THERE ARE LIES, damn lies,
Few such issues match the importance of sex education for teenagers, for the choices made during those formative years can affect a child for keeps. In olden days, discussions of the birds and the bees fell to family and faith group. But once government got into the sex-ed biz--once if to teach became what to teach--the battles began.
The latest volley is a study released in April that, if you listen to the mainstream media, "proves" that abstinence-only education--the format favored by the Bush administration--has "no impact on teen behavior." The corollary then becomes, why fund it?
The study, by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., answers a request by the Department of Health and Human Services. Mathematica sized up four abstinence-only programs dating from 1999, surveying 2,057 young people four to six years after the programs began. Of those surveyed, 1,209 had taken part in an abstinence program, while 848 formed a control group.
Mathematica found that the abstinence programs it studied had little or no effect on teens' sexual behavior. Kids who participated in the programs were just as likely to have sex, and at roughly the same age, as kids who received no such message.
So pouring $50 million annually of federal funds, not to mention matching state funds, into abstinence-only programs is a waste, right? Well, a closer look at the survey reveals some interesting caveats:
Mathematica looked at only four of the 700 abstinence-only sex-ed programs now in use.
Three of the four student groups surveyed took part concurrently in other health/family-life classes that explained the benefits of contraception, thus fuzzing the abstinence message.
The courses studied were old; since 1999, course designers have made improvements.
Studied students took the classes in their late elementary and middle-school years. Mathematica concludes that abstinence-only education might be more effective if continued into high school.
At an HHS "Abstinence Education Evaluation Conference" held in Baltimore in March, many scientific papers argued the effectiveness of the abstinence-only approach to sex ed, contradicting the Mathematica study.
Leaving the sexual education of children to government is a journey fraught with danger. Advocates with agendas lurk, ready to pounce, latest study in hand, and "prove" that theirs is the solution worthy of public funding.
Yet, both sides, if they were honest, would stipulate that teens who are sexually active are more prone to take risks, to become depressed, to catch sexual diseases, and, of course, to risk pregnancy. Helping teenagers make healthy choices, therefore, should be everyone's business.
The Mathematica study is worthy of note; it hardly sounds a death-knell, however, for abstinence education.