Comprehensive Sex Education

Re: IntroductionTeachers cannot pick and choose the curriculum that is taught in public schools. If a teacher would like to promote or avoid particular subjects, they would have to teach in a religious or private school. "School districts limit teachers’ religious expression in order to avoid violating the establishment clause... When teachers speak to their classes, they represent the school and the school board. Teachers, as agents of the government, may not inculcate students... Otherwise, they run afoul of the establishment clause" [1].Whether or not a teacher has or promotes religious ideals, their job as a public school official is to promote school policy regardless of their own beliefs. In the last round, I've explained how sex education is an extricable part of both health and science education, thus has a place in public schools.My opponent mentions that by exposing kids to the topic of sex, it might get them talking about sex amongst their friends (which we should assume they have and/or will do anyway). But gossip among uninformed children is specifically why sex education is so important. Rather than have a group of ignorant young people trade misconstrued and false information, sex education can provide valuable insight that is both factual and accurate. The alternative is having kids pass along misinformation they overheard or attained from problematic sources. Re: Teacher's ObligationsCon argues that because we cannot be sure teachers are teaching sex ed effectively, we should drop it. By that logic, why teach math, science, english or any other subject? We implement standards in education such as standardized testing and teacher performance reviews to promote competency amongst educators. This is how we measure effectiveness and promote the best teachers possible. If teachers are observed to not teach sex ed effectively, their competency as an educator should be called into question. School is filled with a lot of sensitive and controversial subjects including political discourse, the subject of evolution, and tragic or heated occurrences in history (especially war and terrorism). Teachers should not shy away from these important discussions, and if they are not comfortable having them, they should not be hired or keep their jobs. Research shows that there is a great benefit to tackling tough subjects in the classroom, particularly where people have different ideals. This promotes discussion, learning, tolerance and understanding. "Addressing tough topics is a critical component of building community in the classroom. Real community is based on the full acknowledgement of difference, as well as the establishment of common purposes. When children are comfortable sharing their unique histories, there is the potential to uncover shared experiences and to identify themes for investigation" [2]. It is important to have tough class discussions [3] that prepare students for differences and challenges they will face in the real world [4]. Regardless of what approach teachers use, students should be equipped with the skills necessary to identify and understand multiple perspectives. Con questions if students are ready and willing to learn about sex at a certain age, but students do not get to choose their curriculum for any subject. However if they are uncomfortable, they may ask to be excused or take it up with their parents who can pull them out of the lesson, as I have explained. Furthermore, kids might not even realize that there are things they don't know about but should know about, which is why exposure to these lessons is so important. Re: Comprehensive Sex Education is IneffectiveThe effectiveness and success of comprehensive sex education is overwhelming. >> Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education [5].>> Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive sex ed programs studied had positive effects: * 40% delayed sexual initiation, reduced the number of sexual partners, or increased condom or contraceptive use.* 30%reduced the frequency of sex, including a return to abstinence.* 60% reduced unprotected sex [6]. >> Researchers at the University of Washington set out to compare the sexual health risk of adolescents who have received various types of sex education. This study used data collected in 2002–03 through the National Survey of Family Growth, a nationwide survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics. The researchers analyzed data from 1,719 heterosexual respondents to the NSFG who were 15–19. The results? "Young people who received comprehensive sex education were 50% less likely to report a teen pregnancy compared to those who received no sex education... this study confirms that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are NOT effective in changing young people’s sexual behavior or preventing negative outcomes such as teen pregnancy. More importantly, however, it confirms that programs that teach young people about both abstinence and contraception/disease prevention are, in fact, effective" [7]. >> Comprehensive sex education is more effective at stopping the spread of HIV according to the American Psychological Association. Research shows that 1 in 5 adolescents will have sex before the age of 15, and "only comprehensive sex education is effective in protecting adolescents from pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In contrast, scientifically sound studies of abstinence only programs show an unintended consequence of unprotected sex at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In this way, abstinence only programs increase the risk of these adolescents for pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses, including HIV/AIDS" [8].Con hasn't provided much information about why her studies ought to be considered valuable; we don't know the size, scope and sample study information. The vast majority of research overwhelmingly supports my position. I could provide innumerable other sources that are peer reviewed and explain what seems obvious: when students learn how to protect themselves, they will be able to. When students DON'T know what to worry about or how to be safe, they likely won't be safe. But I don't have the character space, so that logical conclusion should be accepted.My opponent will not be able to prove that parents will teach their children everything they should know about sex, or that by bringing the topic of sex up in school will somehow promote sex. History shows that young people have been having sex since they've reached puberty since the beginning of humanity. Puberty typically occurs between ages 9-13 and it was common for our ancestors to have sex around age 12-14 for optimal reproduction [9]. This is when adolescents today still start feeling sexual urges despite our cultural conditioning that suggests we should delay sex until we are mentally mature.Re: Waste of Government MoneyThe U.S. has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs among developed countries [10]. Almost 90% of Americans believe that it is important for young people to have information about contraception and prevention of STIs, and that sex education should focus on how to avoid unintended pregnancy and STIs [11]. Ergo the citizen's voices should be heard since people are in danger, and they want others and our youth to be informed. Studies show that health and academic achievement are linked. Sexual risk taking and its unintended consequences can negatively impact students at school. Health classes and sex education can reduce the prospect of one contracting an STI. My opponent defeats her own argument in talking about sex when she says kids will "do as they please." Research agrees and shows that students will have sex regardless of whether or not they are taught about sex in school, so it makes sense to assume that teaching about safety will promote sexual safety [12]. Re: Immorality of Sex Education Con's only argument on why sex ed is "immoral" is because some parents are uncomfortable with it. Some parents are uncomfortable with their child eating gluten, but that doesn't mean gluten is immoral. There is nothing inherently immoral about sex; it is a natural, biological function that is inherent to life and reproduction. It is human instinct. If some people find it immoral, that is their biased prerogative. I am not advocating to force sex ed amongst a child against their parent's will. I've repeatedly explained that children should speak up if they are uncomfortable. In the last round, I outlined that parents have every right to inhibit their child from the discussion (the same way they can not expose their child to the lessons on puberty and reproductive organs/health). Con writes, "By having kids perform these exercise, and giving them ideas, we are almost convincing them to go out and have sex" which is unsupported. This is a bare assertion with no proof. In fact kids are exposed to sex in the media [13] including television [14] and especially online [15]. Moreover, statistics show that teaching about sex sometimes leads to a decline in sexual activity. See my earlier point about studies showing that comprehensive sex ed leads to a delay in sexual activity. Condoms are over 98% effective when used properly [16]. This is a lot more than 0% effective which is what Con's proposition supports. If kids don't know the dangers of unprotected sex or how to properly protect themselves, they are more likely to engage in riskier behavior that promotes harm. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...