Texas schools certainly aren't doing it. I have just read the first of six findings from the new report on sex education in Texas school put out by the Texas Freedom Network. You can find the full report here.
As a parent of three kids in Texas schools (two of them teens) I find the report to be very disturbing (already!). I have had my head in the sand a bit here. Living in a rather affluent suburb and one of the higher rated school districts, I assumed that my kids were getting a slightly better education (including sex ed) than the average Texas student. Boy was I wrong! Here is a bit of what I have gleaned so far...
Overall statistic for Texas students aged 15 to 19 as compared to the rest of the country for risky behaviors:
Ever had sexual intercourse Texas students 52.9% U.S. students 47.8%
Currently sexually active Texas students 38.7% U.S. students 35.0%
Had intercourse with four or more persons during their life Texas students 17.1% U.S. students 14.9%
Did not use a condom during last instance of sexual intercourse (for those sexually active) Texas Students 43.6% U.S. students 38.5%
In 2006 (the most recent year for which data were available) Texas had the third highest teen birthrate in the country at 63.1 live birtsh per 1000 teenagers ages 15-19. (The U.S. average was 41.9.) This figure actually increased from 61.6 births per 1000 the year before (2005), a year in which Texas led the nation in teen birthrates. In addition, it is estimated that Texas taxpayers spend approximately $1 billion annually for the costs of teen childbearing.
Texas also received more than $18 million in 2007 in federal abstinence-only funding which is more than any other state in the country.
The TFN report cited Congressman Henry Waxman's 2004 congressional report on abstinence-only sexuality programs saying that they found that "abstinence only curricula contain scientific errors, present false information about the effectivness of contraceptives, treat sterotypes about girls and boys as scientific fact, and often blur the lines between science and religion." Surely that was then and this is now. We have learned better and have mended our errors - right? NOT!
...the quality of many abstinence-only programs used in Texas classrooms is shockingly poor. Classroom instruction is plagued by blatant errors of fact mixed with misleading information. Curricular materials commonly rely on scare tactics and shaming to teach students about sex. Outdated gender stereotypes and unconstitutional religious content find their way into instructional materials. The exaamples are numorous and widespread:
* misstatements downplaying the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
* presenting exaggerated, "worst case" scenarios in attempts to scare students away from having sex
* a lack of information about screening and treatment for STDs
* shaming messages that suggest sex is somehow "dirty" and "immoral," while unmarried people who are virgins are somehow "better" than those who have had sex
* undocumented/uncited statements presented as "facts": and
* religious messages (in some cases promoting religious discrimintation) mixed with abstinence-only instruction
But surely that is some other Texas school district and not MY school district, right? NOPE. 94% of all Texas school districts teach abstinence-only sex education. 2.3% don't teach anything at all and only 3.6% teach "Abstinence-Plus." So you do the math. The quote from one district superintendent was outrageous:
{We are} a small school with 301 students PK to 12. Most of these kids live on a farm or have animals they feed and care for. They get a pretty good sex education from their animals.
I wonder if that includes how to mount a goat.
Here is what the report had to say about he "Aim for Success" program that was offered in LISD schools...
Aim for Success, an abstinence speaker bureau based in Dallas, typically provides no information about anatomy and physiology , puberty, menstrual and ovulation cycles, pros and cons of various methods of birth control or any other basic sexuality education information. Instead, Aim for Success speakers provide motivational "pep talks" for abstinence, breezing past foundational information. Speakers refer to contraceptives - if they do so at all - exclusively in terms of their failure rates without providing key information as to what commonly causes contraceptives to fail (user error).
Are you frightened yet? I don't know if the quote from the following text book is from the one that our schools use or not (I will have to ask the kids when they get home) but here is a quote from Glencoe's Health:
Engaging in either unprotected or protected sex. Barrier protection is not 100 percent effective in preventing the transmission of STDs and it is not effective at all against HPV - the human papillomavirus. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only method that is 100 percent effective in preventing STDs.
