Sex education in the United States is taught in two main forms: comprehensive sex education and taboos. Comprehensive sex education is also called abstinence-based, abstinence-plus, abstinence-plus-risk-reduction, and sex education sexual risk reduction. This approach includes abstinence as a preferred option, but also informs youth about human sexuality, age of consent and the availability of contraceptives and techniques to avoid contraction of sexually transmitted infections. Abstinence-only sex education is also called abstinence-centered, taboos-just-up-marriage, sexual risk aversion, and most recently, sex education of youth empowerment. This approach emphasizes abstinence from sexual activity before marriage and rejects methods such as contraception. Both approaches are very different in philosophy and strategy to educate young people about their sexuality. The difference between the two approaches, and their impact on adolescent behavior, remains a controversial subject in the United States.
Video Sex education in the United States
Current position
The program of sex education in the United States teaches students about sexual health as well as ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted teenage pregnancies. The three main types of programs are diet restrictions, taboos-plus, and comprehensive sex education. Although sex education programs that only promote abstinence stand out in American public schools, comprehensive sex education is known as the most effective and proven to have helped young people make better decisions. Sex education has many benefits because it educates students about human anatomy and teaches the importance of having a healthy relationship. Adequate sex education programs in public schools are very beneficial to students and have the potential to reduce the high percentage of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies in America.
Most adolescents in the United States receive some form of sex education at school at least once between grades 6 and 12; many schools are beginning to discuss some topics as early as grade 4 or 5. Advocates of National and Academic Sexual Education state that by the end of the fifth grade, students should be able to "Determine sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to a person of the same gender or different sexes. "However, what students learn varies greatly, as curriculum decisions are highly decentralized. Many countries have laws governing what is taught in sex education classes or allowing parents to opt out. Some state laws leave curriculum decisions for each school district.
The national public health goals for adolescents recommend the provision of comprehensive sex education, covering a wide range of topics and calls to "increase the share of adolescents who receive formal instruction on abstinence, birth control methods, and prevention of HIV/AIDS and STIs." Despite the goals of national public health goals, research has shown a growing gap between them and adolescent acceptance of sex education. Data from the National Growth Family Survey, a nationally representative household survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, asked respondents whether before 18 years they had received "formal instruction at school, church, community center or elsewhere" on various topics sex education. During the 2011-2013 period, data from the NSFG showed that among adolescents aged 15-19 years, the same proportion of women and men reported receiving formal instruction, with instructions that received a division on birth control methods (60% women, 55% male) is lower than the section that receives instructions on saying no to sex, sexually transmitted diseases, or HIV/AIDS. Many adolescents who have sex (43% women and 57% of men) do not receive formal instruction on contraception before they have sex; the share of adolescents who received formal instruction has declined. Between 2006-2010 and 2011-2013, there was a decrease in the proportion of women aged 15-19 who reported receiving instruction on birth control, saying no to sex, HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, as well as a decrease in the proportion of men reported receiving formal instruction about birth control. Both men and women report an increase in receiving instructions to say no to sex, without being given information about birth control.
The NSFG also documented a large decline in formal instruction on birth control from 1995 to 2011-2013 falling from 87% to 60% of adolescent women and 81% to 55% of male adolescents. Although formal instruction on family planning has decreased significantly, 9 out of 10 adolescents reported receiving formal instructions on STDs.
Curriculum
The common curriculum in American school sex education classes includes "instruction on sexual health topics including human sexuality, HIV or STD prevention and prevention of pregnancy more often in high school than in high school or elementary school." The statistics provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reveal that between 2000 and 2014 the portion of schools providing information about sexual health education, including topics such as abstinence, puberty, and how to use condoms correctly, declined. The CDC has identified 16 Critical Sexual Education Topics to be taught in all high schools and above. By 2014, less than half of high schools and only 20% of secondary schools provide instruction for 16 topics deemed important by the CDC for sexual health education.
SMA
A statistics and policy report, based on CDC data and published by the Guttmacher Institute, shows that by 2014 72% of private and public high schools in the United States provide information on prevention of pregnancy, and 76% teach that abstinence is "the most effective method to avoid pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. "Although 61% of US private and public schools teach about the efficacy of contraception, only 35% require instruction to teach students how to use condoms properly. In a US public and private high school demography that teaches pregnancy prevention, the average time spent in the classroom to teach this topic is 4.2 hours.
High school
Statistics released by the CDC on public and private secondary schools' in the United States policy and requirements on sex education in 2014 reveal that 30% of public and private US schools enter pregnancy prevention information, 50% teach abstinence as the most effective. methods for avoiding pregnancy, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases. "20% of US public and private high schools include instruction on the efficacy of contraception, and 10% of instruction is needed to teach students how to use condoms correctly.The CDC report also found that an average of 2.7 hours of instruction on prevention of pregnancy is required by secondary schools public and private US.
Primary school
Traditionally, schools have begun teaching sex education in the fifth and sixth grades, with a primary focus on puberty and reproductive anatomy and physiology. Sex education in this class is often referred to as puberty education to reflect an emphasis on preparing children for the changes that everyone experiences as they grow into adulthood. Few data are available for how much sex education is taught in primary schools, but more and more schools are starting sex education according to developments beginning in kindergarten according to National Sexuality Education Standards (NSES).
