AUSTIN - State Board of Education member Patricia Hardy of Fort Worth said she plans to push for a requirement that students take a year of PE in courses that would also include instruction in health. Hardy said she believes a health component of PE should include such elements as sex education, parenting, drugs and alcohol use and nutrition.
Hardy said her proposal is designed to fill a void created by the 2009 Legislature, which passed new education standards that eliminated health instruction as a requirement for high school graduation. The former Castleberry High School teacher said she will present the recommendations when board members hold a work session later this year.
Read the rest of the story at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram Extra Credit education blog.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Sex Ed In Collin County Schools - Part 3
“CONDOMS DON’T WORK,” AND OTHER LIES
In Part 1 of our series, we gave an overview of the state of sex education in Texas. In Part 2, we looked at how the Texas Education Code deals with sexuality health and what is and isn’t covered in Allen, Frisco, McKinney and Plano ISD classrooms. In part 3 we turn to a frank discussion of the Factual Errors, Lies and Distortions about Condoms and STDs taught in these Collin County school districts.
Factual Errors, Lies and Distortions about Condoms and STDs
With one in four teenage girls in the U.S. diagnosed with having a sexually transmitted disease, national teen births on the rise and with chlamydia cases increasing 25% for teens in Collin County, one might assume educators are acting quickly to teach teens strategies for protection against STDs including information on condoms. Unfortunately, educators in Collin County are more interested in furthering their personal philosophy of abstinence rather than teen health.
For example, Just Say Yes (used by Frisco ISD) is an abstinence speaker bureau based out of Dallas whose presenter, Howard Flaherty, tells students, “(the) lie suggests that if you hand out a condom to young people that you’re going to lower teen pregnancy and disease. Not true.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 18) He goes on to claim that giving a young person a condom does not give them the message of personal responsibility.
Abstinence-only programs offer condom failure rates that do not match the CDC failure rates, or distort statistics on the topic. For example, Scott & White Worth the Wait (used by Frisco ISD) says condoms fail 15% of the time. The publication does not include the information that condoms fail 15% of the time based on user error (opening the package with one’s teeth, for example). When used perfectly, condoms fail only 2% of the time. (Wiley, et al., pg. 19) If teens are taught the correct way to use a condom, the failure rate lowers significantly. However, none of these programs teach the proper use of a condom, which only perpetuates the myth that they are unreliable.
Choosing The Best Path (used by Allen ISD) uses a fill-in-the-blank worksheet whose answer states, “because latex condoms are made of rubber, they can break and slip-off.” (Wiley, et al., pg 20) This statement is wholly misleading. According to a study in Consumer Reports, “with correct use, a condom will break as little as 2 percent of the time, authorities believe, and will slip off as little as 1 percent of the time.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 20) Choosing the Best Path leaves students thinking slippage and breakage are due to latex, and so won’t trust condoms to work.
The Medical Institute (used by Plano ISD) informs students that “condom breakage and slippage is estimated to occur 1-4% of the time,” (Wiley, et al., pg. 20) another misleading statement. It does not distinguish between latex and non-latex condoms, which have very different breakage and slippage statistics. Also, medical experts do not recommend using non-latex condoms for STD prevention.
According to Wiley and Wilson, “much of the misguided propaganda against condoms…stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of risk reduction.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 20) The authors explain that abstinence-only proponents assume that because condoms do not offer 100% protection they are some how “inadequate” or “flawed.” Rather, condoms are a tool for risk reduction much like air bags or lap-shoulder belts in cars.
Apparently, abstinence-only program designers see STDs as an opportunity to frighten teens into abstinence rather than an opportunity to inform. Contracting disease is scary and abstinence-only proponents use that fear to great effect.
WAIT Training (used by McKinney ISD) includes a handout that lists in three columns “High Risk, “At Risk” or “No Risk” behaviors regarding HIV/AIDS (Wiley, et al., pg. 21). The “High Risk” behaviors are accurate, but the “At Risk” behaviors are either misleading or clearly outdated. The “At Risk” list includes French Kissing – the CDC characterizes this behavior as “very low” risk for contracting HIV/AIDS. The column also includes the words “tears,” “sweat” and “saliva.” Contact with these bodily fluids has never been proven to result in transmission of HIV, as stated by the CDC.
