VP hopeful Sarah Palin advocated Abstinence only education, teen daughter pregnant

[CptStern]

I support abstinence only programs. That doesn't mean I will not talk with my kids about safe sex. I will not promote it. I will tell them abstinence is the best way to go.

you dont make sense ..abstinence only implies just that: nothing else is an option ..safe sex isnt an option, sex isnt an option because it's abstinence ONLY

Am I a hypocrite for wanting to take on this responsibility myself? Their is nothing hypocritical about it.

Is it really a big deal to ask parents to teach there kids something? Do we really need government to teach us everything.

so you would allow a layperson to teach your kids how to fly a plane? how about civil engineering? medicine? the average person isnt qualified to teach sex education much less any other topic with any level of competency because that's not what they were trained to do ..simpy saying babies come from mommies and leaving it at that because you simply dont have the tools to take it any further is doing a disservice to your children. I want the whole picture not just fragments that my parents learned from their parents or community

There is nothing wrong with sex education. Teaching about biology and sex is ok to a point.

Going beyond that and promoting certain ways to perform sexual acts is nobodies business but the parents IMHO. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

did you take sex education in school? what sexual acts were they promoting? missionary? the Marditaka also known as the Crushing Spices position? dont be ridiculous

Your little joke about jesus and the dove of blah blah shows your arrogance. You assume anyone with ideals other than your own must be a redneck idiot who promotes ignorance.

you're putting words in my mouth ..I'm just illustrating that without a foundation in FACT parents could pretty much invent whatever idiotic story they want. you're ignoring the main point and twisting my words to mean that anyone without formal sexual education must be a redneck ..sounds like you're a bit too defensive

Their is no silver lining. Having family vaules doesn't mean there is no forgiveness. One of my best friends sister had a baby at 17 and her mom was teacher at a private Christian school. I am sure things were tense when the news came out. She stayed with her parents though and they loved their new grandson no less than if she had been older and married. You assume conservatives are full of anger, vengefulness, and strife. Bad things happen, there are consequences, and then things move on. That is how a healthy family operates whether they are liberal or conservative.

you misss the goddam point of this entire thread and the whole issue of the Palin pregnancy. irony. this shit is funny because it blew up in her face because the programs she supports OBVIOUSLY doesnt even work in her case how could it possibly work for anyone else? even if true or not she cannot escape that perception

I'm not an apologist I just think the level of attacks she is receiving is ridiculous and unmerited.

I actually agree ..they should crucify her for wanting to ban books or her track record of croynism ..this little "lets poke fun at the potential vp because she supports idiotic ideas" crusade should take a back seat to censorship but this is america, sex sells ..she could literally eat aborted fetus (so long as she was carrying a pro-choice placard) on live television and still the subject would turn to sex and teen pregnancy

 

[SIGbastard]

I think sex education is a waste of taxpayers money. The only Sex Ed I got at school was about abstinence, yet I still know what contraception is. People are responsible for their own stupidity.

:cheers:

 

[No Limit]

And here is another example of family values truly working:

Wasilla: The Meth Capital Of Alaska

In 2003, authorities uncovered nine meth labs in the area. Last year, the number increased to 42, said Kyle Young, an investigator with the troopers who works with the Mat-Su narcotics team.

Officials with the Office of Children's Services in Wasilla said the problem affects children. The office receives about 40 calls a month from people reporting abuse or neglect involving some aspect of the highly addictive drug...
When authorities surrounded a converted bus housing a meth operation in Big Lake in January, a 13-year-old boy who answered the door bragged that his mom cooked the best meth in the valley, according to the troopers.

During a 2003 bust at a house outside Wasilla, officers discovered five children living inside, all younger than 8 years old.

The calls about meth to children's services in Wasilla accounts for as many as 40 percent of the agency's total monthly child protection calls.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/wasilla-the-met.html

 

[SIGbastard]

so you would allow a layperson to teach your kids how to fly a plane? how about civil engineering? medicine? the average person isnt qualified to teach sex education much less any other topic with any level of competency because that's not what they were trained to do

That's such a ridiculous argument I am not even going to address it.

