Who's Teaching What in Schools?

[SmarterThanHick]

I get it, I do and I think that we see things somewhat similarly on the issue. You keep arguing that it is not enough to trust that parents will take care of this and I have agreed with that several times. You stated:

And I have agreed with that. The only difference is that I place more importance on the parenting aspect. Hell, we have major problems now and the information IS standardized and taught in schools but the parenting is what is missing and that is where our problems are coming from. Hands down, schools will NEVER be sufficient enough to address this issue and, quite frankly, parenting will never get there as long as we have this insane view on sex that Americans seem to have. My main point to the OP was, and remains, that I believe planned parenthood has absolutely zero reason to be the educator here. That is what we have teachers for.

I agree with everything except the last sentence. If they are experts on the topic, and ina better position to be teaching and answering questions, why wouldn't we want them in that position?

Because they represent a politically active organization. No matter what you perceive their actions are, good or bad, they are quite politically active.

and? you think teachers don't have political ideas? There's no problem in having a political position. The problem is having an incorrect or unethical position.

 

[editec]

Teen pregnancy increased astronomically with the advent of "sex education".

I think it's safe to say it does nothing whatsoever to reduce the incidence.

Poppycock.

Not that I am an advocate of SEX ED, Allie, I still think you're full of beans with that stat.

Show us the numbers, please.

 

[chanel]

Those stats are wrong. Latest CDC report says the rate is declining.

ATLANTA – Fewer teens and young adults are having sex, a government survey shows, and theories abound for why they're doing it less. Experts say this generation may be more cautious than their predecessors, more aware of sexually spread diseases. Or perhaps emphasis on abstinence in the past decade has had some influence.

Or maybe they're just too busy.

Health scientist Anjani Chandra of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention described the decline in sex as small but significant. She declined to speculate on the reasons. It's difficult to look for a trend earlier than 2002 because previous surveys did not gather as much detail about various types of sex, she added.

However, data over the years on vaginal intercourse among never-married adolescents shows a steady decline since 1988. That seems to be in sync with other CDC studies showing an overall drop in teen pregnancy.

That the trend began in the late 1980s seems to undermine the idea that abstinence-only sex education — heavily emphasized during the 2001-2009 presidency of George W. Bush — is the explanation, Albert said.

But it is possible those messages contributed, he added.

US teens, young adults 'doing it' less, study says - Yahoo! News

I've been saying for quite some time that a comprehensive approach, INCLUDING ABSTINENCE, is the most sensible way to go. Seems the stats back that up.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

yes, so long as abstinence isn't the only thing being taught, and actual safe practices are included, things work out better.

 

[BrianH]

Some Knox Co. parents are upset about the Planned Parenthood people coming into the schools as guest speakers. This has gotten a lot of news coverage the last couple of days. Thank God my children are way beyond school age - but I looked at some of the links given in the news report. One thing that one parent was incensed about was that the teacher "made a mistake" and forgot to pass out "opt out" forms for parental consent to participate in the program.

I've never had to deal with the sex ed situation but I was curious since there's so much being said about the subject.

Pretty interesting - do any of you as parents know about the sex ed classes in your child's school? Also, I know we have a couple teachers on USMB - what are your thoughts?

Concerned parents rally over Planned Parenthood in schools

I'm going to have to edit after posting this because I can't remember the title of one link that sort of raised my eyebrows. Oh, and very often in the various links they refer to "sexuality education" as opposed to "sex ed."

The link "actual presentation" was the one that raised my eyebrows - sort of a curriculum.

I attended a "sex ed" class in the 5th grade. It wasn't bad at all and none of our parents had a problem with it. They separated the boys and girls and had the presentations in different rooms. We were able to anonymously ask questions that we had and we got to learn alot about it. They also scared the shit out of us when it came to catching STDs..lol

I think parents are overacting. It's not like the act of intercourse changes from family to family. My the position, but not the act. There's nothing wrong with teaching students about the act itself and possible consequences.

The problem is when someone starts throwing in personal opinions about it. I also don't agree with teaching kids how to put condoms on...it's pretty self-explanitory. It's like tampon commercials- Why do we need to see them on TV, women know they exist and they know what their function is....we don't need a song or music video about the female menstral cycle with a red dot bouncing around all over the screen.

 

[BrianH]

I agree with everything except the last sentence. If they are experts on the topic, and ina better position to be teaching and answering questions, why wouldn't we want them in that position?