First, here’s what is true: HPV is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these are sexually transmitted. It can infect the genital area of men and women. Most people who get it don’t know and it clears up on its own. Because HPV is in the genital area, like the vulva or rectum, it is fair to say that HPV cannot be “entirely prevented” by condom use. To say that they “don’t work” or “provide little to no protection” is not accurate. (Wiley, et al., pg. 23)
So what do our students learn about HPV and STDs in general?
This year, Texas Freedom Network and Planned Parenthood came together to lobby for the Education Works! bill, which would have guaranteed schools teach medically accurate sexual health information. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass. One hopes that it will not take a full-blown chlamydia epidemic in Collin County to convince adults that teens need the correct information, not fear, to keep them safe. With rates increasing each year, we might be headed in that direction if we don’t make change soon.
The claim that “condoms provide a 50 percent reduction in the transmission rates of syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia” appears in several classroom materials including McKinney ISD’s WAIT Training. The organization came up with the 50% statistic from three legitimate studies: Kenyan prostitutes, Ugandans living in areas with high prevalence of HIV and patients who attended an urban sexually transmitted disease clinic.
No Collin County students fall into the demographic of these studies. All three of the studies based their findings on inconsistent use of condoms and all three studies declared that consistent use of condoms offers protection from STDs and should be encouraged. Yet, the most conservative finding of 50% protection is passed off as the “common” efficacy rate to our students. (pg. 22)
Click For Summary Of Teaching Materials Used In Each ISD
The Texas Democratic Women of Collin Co. Will Host Guest Speaker Kathy Miller, Pres. Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, At The Group's Meeting On Monday, July 27, 2009. Ms. Miller will talk about the Education Fund's year-long study on sexuality health education in Texas public schools. See the "Calendar Box" in the left sidebar of this blog for more details.
| This is Part 3 of a 5 part series on the state of sexuality health education in Collin County based on the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund study, “Just Say Don’t kNOw” by Dr. David Wiley, Dr. Kelly Wilson and Ryan Valentine. A copy of the study can be found online at www.tfn.org. The series is researched and written by Linda Magid. |
In Part 1 of our series, we gave an overview of the state of sex education in Texas. In Part 2, we looked at how the Texas Education Code deals with sexuality health and what is and isn’t covered in Allen, Frisco, McKinney and Plano ISD classrooms. In part 3 we turn to a frank discussion of the Factual Errors, Lies and Distortions about Condoms and STDs taught in these Collin County school districts.
Factual Errors, Lies and Distortions about Condoms and STDs
With one in four teenage girls in the U.S. diagnosed with having a sexually transmitted disease, national teen births on the rise and with chlamydia cases increasing 25% for teens in Collin County, one might assume educators are acting quickly to teach teens strategies for protection against STDs including information on condoms. Unfortunately, educators in Collin County are more interested in furthering their personal philosophy of abstinence rather than teen health.
[“CDC Reports One In Four Teenage Girls Has an STD,” redOrbit, March 11, 2008, "Bristol Palin and other teen moms: New trend setters?" Christian Science Monitor, June 18, 2009 and the Texas Department of State Health Services, TB/HIV/STD Epi and Surveillance report]According to the study “Just Say Don’t kNOw,” two out of five secondary schools in Texas teach children “demonstrably incorrect information on sexuality education instruction.” (Wiley, Wilson and Valentine, pg. 17) 40.1% of Texas ISDs use materials that perpetuate at least one distortion about condoms and some use materials with multiple errors (Wiley, et al., pg. 18).
For example, Just Say Yes (used by Frisco ISD) is an abstinence speaker bureau based out of Dallas whose presenter, Howard Flaherty, tells students, “(the) lie suggests that if you hand out a condom to young people that you’re going to lower teen pregnancy and disease. Not true.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 18) He goes on to claim that giving a young person a condom does not give them the message of personal responsibility.
Abstinence-only programs offer condom failure rates that do not match the CDC failure rates, or distort statistics on the topic. For example, Scott & White Worth the Wait (used by Frisco ISD) says condoms fail 15% of the time. The publication does not include the information that condoms fail 15% of the time based on user error (opening the package with one’s teeth, for example). When used perfectly, condoms fail only 2% of the time. (Wiley, et al., pg. 19) If teens are taught the correct way to use a condom, the failure rate lowers significantly. However, none of these programs teach the proper use of a condom, which only perpetuates the myth that they are unreliable.