It is worth noting though that home schooled children are usually much further ahead academically than public schooled children of the same age. Even with those stupid untrained parent teachers.

 

[Absinthe]

We have a fundamental disagreement on the roles of parenting and government.

You want a big centralized government who controls the population to a large extent.

I want smaller government that limits itself in roles such as this.

Nothing wrong with that. We just have different perspectives and as such will never agree.

Since when is educating people about reality a form of control.

Furthermore, what policy do you propose to "make families stronger" in absence of school education? Sex education does not force upon you a lifestyle, a moral view, or any directive on how to live your life. It is not stepping in and replacing parental responsibility. It only supplies information. The way you go about that information falls into the parents' domain.

The only reason I can think of as to why anybody would want to restrict this information from adolescents is due to some puritanical 50's throwback to how sex is "something special" and we should all be hush-hush about it until Mom and Pop dispense their sage advice, regardless of how poor it may be. I'd rather people get with the program of modernity. We have everything positive to gain from teaching young people comprehensively about sex as a standard. Leaving it entirely to parents, who quite frankly aren't always the experts on the subject, is a point of principle more than anything, and the amount of people who fall through the cracks as a result of it should be reason enough to move on.

 

[SIGbastard]

Since when is educating people about reality a form of control.

I just realized I am confusing you with Solaris. Sorry I don't post here often. I thought you were the local commie in this forum.

 

[CptStern]

That's such a ridiculous argument I am not even going to address it.

more like you cant address it

It is worth noting though that home schooled children are usually much further ahead academically than public schooled children of the same age. Even with those stupid untrained parent teachers.

the burden of proof lies with you ..prove homeschooling is more effective. Personally i cant see how that could even be remotely true as parents by an large have zero educational exerience mush less skills ..would you concede that (for the sake of argument) a blue collar worker is going to have the same qualifications as a person with a formal education in science or math or history or whatever? homeschooling cant possibly equal the cummalitive education of hundreds of years of applied educational models? ..to suggest that is just being willfully ignorant

 

[Sulkdodds]

There were plenty of pregnant teens at my highschool that had safe sex education. It's just going to happen no matter what you teach.

Put this another way: kids are going to have sex, so why not at least tell them how to do it safely? It's like encouraging people to use guns without encouraging them to bother learning how to.

The problem is that to teach only abstinence is essentially to lie; it is to willfully conceal information that is useful for teens, and indeed it is often to necessarily mislead students about the effectiveness of contraception or other things.

Look at the requirements that 1996 federal laws set up for sex education programs that wanted to receive special grants:

A) Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

There is no discussion whatsoever of how to have sex safely - there is only discussion of how great not having sex is. This is not useful. Programs must also teach that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects" - which is probably true, but misleading, because sexual activity itself is not fundamentally psychologically harmful, is it? Psychological harm is far more likely to come from mishandling of such things, from inexperience with them.

Informing teenagers about condoms, the pill and the morning after is not promoting "specific ways of having sex", nor is it 'promoting' any specific moral agenda, other than that people should be told the truth instead of have important information withheld from them. Refusing to inform them about this, and harping on about the joys of abstinence is promoting a moral agenda, and a rather specifically religious one too, one that may have little foundation in reality:

In a meta-analysis, DiCenso et al. have compared comprehensive sex education programs with abstinence-only programs.[38] Their review of several studies shows that abstinence-only programs did not reduce the likelihood of pregnancy of women who participated in the programs, but rather increased it.

...

Also, a U.S. review, "Emerging Answers", by the National Campaign To Prevent Teenage Pregnancy examined 250 studies of sex education programs.[41] The conclusion of this review was that "the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that sex education that discusses contraception does not increase sexual activity".

Furthermore, one merely needs to glance at wiki's section on criticism of Abstinence-only education, citing two studies which found that abstinence-only programmes were often guilty of systematic misrepresentations and outright falsities.

