washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert)

The article in the Washington Post seems to avoid much of the hysteria the opposing sides generally display.




Study finds focus on abstinence in sex-ed classes can delay sexual activity

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 1, 2010; 4:35 PM



Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can convince a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for the nation's embattled efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

In the first carefully designed study to evaluate the controversial approach to sex ed, researchers found that only about a third of 6th and 7th graders who went through sessions focused on abstinence started having sex in the next two years. In contrast, nearly half of students who got other classes, including those that included information about contraception, became sexually active.

"I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence," said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who led the federally funded study. "Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."

The research, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, comes amid intense debate over how to reduce sexual activity, pregnancies, births and sexually transmitted diseases among children and teenagers. After declining for more than a decade, births, pregnancies and STDs among U.S. teens have begun increasing again.

The Obama administration eliminated more than $150 million in federal funding targeted at abstinence programs, which are relatively new and have little rigorous evidence supporting their effectiveness. Instead it is launching a new $114 million pregnancy prevention initiative that will fund only programs that have been shown scientifically to work. The administration Monday proposed expanding that program to $183 million next year. The move came after intensifying questions about the effectiveness of abstinence programs.

"This new study is game-changing," said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex and reduce their recent sexual activity as well."

The new study is the first to evaluate an abstinence program using a carefully "controlled" design that compared it directly to alternative strategies -- considered the highest level of scientific evidence.

"This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education," said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who wrote the criteria for federal funding of abstinence programs. "I've always known that abstinence programs have gotten a bad rap."

Even long-time critics of the approach praised the new study, saying it provided strong evidence that such programs can work and may deserve taxpayer support.

"One of the things that's exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire," said Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

Based on the findings, Obama administration officials said programs like the one evaluated in the study could be eligible for federal funding.

"No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention," said Health and Human Services Department spokesman Nicholas Pappas.

Several critics of abstinence-only approach argued that the curriculum tested was not representative of most abstinence programs. It did not take on a moralistic tone as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until they were married, did not portray sex outside of marriage as never appropriate or disparage condoms.

"There is no data in this study to support the 'abstain-until marriage' programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

But abstinence supporters disputed that, saying that the new program was essentially the same as other good abstinence programs.

"For our critics to use 'marriage' as the thing that sets the program in this study apart from federally funded programs is an exaggeration and smacks of an effort to dismiss abstinence education rather than understanding what it is," Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.

The new study involved 662 African-American students who were randomly assigned to go through one of five programs: An eight-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an eight-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an eight- or 12-hour program that did both; or an eight-hour program focused on teaching the youngsters other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising.

Over the next two years, about 33 percent of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared to about 52 percent who were just taught safe sex. About 42 percent of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47 percent of those who just learned about other ways to be healthy. The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.

"The take-home message is that we need a variety of interventions to address an epidemic like HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy," Jemmott said. "There are populations that really want an abstinence intervention. They are against telling children about condoms. This study suggests abstinence programs can be part of the mix of programs that we offer."

Doesn't work here in TX. Not only does Texas rank near the top in the country in teen pregnancies, it is the top in unwed teens with a second pregnancy. TX schools priority has long been abstinence only.

Texas Schools Emphasize Abstinence-Only Sex Education, Teach Misinformation, Study Finds (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/140504.php)
TRAIL BLAZERS Blog | The Dallas Morning News (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/01/texas-teen-pregnancy-ranking-4.html)

Well, I can't imagine that what the schools are teaching is making the difference in Texas or anywhere else. Even if the school is only teaching abstinance, no parent who thinks their child needs to have that supplemented should leave it up to someone else. The very idea that my kids were going to get their entire sex ed from school strikes me as utterly ridiculous in the first place. To say that since the kids are only taught abstinence in school is why they are getting pregnant completely ignores that all parents and family members need to do is set aside an hour or so to explain things to the child. If they aren't doing even that much, it is no wonder the kids are getting pregnant. When your family abandons you, you create your own. Those second Texas pregnancies didn't happen as a result of ignorance. And very few of the first pregnancies did, either.