Choosing The Best Path (used by Allen ISD) uses a fill-in-the-blank worksheet whose answer states, “because latex condoms are made of rubber, they can break and slip-off.” (Wiley, et al., pg 20) This statement is wholly misleading. According to a study in Consumer Reports, “with correct use, a condom will break as little as 2 percent of the time, authorities believe, and will slip off as little as 1 percent of the time.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 20) Choosing the Best Path leaves students thinking slippage and breakage are due to latex, and so won’t trust condoms to work.
The Medical Institute (used by Plano ISD) informs students that “condom breakage and slippage is estimated to occur 1-4% of the time,” (Wiley, et al., pg. 20) another misleading statement. It does not distinguish between latex and non-latex condoms, which have very different breakage and slippage statistics. Also, medical experts do not recommend using non-latex condoms for STD prevention.
According to Wiley and Wilson, “much of the misguided propaganda against condoms…stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of risk reduction.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 20) The authors explain that abstinence-only proponents assume that because condoms do not offer 100% protection they are some how “inadequate” or “flawed.” Rather, condoms are a tool for risk reduction much like air bags or lap-shoulder belts in cars.
Air bag use reduces mortality by 63%, lap-shoulder belt use reduces mortality by 72%. Even though they don’t reduce risk 100 percent, safety laws mandate using them both. Condoms provide even better risk reduction but are dismissed to the detriment of our children.The Sex Might Not Kill You but the STDs Will
Apparently, abstinence-only program designers see STDs as an opportunity to frighten teens into abstinence rather than an opportunity to inform. Contracting disease is scary and abstinence-only proponents use that fear to great effect.
WAIT Training (used by McKinney ISD) includes a handout that lists in three columns “High Risk, “At Risk” or “No Risk” behaviors regarding HIV/AIDS (Wiley, et al., pg. 21). The “High Risk” behaviors are accurate, but the “At Risk” behaviors are either misleading or clearly outdated. The “At Risk” list includes French Kissing – the CDC characterizes this behavior as “very low” risk for contracting HIV/AIDS. The column also includes the words “tears,” “sweat” and “saliva.” Contact with these bodily fluids has never been proven to result in transmission of HIV, as stated by the CDC.
By creating categories that do not accurately describe the risk of contracting HIV, WAIT Training authors get to make most sexual behavior risky, and scary.HIV isn’t the only STD used to scare students into being abstinent: Human papillomavirus (HPV) “has emerged in recent years as a prime target for anti-condom activists who simultaneous trumpet its dire health consequences and question…the effectiveness of condoms in preventing it.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 22)
First, here’s what is true: HPV is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these are sexually transmitted. It can infect the genital area of men and women. Most people who get it don’t know and it clears up on its own. Because HPV is in the genital area, like the vulva or rectum, it is fair to say that HPV cannot be “entirely prevented” by condom use. To say that they “don’t work” or “provide little to no protection” is not accurate. (Wiley, et al., pg. 23)
So what do our students learn about HPV and STDs in general?
- Aim for Success states in a slide presentation on HPV, “Condoms are ineffective!” and “Condoms – little to no benefit.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 22)
- Wait Training states students “should be told that condoms do not appear to provide any protection from HPV, (which causes 99% of all cervical cancer).” (Wiley, et al., pg. 22)
- WAIT Training tells teachers to inform students “that, when used every time, condoms at best only provide a 50% reduction in the transmission rates of syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia.” A study in the June 2005 issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine found that “consistent and correct condom use provide a 90% reduction in the risk of gonorrhea and 60% reduction in the risk of chlamydia infection.” (Wiley, et al., pg. 23)
- Scott & White Worth the Wait tell students that pelvic inflammatory disease is “caused” by chlamydia and gonorrhea but in reality the STDs can lead to PID if they go untreated. The program does not inform students about getting tested for STDs, which could avert serious problems like PID. (Wiley, et al., pg.23)
This year, Texas Freedom Network and Planned Parenthood came together to lobby for the Education Works! bill, which would have guaranteed schools teach medically accurate sexual health information. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass. One hopes that it will not take a full-blown chlamydia epidemic in Collin County to convince adults that teens need the correct information, not fear, to keep them safe. With rates increasing each year, we might be headed in that direction if we don’t make change soon.
