Since The Sex Ed Chronicles is fiction based around sex education
politics in the past, I was compelled to look at how No Child Left
Behind affects sex education in the present.
The most obvious
impact is that there is less time to teach sex education; emphasis on
language arts and mathematics skills and tests has taken class time from
all other subjects. I imagine there is less time for sex education
taught in public schools in 2007, just as there is less time for recess.
We need more of both in our schools.
When I researched sex
education policy for The Sex Ed Chronicles, I read transcripts from
state board of education hearings from 1980, the year that mandatory sex
education, politically known as Family Life Education, passed in New
Jersey, my home state. Those transcripts explained an overlap between
sex education and health/physical education, home economics, biology and
social studies. With less time available to teach these subjects, there
is also a possibility that the units related to sex education get the
short shrift. There is also a good chance that there is less oversight
over sex education; politicians have a natural tendency to ignore
policies that they cannot afford to enforce.
I cannot say that the
legislative architects of No Child Left Behind saw a connection between
their motives and cutting back on sex education. I have seen no
evidence in the press and I was not around when the policies passed
Congress. However, in states with abstinence-only or
abstinence-until-marriage sex education policies, the public schools
could technically out-source sex education to outside organizations,
such as True Love Waits, or anti-choice groups--and comply with state
education laws.
Outsourcing sex education in abstinence-only or
abstinence-until-marriage states is not impossible for me to believe;
community and faith-based groups receive more federal funds to promote
abstinence-until-marriage than state governments by a ratio of
approximately three to one. The school boards can hire outsiders to
deliver their message and be compliant, without hiring certified sex
educators, and they spend the money they would allocate for sex
education towards something else.
This gives age-appropriate,
medically accurate, sex education the short shrift. State governments,
like New Jersey's, that have adopted a more comprehensive approach to
sex education, a more balanced approach (abstinence and contraception,
for example), have been given the short shrift by the Bush
Administration.
In New Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine refused to
accept federal money for abstinence-until-marriage programs last
November. Community and faith-based groups in New Jersey can still apply
for federal funds through a different budget line to teach their
message. Garden State residents, legislators, sex educators, parents and
students, however, must pay more to get the sex education they want;
they must fund the programs, pay the educators, and confront the
competing words of the messengers who have been aided by our president.
That
is sticking it up the buttocks, or whatever medically accurate name you
prefer to call a backside. Not to mention the confusion it causes for
parents who want their children to learn sex education in school.
While
I would bet that conservatives would love to see all sex education
confined to the outside instructors or home schooling, that is
unrealistic. It denies parents and children the information they really
need to know.