Public opinion
There is much research on the effectiveness of both approaches, and conflicting data about American public opinion. Public opinion polls over the years have found that the majority of Americans support a wider sex education program for those who only teach abstinence, even though recent abstinence educators publish poll data with the opposite conclusion. The poll sponsored by the National Abstinence Education Association (now called Ascend) and conducted by Zogby International reported unpublished information in a well methodized survey.
Experts at the University of California, San Francisco also encourage sex educators to include oral sex and emotional concerns as part of their curriculum. Their findings also support previous research which concluded:
... that sexual risk taking should be considered from the perspective of dynamic relationships, not just from the perspective of traditional disease models. Prevention programs rarely address social and emotional issues of adolescents about sex.... Discussions about potential negative consequences, such as experiencing guilt or feeling used by a partner, may cause some teenagers to delay sexual behavior until they feel more confident about the strength of their relationship with their partner and more comfortable with the idea of ​​being sexually active. Identification of common negative social and emotional consequences of having sex can also be useful in screening for adolescents at risk of having more serious side effects after sex.
Sex education is still a debate in the United States to this day. Some parents believe that their children's school programs encourage sexual activity, and schools believe that there are many students who do not get sex education at home. The goal for parents is for their children to follow their family values. Parents want the ability to teach their children what they want about sex education rather than school programs that teach them about certain things that parents try to avoid. School sex education programs mostly try to give students a complete picture of sex and sexuality. They want students to know their bodies and know how to protect them and make intelligent decisions. In a study entitled "Emerges on Research Findings on the Program to Reduce Adolescent Pregnancy" suggests that sex education programs in schools have a major impact on teenagers' decisions to stay abstinence or use contraception if they choose to have sexual intercourse (1). The school program teaches all the things you need to know about sex and sexuality to the students and helps these same students to make their own and safe decisions no matter what they choose. Successful sex education programs are expressed as adapting the curriculum to the specific needs of students, addressing peer pressure and how to respond, and discussing content in a way appropriate for the age group and level of student sexual experience, while providing accurate information.
Teaching close
In a standard classroom, you have a teacher delivering health information to their students. A student recalls the sexual health education taught through, "a book, [a] teacher, and PowerPoint... and the teacher made it awkward." The close college teaching model differs from the ordinary teaching curriculum. A close college teaching model is when more experienced students act as instructors and pass on their knowledge and experience to students.
The benefits of distance learning
The near-peer model has been considered effective because of the high level of communication effects between peer educators and students, so it is often used to teach health education and bio-science. In addition, it has been used as a tool for peer educators to improve their teaching and leadership skills. Other studies show that there is a positive academic outcome for not only students receiving education, but colleagues who teach education. This is due to the fact that there is an advantage in social constructivism, a theory that states individuals conceptualize matter through social interaction. In addition, educators develop a new understanding of the material they teach, as they often make their own explanations, which are found to have the greatest academic benefits. The study was conducted in 11 different settings that analyzed the health behavior of those receiving peer-led health education versus who received adult-led health education. Results show that 7 out of 11 experiments are more effective with peer-taught models. It also illustrates the greater positive change in health behavior with peer models compared to adults. It appears to reduce smoking, marijuana, and alcohol use.
Some examples of successful near-peer teaching models are listed below:
Youth Prevention Education Program (Teenagers Prevention)
In North Carolina High School, the Youth Prevention Education Program (Teen PEP) is implemented. This is one of 19 programs funded under the Adolescent Prevention Health Adolescent Youth Office (TPP) aimed at reducing teenage pregnancy. Unlike other TPP programs, the main focus of PEP Teenagers is to apply peer education components, 11th and 12th grade students are peer educators who teach sexual health to ninth graders in their second semester. Teenagers PEP focuses on three broad areas: cognitive and behavioral, connectedness and self-concept, and changes in information or knowledge. The results show the positive impact of this model. Due to the fact that peer educators are closer to the age of students, students in all schools feel that they are more approachable and reliable than teachers because they share a more general experience. One student stated, "I love this, I learn better than the younger kids who are in my situation." In addition, 70% of students noted that Teen Pep has helped them care about graduating from high school, knowing where to get birth control, and know when they need to see the healthcare provider. Furthermore, peer educators proved to be effective instructors. Over 95% of students claim that peer educators are organized, prepared, giving explicit instruction.
Peer Health Exchange
In 1999, six Yale undergraduate students began teaching health workshops at New Haven public schools to bridge the funding gap in health programs. In 2003, these same six students created Peer Health Exchange (PHE), where undergraduate students taught comprehensive health education to 9th grade students in the I Title schools. PHE is a 501 (c) 3 organization and focuses on four areas main: sexual health, mental health, substance abuse, and communication and advocacy for 13 workshops. Since the advent of PHE has more than 2,000 student volunteers serving more than 17,000 high school students in the Bay area, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, DC. The goal of having a peer health educator is to have conversations with high school students, on health, be more honest and real. In a study completed by the American Institutes for Research (AIR), statistics stated that students were 17% more likely to visit health centers after completion of 13 workshops compared to workshops that did not receive PHE workshops. In addition, students who received 13 workshops had higher levels to accurately establish agreements, know how to access contraception, and identify signs of poor mental health compared with those who did not.
