It’s all about prevention: The purpose of sex education

BY SUSIE WILSON

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

SEX MATTERS

The health care reform debate that is raging round the nation has turned my thoughts to sex education programs in New Jersey, which are normally part of the health education curriculum. When President Obama and politicians use the word "prevention," I pay particular attention to the discussion. For me, school-based sex education has always been about prevention: the frontline of defense against such costly problems as teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and the need for abortion. (As many already know, the U.S. teen birth rate is higher than that of any other developed nation and one in four teens has an STD.)

With the start of the school year, I decided to have a look at the New Jersey Department of Education's statewide standards for Health and Physical Education that includes a standard for Human Relationships and Sexuality. There are references in the standard to "family life education," which I should probably explain. Back in the late '70s, when the State Board of Education was trying to pass a policy requiring sex education, I doubt we would have been successful with the legislature and the public had we not used the words "family life education" instead of sex education. Now, with a more relaxed attitude toward sexuality, I think policymakers and government officials might use the term "sex education" with less discomfort and fear of backlash.

If you have children in K-12 schools, and even if you don't, you may be interested in knowing what statewide programs should include. I hope you will use this information to check out your own kids' classes and speak up if you think they need to be improved.

Here are the key points that a school district needs to follow when implementing family life/sex education to meet Standard 2.4: Human Relationships and Sexuality. If a school district does not comply with the Standards, it stands a chance of losing state funds.

Students are required to take health education which include a family life education component and requires that all students in grades 1-12 take at last 150 minutes of health, safety, and physical education per week each year. Content in the area of family life education is outlined in Standard 2.4: Human Relationships and Sexuality;
A parent can remove his or her child from any part of the instruction that "is in conflict with his or her conscience or sincerely held moral or religious beliefs." An appropriate class will be offered to the student whose parent withdraws him/her;
Parents have the right upon request to review all curriculum materials. Many schools inform parents of the content and expectation of the courses so they can be partners in supporting its goals;
Instruction must be "medically accurate, unbiased, and not promoting a particular religion";
Each district curricula and instruction must be "free of bias and offer positive interaction among students, regardless of race, color, religion, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or belief";
New Jersey schools are not "required" to develop abstinence-only programs. However, according to the "stress abstinence law," (N.J.S.A 18A:35-4, 19 et seq., the AIDS Prevention Act of 1999, see below), schools must stress abstinence as "one completely reliable method of prevention when discussing contraception." Schools are also required that when methods of contraception are discussed, the failure rates (of adult users, as there is no sufficient data of failures of teen use) be included in the discussion;
Schools must be sensitive to religious and cultural beliefs about family and sexuality;
School programs for children and youth from K-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, and 9-12 must be developmentally appropriate;
Schools must teach about all kinds of families, including same-sex families; and
Schools are required and students must learn by the end of grade eight, to "discuss topics about sexual orientation. Issues might include: "tolerance and sensitivity, harassment and name-calling, stereotyping and the development of gender identity and its relationship to puberty and adolescence."

(If you want to read all of the details of the New Jersey Comprehensive Health and Physical Education Core Curriculum Standards, go to the N.J. Department of Education's website.

I hadn't reread these requirements in about five years, and I came away with the feeling that overall, they are pretty wimpy. With the exception of the last two requirements about teaching about same-sex families and sexual orientation, I found the tenor of many of the others pallid and not entirely in the best interests of young people. I didn't feel that the officials who wrote them were really dedicated to the concept of complete prevention.

These standards are rooted in the AIDS Prevention Act of 1999, introduced by former Assemblywoman Marion Crecco of Bloomfield and signed into law by then Acting Governor Donald DiFrancesco in 2002. (Governor Jim Florio had vetoed a similar bill when he was chief executive.) This bill requires that ‘any ‘sex education' and ‘handouts,' ‘speakers, notes' or ‘audiovisuals' concerning prevention of disease of pregnancy clearly state that abstinence from sexual activity is the only completely reliable means of eliminating sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases and of avoiding pregnancy." The bill also requires instruction about the negatives — but not the positives — of different methods of contraception.

In particular I feel that the standards overly-stress the concept of abstinence. Just how often do young people need to hear that abstinence is the only 100-percent reliable form of prevention from pregnancy and disease? At the end of every lesson? At the end of the unit? Once, twice, 200 times?

I worry that over-emphasis can have the opposite effect of the desired outcome and that young people, particularly in high school, will tune out when their teachers begin to sing the abstinence song one more time. Further, the emphasis on abstinence flies in the face of most current research that shows that after the expenditure of half a billion dollars, federal abstinence-only-until-marriage education programs have failed to help teens have less sex, fewer pregnancies, fewer sexually transmitted diseases, and fewer sexual partners.

Please don't get me wrong. I firmly believe in teaching about abstinence, but I support not teaching it by rote, but in imaginative and creative ways that help kids come to the conclusion themselves that it is by far the safest, smartest method of prevention, certainly through high school.

I think the time has come for the Senate Education Committee to hold a hearing and invite students from different high schools around the state to come to Trenton and testify before its members about their school programs in family life, sex, health, or whatever their programs are called.

If these students say that their programs are really effective in preventing pregnancy, disease, and the need for abortions and the balance between instruction about abstinence and other forms of protection is about right, I will withdraw my suggestion to have the AIDS Prevention Act of 1999 repealed. But if the students tell the committee that there is over-emphasis on abstinence-only, or abstinence-only-until-marriage, instruction and that they only hear about the failure rates of condoms and other forms of contraception, then I hope members will reconsider any good reasons for maintaining the "stress-abstinence law," some seven years since its passage.

In its place, I would like to see the Senate Education Committee recommend, and a brave Senator write and introduce, a more contemporary law-calling it perhaps the "Comprehensive Sex Education Instruction Act of the 21st Century," with the following features: sex education instruction would balance abstinence instruction along with instruction about all other forms of protection and contraception; the positive, protective features of all forms of contraception would be stressed; discussions about prevention of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and the need to reduce teen abortions would be included; and discussions about prevention of dating and sexual violence among teens would be required.

If New Jersey would have such a law on its books, most public health officials would consider our state a leader in promoting sexual health and prevention among its young people. A law and program like this would be anything but wimpy.

What do you think a Comprehensive Sex Education Act should contain? Are you willing to talk to your state legislators about developing such a statute? Let me know.

Susie Wilson

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Sept. 24, 2009

Susie Wilson, former executive coordinator of the Network for Family Life Education at Rutgers University's Center for Applied and Professional Psychology (now renamed Answer), is a national leader in the fight for effective sexuality and HIV/AIDS education and for prevention of adolescent pregnancy. She can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .