A New Model of Sex Ed Hits the Shelves

It's officially the end of an era.  Starting this school year, the $375 million of federal grant money set aside for school-based sex education will no longer fall into the hands of abstinence-only enthusiasts.  American sex ed has found a new holy grail.  Our revised system doles out money based on evidence of a specific function-- programs must provide proof of lowered pregnancy rates among participants.

What types of programs succeed under this standard?  How do they do it?  Some call it the "above the waist" tactic, which gives as much focus to the mind as to the body.  Students in these programs may be required to get summer jobs, to open and contribute to savings accounts, to balance a checkbook.  They may go on field trips, learn art and music, receive tutoring, and even have access to health and dental care.  They discuss relationships, and brainstorm their future life and career goals.

At first glance, I'm encouraged.  These are opportunities I hope all kids get to explore.  But the implicit messages in the curricula give my excitement pause.  The most obvious:  pregnancy will ruin your life.  Maybe if students understand how much they have to lose, they will be less likely to...um..."get pregnant".

As you may have guessed, these programs are oriented toward the poorest of our nation's youth.  These populations also receive little information about or access to abortion.  In my lifetime, I have known plenty of girls who got pregnant and went on to become engineers, lawyers, nurses, consultants.  But these girls were well off.  They had options.

So I guess instead of creating options for underprivileged kids, our next best idea is to hold them more responsible for their "choices".  It's no wonder researcher Deborah Tolman found that girls in urban settings were likely to equate sex with risk, while their suburban counterparts were more likely to connect sex to pleasure and curiosity.

Don't get me wrong, I am CHEERING the end of the abstinence-only decade.  And I think teaching kids life skills helps them develop agency, a necessary component of healthy sexuality.  But I also think this new model offers the joys and pleasures of sex only to those who can afford its consequences.  Can this be seen as a step in the right direction?  Is it more holistic?  Do we, as sex ed progressives, endorse the new approach?

I'm eager to hear what you think.