It's OK to Ask Someone (IOTAS)
Peer education seems to improve sexual health outcomes by having a positive effect on knowledge, intentions, and sexual health attitudes. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of peer intervention through text messaging to promote sexual health. Studies show that 88% of American teens (ages 13-17) have access to similar phones by 2015. The App, It's Okay to Ask Someone (IOTAS), was created in 2014 with funding from Forbes Fun and curricula in collaboration with the Department of Education Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania (PPWP). The main purpose of the app is to serve as a text line of sexual health that will reach beyond the classroom, where peer educators can participate in by responding to student questions with adult supervision. The PPWP Education Department ensures that peer educators receive appropriate training to answer sexual health questions and navigate applications; they developed a curriculum of 8 students. The app was later launched in four secondary schools in western Pennsylvania where peer educators answered student questions. IOTAS is successful and is considered effective in answering questions while upholding the confidentiality of sexual health information outside the classroom. It also enables peer educators to be more involved in their community and expand their own sexual health knowledge, so it is very good for those who receive and get information.
Planned Parenthood
Teen Health Source is a program facilitated by Planned Parenthood Toronto, Canada where a trained young volunteer (ages 16-19) answers sexual health questions from teens (ages 13-19) through their text, email, phone or chat website , managing their blog websites, and referring teens to local resources and communities like free clinics. It started in 1993 as a sexual health information channel where teens can call and get their sexual health questions answered anonymously and confidentially from adults. Since then it has emerged into a close associate model where youth volunteers are available 5 days a week (Mon-Thurs between 4 pm and 9 pm and Saturday between 12 and 5 pm) to chat online. They cover a wide range of sexual health topics, some of which include: birth control, sexually transmitted infections, healthy relationships, consent, sexual pleasure, orientation, gender, virginity, puberty, and more.
In addition, the Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania (PPWP) has Peer Helpers peer education program with 250 college students serving 7 high and high schools to provide comprehensive health education. It is run by the Ministry of Education PPWP their primary goal is the prevention of pregnancy. It starts to become less effective because it is too crowded and students do not want to ask their questions personally. Therefore the PPWP Education Department turned to the IOTAS model described above.
Criticism of distance learning
There are also some disadvantages with close-up teaching.
Time commitment
Difficult to maintain because the time commitment requires colleagues. This time commitment requires colleagues to become experts in health knowledge that is not practical.
Classroom Management
A study analyzed peer health educators in 12th grade high school (age 16/17) who taught at least three classes of sex education to about 30 students in grade 9. The results showed that 9th grade students did not consider educators to have the same authority as teachers, by because it is difficult for peer educators to have control over the classroom. It is also noted that it is more difficult for male peer educators to control the class because of the tension that flows from prejudice and stereotyped views about male behavior and the role of men in managing groups. In addition, 27% of peer educators stated that they had "many" or "pretty much" difficulties managing classroom behavior such as responding to comments, oppression, and inappropriate questions. They also have difficulty managing noise levels.
Time limit
In addition, 20% of peer educators report that they have time management problems; there is not enough time in every lesson to provide sex education. Lesson time is another matter. Educators report that when they teach at the end of the day, students are tired and not involved. In addition, school schedule constraints are also difficult. Sometimes the lesson will be canceled, or the lesson delivery will have a long gap because of the school schedule because of that, the lessons that followed will not be effective.
Lack of teacher support
Sometimes teachers do not support the work done by peer educators. Peer educators state that they will appreciate some affirmations for their contributions. Other educators stated that they did not accept suggestions about classroom management for teachers and/or wanted help managing the classroom. Others noted that they did not receive help in finding sources such as writing material.
Recommendations for distance learning programs
Below are 6 six recommendations that should be considered to have a close effect of peer teaching programs and avoid common weaknesses.
- Identify what kind of interaction you expect from your peer educators and students. Then develop training for peer educators covering classroom management skills such as how to handle bullring and how to respond to comments.
- Peer educator students' lessons and lessons should have clear, engaging and fun goals, relevance to students, practical, and should involve learning something new.
- Reassure peer educators that even the most difficult students can engage well with their peers. This can be done through making relationships by using humor.
- Do not let more than a few weeks pass between lessons or periods between peer educator training and lesson delivery.
- Make sure there is enough space to teach lessons and lessons are not taught at the end of the day. Emphasize working in small groups and if possible, ask peer educators to give lessons to the same group of students.
- Teachers should be actively involved with supporting peer educators. Teachers should show appreciation to their fellow teachers, give them resources, and make sure to work around the school schedule for lessons.