And the reports critique...
First, students will find no definition of barrier protection anywhere in the text book. In addition the statement that barrier protecting is "not effective at all against HPV" is simply inaccurate. Most alarming, however, is the statement that even "protected sex" is a high-risk behavior - a reckless claim that flies in the face of mainstream public health advice and could discourage young people who choose to become sexually active from taking any precautions at all. The fact that a state-approved health textbook would provide such irresponsible information should be worrisome to every parent, even if it was not worrisome to the State Board of Education that approved it.
So we know what is NOT in them, but what IS in the textbooks?
Student textbooks do, however, extensively present the abstinence-only perspective by teaching about concepts thought to be associated with sexuality education such as character education, improving self-esteem, healthy marriages and choosing good friends. While these are important and appropriate skills for students to learn, this type of instruction is not sexuality education. Moreover, there is little support in the professional literature for the efficacy of developing self-esteem as a deterrent to risk-taking behavior among youth.
The textbook Lifetime Health from Holt, Rinehart and Winston includes a handy little section titled "8 Steps to Protect Yourself from STDs." And what do you think is in it? Well, there is no mention of using barrier protection or any other mention of condoms or disease prevention. It suggests that you "get plenty of rest" so that you can make better decisions. There you go. Get plenty of rest and you will be protected from STDs.
And all of that was from finding 1 of 6. I will update as I get through the rest of the report.
I want to work on a solution to address the School Board, but for now you can get services and information from Planned Parenthood. All you have to do is put in your zip code and it will find locations close to you. It looks like the location close to us offers education services but they may have a fee attached (that might be chargeable to insurance). It's hard to tell. I may give them a call though and schedule an appointment for us and the boys.
Updated to add more...
Finding 2
There is a lot of misunderstanding about what the law in Texas actually says in regards to sex education. The Texas Education Code requires districts to "emphasize abstinence over all other methods of preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STDs" but it does not restrict teaching other methods like so many seem to think.
There is also some confusion on parent notification of sex ed training. The law states that parents "must be informed of the basic content of human sexuality education and instruction" but there is no requirement for parents to give "permission" (opt-in) for their children to receive sex ed instruction - although they may "opt-out".
School districts are supposed to have "School Health Advisory Counsels" (SHACs) set up to help them formulate a sex ed plan, but even in the districts that have SHACs, the members have a "lack of expertise" - and that is if the school board chooses to take "advice" from the SHAC. 80.5 of the school districts SHACs have not even produced formal recommendations!
The report also found that policies allowed for "ideological censorship." Some instances can even put the schools in legal jeopardy of First Amendment lawsuits. One program had a section called "Whose Opinion Counts: Self, God, and Parents" According to the report, "it also included a section on "Gods [sic} standard for dating." Another program that was recommended by one of the SHACs was...
Wonderful Day: Sexual Purity Presentation... [which] is an explicitly Christian organization whose material are full of biblical references intended for a sectarian religious audience, as even a quick check of its materials makes clear. The Web page for ist programs trumpets:
"The young girls in our nation have an essential role. They are extra-special. If they fail, then future families and our nation will fail. If they succeed, families, communities, and our nation will stand strong. They are our nation's last line of defense! Need proof? Leviticus 19:29"
The Texas Taliban strikes again!
There were only three SHACs that were commended in any way what-so-ever. They were Fort Worth ISD, Canutillo ISD (located outside of El Paso) and Hays ISD (a suburb of Austin).
This section concluded:
[L]ocal input into decisions abut sexuality education is a myth and, even when it exists, often results in ineffective sexuality education policies.... One possible reason SHACs are undervalued in so many school districts across Texas is that there is no oversight or accountability for district that do not comply with state law.