Because they represent a politically active organization. No matter what you perceive their actions are, good or bad, they are quite politically active.

and? you think teachers don't have political ideas? There's no problem in having a political position. The problem is having an incorrect or unethical position.

That's right. There's nothing wrong with having a political position. I told my students what my political position was. But I assured them that they had the right to have their position. I didn't push my political ideas or positions on them. I gave them both sides of the debates and let them decide for themselves. This is what helps the learning process; when students can debate things in a controlled setting. I did, however, make sure that if my students were trying to prove a point then they should at least have "some" specific reason why their opinion was the way it was.

 

[Samson]

Are you saying that teens should not be taught sex ed in school?

Is not teen pregnancy a problem? Better to find out the real story about it rather than from rumors and such by classmates.

Parents by and large to a poor job of sex education.
Mine were so into religion they never would even say the word "sex". Pretty hjumerous considering they had 6 children don't you think?

You do realise that saying the word "sex" does not ensure pregnancy, right?

 

[Annie]

Those stats are wrong. Latest CDC report says the rate is declining.

ATLANTA – Fewer teens and young adults are having sex, a government survey shows, and theories abound for why they're doing it less. Experts say this generation may be more cautious than their predecessors, more aware of sexually spread diseases. Or perhaps emphasis on abstinence in the past decade has had some influence.

Or maybe they're just too busy.

Health scientist Anjani Chandra of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention described the decline in sex as small but significant. She declined to speculate on the reasons. It's difficult to look for a trend earlier than 2002 because previous surveys did not gather as much detail about various types of sex, she added.

However, data over the years on vaginal intercourse among never-married adolescents shows a steady decline since 1988. That seems to be in sync with other CDC studies showing an overall drop in teen pregnancy.

That the trend began in the late 1980s seems to undermine the idea that abstinence-only sex education — heavily emphasized during the 2001-2009 presidency of George W. Bush — is the explanation, Albert said.

But it is possible those messages contributed, he added.

US teens, young adults 'doing it' less, study says - Yahoo! News

I've been saying for quite some time that a comprehensive approach, INCLUDING ABSTINENCE, is the most sensible way to go. Seems the stats back that up.

Yep, I said it earlier in this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/152880-whos-teaching-what-in-schools-2.html#post3320875

Seems to me that quite a few things have happened in the past decade or so to change some young people's minds about 'anything goes.' 9/11 for one. Sure the kids in high school were little kids then, but they are going to schools where yearly they remember those killed in the wars that attended the schools. Many have fathers, brothers, friends, moms, sisters that have served or are serving.

Second has been the economy. Students are more serious, at least where I teach. They do have their goals set on college, it certainly fits the area we live in. However, they are also concerned about the costs, scholarships, and after school jobs.

Both of these factor more maturity than we saw in the same ages prior to this decade or so. Maturity tends to bring with it more responsible behavior and sure enough sex isn't the only risky behavior on the downswing. Report: Teen Drug Use Up, Binge Drinking Down | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 14, 2010 | PBS

MJ use is up, a bit. That may be a result of parents and society giving messages that it's less dangerous.

 

[rdean]

Teen pregnancy increased astronomically with the advent of "sex education".

I think it's safe to say it does nothing whatsoever to reduce the incidence.

Or was "sex ed" brought into the equation AFTER teen pregnancy increased astronomically? Better find out before you make such a bold statement. Being old, I remember the past. I don't have to "make it up" or "rewrite it", the way the right wing does to fit their tiny world view.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I attended a "sex ed" class in the 5th grade. It wasn't bad at all and none of our parents had a problem with it. They separated the boys and girls and had the presentations in different rooms. We were able to anonymously ask questions that we had and we got to learn alot about it. They also scared the shit out of us when it came to catching STDs..lol

I think parents are overacting. It's not like the act of intercourse changes from family to family. My the position, but not the act. There's nothing wrong with teaching students about the act itself and possible consequences.

The problem is when someone starts throwing in personal opinions about it. I also don't agree with teaching kids how to put condoms on...it's pretty self-explanitory. It's like tampon commercials- Why do we need to see them on TV, women know they exist and they know what their function is....we don't need a song or music video about the female menstral cycle with a red dot bouncing around all over the screen.

wow. first off, the reason for the tampon commercials is NOT educational. It's marketing. Individual companies are attempting to reach a target audience and sell their specific products.