Maps Sex education in the United States
Parent support
A 2004 NPR survey showed that the majority of the 1001 parent groups surveyed wanted full-length sex education in schools, as over 80% agreed with the statement "Sex education at school makes it easier for me to talk to my child about sexual problems," and under 17% of parents surveyed agreed with the statement that their children were exposed to "subjects I think my child should discuss". An additional 90% believe that their children's sexual education is "not too early," and 49% of respondents are "somewhat confident" that the values ​​taught in their children's sexual education classes are similar to those taught at home, with 23 % of Parents surveyed became less confident.
Regional parents support
Since the 2004 NPR survey, many studies have collected data showing parental support at the state level.
A study 2014 in Florida, supported by the Surveys Surveillance Risk Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the Florida Department of Health, questioned parents with school-aged children for their perspective on the question of school-based sex education. When 1,715 participants were asked their opinions on curriculum options, majority group, 40.4%, support comprehensive sex education (CSE), 23.2% favored taboos, and 36.4% supported "abstinence-plus." Similar to CSE, "Abstinence-plus" sex education includes information on contraception and condoms, but this information is presented in a "strong taboo message context," as it reinforces the importance of loyalty. When asked about the inclusion of individual topics, the survey found that 72% -91% of parents support secondary schooling that includes birth control and condom education in addition to communication skills, human anatomy/reproduction information, abstinence, HIV, STD, STI, and orientation issues gender/sexual. When asked about individual topics to be taught in high school, 62% -91% of parents support the topic listed earlier. Parents were also asked about the topic of sexuality education taught in primary schools, and 89% supported the inclusion of communication skills, 65% supported education on human anatomy and reproductive information, 61% supported the inclusion of information about abstinence, 53% supported information on STD, HIV, and STIs and 52% support education on gender and sexual orientation issues.
A 2011 study in Harris County Texas, conducted by the University of Texas Health Center, reveals that of 1,201 parents who completed the survey, 93% of parents supported the teaching of sex education in schools, 80% felt that the instruction of sex education should begin in the middle of school or before high school and two thirds of survey participants felt that information about condoms and contraception should be included in the sex education curriculum. The study also notes that Hispanic parents show the strongest support for school-based education that is medically accurate, and provides information about condoms and contraception.
A 2007 survey in Minneapolis Minnesota, conducted by the Division of Health and Adolescent Medicine at the University of Minnesota, included 1,605 participants with school-age children who answered telephone survey questions about items and attitudes toward sex education. 83% of parents support CSE (comprehensive sex education) that teaches contraception and abstinence. Surveys show popular support for comprehensive sex education; it is likely that parents who favor CSE as a more effective method for sex education than the abstinence curriculum is only 14.3 to 0.11. The survey revealed that parents to include certain individual topics in school-based sex education were also high, ranging from 98.6% to 63.4%. The majority of parents also feel that school-based sex education should start in high school, or before.
A 2006 California survey asked 1,284 randomly selected parents, parents who have digital calls for school-aged children for their perspective on things about school-based sex education. When asked about curriculum preferences, 89% of parents prefer comprehensive comprehensive sex education above 11% who prefer a curriculum that simply abstains. Among all the areas surveyed, 87% -93% of parents support CSE. The survey found that 64% of the 11% of respondents who support the abstinence curriculum simply call absolute reasons, such as purity-based morality issues, as a basis for their preference. Of CSE supporters, 94% mentioned at least one of the following three reasons; "Those who focus on the consequences of action, about the importance of providing complete information, on the inevitability of teenage sex involvement."
Federal funding
FY 2016 federal budget
In TA 2016 Congress provides $ 176 million in federal funding for sex education programs that are medically accurate and appropriate.
Funding includes the release of December 16, 2015 of the Omnibus Fund Act of FY 2016, The Consolidated Appropriations Act. The Omnibus bill includes a $ 101 million rate fund for TPP, the Adolescent Prevention Prevention Program of the Adolescent Health Office (OAH). The evaluation fund in the FY Act of Omnibus FY 2016 remains at $ 6.8 million, as it did in FY 2015. The Center for School and Adolescent School Health Control (DASH) financed a $ 2 million increase from the previous year's funding level, generating $ 33.1 million in federal funding. $ 75 million is funded for the Personal Responsibility Education Program, an inclusive education program that provides information on contraception and prevention of pregnancy and STI and abstinence.
In FY 2016, $ 85 million was awarded for educational abstinence programs, including doubling the annual funding for the "AOUM" program to $ 10 million, which may only be allocated to programs that promote abstinence-only sex education, and the importance of refraining from all sexual contact types until married, (see AOUM sub-heading for more). Congress also awarded $ 75 million for the Title V Abstinence education program, which includes the eight point definition of non-abstinence education, and teaches that, regardless of age or circumstance, sex outside of marriage will lead to "the physical and psychological effects that dangerous." FY 2017 proposed budget
Mulai July 11, 2016:
On July 7, 2016 the House of Appropriations Labor, Health and Community Services and Education (LHHS) Subcommittee passed the Federal Budget draft, eliminating the TPP Program, funded in FY06 FY06 at $ 101 million, and Family Title X Program planning, funded in FY 2016 at $ 286.5 million. In the LHHS bill version, these programs will be replaced with $ 20 million awarded to "Sexual Avoidance Risk," or a hardship education abstinence program. The Pregnancy Prevention Program Adolescents have contributed to a 35% decrease in adolescent pregnancy rates since its implementation in 2010, which more than doubled the decline in adolescent pregnancy rates than any other sex education program ever seen in the United States.
