The Importance of Comprehensive Sex-Education in Schools Sex is huge, sex is important; everyone cares and has something to say about sex. Sex oozes from every pore of the culture and no kid can avoid it. Are teens getting enough knowledge on sex and how to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases,(STD’s)? Comprehensive sex-education promotes abstinence but it also includes information about contraceptives and STD’s, while promoting safe sex if a student chooses to engage in sexual activity before marriage. Me, personally, my parents did not give me the birds and the bees talk, but I was afforded the opportunity to take sex-education in high school.
The following paper will argue against single-sex schools and display various reasons as to how they are counter-productive to student needs. A report published in the journal Science, states that students who attend single-sex schools are no better educated than those who attend co-ed schools. Plus, children are more likely to accept gender stereotypes when they go to an all-boys or all-girls school. "There's really no good evidence that single-sex schools are in any way academically superior, but there is evidence of a negative impact," said Lynn Liben, professor of psychology and education at Penn State and co-author of the study. "Kids' own occupational aspirations are going to be limited, and there could be long-term consequences where, for example, girls are used to being in roles only among other girls, then they have to face the real world where that's not the case."
Should sex education be taught in schools? There have been many debates over this. Studies show parents say that sex education only destroys the morality of people because they think that sex education teaches students about how sexual intercourse is done. Although sex education lowers the morality of people by teaching students how to use condoms and contraceptives, it should be taught in primary school and secondary school because its a prevents sexual diseases and teenage pregnancy, it is indeed a need in case of parents’ absence, and it gives children the idea of what is right and what is wrong. Research shows that teens are more sexually active now than before.
When schools pass items such as condoms around, kids can easily get the impression that it’s okay to use them. In this sentence he is trying to reach out and appeal to the parents, and older adults who have the same feeling as he does. Limbaugh believes that the distribution of condoms is not only promoting kids to have sex, but is also giving them the idea that condoms prevent all the consequences of sex. In the second paragraph Limbaugh states that, “Kids will have sex anyway, and that this logic leads to schools providing drugs, and bullet proof vests.” Although providing drugs may seem a little extreme, and maybe a little crazy, I would have to agree with Limbaugh. If schools are handing out condoms to students, what would the difference be if they are handing out drugs?
She avidly believes that the pressures at home from parents on their children to do outstanding in school is linked to the reasons kids turn to drugs to make them focus harder and longer. One of the author’s main claims is that students believe that the drugs help them in school when in truth Warner’s research shows a negative link between academic progress and the use of these stimulants. She uses research and statistics to prove her claim of how students falsely believe the drugs progress their advancement in school. However, her other main claim on how the parents are responsible for their children abusing the drugs lacks hard evidence or proof of that being the main reason for students to lead to the drug misuse. She does make it clear that this article is strongly intended for parents of students, especially ones to put heavy pressure and expectations on their kids to do exceedingly well in
Foul and harsh language is used in dialogue and in Conrad’s thoughts in the novel as well. All of these topics and areas of the novel have been targeted as reason for censorship in schools around the country. Many parents feel that the use of ‘bad language’ encourages it. Also, the talk and description of sex encourages, even condones such behavior. Some parents have argued Coffman, 2 that the
The article also suggested that teens also listened to the information better when it came from their parents rather than school, or other outside sources. Sex and Teens: Why Abstinence Isn’t Working from Oprah Magazine stated that a growing number of studies is proving that school abstinence programs have little impact on adolescent sexual behavior. Worse, new research suggests they could even be endangering kids by failing to
Summary Sex education is used to inform young people on relationships and intimacy. It also is used to inform them on all the negative outcomes sex can cause like diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Yet, programs like abstinence don’t really help people to stop having sex. Abstinence-only programs tend to take credit of the decrease on teen pregnancy but in reality it is the fact that 88% of teens have been taught in school about HIV and STDs. There are 3 federal programs that fund for abstinence-only education getting $102 million in the year of 2002.
Although single sex education does have advantages, there are good arguments on the other side. Coeducation mirrors adult life, doesn’t promote gender segregation, and promotes a better learning environment. Although single sex education may be a credible option to certain professionals, coeducation offers more diversity and a more stimulating way of schooling to both boys and girls. Many coeducation opponents have stated that single sex schools offer a better learning environment for boys and girls separately because of the amount of distractions present in the classroom. Nonetheless, a single sex education does not mirror the adult world.
They are naturally curious about sex, body, and taboo subjects. Many classrooms attempt to subvert this aspect of the teenage life, but the carnival in the classroom would have a place for it—it must have a place for it. Caroline Shields, in her book, Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Transformative Leadership for Communities of Difference, describes how in many schools, “those in power often take steps to organize the existing structures to exclude diverse voices and perspectives” and that “Rather than organize to emphasize and encourage participation…, many schools find ways to discourage discussion on controversial topics” (183). Schools are making the “assumption that people have equal access and opportunities to voice their opinions and that those who choose not to exercise that right do so out of informed choice.” They assume that students and even their parents are uninvolved and lack achievement simply because they are disinterested and unmotivated (Shields, 183). However, Shields suggest that it is because they have no voice, no power within a “typical school organized in hierarchical and uniform lines according to what has become known as the “factory model” of organizational life” (183).