Finding 3
Wow! There was so much in this section that it will be hard to boil down, but here is the bottom line... they are lying to our kids. Its one thing to omit telling kids about condoms or STD prevention, but it's another thing all together to flat out lie about their efficacy. The report documented factual errors in 41% of school districts in the state! And they said that figure actually "understates the extent of misinformation in Texas secondary classrooms" because of the inclusion of "materials that contain incomplete or inadequate information, which can have the effect of misleading the students." Here is one frightening example from the report...
Often misinformation is delivered directly and without subtlety. Abstinence speaker Pam Stenzel says: Students, condoms aren't safe. Never have been. Never will be." Stenzel's presentations or videos are used in only three districts, but this type of condemnation of condoms is fairly typical.
The Edinburg ISD even makes misleading students about contraceptives its official policy! It says "Teachers shall only present use of contraceptives as risky behavior for teens." And this in a state with such an appalingly high rate of teen pregnancy!
One of the biggest tactics is to exaggerate the failure rate of contraception. They don't distinguish between "typical use" rates and "perfect use rates." They don't point out the large failure rates tend to be "operator error"! Good grief. If you give a kid a car with no instruction, they will likely kill themselves, but they are will to do this? And then, even with that they are treating a 15% failure rate as a complete failure rather than an 85% success! But instead, they just give a blanket condemnation that "Condoms don't work." This is setting up Texas kids for misconceptions and bad (risky) habits for LIFE. Even if they remain abstinent through their teens, they will eventually become sexually active and then what?
As for information on STDs such as HIV, AIDS and HPV, the information is out dated (sometimes from the 1980's) and flat out wrong. Some examples include "[t]eaching students that there is no scientific evidence that condoms block HIV," or that "'french kissing as an 'at risk' activity" for contracting HIV, or that you can get HIV from tears, sweat or saliva - all of which are in direct contradiction of the CDC!
On the subject of HPV, the program that is taught in LISD schools state that "Condoms are ineffective," "Condoms - little to no benefit, and " As far as condoms go, there is plenty of evidence to suggest they don't do any good." Just so you know, HPV is a "field infection," which means that it can be spread through areas not protected by a condom, BUT that does not mean that condoms provide no protection at all. And what these programs leave out is that a pap smear is key to early detection of cervical cancer. Beyond that, of the more than 100 different types of HPV, only 30 of them are sexually transmitted and, of those, most HPV infections clear up on their own. But our schools prefer to terrorize our kids instead of stressing the value of getting tested for STDs.
Here is the final statement in this section of the report...
If a district chooses not to educate students about contraceptives, they have the freedom under local control to do so. But a program can promote abstinence without discouraging condom or contraceptive use. Discouraging students who might already be sexually active (which is statistically more than half of Texas high school students) from using condoms is irresponsible in the extreme, and it occurs far too frequently in Texas.
At this rate, our kids would be better with NO formal sex ed in school!
Updated once more...
Oh yeah! I forgot to tell you about one little tidbit... guess where the crap "facts" are coming from. Come on! You can guess...
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION - you know... that ultra-conservative think-tank whose mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies.'
Another source was The Medical Institute (used to be the Medical Institute for Sexual Health) which was founded by an ultra-conservative doc who also happens to be a long-time proponent of abstinence-only education and specifically promotes research to support his specific ideology.
Updated for Finding 4
The heading on this finding says it all... Shaming and Fear-based Instruction are Standard Means of Teaching Students About Sexuality.
A common thread running throughout materials submitted by most districts is the use of fear- and shame-based instruction about sex. An emphasis on blatant scare tactics, guilt and embarrassment in relation to sexuality appears in classrooms across the state in multiple ways: curriculum resources produced by national or local groups, videos, presentations by guest speakers, teacher-developed materials and student assemblies. These tactics seem to make up the primary- and in some cases only - instructional strategies for most abstinence-only programs in Texas secondary schools.
You know... someday I actually want grand kids. And I don't want my kids so freaked out and scared about sex that they end up have warped relationships with their spouses in the future.
