I thought this article from the National Partnership for Women and Families Daily Women's Health Policy Report was interesting and timely. Granted, it IS Austin, but Austin is still in Texas. Is it too much to hope that Oklahoma will follow suit?
Some Texas school districts are abandoning abstinence-only curricula in favor of abstinence-based programs that also teach about contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted infections, the Austin American-Statesman reports. Many of the school districts, including Austin's, made the change after it became clear that teen pregnancy rates were climbing under the abstinence-only approach, according to the American-Statesman. The change also comes as the Obama administration seeks to shift federal abstinence-only dollars to programs proven to reduce teen pregnancy rates.
More government money has been spent teaching abstinence in Texas than any other state, and it has the third-highest teen birth rate in the country, the American-Statesman reports. A Texas State University study released earlier this year found that less than 5% of Texas districts have comprehensive sex education. The school districts in Austin, Lufkin and some other areas have adopted "abstinence-plus" curricula, which teach that abstinence is the safest choice but also stress the importance of using contraception if teens become sexually active.
"Our data says that what we're doing isn't working, and our community is ready for us to do something different," Roy Knight, superintendent of the Lufkin Independent School District, said. Whitney Self, lead teacher for health and physical education in the Hays Consolidated Independent School District, which switched to abstinence-plus, said, "We mainly did it because of our pregnancy rate. We don't think abstinence-only is working."
One federal abstinence program -- known as Title V -- expired in June. Congress, with support from the Obama administration, is also considering replacing a second federal program, the Community-Based Abstinence Only Program, with one that funds initiatives "proven to delay sexual activity, increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity), reduce the transmission of [STIs] or reduce teen pregnancy."
The American-Statesman reports that Texas could face challenges as it seeks to implement the types of federally funded programs envisioned by Congress. Sex education is not required in the state, but when it is offered, it must meet strict abstinence mandates under the Texas Education Code, which is "widely interpreted as barring detailed instruction about birth control and condoms," according to the American-Statesman.
Austin Tries New Approach
The revised sexual education program in the Austin school district was created by Janet Realini, a San Antonio physician and public health expert who testified before the state Board of Education in 2004 about faulty medical information in school health textbooks. Realini's program teaches students about STIs and the success rates of various forms of contraception.
"The key message is, if you're sexually active, you need to use a condom because it will reduce the risk of [STIs] and reduce the chance of pregnancy," Realini said. Her program, available online and free of charge, has been adopted by school districts in Hays County, San Antonio, Lufkin and the Rio Grande Valley. The Houston school district, Texas' largest, is considering the program for next year. Houston has more children born to teens under age 15 than any city in the country (Bell, Austin American-Statesman, 9/27).
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Isn't It The Truth
The quote at the end is priceless...
Teen Birth Rates Highest in States With Greatest Levels of Religious Belief, Study Finds
September 18, 2009 — States whose residents have high levels of conservative religious beliefs also have higher teenage birth rates, a study published this week in the online edition of the journal Reproductive Health found, according to HealthDay/U.S. News & World Report.
Study author Joseph Strayhorn -- an adjunct faculty member at Drexel University and the University of Pittsburgh -- noted that the findings showed an association and not causation, adding, "But if we may speculate on the most probable explanation, we conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself."
Do The Math
Elizabeth Schroeder, Ed.D., M.S.W., is the executive director for Answer, a national sexuality education organization housed at Rutgers University. Dr. Schroeder is also the co-founding editor of the American Journal of Sexuality Education. This article first appeard on National Sexuality Resource Center website at http://nsrc.sfsu.edu.
Teen Pregnancy and Abortion Prevention ≠ Comprehensive Sexuality Education
I love Barack Obama. I love him for many reasons. But right now, I’m speaking as a sexuality educator. I love that he regularly mentioned lesbian and gay people during the campaign. I love that he pledged to end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (okay, so he hasn’t gotten to that one yet). And I’m over the moon that he has openly supported comprehensive sexuality education— in the Senate as an original co-sponsor of the REAL (Responsible Education about Life) Act, throughout the campaign, and now as President.
Well, sort of.
He has proposed a federal budget that eliminates much of the harmful Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage funding. And, in that very same budget, he did propose funding to support pregnancy prevention and abortion reduction programs. But while reducing unintended pregnancy and abortions are important and desired outcomes of sexuality education, they are not, nor should they be, the only goals of sexuality education. More importantly, however, funding teen pregnancy and abortion reduction is not the same thing as funding comprehensive sexuality education.
By setting up such specific outcomes for potential funding, the Administration risks creating competition among organizations that should be – no, need to be – working together, especially in this challenging economic climate. This competition impedes our work toward accomplishing the goals of comprehensive sexuality education. Let me explain.