But finally, for all that you rail against the 'nanny state', can you explain how an abstinence-only sex education programme funded by the government is any less centralised, controlling, or nannyish than a more rounded sex education programme similarly funded? Both are centrally funded, and both take the duty of education away from parents and families. The difference between them is this: one gives as much information as possible. The other keeps as much as possible back. One gives people choice, responsibility, and, what is more, the information required to make that choice with responsibility. The other gives people only the necessary resources to safely make one choice, and, in doing so, makes them choose under duress. If your concern was truly that sexual education should stay out of government and remain with the family, you would not support any form of federal sex education whatsoever.

Absinthe is wrong about one thing - all education is necessarily a form of control (as is everything). But the question is which programme gives more control to whom. If there is going to be sex ed funded federally, what kind would be better and indeed more in keeping with the spirit of America - an education that withholds information on behalf of the government, or one that gives people the resources to do as they will?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Do state Schools in the UK generally tech proper sex education, The UK has the worst teen pregnancy rates in Europe. Do any Sex Ed programmes work?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Only to tell them that sex exists, and that its awesome. Then say WAIT.

 

[SIGbastard]

more like you cant address it

:rolling:

Please. Teaching a technical skill is alot different than telling your kid why they should use a condom, or what goes on during sex. You don't need a degree to do that. You really don't even have to talk about biology for them to understand what a condom does (I am not saying biology should not be taught) Don't kid yourself.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Do state Schools in the UK generally tech proper sex education, The UK has the worst teen pregnancy rates in Europe. Do any Sex Ed programmes work?

It's always difficult to say, but note that your 'UK' pregnancy rate is likely to actually be 'England and Wales'. There does seem to be a correlation between comprehensive sex education and low pregnancy rates:

* 93.0 per 1000 in the United States (85.8/1000 in 1996)
* 62.6 per 1000 in England and Wales
* 42.7 per 1000 in Canada
* 15.1 per 1000 in Belgium (1996)[40]
* 8.1 per 1000 in the Netherlands (which has what I would call a model programme)

Note that in England and Wales, sex education is not compulsory in schools - parents can refuse to let their kids take part. Information about contraception, safe sex etc is actually discretionary, and indeed a study by the University of Brighton found that many children were angry with sex education here because it can make it very difficult to ask about safe sex (teachers have to inform parents if their children ask about contraception) - source.

Meanwhile, Scotland's programme includes information about contraception etc. In 2003-4, Scotland had a pregnancy rate among 13-19 year olds of 42.4 - significantly less than the rest of the UK.

So yes, I would tentatively say that sexual education does have an effect and does help (I have personally found my own to be useful). I think it must be part of a wider culture of liberal responsibility, but it also helps create such a culture, and in theory at least provides a valuable material service - access and information.

 

[SIGbastard]

the burden of proof lies with you ..prove homeschooling is more effective. Personally i cant see how that could even be remotely true as parents by an large have zero educational exerience mush less skills ..would you concede that (for the sake of argument) a blue collar worker is going to have the same qualifications as a person with a formal education in science or math or history or whatever? homeschooling cant possibly equal the cummalitive education of hundreds of years of applied educational models? ..to suggest that is just being willfully ignorant

I. Independent Evaluations of Homeschooling

1. In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile. i

This was confirmed in another study by Dr. Lawrence Rudner of 20,760 homeschooled students which found the homeschoolers who have homeschooled all their school aged years had the highest academic achievement. This was especially apparent in the higher grades. ii This is a good encouragement to families catch the long-range vision and homeschool through high school.

Another important finding of Strengths of Their Own was that the race of the student does not make any difference. There was no significant difference between minority and white homeschooled students. For example, in grades K-12, both white and minority students scored, on the average, in the 87th percentile. In math, whites scored in the 82nd percentile while minorities scored in the 77th percentile. In the public schools, however, there is a sharp contrast. White public school eighth grade students, nationally scored the 58th percentile in math and the 57th percentile in reading. Black eighth grade students, on the other hand, scored on the average at the 24th percentile in math and the 28th percentile in reading. Hispanics scored at the 29th percentile in math and the 28th percentile in reading. iii

These findings show that when parents, regardless of race, commit themselves to make the necessary sacrifices and tutor their children at home, almost all obstacles present in other school systems disappear.