Regarding sex ed: condom use is only self-explanatory for people who already know how to properly use one. Or do you think a teenager fumbling in the dark in the heat of the moment is a good situation to learn?

 

[BrianH]

I attended a "sex ed" class in the 5th grade. It wasn't bad at all and none of our parents had a problem with it. They separated the boys and girls and had the presentations in different rooms. We were able to anonymously ask questions that we had and we got to learn alot about it. They also scared the shit out of us when it came to catching STDs..lol

I think parents are overacting. It's not like the act of intercourse changes from family to family. My the position, but not the act. There's nothing wrong with teaching students about the act itself and possible consequences.

The problem is when someone starts throwing in personal opinions about it. I also don't agree with teaching kids how to put condoms on...it's pretty self-explanitory. It's like tampon commercials- Why do we need to see them on TV, women know they exist and they know what their function is....we don't need a song or music video about the female menstral cycle with a red dot bouncing around all over the screen.

wow. first off, the reason for the tampon commercials is NOT educational. It's marketing. Individual companies are attempting to reach a target audience and sell their specific products.

Regarding sex ed: condom use is only self-explanatory for people who already know how to properly use one. Or do you think a teenager fumbling in the dark in the heat of the moment is a good situation to learn?

I didn't imply that women didn't know how to use them, therefore, they need a commercial. My point is that women know they exist, and they know where to get them. We don't need a blood colored dot jumping around the screen telling us what it is. We don't need a picture of a maxi-pad with simluated blood (water) flowing all over it, thus, proving it's reliablity. The next thing you know they'll be showing people wiping their ass and removing symbolic shit with Charmin toilet paper.
As far as your condom "response"...1. Is it not self-explanitory? I guess maybe it's hard for you guys with 3" penises. If you really have trouble with it, then run to the bathroom and read the instructions real quick. Or get the girl to put it on with her mouth...lol

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I didn't imply that women didn't know how to use them, therefore, they need a commercial. My point is that women know they exist, and they know where to get them. We don't need a blood colored dot jumping around the screen telling us what it is. We don't need a picture of a maxi-pad with simluated blood (water) flowing all over it, thus, proving it's reliablity. The next thing you know they'll be showing people wiping their ass and removing symbolic shit with Charmin toilet paper.
As far as your condom "response"...1. Is it not self-explanitory? I guess maybe it's hard for you guys with 3" penises. If you really have trouble with it, then run to the bathroom and read the instructions real quick. Or get the girl to put it on with her mouth...lol

By your reasoning, perhaps we should eliminate all advertising unless a new product is created. Clearly Coca Cola and Doritos have absolutely no need to make super bowl commercials because everyone already knows that soda and corn chips exist! Do these companies know they can be saving millions of dollars a year if they used your strategy!?

The FACT remains that companies advertise in an attempt to increase their profits, regardless of the type of company or product. Sorry you don't like red bouncy balls and pad absorption demos, but people who are a lot richer than you don't really care.

Regarding condoms: as I said, a teenager fumbling with a condom in the heat of the moment in the dark is not a good learning ground. Condoms can be put on wrong. The question you should be asking yourself is: should teenagers be taught how to use them properly to decrease their risk of misuse, or shouldn't they? It's a simple question. While thinking about that, please keep in mind that statistics regarding contraception use of all varieties include both "ideal use" and "actual numbers", which are different for a reason.

 

[BrianH]

I didn't imply that women didn't know how to use them, therefore, they need a commercial. My point is that women know they exist, and they know where to get them. We don't need a blood colored dot jumping around the screen telling us what it is. We don't need a picture of a maxi-pad with simluated blood (water) flowing all over it, thus, proving it's reliablity. The next thing you know they'll be showing people wiping their ass and removing symbolic shit with Charmin toilet paper.
As far as your condom "response"...1. Is it not self-explanitory? I guess maybe it's hard for you guys with 3" penises. If you really have trouble with it, then run to the bathroom and read the instructions real quick. Or get the girl to put it on with her mouth...lol

By your reasoning, perhaps we should eliminate all advertising unless a new product is created. Clearly Coca Cola and Doritos have absolutely no need to make super bowl commercials because everyone already knows that soda and corn chips exist! Do these companies know they can be saving millions of dollars a year if they used your strategy!?