For many years now, I’ve come to see the sexuality education field – both comprehensive and abstinence-only-until-marriage proponents—as being very similar to an elementary school soccer game. If you’ve never seen one, the referee places the ball onto the field, blows the whistle, and moves quickly out of the way. As the crowd watches on the sidelines, both teams descend upon the ball en masse, kicking wildly, until the ball pops out and lands nearby. The entire gaggle of players moves together to surround the ball and begins kicking again.
Sometimes the ball will advance, and sometimes it will move backward. Sometimes it will stay exactly where it is. Points may even be scored. On both sides, there will often be frustration, name-calling and even tears. The game is a race against time – and if no one scores, the game still ends when time is up. The excitement and energy abates, the referee collects the ball, and everyone simply goes home.
Today, the myriad youth-serving professionals who have anything to do with providing sexual health information or services are the players in this elementary school soccer game. The federal government is the referee, and the soccer ball is funding. The teams are made up of a wide variety of approaches, goals, and ideologies. The fighting and limited progress speak for themselves.
With the prospect of the budget passing, and money being included for teen pregnancy prevention and abortion reduction programs and not comprehensive sexuality education programs, I have to admit, I’m worried.
I’m worried that the general public will continue to misunderstand the breadth of what is needed via comprehensive sexuality education to help young people grow into healthy sexual beings. I’m worried that focusing on teen pregnancy and abortion reduction will reinforce the mistaken perception that all kids are heterosexual, and that the bullying and homophobia running rampant in our schools nationwide is somehow less important than the possible outcomes of unprotected vaginal intercourse. I’m worried that in focusing on pregnancy prevention and abortion reduction, the public and policymakers will incorrectly assume that sexuality education can start in high school or late middle school – when the keystone of the understanding, skills and self-esteem needed to make healthy choices about sexuality must be firmly planted in early childhood. And I’m worried that a funding stream looking to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion will, in such a tight economy, tempt organizations to revise their strategic or work plans – or even their very missions – in pursuit of the elusive dollar.
Just like the elementary school soccer game, our field would benefit extremely well from calling a “time out” to talk about a unified strategy for using whatever funding is included at the federal level – and for pushing for more. We need to avoid being so grateful to have any kind of funding relating to the work we do and hold the Administration’s feet to the fire to fulfill its promise to support comprehensive sexuality education. Otherwise, we will all continue to kick wildly at the soccer ball, exhausting ourselves and our resources without much to show for it all, until the referee’s whistle blows to let us know that the game is over.
Teen Pregnancy and Abortion Prevention ≠ Comprehensive Sexuality Education
I love Barack Obama. I love him for many reasons. But right now, I’m speaking as a sexuality educator. I love that he regularly mentioned lesbian and gay people during the campaign. I love that he pledged to end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (okay, so he hasn’t gotten to that one yet). And I’m over the moon that he has openly supported comprehensive sexuality education— in the Senate as an original co-sponsor of the REAL (Responsible Education about Life) Act, throughout the campaign, and now as President.
Well, sort of.
He has proposed a federal budget that eliminates much of the harmful Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage funding. And, in that very same budget, he did propose funding to support pregnancy prevention and abortion reduction programs. But while reducing unintended pregnancy and abortions are important and desired outcomes of sexuality education, they are not, nor should they be, the only goals of sexuality education. More importantly, however, funding teen pregnancy and abortion reduction is not the same thing as funding comprehensive sexuality education.
By setting up such specific outcomes for potential funding, the Administration risks creating competition among organizations that should be – no, need to be – working together, especially in this challenging economic climate. This competition impedes our work toward accomplishing the goals of comprehensive sexuality education. Let me explain.
For many years now, I’ve come to see the sexuality education field – both comprehensive and abstinence-only-until-marriage proponents—as being very similar to an elementary school soccer game. If you’ve never seen one, the referee places the ball onto the field, blows the whistle, and moves quickly out of the way. As the crowd watches on the sidelines, both teams descend upon the ball en masse, kicking wildly, until the ball pops out and lands nearby. The entire gaggle of players moves together to surround the ball and begins kicking again.
Sometimes the ball will advance, and sometimes it will move backward. Sometimes it will stay exactly where it is. Points may even be scored. On both sides, there will often be frustration, name-calling and even tears. The game is a race against time – and if no one scores, the game still ends when time is up. The excitement and energy abates, the referee collects the ball, and everyone simply goes home.
Today, the myriad youth-serving professionals who have anything to do with providing sexual health information or services are the players in this elementary school soccer game. The federal government is the referee, and the soccer ball is funding. The teams are made up of a wide variety of approaches, goals, and ideologies. The fighting and limited progress speak for themselves.