Well, I can't imagine that what the schools are teaching is making the difference in Texas or anywhere else. Even if the school is only teaching abstinance, no parent who thinks their child needs to have that supplemented should leave it up to someone else. The very idea that my kids were going to get their entire sex ed from school strikes me as utterly ridiculous in the first place. To say that since the kids are only taught abstinence in school is why they are getting pregnant completely ignores that all parents and family members need to do is set aside an hour or so to explain things to the child. If they aren't doing even that much, it is no wonder the kids are getting pregnant. When your family abandons you, you create your own. Those second Texas pregnancies didn't happen as a result of ignorance. And very few of the first pregnancies did, either.

Good points, all.

Teen age sex will never go away and has been happening since forever. I've overheard talk that my grandparents had to get married because my grandmother was pregnant. And then a generation my dad had to get married because my mother feared she was pregnant. And yet a generation my brother had to get married because his girlfriend was pregnant.

Our culture is pretty sexed up in every arena. I don't think you can make a significant impact without changing what we all are. That means not in our lifetimes.

Yikes, they based the claim on a very small number of teachers. A difference of 30% and 50% is so far over the top that I can't imagine this result will carry over into the greater population. Usually studies like this end with results barely breaking the margin of error. A lot of the commentary there is from pr firms, not the actual peopel who did the study. Saying it changes everything is pretty silly.


From the actual university press release:
"The authors cautioned that before any policy issues are discussed, more research is needed to determine the efficacy of abstinence-only education for different populations, including replication of a study like this in young African Americans. “Policy should not be based on just one study, but an accumulation of empirical findings from several well-designed, well-executed studies,” said Dr. Jemmott."

I think it boils down to two camps.

1) Teach them all they need to know scientifically (which includes lessons about not having sex allows you to not get diseases and kids (aka abstinence), obviously)
2) Don't teach them anything (which includes the lack of sex).

Either way it requires the parent to be involved to continue teaching. One just covers the case where the parents are NOT very involved, or just whoa-fully unprepared.

I just find the #2 to be precisely that... a #2.

Or #3, let them learn on the internet.

Well, I tend to go with option number 1 but a lot of people all up into other people's business are a little worried that someone will not teach their children anything BUT abstinence for religious reasons.

Presumably, ignorance (and I say that in a respectful way) is something that SPREADS and is going to infect the children that have been given scientific, practical information by their own parents. Because of this, they insist on the schools handling this to make sure that their own children don't suddenly forget everything they were ever taught when exposed to a child who has a traditional religious upbringing.

Seriously, people. Parents who do their job as parents don't need to worry that their child is going to get pregnant as a result of ignorance or religious leanings. And even the parents who insist on teaching abstinence only are living in a dream world if they think their children aren't going to pick up "street" knowledge from their peers.

The argument that the good kids won't use birthcontrol is the one trotted out by the ones in favor of teaching about birth control. They may be true, but my experience with children and young adults, alike, is that passion overrides common sense on a regular basis.

The kids know about birthcontrol. Even the ones who are taught abstinence. Kids share information, not innocence.

Abstinence should certainly be part of any sex education that is given but I think the reality of the world is that most kids aren't going to practice it. They haven't since before I was a teenager and thats now been quite a while ago. Its simply unreasonable to expect teenagers to practice abstenence but it IS reasonable to expect teenagers to use birth control. It should be given to anyone who wants it, free of charge.

I understand all the arguments but just to add to the discussion, I want to point out that the exact same arguments have been made for more than 40 years that kids need to be taught about birth control. The rheteric back in the day was that kids should be taught by their parents so they got "correct" information rather than myths they learned on the street. The same arguments are frequently still being made but times have changed. We have the internet. Things are on TV, we have sex education. We have tons more parents sitting their kids down to discuss these things - happily. And those kids share that information with their friends even if the friends parents don't say anything. If you haven't checked out the social networking sites of teens, you have no idea. It is not the same world it was when we were kids - lots more information out there and, frankly, a lot of good information out there. Our poor young people are absolutely deluged with sex and anyone who thinks the schools are the primary source of information, or that kids can be kept innocent is delusional. The days when a young girl learned the facts of life from her husband on her wedding night don't exist. She may not know exactly how to work a condom but she knows she needs one. And I am not sure how well using a banana in a classroom for an prop is going to help. There are some things she might be better off learning in private. Our parents need to be talking to their sons and be brutally frank that they have responsibilities. Girls, too, of course.

