Parental rights and public health
For quite some time, I've had a fairly strong and fully-formed opinion on sex education in public schools. I think it should emphasize abstinence as the attainable ideal, but that it should also provide the information necessary for students who do make bad choices to protect themselves and others against pregnancy and STDs. I believe sex ed should be comprehensive - not just in terms of the anatomical and contraceptive information it disseminates, but in terms of discussing the true consequences of sex - emphasizing that pregnancy and disease are just the tip of the iceberg, and that even if you take the pill or wear a condom, by choosing to be sexually active you are profoundly affecting your self-respect, your self-image, and your future. In other words, as usual I tend to anger both conservatives and liberals on this issue.
There's been a sporadic but stubbornly ongoing argument over sex ed in the opinion pages of the Charleston Post and Courier, beginning (I think) with a column attacking the validity of studies that supposedly prove the effectively of "abstinence only" curricula. Not being a statistician, I won't weigh in on that particular controversy, except to say that the results of such studies seem to vary widely, depending on the age of the students when exposed to the curriculum in question, the socio-economic makeup of the school, parental and church involvement in sex ed outside of school, and the outcome measured by the study (teen pregnancy rates, reported sexual behavior during the teenage years, long-term sexual behavior, or something else). But the argument has, of course, expanded beyond the numbers and settled down to the occasional letter to the editor either in favor of or in opposition to abstinence-only education.
One letter, from someone opposed to comprehensive sex ed, caught my eye and made me think twice about my own position. I wish I could link to it, but it appears no longer to be on the Post and Courier's website, and (as my husband tells me all the time) I'm so quick to recycle our newspapers that sometimes a useful item has left our house before we realize we need it. The letter-writer approached the subject, not from the vantage point of which curriculum works best to prevent teen pregnancy or discourage sexual activity outside of marriage, but that of the function of schools. He argued that it isn't the business of schools to teach any sort of morality or worldview to children, that such things are learned at home, and that the true origin of problems with pregnancy and STDs among teens is parents who neglect to provide any such guidance to their children. If you want to make a difference, he said, educate parents first, not children.
Interestingly enough, I found this very conservative argument rather compelling. I had just attended kindergarten orientation at our local public elementary school (yes, our oldest will be in kindergarten this year), and as pro-public schools as I am, I found myself feeling a bit uncomfortable with some of what our son's school promised to teach him. For instance, the principal was bragging about a new initiative for teaching leadership, and the teachers mentioned teaching character and values. Now, there's nothing wrong with leadership or good character, but I found myself wondering about the worldview underpinning these curricula. My husband and I are rather dour Calvinists when it comes to human nature and original sin, and I'm not crazy about the thought that our children's school might be loading them up with "I'm okay, you're okay, everybody's okay" self-esteem talk, or telling them that everybody needs to be a leader all the time - when often what is needed is to know how to be a follower, once one has determined that the cause is worth following. After all, why shouldn't we be the ones to talk about these things with them? I'll be happy to handle the character education if the school will take on the messy science experiments, teaching my son to use a computer without breaking it, and all the other stuff that terrifies me about the prospect of home-schooling.
But the fact is that many children aren't getting deliberate character education at home, just as many aren't getting any information (about either abstinence or contraceptives) - or are getting wrong information - at home. We as a society, then, have to make a choice: do we, in the name of parental rights, let some public school students slip through the cracks, or do we ask schools to do their best to teach some very basic framework of morality (or at least common decency and regard for others) in hopes of functioning even partially in loco parentis for those children whose parents will not or cannot do what we think is their job? The answer lies in the government's (and by extension the public schools') traditional responsibility to do what it can to preserve public health, to "promote the general welfare," as the Preamble to our Constitution puts it. If public school character education, as flawed as it may be, can increase the number of students staying in school and growing up to become productive members of society, and decrease the number of young people going straight from school to prison, then that's a public good that saves other taxpayers money and makes us a better society. Similarly, if providing sex education in schools (in whatever form) decreases the incidence of STDs (which don't just "punish" people who make bad decisions as teenagers, but also impact their future marriage partners, and which also make the rounds via rape), then public health has been improved. And unless we believe that babies born to unwed teenage mothers are merely their just punishment for bad behavior (a view plenty of conservatives certainly decried when Pres. Obama seemed to voice it last year), we as a society should also be interested in doing what we can to prevent teen pregnancy.
