I interned at the Planned Parenthood development department my sophomore year in high school. And while I learned a lot about targeted mailers and digitizing donor files, it in no way prepared me for the dozens of questions my peers have asked me throughout the years about sex, pregnancy and reproductive health.
I am not a doctor, nor do I intend to become one. But students lacking a safe space to candidly discuss their relationship issues felt comfortable talking to me. I, however, do not feel comfortable with the fact that many students felt that the only way to seek information about these issues is to ask their peers. As a senior in high school, I have yet to learn the state-mandated HIV and sexually transmitted infections education and prevention program, and my school does not offer any type of sexual education.
While some might consider this simply problematic, I find it dangerous.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost half of students have had sex once, with 33 percent reporting frequent sexual activity. A review of 48 comprehensive curriculum-based sex and STD/HIV education programs found that none of these programs increased the likelihood of teens having sex, while about two-thirds had a significant impact on reducing sexual risk behaviors among young people.
The CDC believes that schools play a critical role in STI and teen pregnancy prevention and are vital partners in helping young people take responsibility for their own health. There is significant evidence that shows the correlation regarding access to sex ed and lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases. This is even more important for campuses serving communities that are traditionally at a greater risk for contracting STIs. These schools have a greater responsibility to ensure students have the full scope of knowledge in order to make informed decisions about sex.
I attend a charter school, and I question how the lack of accountability to the standard school curriculum furthers the debate of how charters negatively impact students. I worry about how informed my peers’ decisions about sex are, and I’m concerned that parents aren’t engaging in dialogues about sex because they assume schools are providing it. I think about how my own, self-identified liberal parents didn’t talk with me at-length about the topic, because their other children received the necessary information via the education system. And while for some, sex-ed may evoke imagery of awkward high school gym teachers lecturing their students on the importance of contraception, the curriculum mandates are changing to meet the needs of LGBTQ and minority students.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
It is evident you are passionate about this topic and I commend you for having the courage to share your views Online and in a public forum.
There is another side to the story, and while I don't have time to cover all the aspects, here are a few for consideration:
1. Sex is both physical and metaphysical. In other words, it is an act that has physical, emotional, and spiritual ramifications. The sex-ed that you demand from schools says nothing about the metaphysical side of the issue which is so important for a well-rounded understanding of the topic. In other words, science can tell you about percentages, about disease transmission, but it cannot say anything about what a student ought or ought not to do (regardless of the physical consequences).
The "ought" is a metaphysical or ethical issue and the sex-ed you so desire dares not enter this realm because it doesn't have the tools or authority to do so.
2. Because sex has a metaphysical side, different faiths, cultures, and creeds will have different views and opinions on the morality of these acts. The curriculum you want schools to enforce will intrinsically offend some of these faiths, cultures, and creeds. This is why parents--not schools--are the primary educators of their children and the accountability ultimately falls back on them. This is also why it can be dangerous to force all schools to teach a one-size fits all curriculum. Students do not come from a one-size fits all background. If we were really open to inclusion and diversity, we would acknowledge and advocate around this point.
3. When talking about student rights, students have a right to the truth, not half-truths. And my point above shows that the current sex-ed curriculum is not equipped to handle the metaphysical aspects of sex or it's consequences (e.g. is abortion evil?) . Therefore, the current curriculum is lacking and often causes confusion, misunderstanding, and misinformation.
What this all equates to is that the one-size-fits-all sex-ed curriculum you want forced on all schools and students is incomplete, insufficient, ignores the different faith, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds of the population, and is ultimately ill-equipped to fully engage the topic and give students the truth they so deserve.