The FACT remains that companies advertise in an attempt to increase their profits, regardless of the type of company or product. Sorry you don't like red bouncy balls and pad absorption demos, but people who are a lot richer than you don't really care.

Regarding condoms: as I said, a teenager fumbling with a condom in the heat of the moment in the dark is not a good learning ground. Condoms can be put on wrong. The question you should be asking yourself is: should teenagers be taught how to use them properly to decrease their risk of misuse, or shouldn't they? It's a simple question. While thinking about that, please keep in mind that statistics regarding contraception use of all varieties include both "ideal use" and "actual numbers", which are different for a reason.

How about this? Why don't the students be required to read the instructions on a condom rapper as sex education rather than actually demonstrating how to put it on?

As far as the commercials, your right. Less commericals would be great. I won't have to turn the damn tv down every time one comes on. And they would probably make just as much money. A turd scooper in Guatemala knows what Coca Cola is. I would be fine with only seeing commercials for things that are new. We have the internet net now, if someone wants to look up tampons, then they can.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What school systems do you know of that require students to demonstrate use? Requiring students to read the instructions is equivalent to just TELLING them the same instructions. The latter at least ensures some form of ensuring the information is passed on.

You're still not getting the reasoning behind advertising. It isn't to educate. It's to entice people to purchase their products. Coca Cola is where it is today not because they have a superior product to every other cola that tastes exactly the same, but because of their advertising. The point isn't to cater to the viewer's wishes. The point is to increase profits, and that generally happens at the inconvenience of many people needing to see ads.

 

[BrianH]

What school systems do you know of that require students to demonstrate use? Requiring students to read the instructions is equivalent to just TELLING them the same instructions. The latter at least ensures some form of ensuring the information is passed on.

You're still not getting the reasoning behind advertising. It isn't to educate. It's to entice people to purchase their products. Coca Cola is where it is today not because they have a superior product to every other cola that tastes exactly the same, but because of their advertising. The point isn't to cater to the viewer's wishes. The point is to increase profits, and that generally happens at the inconvenience of many people needing to see ads.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with the condom issue. You're talking in circles. At this point I'm not sure if I agree with you or not.

How many people do you know that actually get "enticed" by commercials? Not very many. You see a thousand commericals a day and don't act on 99% of them. How many people do you know that jump up during a tampon commercial and say "whoowee! let's get some of those!"

This is my personal opinion. I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think companies are going to lose profits if they quit advertising. People HAVE to buy products. They are smart enough to figure out if those products will work for them. When I grocery shop, a "commercial" does not sway my decision in buying certain products. This personal choice comes from the trial and error of actually purchasing the product.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What school systems do you know of that require students to demonstrate use? Requiring students to read the instructions is equivalent to just TELLING them the same instructions. The latter at least ensures some form of ensuring the information is passed on.

You're still not getting the reasoning behind advertising. It isn't to educate. It's to entice people to purchase their products. Coca Cola is where it is today not because they have a superior product to every other cola that tastes exactly the same, but because of their advertising. The point isn't to cater to the viewer's wishes. The point is to increase profits, and that generally happens at the inconvenience of many people needing to see ads.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with the condom issue. You're talking in circles. At this point I'm not sure if I agree with you or not.

How many people do you know that actually get "enticed" by commercials? Not very many. You see a thousand commericals a day and don't act on 99% of them. How many people do you know that jump up during a tampon commercial and say "whoowee! let's get some of those!"

This is my personal opinion. I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think companies are going to lose profits if they quit advertising. People HAVE to buy products. They are smart enough to figure out if those products will work for them. When I grocery shop, a "commercial" does not sway my decision in buying certain products. This personal choice comes from the trial and error of actually purchasing the product.

There are no circles here: sex ed including condom use is of benefit to society. Plain and simple. It ensures that people are exposed to the proper use at least once, which is not guaranteed if you place the responsibility on each person to read the instructions.

Your personal opinion regarding advertising is wrong. Advertising does directly influence purchasing and thus increase profits when done correctly, which is why it continues. Personal choice may come from trial and error, but you're not trying everything on the shelf. You're picking the "popular" brands, believing they are popular because of advertising, and you're trying the cheap store-version. Here's an easy way to prove my point. Go into your bathroom right now and tell me what kind of toothpaste you used today.