The Senate proposes their version of the bill, which provides funding rates for TPP and Title X Family Planning, a month earlier. The Senate bill includes $ 15 million in funding for a competitive abstinence education grant program and a $ 5 million increase in funding during FY 2016, compared to the proposed $ 20 million LHHS for a competitive abstinence education grant program and an increase of $ 10 million during FY 2016.
On July 11, 2016, Parliament has not released a deadline for a decision on whether the bill will officially pass and cut funding for TPP and Family Program X, or consider the Senate version of the bill.
Changes to federal funding policies in 2010
In 2010, Congress abolished two federal programs that have funded only abstinence education; Youth Family Life Prevention Program (AFL) and the Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program; $ 13 million and $ 99 million annually, each with a total of $ 112 million per year. The CBAE program is being replaced in the FYT Appropriations Act of 2010, with a $ 114.5 million budget that includes $ 75 million provided to "go to a proven replication program through rigorous evaluation to reduce teenage pregnancy or underlying or related risk factors. A smaller pot ($ 25 million) is provided to develop innovative strategies that have shown at least some promise, and an additional $ 14.5 million is set aside for training, technical assistance, evaluation, outreach, and additional program support activities. "
In the same year, two new evidence-based sex education programs began; Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) initiative; $ 55 million and $ 100 million, respectively, for a total of $ 155 million a year.
Funding for Title V, Section 510 of only educational abstinence has ended in 2009, but returned by the provisions of the 2010 health care reform legislation by Senator Orrin Hatch. Although this funding reaches $ 50 million per year, only $ 33 million seems to have actually been awarded.
In the spring of 2016, the implementation of federal funds is determined and allocated at the state, state, district, and school council levels. In 2014, the CDC conducted a "School Health Policy and Practice Study" which revealed that, on average, schools require the provision of approximately 6.2 hours of education on human sexuality, with 4 or less hours of information on STD prevention, HIV, and pregnancy.
A.O.U.M.
"A.O.U.M" is an acronym, which means "abstinence only until marriage." A.O.U.M is a federally funded policy for sex education developed in the 1990s as part of welfare reform, in part as a reaction to the growth and development of teenage sex and HIV education programs covering the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
In-depth research has shown that A.O.U.M policy has little influence in preventing students from engaging in sexual activity, ineffective in reducing "risky sexual behavior" and failing to improve health outcomes from increased use of contraceptives and declining adolescent pregnancy rates.
Although less effective, the US congress continues to fund A.O.U.M., increasing funding of up to $ 85 million per year in FY2016. President Barack Obama failed to try to end AOUM, because "10 years of opposition and concerns from medical and public health professionals, sexuality educators, and human rights communities who AOUM withhold information about condoms and contraception, promote religious ideology and gender stereotypes and stigmatization of teens non-heteronormative sexual identity. "
Sex education debate
Invented by Nancy Kendall, the "sex education debate" refers to the current binary conversation surrounding sex education in the United States. Both sides, who are said to be in direct opposition to each other, are best known as Abstinence-Only Education versus Comprehensive Sex. According to Kendall, this debate is primarily concerned with the most "effective" and "appropriate" teaching styles for teenagers in private and public schools. The debate itself consists of each party constantly criticizing the other for not reducing unplanned pregnancy rates, STI transmission, and not delaying the student's first sexual activity. These criticisms are generally handled in the form of research conducted or sponsored by Abstinence-Only or Comprehensive supporters, with the intention of and for all punish the other side of ineffective education.
The debate about gender has been criticized as a major cause of the inability of most curricula today; This curriculum spends most of their material obsessed with preventing STIs and teenage pregnancies, rather than teaching about the emotional component of sexuality. These emotional components include but are not limited to the topic of approval, fun, love, and constructive conversational techniques. Kendall articulates that among other factors, the debate has an adverse impact on the experience of teachers and students in the sex class. The sex education debate cycle (an endless quest to refute the "other" method) currently holds the focus of sex education, slowing the creation and publication of potentially enriching material.
Comprehensive sex education
A 2002 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 58% of high school principals described their comprehensive sex education curriculum.
The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the American College Health Association have all expressed official support for comprehensive sex education. The comprehensive sex education curriculum is intended to reduce sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy out of wedlock or adolescence. According to Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs for Reducing Adolescent Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases by Douglas Kirby, Ph.D., "many evaluation studies clearly show that sex and HIV education programs included in this review do not increase their sexual activity. does not accelerate sex, increase sex frequency, and does not increase the number of sexual partners. "
The Future of the Sex Education Project (FoSE) began in July 2007 when staff from Advocates for Youth, Answers and Sexuality Information and the US Council of Education (SIECUS) first met to discuss the future of sex education in the United States. At that time, every organization is looking forward to possible futures without federal federal taboo-federal funding and simultaneously finding themselves exploring the question of how best to advance comprehensive sexuality education in schools. In May 2008 Advocates, Answers and SIECUS formulated this discussion with funding from the Ford Foundation, George Gund and Grove Foundation, and the FoSE Project was launched. The aim of the project is to create a national dialogue on the future of sex education and to promote the institutionalization of comprehensive sexuality education in primary schools. In "Sexuality Education in the United States: The Joint Cultural Idea in Political Inequality," Jessica Fields discusses that sexuality education looks for behavioral change, and believes that words in certain terms can be transparent and neutral. At the heart of the sexuality debate, practice, and sexuality education there is a stable, rational, and unambiguous relationship between knowledge and behavior.
