Comprehensive v. Abstinence-only sex education

Via WaPo - Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

The number of states refusing federal money for "abstinence-only" sex education programs jumped sharply in the past year as evidence mounted that the approach is ineffective.

At least 14 states have either notified the federal government that they will no longer be requesting the funds or are not expected to apply, forgoing more than $15 million of the $50 million available, officials said. Virginia was the most recent state to opt out.

Two other states -- Ohio and Washington -- have applied but stipulated they would use the money for comprehensive sex education, effectively making themselves ineligible, federal officials said.

[. . .]

The jump in states opting out follows a series of reports questioning the effectiveness of the approach, including one commissioned by Congress that was released earlier this year. In addition, federal health officials reported last week that a 14-year drop in teenage pregnancy rates appeared to have reversed.

I find this article interesting because I've never thought that abstinence-only education was a very wise idea. I have not looked closely at the numbers, but I'm also well aware that both sides will find numbers and ways to use the numbers to their own advantage, so I'm not that interested in seeking them out either. The one thing that I do know is that no education program is ever going to get all teenagers to abstain from having sex. I have no problem with schools teaching that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases, but sex is also a natural human behavior that begins to appeal to individuals when they enter puberty. If all they know is that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid these problems, but then they decide they are not willing to go that route, they will not know how to protect themselves and are more likely to find themselves in bad situation. I believe they should at least know that there are other options that will help them to protect their health and well-being. I think that is what health education (and as a subset sex education) is all about.

We should teach them about the physiological aspects of our sexuality, the psychological repercussions of engaging in sexual activity, and the physical consequences that can result from both protected and unprotected sex. But it is also of the utmost importance that they know how to protect themselves if they decide to engage in these activities. It should not be about morality. Let their parents teach them about morality. Some would say that we should let their parents teach them about sex education, but I disagree. We should have trained professions who can teach them about the scientific aspects of sex and leave the moralizing at home.

'No Child Left Behind' may get left behind

WaPo - Dozens in GOP Turn Against Bush's Prized 'No Child' Act

More than 50 GOP members of the House and Senate -- including the House's second-ranking Republican -- will introduce legislation today that could severely undercut President Bush's signature domestic achievement, the No Child Left Behind Act, by allowing states to opt out of its testing mandates.

[. . .]

Some Republicans said yesterday that a backlash against the law was inevitable. Many voters in affluent suburban and exurban districts -- GOP strongholds -- think their schools have been adversely affected by the law. Once-innovative public schools have increasingly become captive to federal testing mandates, jettisoning education programs not covered by those tests, siphoning funds from programs for the talented and gifted, and discouraging creativity, critics say.

It does not surprise me that the Republicans are taking some heat from their constituency over "No Child". I live in a red state, and of all the people I've ever heard talking about "No Child Left Behind", I can't remember a single one that was saying anything positive about it. And I have talked to college students majoring in education and current teacher at the elementary school. It's all about testing and little about actual learning, combined with extra requirements for the teachers that seem to disadvantage the veteran teacher, or at least that is the impression I've gotten from the complaints I've heard.

However, the most telling statement to me in the whole article is this:

"Republicans voted for No Child Left Behind holding their noses," said Michael J. Petrilli, an Education Department official during Bush's first term who is now a critic of the law. "But now with the president so politically weak, conservatives can vote their conscience."

It seems to me that there is something wrong with our political system if the elected officials don't feel that they can vote their conscience all the time. I thought that was why they were elected, to represent the need of their constituents, not just to pull the party line. But then again, I've always been too idealistic, I guess.

The Storms

My immediate family was quite lucky yesterday, our home was not affected by the storm and all my family is safe. (My Aunt Janan's home was damaged by the storms, but I don't know yet to what extent, but no one was hurt.) Many others here in Alabama were not so lucky. There does not yet seem to be a consensus on the death toll, but just the fact that there were deaths is saddening to all.

I have to wonder if the events at Enterprise High School will have any affect on schools' severe weather procedures. Many schools sent their children home yesterday while others kept them in and followed the traditional severe weather plan of sitting in the hallway and covering one's head. Enterprise obviously chose to implement the latter plan. CNN.com reports:

Students at Enterprise High School were taking cover when it was hit. (Watch scenes of destruction Video)

"The whole building just collapsed on everybody," said Chase Baldwin, a student at the school. "A bunch of people were trapped under cinder blocks, and people had their heads cut open."

This would seem to indicate that the traditional plan is really quite useless in the event that the building is actually hit by a tornado. It is true that there is little one can do if the building receives a direct hit from a tornado, but it is still clear that the current procedure does not actually make the children any safer.

It would seem to me that schools could (should) provide a safer plan. They could either build storm cellars or cancel school on days when they know the weather is going to be severe, as many schools did yesterday. This was not a surprise storm system. The news weathermen had been predicting severe storms for Thursday for several days.

Anyway, it just seems to me that yesterday's events should call into question the efficacy of the current severe weather plan for Alabama schools. I will be curious to see if any changes result from it.

Wow! A "Sale-less Fundraiser"

My youngest son brought home a note from school yesterday about the latest school fundraiser and I was absolutely tickled to see what it was. They are having a "Sale-less" fundraiser. The headline of the flyer says

ARE YOU TIRED OF CATALOG SALES TO RAISE MONEY???? ARE YOU BURNING YOUR CANDLE AT BOTH ENDS????

It goes on to say

Please feel free to ask grandparents, neighbors or friends--as you will probably find that people would prefer making a donation rather than purchasing an item for twice what it would cost in a discount store.

I actually made that exact same suggestion in this post last September. I'm sure no one at the school read my blog post, but they may have read Steven Taylor's op-ed column on the same topic, which prompted my blog post. In any event, I'm glad to see that they've finally gotten the idea. I hope this fundraiser goes over well so that the catalogs full of junk can be a thing of the past.

On Students Selling Junk

Dr. Steven Taylor over at Poliblog has posted a copy of one of his op-ed columns on school fundraising and I couldn't agree with him more. I have always felt that it was a waste of money to buy the overpriced trinkets in order for the school to receive a small fraction of the selling price.

There are other fundraising efforts that bother me just as much or more even. Have you ever had your child bring home a booklet to fill out for magazine sales? You are expected to supply the names, addresses and (maybe) phone numbers of TEN close relatives so that they can be solicited to buy magazines. Just what your family wants, right? Selling them out to telemarketers. I told my son that maybe we should call up those relatives and tell them to give us a donation for the school or else we'll give there information to the telemarketers. (We ultimately did not participate in the fundraiser.)

If your child is in band at school it is even worse. They are bombarded with all the school fundraisers and the band fundraisers. The one for band that irritates me the most in the Boston Butt sale. All band students are required to sell three Boston Butts. The first year my son was in band we bought one and sold two more to neighbors. There are supposed to be fully cooked, ready to eat Boston Butts. When we received ours and brought it home, we found that it was FAR from fully cooked and was, at best, half cooked. If I was going to have to cook the stupid thing my self, I could have bought one much cheaper at Wal-Mart. The next year I refused to buy one and told my son that he could tell the teacher he would not be selling them in the future. I sent a note to school telling the teacher that neither I nor my son would be involved in selling half cooked pork.

I remember when I was child trying to sell junk to my grandmother, she would always ask if she could just give a direct donation to the school instead. I think that the schools should make this an option for the children so that they could still feel like they were participating in the actual fundraiser but not have to sell junk door to door.