SIDEBAR: WHERE DO THESE QUESTIONABLE STATISTICS COME FROM? (pg. 22 of “Just Say Don’t kNOw,” by Dr. David Wiley, Dr. Kelly Wilson and Ryan Valentine)The origin of many of these bogus claims can not be identified because so many of them are not sited. However, a number of those that are sited can be traced back to The Medical Institute, a pro-abstinence organization that promotes research that supports this point of view. Here is an example of how the Medical Institute (Plano ISD’s only abstinence-only supplemental program) distorts studies on sexual health to further it’s abstinence-only philosophy:
The claim that “condoms provide a 50 percent reduction in the transmission rates of syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia” appears in several classroom materials including McKinney ISD’s WAIT Training. The organization came up with the 50% statistic from three legitimate studies: Kenyan prostitutes, Ugandans living in areas with high prevalence of HIV and patients who attended an urban sexually transmitted disease clinic.
No Collin County students fall into the demographic of these studies. All three of the studies based their findings on inconsistent use of condoms and all three studies declared that consistent use of condoms offers protection from STDs and should be encouraged. Yet, the most conservative finding of 50% protection is passed off as the “common” efficacy rate to our students. (pg. 22)
Click For Summary Of Teaching Materials Used In Each ISD
The Texas Democratic Women of Collin Co. Will Host Guest Speaker Kathy Miller, Pres. Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, At The Group's Meeting On Monday, July 27, 2009. Ms. Miller will talk about the Education Fund's year-long study on sexuality health education in Texas public schools. See the "Calendar Box" in the left sidebar of this blog for more details.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Tough Calls On Sex Education In Texas Schools
In a brief article titled "Sex Education In Public Schools -- Tough Call?" a Dallas Morning News blog post referenced an article in this blog about sex education curricula in school districts around Collin County. The DMN blog post asked if teaching abstinence-plus, which includes information about contraceptives, is a good idea.
Good idea or not, the "tough call" is likely to get a lot tougher for Collin County school board trustees, school administrators and School Health Advisory Councils if the U.S. Congress accepts President Obama's 2010 budget proposal. Pres. Obama's 2010 budget will cut federal abstinence-only funding that has been flowing into Texas for a decade. Texas as a whole might have to loosen its stubborn insistence on abstinence-only sex education, if President Obama's 2010 budget proposal is adopted.
According to the Austin American-Statesman, Texas received almost $18 million in federal "abstinence-only" funding in 2007, matched by $3 million in state funds in that year. While Republican Gov. Rick Perry rejected federal "economic stimulus" money in 2009, meant to aid unemployed Texans, Gov. Perry has said he supports Texas' abstinence-only sex ed programs, which are largely funded by federal money. "The governor is comfortable with current law and supports abstinence programs," said Gov. Perry's spokeswoman, Allison Castle. [Houston Chronicle]
Texas, in accepting more federal abstinence-only education funding than any other state, has largely adopted the federally mandated "strings" attached to the money.
When George W. Bush became president in 2001, he was a vocal proponent of abstinence-only sex education programs and started increasing federal spending on abstinence-only education in U.S. schools, with the hope that it would reach $320 million a year. Federal abstinence-only education funding reached a maximum level of approximately $214 million per year during President Bush's second term in 2008. (abstinence-only funding> graph)
Several recent studies, including a large 2008 federal study, reveal that after more than a decade of increasing federal and state government spending and emphasis on abstinence-only education, the program has failed to achieve its purpose.
Studies show that teenagers who receive abstinence-only sex education are just as likely to have premarital sex as teens who receive abstinence-plus or other variations of comprehensive sex education. Further, teens and young adults that received abstinence-only education are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do engage in sexual activity.
Other recent studies from multiple sources show that after falling steadily for more than a decade, the birth rate for American teenagers again started to increase after 2005. The teen birth rate rose by 3 percent between 2005 and 2006 among 15-to-19-year-old girls, after plummeting 34 percent between 1992 and 2005, according to National Center for Health Statistics. Recent government statistics also shows that one in four U.S. teenage girls has contracted a sexually transmitted disease and 30 percent of U.S. girls become pregnant before the age of 20.
Even though Texas has received more federal dollars for abstinence-only sex education than any other state in the union, the state has the third highest teen birth rate in the nation -- 50% higher than the national average. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) a Texas teen gets pregnant every 10 minutes. Texas Medicaid paid for 17,322 deliveries to teen mothers aged 13-17 in 2007 and according to National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy data, teen childbearing (teens 19 and younger) costs Texas taxpayers (federal, state, and local) at least $1 billion annually. That $1 billion annual payment is on top of the $21 million dollars in federal and state tax payer money spent annually on government sponsored abstinence-only sex education that is increasing rather decreasing Texas teen pregnancy rates.