Proponents of this approach argue that sexual behavior after puberty is given, and therefore it is important to provide information about the risks and how they can be minimized. They assume that sexual abstinence alone and conservative morality will only alienate the students and thus weaken the message. When information about risk, prevention, and responsible behavior is presented, it promotes sound decision making in youth.
A report published by the Department of Health and Human Services has found "the most consistent and clear finding is that sex education does not cause teenagers to start sex when they will not do it." The same report also found that:
Family life or sex education in public schools, traditionally composed largely of providing factual information at the secondary school level, is the most common or diffuse approach to preventing pregnancy among adolescents.... Teenagers who begin sex understand the importance of using effective contraception whenever they have sex. This requires sexually active teenagers who believe that never use contraception to do so. In addition, sexually active adolescents who sometimes use contraception need to use it more consistently (each time they have sex) and use it properly.
The comprehensive sex education curriculum offers medical data presented in an age-appropriate manner. A variety of topics are discussed in these programs, which include non-sexual intercourse, contraception, relationships, sexuality and disease prevention (Siecus). Its main focus is to educate youth so that they can make informed decisions about their own sexual and health activities. Research has shown that a comprehensive program works for youth populations across the spectrum. Inexperienced, experienced, male, female, the majority of ethnic groups, and different communities all benefit from this type of curriculum. Unlike its partners, however, a comprehensive sex education program is ineligible for federal funding because of its mandate against youth education about contraception (Advocate for Youth). The Proposed Responsible Education Law on Life (S. 972 and H.R. 1653) will provide federal funds for a comprehensive sex education program that includes information on taboos and contraceptives and condoms.
From 2-6 November 2013, the American Public Health Association will hold a meeting in Boston, MA on a revolutionary new teaching method in Sexual Education. Developed in Los Angeles in 2008, by UCLA Art & amp; Global Health Center and LA public schools, the program "Focuses on self-empowerment and open dialogue on sexual health Interventions include the performance of original materials created by students (known as Sex or Sex-Ed Squads), testimonials by HIV-positive people, and interactive condom negotiation sessions. "Presentation in November was to gain support for the idea that this art-based approach is a capable means of education in the field of public health
Unsolved sex education
Abstinence sex education, also referred to as "abstinence only until marriage" (AOUM) is an approach that emphasizes sexual abstinence before marriage to the exclusion of all other types of sexual and reproductive health education, especially regarding safe birth control and sex. Teenagers are encouraged to sexual fast until marriage and are not informed about contraception.
A.O.U.M. is a federally-funded policy for sex education developed in the 1990s as part of welfare reform, in part as a reaction to the growth and development of teenage sex and HIV education programs covering the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Through direct funding and appropriate grant incentives, the US government directed more than 1.5 billion US dollars into the abstinence education program only between 1996 and 2010.
In 1996, the federal government attached a provision for a welfare reform law that established a special grant program for states for abstinence-only programs until marriage. The Program, Title V, Ã, § 510 (b) of the Social Security Act (now codified as 42 U.S.C.§ 710b), commonly known as Title V. This creates very specific requirements for grantees. Under this law, the term "abstinence education" means an education or motivation program that:
- Have an exclusive purpose of teaching social, psychological, and health benefits to be realized by not engaging in sexual activity;
- Teaches not to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage as the standard expected for all school-aged children;
- Teaching that not engaging in sexual activity is the only way to avoid unmarried pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and other health related problems;
- Teach that a loyal monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;
- Teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage tends to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
- Teaching who brings unmarried children tends to have harmful consequences for children, children's parents, and society;
- Teach young children how to resist sexual advancement and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advancement, and
- Teaches the importance of achieving independence before engaging in sexual activity.
The title of the V-funded program is not allowed to advocate or discuss contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rate.
In 2000, the federal government embarked on another major program to fund abstinence education, Community Abstinence Education-based (CBAE). CBAE became the main source of federally fasted funding, with $ 115 million awarded for fiscal 2006. The CBAE award cuts the state government, offers federal grants directly to state and local organizations that provide impartial educational programs. Many of these grantees are non-profit or faith-based nonprofit organizations, including crisis pregnancy centers, which use their grants to provide abstinence programs and services in local public and private schools and community groups.
In 2010, the Obama administration and Congress abolished two federal abstinence programs - a Community Based Education grant program (CBAE) and the Indigenous Family Prevention (AFLA) program. The Title V program remains the only federal abstinence education program.
