Porn and Sex Education

One of the oft-repeated comments by characters in my novel, The Sex Ed Chronicles is that, in the absence of sex education, children learn about sex from their friends. However, the novel was based in 1980, before New Jersey high schools started to involve students in peer counseling.

On Valentines Day 2008, I read about a mini-controversy involving peer counseling on a New Jersey radio news Web site. The news coverage came out of one New Jersey high school: Clearview Regional High School in Harrison Township in the southern part of the state. There, parents object to peer counselors, high school juniors and seniors, counseling freshmen on a variety of topics related to sex education. The counseling model comes from a program called Teen Pep. Designed by the Princeton Center for Leadership Training (not affiliated with Princeton University), Teen Pep has been implemented in over 50 Garden State high schools for the past eight years. Therefore, Teen Pep is not a new program and school districts have had time to investigate its merits-only now, one school has made the news.

Teen Pep trains not only students, but also faculty advisors, to work one-to-one, but also as a team in various counseling situations. Schools contracting for Teen Pep work with the Princeton Center for a minimum of two years and there are supervisory field visits by qualified professionals to help ensure the program is running smoothly. A school that engages in Teen Pep makes a considerable intellectual investment, as well as a financial investment, to make it work. Part of this investment is to explain this program to parents.

Which takes me to lesson number one: if you are not ready to take these investments seriously, don’t make them.

As I read about the incident at Clearview High, it became clear to me that the fault is not with the program, but with the school administration. It would have been easier for them to consult parents and clergy from the get-go, as they are supposed to do. I realize that teachers have objected to this-they did back in 1980 as well-but sex education is a subject where parents and clergy believe they have important opinions and knowledge.

I found it interesting to read that an advisory board would be formed after parents objected to individual aspects of the program. That should have been in place from day one.

Which takes me to lesson number two: after consulting parents, decide which topics students are qualified to discuss with peers.

Parental objections at Clearview stemmed from the idea that “kids were teaching kids to have sex. But there had to be clear differences between the topics teen peer counselors were allowed to teach, and those that had to be covered by a qualified sex education teacher-but they didn’t make it in the press. Parents deserved to know, if they asked before school started. I realize that pro-abstinence organizations also use young speakers; their programs should be subject to the same parental review as the peer-counseling program.

Then I get to lesson number three: make sure you have qualified teachers.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act emphasizes a need for qualified teachers, meaning that a teacher should be certified in the subject they teach. That applies as much to sex education as any other subject. In the example of Clearview High, the program leader was an English teacher. When I reached family life education, I learned that sex education instructors were most likely to come from health education, home economics or social studies as well as nursing. I would also assume that guidance counselors could become qualified sex educators; they handle personal student issues as part of their job description.

It appears Teen Pep is working in most schools; only one school is in the news complaining, but those involved with this program should consider offering an alternative: to use degree candidates in counseling and education to counsel students.

This would not be peer counseling, but it would appease parents who worry about kids teaching kids about sex. It would also help provide professional development for sex educators.

Stuart Nachbar operates EducatedQuest.com, a blog on education politics, policy and technology. He has been involved with education politics and economic development as an urban planner, government affairs manager, software executive, and now as a writer. His first novel, The Sex Ed Chronicles, about sex education and school politics in 1980 New Jersey, earned a coveted “Publishers Choice” selection from iUniverse.

Sex education is the act of informing younger and adult generations about everything they need to know about sex. Sex education is one of the most controversial issues in education, which has been floating on educational institutions since ages.

Sex education is not just about sex. It includes other sensitive issues like sexual health, sexual reproduction, sexuality and others that parents often feel uncomfortable talking with their children. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of schools to address this issue, and inform and educate students about it as much as possible.

Often, sexual education in schools is considered as a recreational course rather than a serious issue. There are many pros and cons of sexual education being taught in the public schools.

Pros of sex education in schools:

- Classes are gender-exclusive. This saves embarrassment among students and teach them only what they need to know based on their gender.
- Properly taught, sexual education could become a regular and ongoing Human Anatomy and Biology complete with tests and grading that goes toward graduation credits.
- Students can be taught the correct terms of the reproductive system of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception birth instead of “street slang.”
- Myths surrounding sex can be dispelled (for example, can not get pregnant the first time).
- Studies show that many teenagers become sexually active before the inclusion of educational classes. Principles of inclusion of classes has been shown to help students stay or to abstain or at least be responsible if they are active.
- Proper education can have an impact on the prevention of sexual problems in adulthood.

Cons of sex education in schools:

- Students may still be subject to embarrassment or excitable by subject matter. This can make for out of control classrooms if students take to laugh or make inappropriate comments.
- Most education is taught as a brief interlude in physical education or health class. This is not enough time to relate effectively to serious material.
- Often, sexual education can go against moral or religious beliefs of an individual. Many schools do not teach abstinence-only, but to teach how to have sex safely, while many of the religious and family stress marriage before intercourse.
- Sex education is often seen as a “recreational” course and not a serious issue (this is a direct correlation with the fact that there are no grades or scores to be derived from class).
- Teachers are not always adequately trained to teach sexual education and may violate their own beliefs or morals on the subject rather than continuing with the facts.
- The attitudes of parents, educators and religious leaders in the community can make the stuff that vary from state to state or even school-to-school.

There was a time when talking about sex simply did not happen. That was many moons ago. Now, teens are beginning to have sex at younger and younger ages, and this changes the playing field. Everyone knows that parents need to talk to their kids about sex education, but the lines are not as clear about sex education in school settings. How can we educate our children about sex without endorsing it and should that be a decision made by our school system? This is just one of the many considerations on this important social subject.

The Argument For Sex Education in School

Those that support this say it is because the kids are not getting the right amount of information at home, and that the school is only enhancing the subject for the parents that do talk with their kids. Schools have been known to give out condoms, and take other steps that help to ensure our kids do not get pregnant. They say that sex education helps those kids that are sexually active to do so safely. Some even claim that sex education in schools actually helps to prevent sex at a young age.

The Argument Against Sex Education in School

As a parent, I firmly stand against sex education in school. The reason is rather simple really. Sex education in school can run contradictory to what a parent feels is appropriate, and the parent should have the final say. Here is an example:

Sally is taught at home that sex before marriage is wrong, and that she should not engage in sex until that time. She is also taught about the dangers of sex, and the consequences that can arise such as early teen pregnancy and disease. Then Sally goes to school and attends her class on sex education. The teacher in the class delivers the message that students should wear condoms if they are sexually active, and other similar messages while at the same time, giving out condoms.

While these messages are accurate, they are also indicative of an acceptance of sex among teens and send a mixed message. This sends the wrong message to teens in comparison to what Sally is taught at home, and can confuse the lines that a parent has drawn for their children.

Sex education is something that should be taught at home, and then supported at school through basic sex education classes. Where the system has broken down is in the subject matter. Teaching children about how sex works and the consequences of early sex is a good thing. What they should and should not do is the area for parents, not schools.

While both arguments certainly have merit, I feel that parents should be aware of everything being taught to kids at school where sex is concerned. Parents are not informed of these important facts, and when they are contradictory to what the parent feels is right for their kid, it is simply wrong. Perhaps the right solution would be a combination of parents and teachers attacking the problems facing our children. This could only happen through closely working together and that is sorely lacking in the schools of America today.