The report finds that the programs offered in Texas schools consistently exaggerate the consequences of sexual behavior. The state's most widely used curriculum, Scott& White Worth the Wait, tells teens that premarital sex leads to depression, suicide and divorce later in life. WTF? Yes, we want our kids to be responsible, but to tell a kid that if they have premarital sex they will die is just criminal. And then are we supposed to conclude that marriage is supposed to magically make it all right and you will never be harmed as long as you are married? What kind of bullshit is that?
Fear doesn't keep kids from having sex. Our teen pregnancy rates are evidence of that. Fear just makes them stress out and feel guilty about it when they do have sex and lack of information makes them more likely to have risky sex. It may also make them less likely to ask for help if they need it.
Baird ISD gives the kids a handout with the following:
OR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN SEX NOW IS LIKE PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH ALL BUT ONE CHAMBER EMPTY.
The Why kNOw curriculum has this little gem in it...
WARNING! Going on this ride could change your life forever, result in poverty, heartache, disease, and even DEATH.
Their emphasis - not mine.
The video "No Second Chance" directly connects death to sex before marriage - not unprotected sex - sex before marriage.
The reality is that any STD can cause problems, but untreated STDs are far more likely to cause problems that those that are treated. In fact, the only STD that will cause DEATH is HIV through AIDS. Even HPV, which will cause cervical cancer in a few strains, is not directly "deadly". The biggest beneficial factor for people with HPV is screening and PAP smears, but that information doesn't seem to be on the agenda.
A lot of these programs are also relating risk with demographics rather than behavior, which leads our kids helpless. Either they are in a safer demographic and therefore feel they can have unprotected sex or they are in a less safe demographic and feel doomed. It's a no win situation.
Another small tidbit from the report:
Another common strategy employed in instruction about sexuality in many Texas secondary classrooms plays on existing tendencies among young people to judge the behavior of their peers. this approach demonized those who fail to remain abstinent, while presenting those who refrain from sex as emotionally and morally superior.
Damn! High school is hard enough without all this crap!
I've got to get going, but one last bit before I go...
It is also critically important to note that for some teens sexual activity is not consenual, but a result of sexual coercion or assault. For these teens, the message that sex is a result of mora weakness or causes psychological damage could add further trauma. Most of the sexuality education material used in Texas schools barely touch on sexual abuse and rarely distinguish between wanted and unwanted sexual behavior. As an example, Baird ISD utilizes a handout entitled "Are You Contracepting Yourself?" that includes "sexual violence" and "aggression toward women" as potential consequences of deciding to become sexually active. No one chooses to be the victim of sexual assault, and victims of any type of sexual violence or aggression should never be made to feel guilty or ashamed. In a worst-case scenario, it is possible that students who were forced to engage in non consensual sexual activity will internalize guilt and shaming messages and not report these crimes and/or seek help.
Only two more findings left to go...
Updated for Finding 5...
This one highlights how sex ed in Texas promotes biases and gender stereotypes. It's pretty sad really. you would think you had woken up in the 1950's.
The most common stereotypes that appear in the materials evaluated for this report include portraying outdated gender roles for females; typecasting women as gatekeepers of aggressive male sexuality; and in a handful of districts, including content that openly discriminates against gay and lesbian youth.
Females as gatekeepers? Really? I'm mean, this is 2009. It can't be that bad can it?
Yes it can...
This example is from the No Apologies curriculum, which was originally developed by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family and was originally intended for use overseas in countries like Singapore but is now included in the curriculum for five Texas school districts.
LADIES BE LADIES
In another article, we talked about chivalry and knights and gentlemen being gentlemen. But there are two sides to every coin, so girls, we have to ask: Are you acting like the kind of lady who would attract such a knight in shining armour? Think about it. Maturity attracts maturity. Class attracts class. Ladies attract gentlemen.
What utter bullshit. Sometimes sixteen-year-old girls attract sixty-year-old goats no matter what they do. And the real take home message there is: Girls, don't act too mature or you will only be asked out by thirty-year-olds - I know because I was one of those girls being pursued by much older men.