Evidence of effectiveness A.O.U.M
While sex education without abstinence is a controversial subject, the fact that the total absence itself (even in marriage) is the most effective preventive measure against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections is never disputed. What is debated is whether sex education without abstinence is really successful in improving abstinence. Various analyzes show that abstinence programs have no effect on age of sexual initiation, number of sexual partners, or abstinence levels, condom use, vaginal sex, pregnancy, or sexually transmitted diseases. In-depth research has shown that A.O.U.M policy has little influence in preventing students from engaging in sexual activity, ineffective in reducing "risky sexual behavior" and failing to improve health outcomes from increased use of contraceptives and declining adolescent pregnancy rates.
Although less effective, the US congress continues to fund A.O.U.M., increasing funding of up to $ 85 million per year in FY2016. President Barack Obama failed to try to end AOUM, because "10 years of opposition and concerns from medical and public health professionals, sexuality educators, and human rights communities who AOUM withhold information about condoms and contraception, promote religious ideology and gender stereotypes and stigmatization of teens non-heteronormative sexual identity. "
Criticism of sex education without abstinence in the US Congress.
Two major studies by Congress have increased the volume of criticism around abstinence-only education.
In 2004, US Congressman Henry Waxman of California released a report giving examples of inaccurate information included in a federal government-funded special abstinence-sex education program. The report supports the claims of those who argue that abstinence programs only preclude adolescents of critical information about sexuality. Claimed errors include:
- misinterpret the rate of contraceptive failure
- misinterpreting the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, including excerpts from a 1993 study discredited by Drs. Susan Weller, when the federal government had admitted it was inaccurate in 1997 and a larger and newer study that had no Weller research problems available
- false claims that abortion increases the risk of infertility, premature delivery for subsequent pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy
- treats stereotypes about gender roles as scientific facts
- other scientific errors, e.g. states that "twenty-four chromosomes of the mother and twenty-four chromosomes of fathers combine to create this new individual" (the true figure is 23).
Of the 13 grantee programs examined in the 2004 study, only two that did not contain "major errors and distortions" were Sex Can Wait and Managing Pre-Wedding Pressures , respectively used by five grant recipients, making them two of the least used programs in this study. With the exception of the FACTS program, also used by 5 grant recipients, programs found to contain more serious errors were used, ranging from the usage levels of 7 grant recipients ( Navigator and Why kNOw program) to 32 grant recipients (program Choosing the Best Life ). Three of the five most used programs, including the top two, use the same textbook version, Choosing the Best , from 2003 ( Choosing the Best Life ) or 2001 (< i> Choosing the Best Path - the second most used program with 28 grantees - and Choosing the Best , the fifth most used program with 11 grant recipients).
In 2007, a study commissioned by Congress found that middle school students who took part in sex education programs without abstinence were equally likely to have sex in their adolescence as those who did not. From 1999 to 2006, the study tracked more than 2,000 students from ages 11 or 12 to 16; The study involved students who had participated in one of four abstinence education programs, as well as a control group who did not participate in such a program. At age 16, about half of each group student in the abstinence program only and students in the control group are still fasting. Participants of abstinence programs who became sexually active during the 7-year study period reported having the same number of sexual partners as their peers at the same age; In addition, they have sex for the first time at the same age as other students. The study also found that students who take part in abstinence programs may only use contraception when they have sex as those who do not participate. Educational applicants do not abstain to state that this study is too narrow, beginning when the curriculum only abstains in its infancy, and ignores other studies that show positive effects.
Other criticisms of non-abstinence sex education include emphasizing conventional gender and heterosexual norms and expression, excluding members of the LGBT community. Members of the LGBT community can not always take advantage of programs or recommendations from programs that are only abstinent because they are not directed toward transgender and homosexual relationships.
Criticism of sex education without abstinence by the scientific and medical community
Unrestricted education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public. The Health Association, all of whom argue that sex education must be comprehensive to be effective.
AMA "encourages schools to implement comprehensive sexuality education programs... that include an integrated strategy to make condoms available to students and to provide factual information and skills development related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraception including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases... [and] against the use of the only non-abstinence education... "
The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "abstinence programs have only not shown successful results with regard to delays in initiation of sexual activity or the use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best choice for teenagers, but offer discussions on Prevention and HIV contraception as the best approach for sexually active adolescents has been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents reported using contraceptives. "
On August 4, 2007, the British Medical Journal published an editorial concluding that there is "no evidence" that an abstinence-free sex program "reduces risky sexual behavior, the incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" in "income countries" high".
In February 2017, the Journal of Adolescent Health found that A.O.U.M policy "reinforces dangerous gender stereotypes" and fails to reduce teenage pregnancy and STI rates
Virginity appointment
Mortgage promises (or "abstinen promises") are written or verbal promises that keep young people from abstaining until they get married. Although it is often associated with only religious denominational programs, the promise of virginity has recently been included in many programs that are only secular.
The promise of virginity might look like this:
"I, _____________, promise to stay away from sex until the night of my marriage, I want to order my sexual power to give life and love to my future partner and marriage.I will appreciate my sexuality flair by keeping my mind and mind pure as I prepare for my true love I am committed to growing in character to learn to love love and freedom. "
A ring of purity can be a symbol of a promise of virginity.
