North Carolina Sex Ed Bill Ends in Compromise
by Elisabeth Garber-Paul, RH Reality Check
June 25, 2009 - 7:33pm (Print)
After months of negotiation and attempts at cooperation, North Carolina’s state assembly is finally taking a step in the right direction in regard to their policies on sexuality education. Today, lawmakers passed a bill requiring all seventh- through ninth-graders to learn about sexually transmitted infections, how to properly use contraceptives and prevent pregnancy, and “other topics such as sexual assault,” according to the Hickory Daily Record. It’s a long way from the abstinence only policy that was the previous norm, but ultimately a compromise.
According to Raleigh’s ABC 11, “all districts must teach abstinence until marriage, but they'll also be able to give information on contraception to prevent pregnancy and disease.”
The bill also allows squeamish parents to withdrawal their children from the classes if they don’t want their children to be taught the scientifically accurate informatio; yet another sign that this is merely a step in a much larger struggle. According to a report issued on June 1st from the Guttmacher Institute, North Carolina mandated an abstinence only policy in regards to sexuality and HIV/AIDS education—and didn’t let parents opt their children out.
“The majority of districts teach some version of an "abstinence-only" curriculum,” wrote the Record. “They vary in how much information, if any, they give students about contraceptives. A few school districts…teach a more comprehensive curriculum. Abstinence is still emphasized as the expected standard, but as a matter of policy, students also are given considerable information about STDs and contraceptives.”
However, this bill could get the ball rolling on comprehensive sexuality education in other states, as well. Utah state assembly’s Democratic Representative Lynn Hemingway is reportedly using this bill as a model for a bill in his state, which has until now had similar abstinence-only legislation.
The text of the bill can be seen at:
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S221v1.pdf
I was pleased to see that it includes this language:
"Teaches about sexually transmitted diseases. Instruction shall include how sexually transmitted diseases are and are not transmitted, the effectiveness and safety of all federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved methods of reducing the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and information on local resources for testing and medical care for sexually transmitted diseases; Teaches about the effectiveness and safety of all FDA-approved contraceptive methods in preventing pregnancy;" and particularly pleased to see this: "The consent form shall contain a statement in bold print that if the signed form is not returned to the school, the student will be enrolled in the abstinence-based comprehensive sexuality education program." since this means that those students whose parents are LEAST involved in their education will receive the most information.
They really need that. I swear unexpected mothers are getting younger and younger every year.
What bothers me, what makes me hesitant to view this as a step forward, is my experience to date with a small subset of the teachers in NC.
While language like, "...the effectiveness and safety of all federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved methods of reducing the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases..." would seem appropriate and encouraging to anyone reading it in good faith, experience (admittedly anecdotal) tells me that "in good faith" means different things to some teachers than it does to the reality-based world.
Misinformation and indeed deliberate falsehoods seem to squeeze their way into language like this when the source of data for said information is not strictly dictated. This leaves open a loophole for ideologically motivated teachers to take fabricated nonsense from forced-birth groups and claim they are adhering to the statute.
Washing out the specifics of the statute is a common tactic among certain religious sects to undermine the teaching of Biology. One only need look to the recent fiasco regarding the Biology standards in Texas, with the introduction of "Strengths and Weaknesses" language in the Biology standards, to see the danger of allowing any wiggle room that can be used as a disingenuous cover for deliberately spreading garbage. It's not an unlikely extrapolation to expect similar behavior on this issue from teachers who view themselves at proselytizers first and educators a very distant second.
Having a high school History teacher tell me with a straight face that "Evolution is just a theory, and I don't teach theories, I teach facts" leaves little doubt in my mind that this is a very dangerous concession. It's quite likely that in many cases the sex-ed track choices will be Abstinence Only Endarkenment, and Deliberate Lies About Sex.
I hope I am wrong.
Charming of your HISTORY teacher to ponitificate about his/her personal opinion of a SCIENTIFIC theory.
The biggest problem with teaching anything in our school systems is the fact that teachers all too often aren't well grounded in the subject they're actually teaching. My 15-year old daughter pointed out some text errors in her history book to her first-year teacher and got a long lecture about showing 'respect'. The teacher was hired for her expertise in girl's sports, and also assigned history since "anybody can teach that".
Yes that's the sad truth about most schools, given teaching job is not really that popular and only those who really have the passion to teach and the gift can really do it well. It's really a vocation, and to most people not very gratifying when it comes to financial aspect.
