To Protect the Future

(A study of sex education in the public school system)

Cases of teenage pregnancy, AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Virus), and

other sexually transmitted diseases (“STDs”) in our public school system have increased

dramatically over the past three decades leading our schools to take a more expansive

role in sex education. The manner in which we educate students has been a controversial

issue since the 70s. Textbooks are no longer a reliable source of information when faced

with this subject matter. Instead, public schools have resorted to other techniques such as

handling a diaphragm as a puppet, encouraging students to “feel, smell and taste”

condoms, instructing students to masturbate at home, practicing fitting condoms on

bananas, and reading sexually explicit, books.

A recent government-sponsored survey indicates that most parents want their

children taught a comprehensive sex education course in school.2 Most Americans (94%)

believe that schools should provide information about AIDS to students as young as 12

years old.3 In addition, “50% of Americans believe that condoms should be distributed in
4
junior high schools”. The belief that the AIDS epidemic is growing worse in recent

years is probably the reason for our public schools to get more involved with sex

education; however, the high rate of out-of-wedlock births and sexually transmitted

diseases also causes concern among parents and schools, since teens have higher rates

than any other age group.7 Despite these figures, the debate over the role of public
schools pertaining to how sex education will be taught is far from one-sided. Concerned

parents from the east coast to the west coast have protested the plans to distribute

condoms in public schools. Only about 10% of public educated students receive a

comprehensive sex education.2 Even among professionals working in the schools there is

not agreement concerning the role of the school, the content of the curricula, or even the

proper goal of a school-based sexuality education program.3

Many people see the sexuality of an individual and the teaching about it to be a

family matter – personal and private. Others argue that the lack of sex education in an

age of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS leaves students unprepared and at-risk. A

survey of teenagers indicates that most parents do not provide accurate sexual

information to their children and that most peers and the mass media are the primary

source of contraceptive and sexuality information for about 90% of American teenagers. 1

Many forces attribute to the conflicting issues of the role of public schools and sex

education. It is evident that some form of sex education is desired for our children’s

safety and awareness, it’s how should that education be taught.

Sex education has been around in some form or another for many years, though

the last 15-20 years has seen a flurry of programs in the schools. Kirby studied this latest

series of programs and reported that while some build on previous programs, others

developed from different pressures.3 The first group of these programs focused on

knowledge and emphasized the risk and consequences of pregnancy. These programs did

seem to increase knowledge; however, they did not seem to change behavior. Another
set of sex education programs used in some schools is drawn from different theoretical

approaches (social learning theory, cognitive-behavioral prevention models, social

influence approaches). These programs are similar in that they each “provide modeling

of the socially desirable behavior by the teacher or peers, practice of those behaviors

through role playing, and illustrations of successfully avoiding unprotected intercourse

without loss of a close relationship” (Kirby, 283). This last type of program is thought to

be the direction of future programs.

Still, to say that our schools can’t come to an agreement concerning the teaching

of sexuality is a serious understatement. Stromquist reports that only 29 states include

sex education in their curricula, while the estimated number of school districts that offer
8
any type of sex education ranges between 10% and 55%. The Sex Information and

Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) reports that six states have passed laws

prohibiting discussions of controversial subjects such as contraception and abortion

(Porter, 1993a). Stromquist and others agree that the content of these classes is so strictly

monitored that topics such as intercourse, venereal disease, masturbation, and

homosexuality are frequently banned.8

In addition to sex education, some schools are initiating other programs to address

the health concerns of school students. Porter reports that 8% of high school and middle

schools have approved condom distribution programs.6 Some of these programs require

students to have some kind of counseling before receiving condoms. Other programs give
parents the option to prevent their children from receiving condoms.3 In few schools

condoms are available in vending machines.

There is a minority who want sex education out of the public school. That this

group is a minority is suggested by the percent of parents who say they want schools to

provide sex education (94%) and to distribute condoms (50%). This group includes

parents, pro-life groups, and religious leaders. They resent the loss of control over their

child’s decisions, and believe that school systems should use money for more important

problems. This group believes that the schools’ role in sexuality should be limited to

stressing abstinence.

Though the family was the main socialization agent in the 19th century, the school

is now the central force in children’s lives. Most public health professionals and some

educators recognize that the schools are the only public institution that can address the

risk-taking behaviors of many adolescents.3 Some were concerned with the increased

burdens and responsibilities placed on the public school and the effect on the education

process. The federal government has also encouraged school-based solutions with the

funding for school healthcare programs primarily through Medicaid and Maternal and

Child Health funds.3

The involvement of public schools in the health issues of children has a long

history. A long-term perspective indicates that schools have gradually assumed the role

of providing information and performing functions previously in the domain of the

and parents’ wishes. Many of the current issues and concerns are continuations of earlier

ones: Sex education in the home versus in a school setting, a fear of encouraging sexual

promiscuity, and what constitutes appropriate presentation of the material.

What is clear is that there has been no coherent public policy toward the role of

educational institutions in the areas of adolescent pregnancy, or the messages concerning

ones’ sexuality, sexual behavior, or sexual responsibility. Even professionals working in

schools argue over the proper goals of programs and the extent to which schools should

be involved.3 But, it is also clear that recent years have seen many programs implemented

with the backing of federal government, states, and local communities. Groups who see

the economic and social benefit of providing sex education to the public have supported

these programs. Other groups feel that we have a social obligation to provide services

that will reduce medical risks and risk-taking behavior.

Some parents, educators, and others oppose these comprehensive sex education

programs for different reasons. A minority of parents are concerned about the loss of

their control over the information and medical services to which their children have

access. They also worry about the possibility that the schools’ role is to educate and that

programs in sex education, condom distribution, and medical services distract from that

mission.
 It is unlikely that the controversy surrounding the sexual education of our children

will be settled soon. The future of the issue will certainly be affected by the current

economical and political situation. Prevention is less costly than negative outcomes of

early childbearing, STDs, and AIDS, and the school setting is the most accessible and

cost efficient method to provide preventive services. On the other hand a trend to return

more control (and money) to the individual states may result in a minority pressuring the

community for the exclusion of information that is uncomfortable. Perhaps the idea that

there will be some sort of nationally accepted policy toward sexual education is

unrealistic; however, it is all of our best interests that the effort continue.
 Work Cited

1) Cassel, C. “Putting sex education in its place.” The Journal of School Health, 1992: 51(4),
211-213.

2) Frazier, S. H. Psychotrends, 1994: New York: Simon & Schuster.

3) Kirby, D. “School-based programs to reduce sexual risk-taking behaviors.” Journal of School

4) Morin, R. “Americans want schoolchildren told about AIDS, survey find.” The Washington
Post, 1991 June 26: A2.

5) Portner, J. “SIECUS report faults gaps in sex-education curricula.” Education Week, 1993
October 20: 13, p.10.

6) Portner, J. “Book examines debate over condoms in schools.” Education Week, 1993 July 24:
12, p.13.

7) Santelli, J. S., & Kirby, D. “Adolescent sexuality: Pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease,
and prevention.” The Journal of School Health, 1992: 62(7), 262-264.

8) Stromquist, N. P. “Sex-equity legislation in education: The state as promoter of women’s