Another obstacle that seems to be overcome in homeschooling is the need to spend a great deal of money in order to have a good education. In Strengths of Their Own, Dr. Ray found the average cost per homeschool student is $546 while the average cost per public school student is $5,325. Yet the homeschool children in this study averaged in 85th percentile while the public school students averaged in the 50th percentile on nationally standardized achievement tests.iv

Similarly, the 1998 study by Dr. Rudner of 20,760 students, found that eighth grade students whose parents spend $199 or less on their home education score, on the average, in the 80th percentile. Eighth grade students whose parents spend $400 to $599 on their home education also score on the average, in the 80th percentile! Once the parents spend over $600, the students do slightly better, scoring in the 83rd percentile.v

The message is loud and clear. More money does not mean a better education. There is no positive correlation between money spent on education and student performance. Public school advocates could refocus their emphasis if they learned this lesson. Loving and caring parents are what matters. Money can never replace simple, hard work.

The last significant statistic from the Strengths of Their Own study regards the affect of government regulation on homeschooling. Dr. Brian Ray compared the impact of government regulation on the academic performance of homeschool students and he found no positive correlation. In other words, whether a state had a high degree of regulation (i.e., curriculum approval, teacher qualifications, testing, home visits) or a state had no regulation of homeschoolers, the homeschooled students in both categories of states performed the same. The students all scored on the average in the 86th percentile regardless of state regulation.vi

Homeschool freedom works. Homeschoolers have earned the right to be left alone.

2. In a study released by the National Center for Home Education on November 10, 1994. According to these standardized test results provided by the Riverside Publishing Company of 16,311 homeschoolers from all 50 states K-12, the nationwide average for homeschool students is at the 77th percentile of the basic battery of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. In reading, the homeschoolers' nationwide grand mean is the 79th percentile. This means, of course, that the homeschool students perform better in reading than 79 percent of the same population on whom the test is normed. In the area of language arts and math, the typical homeschooler scored in the 73rd percentile.

These 16,311 homeschool students' scores were not self-selected by parents or anyone else. They represent all the homeschoolers whose tests were scored through the Riverside Publishing Company. It is important to note that this summary of homeschool achievement test scores demonstrates that 54.7% of the students in grades K-12 are achieving individual scores in the top quarter of the population of students in the United States. This figure is more than double the number of conventional school students who score in the top quarter.vii

3. In 1991, a survey of standardized test scores was performed by the Home School Legal Defense Association in cooperation with the Psychological Corporation, which publishes the Stanford Achievement Test. The study involved the administering of the Stanford Achievement Test (8th Edition, Form J) to 5,124 homeschooled students. These students represented all 50 states and their grades ranged from K-12. This testing was administered in Spring 1991 under controlled test conditions in accordance with the test publisher's standards. All test administers were screened, trained, and approved pursuant to the publisher's requirements. All tests were machine-scored by the Psychological Corporation.

These 5,124 homeschoolers' composite scores on the basic battery of tests in reading, math, and language arts ranked 18 to 28 percentile points above public school averages. For instance, 692 homeschooled 4th graders averaged in the 77th percentile in reading, the 63rd percentile in math, and the 70th percentile in language arts. Sixth-grade homeschoolers, of 505 tested, scored in the 76th percentile in reading, the 65th percentile in math, and the 72nd percentile in language arts.

The homeschooled high schoolers did even better, which goes against the trend in public schools where studies show the longer a child is in the public schools, the lower he scores on standardized tests. One hundred and eighteen tenth-grade homeschool students, as a group, made an average score of the 82nd percentile in reading, the 70th percentile in math, and the 81st percentile in language arts.