 

[BrianH]

What school systems do you know of that require students to demonstrate use? Requiring students to read the instructions is equivalent to just TELLING them the same instructions. The latter at least ensures some form of ensuring the information is passed on.

You're still not getting the reasoning behind advertising. It isn't to educate. It's to entice people to purchase their products. Coca Cola is where it is today not because they have a superior product to every other cola that tastes exactly the same, but because of their advertising. The point isn't to cater to the viewer's wishes. The point is to increase profits, and that generally happens at the inconvenience of many people needing to see ads.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with the condom issue. You're talking in circles. At this point I'm not sure if I agree with you or not.

How many people do you know that actually get "enticed" by commercials? Not very many. You see a thousand commericals a day and don't act on 99% of them. How many people do you know that jump up during a tampon commercial and say "whoowee! let's get some of those!"

This is my personal opinion. I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think companies are going to lose profits if they quit advertising. People HAVE to buy products. They are smart enough to figure out if those products will work for them. When I grocery shop, a "commercial" does not sway my decision in buying certain products. This personal choice comes from the trial and error of actually purchasing the product.

There are no circles here: sex ed including condom use is of benefit to society. Plain and simple. It ensures that people are exposed to the proper use at least once, which is not guaranteed if you place the responsibility on each person to read the instructions.

Your personal opinion regarding advertising is wrong. Advertising does directly influence purchasing and thus increase profits when done correctly, which is why it continues. Personal choice may come from trial and error, but you're not trying everything on the shelf. You're picking the "popular" brands, believing they are popular because of advertising, and you're trying the cheap store-version. Here's an easy way to prove my point. Go into your bathroom right now and tell me what kind of toothpaste you used today.

First, I stated that I had a sex-ed class in the 5th grade. that's not the proper age to show students how to put on condoms IMO.

Second, how in the hell can you assume that you know how I shop? I've tried the equate toothpaste and it sucks. I never saw an advertisement that enticed me to try it. It was cheaper. I may have Crest toothepaste, but I have hill country fair chips in my pantry. (which is a knock off created by the local grocery store-and they taste great.) I have NUMEROUS items and products in my house that are not "name-brand" items that I have seen commercials about. I'm not going to discuss my entire life-style. But I'll bet that the majority of people tend to lean towards the products they personally feel are better than the other. They may by a name-brand product and decide it's shit and perfer the non-name brand product because it's just as good and cheaper.... Price tends to drive my shopping these days, not advertising.

 

[britgyll]

If you are totally into price alone you should shop at the deli at walmart for the worst crap they slap into a piece of plastic in front of your eyes. They don't care how it looks and it will make you lose your appetite. I'll bet your care less about price after that.

 

[BrianH]

If you are totally into price alone you should shop at the deli at walmart for the worst crap they slap into a piece of plastic in front of your eyes. They don't care how it looks and it will make you lose your appetite. I'll bet your care less about price after that.

I didn't say I shop for price alone. If it tastes like dog turds I'm not buying it. I'm just saying I don't see a commercial on TV and then go run and write it on my grocery list because it enticed me to buy that product. If it is a new product worth trying then I'll buy it if I've seen a commercial for it...but once I've tried it I either like it or I don't. I don't sit around and wait for the next commercial to come on before I go get some more of it. Eventually products get "advertised" by word of the consumer's mouth. "Have you tried that new anal itch cream?" "Why yes, I've tried it and it works wonders!" That's why I'm saying I have no problem with an advertisement of something that's new, but we all know Coca Cola exist and we know where to get it. We all know what tampons are, who makes them, and where to get them. We all know that if we can't get an erection, our Dr. can perscribe us a pill to help with it. I think advertisement is overrated...

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Are you saying that teens should not be taught sex ed in school?

Is not teen pregnancy a problem? Better to find out the real story about it rather than from rumors and such by classmates.

Parents by and large to a poor job of sex education.
Mine were so into religion they never would even say the word "sex". Pretty hjumerous considering they had 6 children don't you think?

My oldest understood pretty well. He has rubbers on hand at all times. I had the "talk" with him when he was 14. he is 19 now and not a daddy. My youngest Son has had the talk and no babies yet. And the Daughter has received the talk from her Mom and still no babies yet. Impulse control is what is causing the rise in teen pregnancy not lack of education. By age 10 most kids in modern have a good idea of how the birds and bees work from there time watching TV. What you see there is planned parent hood trying to matter in the face of having its budget cut.