Evidence compiled over almost twenty years shows that abstinence-plus programs (programs that stress abstinence before marriage, but also that provides comprehensive sex education) reduces teen pregnancies and STD infections:
Will Governor Perry, who counts social conservatives as a large part of his base, make the "tough call" to refuse Obama's federal comprehensive sexuality health education funding, just as he refused Obama's federal funding to aid unemployed Texans?
What "tough calls" would a Governor K. B. Hutchison or Governor Tom Schieffer make to accept and use or reject federal comprehensive sex ed funding. Will Texas' conservative Republican legislators make the "tough call" to override Governor's rejection of federal funding for comprehensive sex education?
Will Texas legislators rework Texas education law to promote federally mandated comprehensive sex education teaching programs, even if social conservative Republican voters oppose it? Will local school board trustees and school administrators make the "tough call" to remake their abstinence-only sex education teaching plans into comprehensive abstinence-plus teaching plans to qualify for federal education funds? If not, how will they pay for abstinence-only education programs absent federal funding support?
And, last, but not least, Republicans from the fiscal conservative wing of the party should be asking Republicans from the social conservative wing of the party why they insist on spending the tax payers' money on abstinence-only government programs when, by every measure, they fail to work.
Parent, voters and the ladies and gentleman of the press really need to start asking these questions.
Good idea or not, the "tough call" is likely to get a lot tougher for Collin County school board trustees, school administrators and School Health Advisory Councils if the U.S. Congress accepts President Obama's 2010 budget proposal. Pres. Obama's 2010 budget will cut federal abstinence-only funding that has been flowing into Texas for a decade. Texas as a whole might have to loosen its stubborn insistence on abstinence-only sex education, if President Obama's 2010 budget proposal is adopted.
According to the Austin American-Statesman, Texas received almost $18 million in federal "abstinence-only" funding in 2007, matched by $3 million in state funds in that year. While Republican Gov. Rick Perry rejected federal "economic stimulus" money in 2009, meant to aid unemployed Texans, Gov. Perry has said he supports Texas' abstinence-only sex ed programs, which are largely funded by federal money. "The governor is comfortable with current law and supports abstinence programs," said Gov. Perry's spokeswoman, Allison Castle. [Houston Chronicle]
Texas, in accepting more federal abstinence-only education funding than any other state, has largely adopted the federally mandated "strings" attached to the money.
For example, the federal Title V abstinence-only education program mandates that grant recipients adopt “abstinence education” which:
- Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
- Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
- Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
- Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;
- Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
- Teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
- Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and
- Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
The Texas education code does not require public schools to offer sex education. But if they do, the teaching plan must be abstinence-focused, and instruction about contraceptives must be couched in terms of how often they fail, according to language added to the Texas education code in 1995 with legislation authored by State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston and co-author Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa. The "abstinence-focused" language was added to then Governor Bush's education bill that created School Health Advisory Committees (SHACs) in each school district. While the "abstinence-focused" language does not outlaw abstinence-plus teaching plans, which includes information about safe sex and STD prevention, the law is widely interpreted by social conservatives as an exclusive mandate for abstinence-only teaching plans.Title V funded programs are not permitted to advocate or discuss contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates. The Title V teaching requirements listed above are coded in the federal law (Title V, Section 510 (b)(2)(A-H) of the Social Security Act (P.L. 104-193) authorizing the " abstinence-focused" funding. (HHS Reference here)
When George W. Bush became president in 2001, he was a vocal proponent of abstinence-only sex education programs and started increasing federal spending on abstinence-only education in U.S. schools, with the hope that it would reach $320 million a year. Federal abstinence-only education funding reached a maximum level of approximately $214 million per year during President Bush's second term in 2008. (abstinence-only funding> graph)
Several recent studies, including a large 2008 federal study, reveal that after more than a decade of increasing federal and state government spending and emphasis on abstinence-only education, the program has failed to achieve its purpose.Studies show that teenagers who receive abstinence-only sex education are just as likely to have premarital sex as teens who receive abstinence-plus or other variations of comprehensive sex education. Further, teens and young adults that received abstinence-only education are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do engage in sexual activity.