Penny, I do agree with you about the amount of informaiton out, but there are still many parents that will not discuss sex or birth control with their kids due to religous reasons. They only teach abstinence. I personally don't have a problem with that, but don't expect them to not listen to their friends in school. Much of the info from their friends is just flat wrong, and it is the same wrong information that was floating around when I was in school in the '80s.
If parents don't want the schools to teach their child sex ed then the parents should give the corect info. I would rather my child learn all of the facts about sex, including the consequnces of bringing a child into the world. Both boys and girls should get all of the available info. Boys must learn that they have a duty to the child and the mother. I believe this is where most (not all) family problems stem from. Alot of parents are simply not ready for a child.

So then, with all the sex ed and knowledge in the world, how to prevent cases like the one I saw in a felony trial I was on as a jurist where the accused was 22 years old and had already fathered 6 children from 3 women and a woman involved was 21 and was about to pop with her 3rd child?

It still comes down to the people involved, they have to make the choice of no sex, birth control, or chance it. Some people will always make decsions based on the heat of the moment instead of using careful consideration for the possible consequences of their actions.

So then, with all the sex ed and knowledge in the world, how to prevent cases like the one I saw in a felony trial I was on as a jurist where the accused was 22 years old and had already fathered 6 children from 3 women and a woman involved was 21 and was about to pop with her 3rd child?

I suspect sterilization would be the only thing that would slow that little Johhny Apple Seed down.

If parents don't want the schools to teach their child sex ed then the parents should give the corect info. I would rather my child learn all of the facts about sex, including the consequnces of bringing a child into the world. Both boys and girls should get all of the available info. Boys must learn that they have a duty to the child and the mother. I believe this is where most (not all) family problems stem from. Alot of parents are simply not ready for a child.

I agree with you.

So then, with all the sex ed and knowledge in the world, how to prevent cases like the one I saw in a felony trial I was on as a jurist where the accused was 22 years old and had already fathered 6 children from 3 women and a woman involved was 21 and was about to pop with her 3rd child?

You can't address a problem by focusing on the corner cases.

You can't address a problem by focusing on the corner cases.

But that's where the main problem is. These are kids that will be lifelong addicts to the social services system and/or the prison system.

The dad who kept populating the planet was doing that by choice, not ignorance. His problem was not a lack of birth control but, rather, a lack of self control. Sadly, those guys are all over the place and the women who have babies with them are even more common. In every sense of the word.

The point is, that is where the main problem is. The occasional suburban pregnancy isn't an overwhelming social problem. Street corners are and the problem becomes that of the taxpayer.

They( the parents) either dont talk to the children about sex, or drugs or underage drinking,or the parents hope they will just "learn it on their own", then you have some parents who just doesnt know enough to talk to their kids or answer questions.
I have a friend whose dad gave him a porn flick (with a romance plot)..lol and said "sex and love is like this....and left my friend to watch it...
Parents abdicated their most important position to teach them moral standards.They want someone "neutral", like teachers to do that.
The kids should know the morals from their religious instruction or other sources.
Then you have some who would say something stupid like,
"They're too young" Kids their age is making babies.
Also children need to know sex isnt something dirty.
I think teaching kids safety is important, and making sure they know if someone touches them that makes them uncomfortable, then this is something they need to tell someone about.
And not to feel like its "their fault".
Knowledge is important.
And giving kids that knowledge empowers and protects them.
Teens and young adults need to know there is more important things to do with ones life then to be sexually active, or experimenting sexual, at their age.

"back in my day", you learned how a car worked, then you learned how to maintain it, then you learned how to drive, THEN you worked to earn the money to buy one, then you earn money to buy the gas,tires and going to school, and doing chores and so forth.
Which if young people had to do all this, they would be too darn busy to make babies...lol

abstinence in sex-ed should be just one of the tools we should use, it should not be exclusive the only tool.
The "great oracle" has spoken, oh oh And "I have a gift." .
I added that just to rattle some dumba*s,who really loves my postings then try to comment on them..lol

Of course you are correct, GM, but there are too many people who don't have parents. They are simply street "babies" having babies and perpetuating the whole system.

its widespread,
but also in the "church" or in "good homes".