A study conducted at Columbia University shows that, while many teenagers who take a virginity promise choose to distance themselves from sexual activity, those who end up breaching their promise are at higher risk for unprotected sex the first time than teenagers who do not take an appointment virginity at all. The study also shows that virginity promise is most effective in small groups of travelers in the least nonnormative setting, which means that if abstinence is the norm, those who take a virginity promise are more likely to obey it.
The National Longitudinal Youth Survey has found that, while gamblers are more likely to be unmarried until marriage than non-pledger - 99% of them will have sex before marriage - 88% of the examiners examined had sex before marriage. Of those who promise, there is a significant delay in the first experience with a vaginal relationship, with an average delay of 18 months. However, people who took a virginity appointment were found to be less likely to protect sex during initiation and less likely to get STI tested if there were concerns.
Sex in sex education
Like all topics related to sexuality, gender is a fundamental part of sexual education, and gender and sex ideas are closely related in American culture. However, there is evidence of gender messages in American-based school sex education that can lead to the continued existence of dangerous stereotypes about gender and sexuality.
Abstinence-only
The Journal of Adolescent Health conducted a study entitled "Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage: Advanced Review of US Policies and Programs and Their Influence." The study found that sex education without abstinence reinforces dangerous gender stereotypes about female passivity and "rigid masculinity," both associated with decreased condom use and birth control. Because of this association, the researchers concluded that this stereotype "undermines teenage sexual health." Research by Paul Dale Kleinert found that abstinence programs alone most often exclude information about sexual orientation or gender identity. Additional research by Jillian Grace Norwick conducted in 2016 found that in interviews with female students who did not engage in sex education, participants generally reported that they received messages about sexual "purity" aimed at girls.
Gender roles
A University of Michigan study conducted by Laina Bay-Cheng explores how school-based sex education sometimes imposes a traditional gender role because of "normalization" of heterosexual penile sex in monogamous relationships with socially acceptable gender roles. The same program fails to address the diversity of human sexual activity that is incompatible with "norms". The study also suggests that these programs can portray girls as sexual victims and generate popular phrases such as "boys will become boys" when discussing sexual violence and rape, leading students to believe that girls should be more responsible for avoiding sexual violence. Other research, such as Karin Martin's article "Gender Differences in ABC Birds and Bees: What Mothers Teach Young Children About Sexuality and Reproduction" explores different ways teenagers learn about sexuality from various sources, such as media, religion, and family culture, especially people old. This study confirms that gender roles, when introduced at a very early age, are emphasized and reinforced in adolescence. Paul Dale Kleinert also conducted research on this topic. Her 2016 dissertation examines ways that school-based sex education is rooted in community structures such as gender roles, but the types of programs, comprehensive, dietary, or abstinence-can greatly influence how strictly and/or how traditional gender roles in sexuality are portrayed.
Sexuality in school culture
Another influence on the perception of student sexuality is school culture, as illustrated by Louisa Allen's study "Denying the Sexual Subject: School Regulation on Student Sexuality." This study underscores how school culture can lead students to understand themselves for having multiple levels of gender based sexual agents while also creating normalized sexualities similar to those in Bay-Cheng's research. Regardless of the material included in the school-based sex education curriculum, the general attitude surrounding sex in each school can affect the way students think about their sexuality and their own sexual experiences.
LGBT sex education
LGBT sex education includes the teaching of safe sex practices for people of all gender and sexual orientation identities, not only those who participate in heterosexual sexual activity. Studies have shown that many schools do not offer educational tracks like today, perhaps because of the controversy in the field of sex education as to whether or not LGBT education should be integrated into the curriculum only. Lack of distributed information about the healthy LGBT relationship mentally and physically can also be attributed to the ongoing stigma around the peculiarities in the US, especially with regard to adolescence.
Country policy
In the United States, 13 countries require discussion of sexual orientation in sex education. Of the 13 countries, 9 requires discussion of sexual orientation for inclusion, while 4 countries require only negative information presented on LGBT-related sexual orientation. Arizona provides HIV education with the condition that if and when it is taught, HIV education curriculum can not promote "homosexual lifestyles," or "describe homosexuality in a positive way." Similarly, Oklahoma Oklahoma education education, "among other behaviors, that 'homosexual activity' is considered 'responsible for contact with the AIDS virus.'"
On October 1, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown issued a statewide mandate for sexual health education. Known as the "California Healthy Young Act", the law requires that all sex curricula used in public classes 7-12 grade contain accurate information related to gender and sexual orientation. Assembly Bill 329 also requires that the curriculum "confess explicitly that people have different sexual orientations." While it is difficult for the state to ensure that the bill is implemented effectively and evenly throughout the school, the bill has been met with little resistance by educators or parents.
Controversy
Supporters of LGBT sex education argue that encompassing all gender and sexual identifiers provide information to LGBT students related to them, such as STD prevention for same-sex intimacy. Furthermore, these teachings can help prevent low self-esteem, depression, and bullying, as demonstrated through research. Opponents of educational claims se
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments