News-Record.com

Let's review the evidence that Ms. Thrasher presents. The first 2 studies that she cites don't address abstinence education at all but rather trends in sexual activity. Studies 4, 7, 8, and 9 are observational studies that may not adequately control for differences between people and schools that are likely to initiate these programs. Of the remaining three, two use quasi-experimental designs where participating schools are "matched" to control schools. The only random assignment design (study 5) produced equivocal results--no effect on sexual initiation but a surprising decrease in the amount of sex among those who had initiated sex.

We also don't know what the content of the programs were. All of the "evaluations" appear to compare some program to no program. However, we don't see a comparison of a program with an abstinence component to a similar program without such a component or with alternative components.

Finally, you can be sure that the National Abstinence Education Association has chosen the most favorable evidence for its case--and this is it.

Mathematica (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf ) evaluated four programs. In each case they used experimental designs. They found absolutely no long-term effects from these programs.

Ms. Thrash mischaracterizes the programs. For instance, one program ("My Choice/My Future") was initiated in middle school (8th grade) but continued for three years. All of the programs met the criteria for Title V, Section 510 funding. The programs were chosen to represent a variety of methods that are actually in use. None of them showed any lasting impact.

What's that old joke about sex being horrible and demeaning and dangerous and, for those reasons, should only be done with a person you love after you've married?

"None of them showed any lasting impact."

I can't speak for the individual programs, but I can say that we had a very short and to the point speech after a gym class back in the 60's essentially saying "Don't do it, you'll be sorry. You're thinking about it all the time right now, but it will pass."

Coach was right in that we all were, of course, thinking about it constantly and all did it as soon as we had a chance. Back then the dangers seemed almost quaint compared to now. It was a different time, but there was nothing different about the students.

I suggest we quit lying to the students. Excuse the bluntness, but it won't pass. I'm in my late fifties now and still think about a great deal of the time, as I'd bet most honest men in a 20 year +/- range of my age would say (if they deny it, ask why Viagra has proved to be such a goldmine). What we've got to do is figure out a way to make kids understand the seriousness of it. Odd how everything comes back to personal responsibility.

Maybe we need to bring shame and embarrassment back to our society. It worked in the past, and is a lot cheaper than continual government programs.

Roger

There is a program called "Wise Guys" which has worked and HAS PROOF of it. It was developed locally by the Family Life Council and it has been hailed nationwide for its approach.

Abstinence Only Education is a joke being played to placate the religious nutcakes in the GOP.

TLC, have any links, etc. for "Wise Guys?"

Dave, good analysis and repudiation of this piece of trash submitted as an LTTE Thanks for your work to show a clearer picture!

Shalom

Disclaimer: I worked for Mathematica Policy Research from 1984-5 and advised on some their projects when I was at the Administration for Children and Families in 2002-3.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about what we should discuss with our children about sex.

I'll be short and to the point.

It's where.

Sex education should take place at home and it should be the parent's responsiblity to guage their individual child on what they think they are ready to hear based on their maturity level.

The school system should have NOTHING to do with sex education beyond the biological implications for science.

`

And the OSTRICH AWARD for having one's head in the sand goes to Nitpicker for his Leave It To Beaver response:

"Sex education should take place at home and it should be the parent's responsiblity to guage their individual child on what they think they are ready to hear based on their maturity level."

Clap, Clap, Clap!!!

_________________________________

Darryl,
Here is a link that will quickly get you some answers:

http://www.wiseguysnc.org/

And here is the parent organization which created the program and measured its success.

http://www.flcgso.com/

and here is their link:

http://www.flcgso.com/Programs/wiseguys.htm

For folks like Nit, who obviously live in Pixley, Petticoat Junction, Green Acres, Mayberry or other "FICTIONAL TOWNS" will not accept anything to help those "at risk" but they WILL be the first to complain when 'THOSE PEOPLE' are having more children than Nit and his like minded friends "APPROVE" of.

I always thought Nit's posts were like Hank Kimball off of Green Acres, but now I see there is more similarity than I first thought! It is such a laugh-A-Palooza on these threads!

`

TLC:

Could you provide a link to the research regarding the Wise Guys program? I didn't see any on the links that you provided.

Also, "clap, clap, clap" is what kids get when they don't sex education.

TLC, thanks for those links.....Dave, thanks for the disclaimer.

nit, in a perfect world, sex education WOULD take place in the home. However, since we do not live in a perfect world....kids learn sex ed anywhere and everywhere.

With that in mind, there has to be something in the educational system structure to help kids make more informed choices. Far too often by the time any solid sex education programs are encountered by the student, it can be too late. So, abstinence is not the best form of sex ed. And the kids that are going to abstain have had that instruction at home. The kids that need sex ed are the ones that are much more likely to have engaged in some form of sexual exploration/activity. So, abstinence may not be the workable sex ed solution for them.

Shalom

Another eloquent post lost to a quick time-out of my session.

Darrryl,

Thanks for the eloquent and well-reasoned response.

I respectfully disagree.

I felt it was necessary to begin sex-education with my kids at around the age of 2-3 years old. That's when they started asking about what their private parts were, etc.

At that age, it was up to me to explain. As it should be. Nobody knows better than I do what my kids need to hear and when they need to hear it.

A lot of self-proclaimed experts can't agree on kids in general, let alone know anything about my specific child.

I personally don't believe my 5 year old child is ready to learn about what a condom is and how to use it.

I don't expect or ask the school system to involve themselves in what should be a personal issue at home. What I do expect them to do is teach my children math, history, English and grammar, science and the other subjects schools used to be in existence to teach.

The government needs to let parents do their jobs and go back to doing it's job. In a recently developed Freshman Seminar class in Guilford County, kids are spending valuable class time being taught sensitivity training and that they are not supposed to discriminate against gender-identity challenged people, etc. That's all well and good but I'd rather them learn how to complete a sentence at school. Respect for fellow students doesn't need to be a required course. It should be the norm.

Here's whats next when public schools decide to become parents:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/18/middleschool.contraception.ap/

Birth control for 11 year old girls. Yeah they have to have parental permission to use the school health center, but if you give permission for your 11 year old girl to visit for the sniffles, she can also go on the pill without the parent know about it. Makes sense to me.

Nit, I know the concept of a parent actually parenting his/her children is seen as archaic by, of course, met with ridicule by Demon Deacon (hell what's new?). It's now the state's decision, not yours.

Only in the public zoo system do the liberals enjoy a captive audience on which to practice their social engineering skills by handing out birth control pills to 11 year olds.

A Zogby poll from 2003 found that three out of every four parents strongly disapproved of teaching "abstinence-plus" to their kids in the public zoo system. The "plus" is where the rub comes in. This "plus" includes handing out condoms (complete with a demonstration on how to use them with a dildo) to pre - teens and suggesting some common household products to use as lubricants to lessen the shock of penetration for first timers. Also this "plus" includes advising students to shop around beforehand in order to find a store that has the best deals on condoms and then take note of the stores' hours of operation...just in case the passion gets to be too much to bear for the 11 year olds at an odd hour. At least they will know where to pick up a sock...thanks to the ever vigilant sex ed. instructor.

It's way past time to lock the doors on these government indoctrination centers and stop robbing the citizens in order to teach our kids such trash.

Oh well, hoping sharing some form/fashion of reasoning for the need to have sex ed programs has been lost here.

nit, I am glad that you (and your spouse) are working to rear your children in a good and proper way. However, that still begs the question: What do you do with the children from homes where this does not take place? Who teaches them a more proper sexual curriculum? How will they learn if NO ONE steps in to help them?

If is because of situation such as this that I am a strong advocate for sex education. If we are not willing to correct the problem, then we are a part of it! There is no need to complain about teen pregnancies, teen abortions, teen parents, and absent fathers if we are not going to work to reverse the trends of these groups.

Shalom

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Ronald Reagan

nit, Reagan should have known.....he did not help the situation!

Shalom