Of course, but what I am saying is that's not where the true "problem" is. Those people will help care for and love the baby whether it was within wedlock or not. Poster JohnDenver was 100% wrong when he said the problem couldn't be solved by focusing on the street corner. THATS EXACTLY WHERE THE PROBLEM IS - where it will perpetuate itself generation after generation and continue to impose itself on the taxpayer through the social services system because a "girl" of 21 can't possibly support 3 babies on her own. The father's certainly aren't going to help. She has no choice but to go on the dole. And likely she'll have more babies before she's done. At least a girl can say no or be on contraceptives.

Of course, but what I am saying is that's not where the true "problem" is. Those people will help care for and love the baby whether it was within wedlock or not. Poster JohnDenver was 100% wrong when he said the problem couldn't be solved by focusing on the street corner. THATS EXACTLY WHERE THE PROBLEM IS - where it will perpetuate itself generation after generation and continue to impose itself on the taxpayer through the social services system because a "girl" of 21 can't possibly support 3 babies on her own. The father's certainly aren't going to help. She has no choice but to go on the dole. And likely she'll have more babies before she's done. At least a girl can say no or be on contraceptives.

True but the possibility of rape should be included.
But it does start with the parents.
A child (male or female) with a positive and a encouraging home life , as well as communicative parents will have lessen teen pregnancy rate.

Of course, but what I am saying is that's not where the true "problem" is. Those people will help care for and love the baby whether it was within wedlock or not. Poster JohnDenver was 100% wrong when he said the problem couldn't be solved by focusing on the street corner. THATS EXACTLY WHERE THE PROBLEM IS - where it will perpetuate itself generation after generation and continue to impose itself on the taxpayer through the social services system because a "girl" of 21 can't possibly support 3 babies on her own. The father's certainly aren't going to help. She has no choice but to go on the dole. And likely she'll have more babies before she's done. At least a girl can say no or be on contraceptives.

Dude. "Corner cases" doesn't mean street corner.

Corner case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case)means a situation that isn't the norm. The 22 year old with 6 kids, for example, we shouldn't be gearing our sex education towards him. We *should* however, be gearing it towards to the spread of STDs *and* teen pregnancy.

Look at this stat: "Current statistics on HPV indicate that at least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire a genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have been infected with genital HPV infection."

80%!?1 Jesus H. Christ man. Effectively the only way to get cervical cancer is to have HPV. Safe sex *will* stop cervical cancer. So why wouldn't we want to teach girls that condom use can save their life? Cervical cancer can kill you and/or can take away your ability to have a child.

This isn't about some knucklehead who abuses government programs so he can be an absent father. This isn't about suburban childbirth rates. This is about much more.

Just throwing in that safe sex practices and birth control have some overlap but they aren't the same thing. The problem of too many children with parents who are either unable to care for them or long gone is a different one than the health problems that can result from HPV/sexually transmittted diseases.

....80%!?1 Jesus H. Christ man. .

I personally like "Jesus "tap dancing" Christ".

Dude. "Corner cases" doesn't mean street corner.

Corner case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case)means a situation that isn't the norm. The 22 year old with 6 kids, for example, we shouldn't be gearing our sex education towards him. We *should* however, be gearing it towards to the spread of STDs *and* teen pregnancy.

Look at this stat: "Current statistics on HPV indicate that at least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire a genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have been infected with genital HPV infection."

80%!?1 Jesus H. Christ man. Effectively the only way to get cervical cancer is to have HPV. Safe sex *will* stop cervical cancer. So why wouldn't we want to teach girls that condom use can save their life? Cervical cancer can kill you and/or can take away your ability to have a child.

This isn't about some knucklehead who abuses government programs so he can be an absent father. This isn't about suburban childbirth rates. This is about much more.

My apologies for not understanding your term. Next time perhaps don't use the slang phrase and explain yourself. I don't run to Wikipedia for every term I see - considering the persons I was speaking about your term seemed clear to me. Beyond, that I can't argue with much you just said, other than the issue of the 22 year old with 6 kids. I still think this is the biggest area of concern because these people AND their kids will be wards of the state their entire lives - its the proverbial cycle that needs to be broken.