Other recent studies from multiple sources show that after falling steadily for more than a decade, the birth rate for American teenagers again started to increase after 2005. The teen birth rate rose by 3 percent between 2005 and 2006 among 15-to-19-year-old girls, after plummeting 34 percent between 1992 and 2005, according to National Center for Health Statistics. Recent government statistics also shows that one in four U.S. teenage girls has contracted a sexually transmitted disease and 30 percent of U.S. girls become pregnant before the age of 20.
Even though Texas has received more federal dollars for abstinence-only sex education than any other state in the union, the state has the third highest teen birth rate in the nation -- 50% higher than the national average. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) a Texas teen gets pregnant every 10 minutes. Texas Medicaid paid for 17,322 deliveries to teen mothers aged 13-17 in 2007 and according to National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy data, teen childbearing (teens 19 and younger) costs Texas taxpayers (federal, state, and local) at least $1 billion annually. That $1 billion annual payment is on top of the $21 million dollars in federal and state tax payer money spent annually on government sponsored abstinence-only sex education that is increasing rather decreasing Texas teen pregnancy rates.
Evidence compiled over almost twenty years shows that abstinence-plus programs (programs that stress abstinence before marriage, but also that provides comprehensive sex education) reduces teen pregnancies and STD infections:
After the teen birth rate rose sharply between 1986 and 1991, hitting an all-time high of 61.8 births per 1,000 girls, the Clinton Administration promoted an abstinence-plus type sex education campaign. That program successfully reversed the rising teen birth trend and and teen pregnancies plummeted between through the 1990s until 2005.To again stem the tide of increasing rates of teen pregnancies and STD infections, President Obama's 2010 budget asks congress to terminate President Bush's Community-Based Abstinence-Only Education (CBAE), Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), mandatory Title V Abstinence-Only Education, Compassion Capital Fund and Rural Communities programs. In place of these conservative Abstinence-Only Education Initiatives President Obama's budget is asking congress to authorize at least $164 million in funding for abstinence-plus type comprehensive sexuality health education initiatives.
The $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars the federal government has redirected to "abstinence-only" teaching programs since President Bush was elected in 2000 has delivered increasing rates of teen pregnancies and STD infections.
So, beginning next year, if the U.S. Congress accepts President Obama's 2010 budget proposals, Texas will lose all of its federal abstinence-only sex education funding. Further, future federal funding for sex education flowing to the state will have certain strings attached that will mandate that the federal money must be used for abstinence-plus comprehensive sexuality health education initiatives.Texas, from Gov. Perry through the state's education agencies down to the local school board trustees, School Health Advisory Councils and school administrators, will have to make some "tough calls" about what to teach Texas teens. What "tough calls" will the Governor, state legislators, state education agency officials, local school board trustees and school administrators make given 94 percent of Texas' school districts are locked into abstinence-only programs?
Will Governor Perry, who counts social conservatives as a large part of his base, make the "tough call" to refuse Obama's federal comprehensive sexuality health education funding, just as he refused Obama's federal funding to aid unemployed Texans?
Social conservatives in Texas and Collin County, who absolutely reject the idea of teaching safe sex in schools, likely will not accept President Obama's 2010 federal " comprehensive" sex education funding program, even if it does still stress abstinence as a first choice.If Governor Perry rejects Pres. Obama's " comprehensive" sex education federal funding, what "tough call" will he make to find state tax money to continue abstinence-only education programs.
On the other hand, a August Texas Poll shows that 90 percent of Texans favor teaching students age-appropriate, medically accurate information on abstinence, birth control and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
If Gov. Perry supports the social conservative position on this issue to win the conservative vote for the 2010 Republican primary, he risks loosing the November 2010 general election.
What "tough calls" would a Governor K. B. Hutchison or Governor Tom Schieffer make to accept and use or reject federal comprehensive sex ed funding. Will Texas' conservative Republican legislators make the "tough call" to override Governor's rejection of federal funding for comprehensive sex education?
Will Texas legislators rework Texas education law to promote federally mandated comprehensive sex education teaching programs, even if social conservative Republican voters oppose it? Will local school board trustees and school administrators make the "tough call" to remake their abstinence-only sex education teaching plans into comprehensive abstinence-plus teaching plans to qualify for federal education funds? If not, how will they pay for abstinence-only education programs absent federal funding support?
And, last, but not least, Republicans from the fiscal conservative wing of the party should be asking Republicans from the social conservative wing of the party why they insist on spending the tax payers' money on abstinence-only government programs when, by every measure, they fail to work.
Parent, voters and the ladies and gentleman of the press really need to start asking these questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)