots than the reading issue (although there are some ugly questions of racism and class exclusivity in that ...). As you mentioned, the earlier children are taught about sex, the earlier they engage in sex. The cliche of a girl's learning "the facts of life" the night before her wedding is an expression of real wisdom ... it's human nature to *use* information, not just *know* information.
It comes down to the fact that someone has an agenda that requires promoting sexual activity among younger and younger children. There are a number of strands ... purveyors of contraception and abortion make money ... welfare systems get "clients," and the attendant power and budgets ... but ultimately, I think it's largely driven by sick lust. There are way too many people, men and women, jaded by normal sexual relations with adults, who want young children, boys and girls, available for sex.
Most parents, I suspect, are simply unaware of the agenda, but it's visible in the results: more pregnancies, more STD's, more pedophilia and child porn cases, more ruined lives and lost souls. If the "experts" truly cared about children's lives, they would observe these results and get out of the business, but they don't. They always insist on "more of the same," because they're getting what they want ... sexually available children.
As a final word, before I take my tinfoil hat off :-), I'll say that while some of our FReepers consider this an issue of "the homosexual agenda," I disagree. I think it's an agenda that encompasses a variety of people who want children for sex: men who want young girls, as well as those who want young boys; women after adolescent and preadolescent boys, as well as some pursuing young girls. In my opinion, there aren't enough homosexuals, male and female, to drive the agenda ... the numbers have to come from heterosexuals.
Christmas is coming, and computergeeks.com has a ton of refurbished computers for under 500 dollars, some of them quite up to date.
...as in the beginning of paragraph four, I think the same logic applies in the anti-drug programs, like DARE. They give too much too soon in the mistaken idea that it wll curb illegal drug use, but instead contributes too it through early introduction.
Thanks! We have two, but with nine of us, it gets crowded sometimes :-).
It comes down to the fact that someone has an agenda that requires promoting sexual activity among younger and younger children. There are a number of strands ... purveyors of contraception and abortion make money ... welfare systems get "clients," and the attendant power and budgets ... but ultimately, I think it's largely driven by sick lust. There are way too many people, men and women, jaded by normal sexual relations with adults, who want young children, boys and girls, available for sex.
I tried to put your comment in italics...but I couldn't figure it out.
I do not quite see the mercenary or corrupt motivations as to these persons, philosophies and government organizations as you do. I am sure there is an important minority who represent your fears: they need to be confronted.
I am convinced that at the turn of the 20th century psychology, in an attempt to form a science, attacked and discredited religion as a form of historical intelligence and wisdom. Pscyhology could not ascend without the descent of Judeo-Christian values. Psychology started the discussion of man and his nature naive and ill-informed. Pscyhology is regularly consulted by educators in designing curriculum. I think Dewey was quite resistent to religious education. Psychology has recommended naively and poorly for about 100 years and the data on the social sciences is now in: our society is much less civilized. Psychology has been given a "free ride" because it is a "feel good" soft science. I love what I do, and I know I am helping people, but I work hard to understand the limitations of my "science."
If you would like to read my thoughts about this topic in more detail, see http://www.narth.com/docs/whypsych.html
LOL - spell check is your friend! I will look at your articles, thanks!
That was an interesting article. This has been very informatative for me, as I've floated my "conspiracy theory" a few times, but no one has seriously addressed it.
I see now that my ideas here actually contradict my principles as a follower of Thomas Sowell (America's greatest living intellectual!). :-). Dr. Sowell would say that the incentives of the people promoting sex education probably have little to do with either the declared goals or the actual results of their work. Instead, they are more likely to be actuated by the day-to-day circumstances of their jobs ... what will produce more money, prestige, and other rewards for them.
But I still think that behind it all, there are some very, very sick people, and more of them than most of us probably realize (cue Twilight Zone music ...)
Ping (#30)
Thanks for that reference. I've been trying to find time to read it since you pinged me, but work keeps getting in the way. I'll get there sometime tonight...
bump ping
Thanks! We need to get the link to this article posted on a couple of current threads.
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.