With the prospect of the budget passing, and money being included for teen pregnancy prevention and abortion reduction programs and not comprehensive sexuality education programs, I have to admit, I’m worried.
I’m worried that the general public will continue to misunderstand the breadth of what is needed via comprehensive sexuality education to help young people grow into healthy sexual beings. I’m worried that focusing on teen pregnancy and abortion reduction will reinforce the mistaken perception that all kids are heterosexual, and that the bullying and homophobia running rampant in our schools nationwide is somehow less important than the possible outcomes of unprotected vaginal intercourse. I’m worried that in focusing on pregnancy prevention and abortion reduction, the public and policymakers will incorrectly assume that sexuality education can start in high school or late middle school – when the keystone of the understanding, skills and self-esteem needed to make healthy choices about sexuality must be firmly planted in early childhood. And I’m worried that a funding stream looking to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion will, in such a tight economy, tempt organizations to revise their strategic or work plans – or even their very missions – in pursuit of the elusive dollar.
Just like the elementary school soccer game, our field would benefit extremely well from calling a “time out” to talk about a unified strategy for using whatever funding is included at the federal level – and for pushing for more. We need to avoid being so grateful to have any kind of funding relating to the work we do and hold the Administration’s feet to the fire to fulfill its promise to support comprehensive sexuality education. Otherwise, we will all continue to kick wildly at the soccer ball, exhausting ourselves and our resources without much to show for it all, until the referee’s whistle blows to let us know that the game is over.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Proposed UN Sex Ed Guidelines Spark Controversy
September 3, 2009
Drafts of the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) International Guidelines on Sexuality Education that will be launched formally in October are inciting controversy. UNESCO describes the guidelines as "an evidence-informed and rights-based framework to give children and young people access to the knowledge and skills they need in their personal, social and sexual lives." The guidelines were developed using input from worldwide experts and research and aim to reduce the number of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, contracted by youth globally each year. Currently, there are 111 million new cases annually, according to the Telegraph UK.
Conservative groups, primarily in the United States, have criticized the proposed guidelines as promoting the idea that access to legal abortion is a right, positioning abstinence as "only one of a range of choices available to young people", and encouraging discussion of homosexuality and masturbation, reported the New York Times.
In response to the critics, the United Nations Population Fund has reportedly requested that their name be removed from all materials supporting the guidelines.Sue Williams, chief of UNESCO's Paris press relations department told Time, "we're not surprised by this reaction, nor the places it's coming from. In fact, our very goal with such recommendations is to initiate the kind of debate, reflection, and action that moves the topic forward. Our desire now, however, is that debate be both informed and balanced."\
Nanette Ecker, who co-authored the guidelines said, "Successful programs merge both evidence-informed approaches with rights-based, scientifically accurate and comprehensive approaches. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. In a world with so many children and young people at risk of unintended pregnancy, sexual abuse and violence, HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), it would be an abuse if critical information about sexuality, relationships and sexual health wasn't provided to young people."
Media Resources: UNESCO 8/27/09; New York Times 9/2/09; Telegraph UK 8/28/09; Time 9/3/09
© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine
Drafts of the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) International Guidelines on Sexuality Education that will be launched formally in October are inciting controversy. UNESCO describes the guidelines as "an evidence-informed and rights-based framework to give children and young people access to the knowledge and skills they need in their personal, social and sexual lives." The guidelines were developed using input from worldwide experts and research and aim to reduce the number of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, contracted by youth globally each year. Currently, there are 111 million new cases annually, according to the Telegraph UK.
Conservative groups, primarily in the United States, have criticized the proposed guidelines as promoting the idea that access to legal abortion is a right, positioning abstinence as "only one of a range of choices available to young people", and encouraging discussion of homosexuality and masturbation, reported the New York Times.
In response to the critics, the United Nations Population Fund has reportedly requested that their name be removed from all materials supporting the guidelines.Sue Williams, chief of UNESCO's Paris press relations department told Time, "we're not surprised by this reaction, nor the places it's coming from. In fact, our very goal with such recommendations is to initiate the kind of debate, reflection, and action that moves the topic forward. Our desire now, however, is that debate be both informed and balanced."\
Nanette Ecker, who co-authored the guidelines said, "Successful programs merge both evidence-informed approaches with rights-based, scientifically accurate and comprehensive approaches. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. In a world with so many children and young people at risk of unintended pregnancy, sexual abuse and violence, HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), it would be an abuse if critical information about sexuality, relationships and sexual health wasn't provided to young people."
Media Resources: UNESCO 8/27/09; New York Times 9/2/09; Telegraph UK 8/28/09; Time 9/3/09
© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)