|
|
1,329,420 visitors since
11/25/2003
|
|
Welcome to Dr. Blakeslee as a guest columnist on DrThrockmorton.com!
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 (MD) 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 is 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.
|
Ask Dr. Throckmorton
Submit a
question for Dr. Throckmorton.
Questions & Answers: Archives
Email Updates
Enter your email address to subscribe to Dr. Throckmorton's Email Updates.
|
|