Parental rights are an attractive rallying cry for those of us who have strong opinions about how we raise our children. And certainly we should continue to talk to our children and voice our concerns when we disagree with the values a school is teaching. But we also need to lend support, when we can, to public schools in their effort to be the last line of defense when parents aren't doing their jobs and young people are in desperate need of guidance and information. The letter-writer was wrong about one thing - it's far easier to reach children than parents.
- KPE
There's been a sporadic but stubbornly ongoing argument over sex ed in the opinion pages of the Charleston Post and Courier, beginning (I think) with a column attacking the validity of studies that supposedly prove the effectively of "abstinence only" curricula. Not being a statistician, I won't weigh in on that particular controversy, except to say that the results of such studies seem to vary widely, depending on the age of the students when exposed to the curriculum in question, the socio-economic makeup of the school, parental and church involvement in sex ed outside of school, and the outcome measured by the study (teen pregnancy rates, reported sexual behavior during the teenage years, long-term sexual behavior, or something else). But the argument has, of course, expanded beyond the numbers and settled down to the occasional letter to the editor either in favor of or in opposition to abstinence-only education.
One letter, from someone opposed to comprehensive sex ed, caught my eye and made me think twice about my own position. I wish I could link to it, but it appears no longer to be on the Post and Courier's website, and (as my husband tells me all the time) I'm so quick to recycle our newspapers that sometimes a useful item has left our house before we realize we need it. The letter-writer approached the subject, not from the vantage point of which curriculum works best to prevent teen pregnancy or discourage sexual activity outside of marriage, but that of the function of schools. He argued that it isn't the business of schools to teach any sort of morality or worldview to children, that such things are learned at home, and that the true origin of problems with pregnancy and STDs among teens is parents who neglect to provide any such guidance to their children. If you want to make a difference, he said, educate parents first, not children.
Interestingly enough, I found this very conservative argument rather compelling. I had just attended kindergarten orientation at our local public elementary school (yes, our oldest will be in kindergarten this year), and as pro-public schools as I am, I found myself feeling a bit uncomfortable with some of what our son's school promised to teach him. For instance, the principal was bragging about a new initiative for teaching leadership, and the teachers mentioned teaching character and values. Now, there's nothing wrong with leadership or good character, but I found myself wondering about the worldview underpinning these curricula. My husband and I are rather dour Calvinists when it comes to human nature and original sin, and I'm not crazy about the thought that our children's school might be loading them up with "I'm okay, you're okay, everybody's okay" self-esteem talk, or telling them that everybody needs to be a leader all the time - when often what is needed is to know how to be a follower, once one has determined that the cause is worth following. After all, why shouldn't we be the ones to talk about these things with them? I'll be happy to handle the character education if the school will take on the messy science experiments, teaching my son to use a computer without breaking it, and all the other stuff that terrifies me about the prospect of home-schooling.
But the fact is that many children aren't getting deliberate character education at home, just as many aren't getting any information (about either abstinence or contraceptives) - or are getting wrong information - at home. We as a society, then, have to make a choice: do we, in the name of parental rights, let some public school students slip through the cracks, or do we ask schools to do their best to teach some very basic framework of morality (or at least common decency and regard for others) in hopes of functioning even partially in loco parentis for those children whose parents will not or cannot do what we think is their job? The answer lies in the government's (and by extension the public schools') traditional responsibility to do what it can to preserve public health, to "promote the general welfare," as the Preamble to our Constitution puts it. If public school character education, as flawed as it may be, can increase the number of students staying in school and growing up to become productive members of society, and decrease the number of young people going straight from school to prison, then that's a public good that saves other taxpayers money and makes us a better society. Similarly, if providing sex education in schools (in whatever form) decreases the incidence of STDs (which don't just "punish" people who make bad decisions as teenagers, but also impact their future marriage partners, and which also make the rounds via rape), then public health has been improved. And unless we believe that babies born to unwed teenage mothers are merely their just punishment for bad behavior (a view plenty of conservatives certainly decried when Pres. Obama seemed to voice it last year), we as a society should also be interested in doing what we can to prevent teen pregnancy.
Parental rights are an attractive rallying cry for those of us who have strong opinions about how we raise our children. And certainly we should continue to talk to our children and voice our concerns when we disagree with the values a school is teaching. But we also need to lend support, when we can, to public schools in their effort to be the last line of defense when parents aren't doing their jobs and young people are in desperate need of guidance and information. The letter-writer was wrong about one thing - it's far easier to reach children than parents.
- KPE
posted by The Eastvold Blog at 2:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home