The No Apologies curriculum also has this little gem of advice:
[T]he safest place for a woman to live is married to a man.
Tell that to the woman getting the crap beat out of her by her husband. What a way to undermine a girls self-esteem! She's nothing without a man? She can't take care of herself and has to have a man to protect her? Do we need to make sure we marry our daughters off right away so that we can make sure they are protected? Maybe bring back arranged marriages, even. I call bullshit.
The report points out that there are legitimate differences between men and women that should be taught in a sex ed course. After all, we have different physiology; STDs present different symptoms in men and women. But one handout from Baird ISD depicted males as "erotic" sexual beings and and females as "romantic" emotional beings.
The stereotype that girls are the gatekeepers and that boys can't control their sexual urges is particularly troubling to me. This stereotype was evidently present in most of the abstinence-only materials. That is completely unfair to our daughters. Both genders should bear that responsibility. There is a real danger here of promoting domestic violence and assault. Here is anther example from the report.
The Why kNOw? curriculum, for instance, includes a story about a young couple named Stephanie and Drew who are trying to remain abstinent until marriage. In this material, which is used in 21 Texas school districts, students are told that Stephanie wears tight clothing. Drew "likes her a lot, but lately keeping his hand off her has been a real job!" Stephanie has clearly communicated to Drew that she does not want to have sex - "her action, however, are not matching her words.: There are several problems with this exercise. First, as with the Burleson ISD material, the male is assigned a lesser responsibility for controlling his personal behavior. Beyond this, however, Stephanie has acted appropriately and communicated her desire to avoid sexual intercourse - she said "no" - yet the curriculum still blames her for aggressive male sexual behavior. Examples like this send a clear message that "boys will be boys" and are ultimately not responsible for their actions.
Burkas anyone? Way to blame the victim there! And as a parent, I feel completely undermined by this. I have told my boys that, even if a girls in stark naked, "no" means "no". But then they go to school and hear this crap? What a dangerous message it send to our kids! As pointed out by the report:
Sexual abuse and assault is a pressing issue among students in this particular age group. Approximately one in five female high school students report being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner. Even more alarming, recent research has shown that both victims and abusers attribute the responsibility for violent dating behavior to victims. reasons given include: provocation by the girl, the victim's personality type, the girl's need for affection, communication problems, and peer group influence.
How completely demoralizing to young women! Their words no longer have any meaning, not only with their dating partner, but also with their teachers. Perhaps we should be giving girls mandatory self defense classes along with sex ed classes. One horrible result of this kind of stereotyping is that girls are much less likely to report being abused.
As for gay bashing... the report concluded, within in the curricula, there is very little overt discrimination or homophobia. That doesn't mean it's not present in the schools - it's just more subtle. The problem is that gays and lesbians are just completely left out and ignored.
Though examples of discrimination were not commons, we did discover a few districts that include discriminatory content toward gay and lesbian students: 41 districts in the state - or 4.1 percent. Some districts have policies that explicitly address sexual orientation in a negative, even mean spirited manner.
Here is one example from Edinburg CISD:
Instruction shall not represent homosexuality as a normal acceptable lifestyle. Homosexuality shall be discussed in conjunction with education about sexually transmitted diseases. Teachers shall provide information of a factual nature only, and shall not explicitly discuss homosexual practices. Students should be informed that homosexual acts are illegal in Texas and highly correlated with the transmission of AIDS. Students shall be directed to seek value-oriented information regarding homosexuality from their parents/guardians.
How horrible! And it not true! The US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that law that criminalize sexual intimacy between consenting individuals of the same sex are unconstitutional!
And, of course, a lot of the programs get into the whole sanctity of marriage thing. Some of the texts have even been changed in recent years to alter the definition of a marriage to be between a "natural man" and a "natural woman" Bless our poor gay and lesbian teens!
That's it for now. More later.