4. The Bob Jones University Testing Service of South Carolina provided test results of Montana homeschoolers. Also a survey of homeschoolers in Montana was conducted by the National Home Education Research Institute. Dr. Brian Ray evaluated the survey and test results and found:

On average, the home education students in this study scored above the national norm in all subject areas on standardized achievement tests. These students scored, on average, at the 72nd percentile in terms of a combination of their reading, language, and math performance. This is well above the national average. viii

5. In North Dakota, Dr. Brian Ray conducted a survey of 205 homeschoolers throughout the state. The middle reading score was the 84th percentile, language was the 81st percentile, science was the 87th percentile, social studies was the 86th percentile, and math was the 81st percentile.

Further, Dr. Ray found no significant statistical differences in academic achievement between those students taught by parents with less formal education and those students taught by parents with higher formal education.

6. In South Carolina, the National Center for Home Education did a survey of 65 homeschool students and found that the average scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills were 30 percentile points higher than national public school averages. In math, 92 percent of the homeschool students scored above grade level, and 93 percent of the homeschool students were at or above grade level in reading. These scores are "being achieved in a state where public school SAT scores are next-to-last in national rankings." ix

7. In 1990, the National Home Education Research Institute issued a report entitled "A Nationwide Study of Home Education: Family Characteristics, Legal Matters, and Student Achievement." This was a study of over 2,163 homeschooling families.

The study found that the average scores of the homeschool students were at or above the 80th percentile in all categories. The homeschoolers' national percentile mean was 84th for reading, 80th for language, 81st for math, 84th for science and 83rd for social studies.

The research revealed that there was no positive correlation between state regulation of homeschools and the home-schooled students' performance. The study compared homeschoolers in three groups of states representing various levels of regulation. Group 1 represented the most restrictive states such as Michigan; Group 2 represented slightly less restrictive states including North Dakota; and Group 3 represented unregulated states such as Texas and California. The Institute concluded:

...no difference was found in the achievement scores of students between the three groups which represent various degrees of state regulation of home education.... It was found that students in all three regulation groups scored on the average at or above the 76th percentile in the three areas examined: total reading, total math, and total language. These findings in conjunction with others described in this section, do not support the idea that state regulation and compliance on the part of home education families assures successful student achievement. x

Furthermore, this same study demonstrated that only 13.9 percent of the mothers (who are the primary teachers) had ever been certified teachers. The study found that there was no difference in the students' total reading, total math and total language scores based on the teacher certification status of their parents:

The findings of this study do not support the idea that parents need to be trained and certified teachers to assure successful academic achievement of their children. xi

8. In Pennsylvania, 171 homeschooled students took the CTBS standardized achievement test. The tests were all administered in group settings by Pennsylvania certified teachers. The middle reading score was the 89th percentile and the middle math score was the 72nd percentile. The middle science score was the 87th percentile and the middle social studies score was the 81st percentile. A survey conducted of all these homeschool families who participated in this testing found that the average student spent only 16 hours per week in formal schooling (i.e., structured lessons that were preplanned by either the parent or a provider of educational materials). xii

9. In West Virginia, over 400 hundred homeschool students, grades K-12, were tested with the Stanford Achievement test at the end of the 1989-90 school year. The Psychological Corporation scored the children together as one school. The results found that the typical homeschooled students in eight of these grade levels scored in the "somewhat above average" range (61st to 73rd average percentile), compared to the performance of students in the same grade from across the country. Two grade levels scored in the "above average" range (80th to 85th average percentile) and three grade levels scored in the "about average range" (54th to 59th average percentile). xiii

10. In Washington state, a survey of the standardized test results of 2,018 homeschooled students over a period of three years found that the median cell each year varied from the 65th percentile to the 68th percentile on national norms. The Washington Home School Research Project concluded that "as a group, these homeschoolers are doing well." xiv

11. Dr. Brian Ray, president of the Home Education Research Institute, reviewed over 65 studies concerning home education. He found that homeschoolers were performing at average or above average on test levels. xv

12. In 1986, researcher Lauri Scogin surveyed 591 homeschooled children and discovered that 72.61% of the homeschooled children scored one year or more above their grade level in reading. 49.79% scored one year or more above their grade level in math. xvi

1. In 1982, Dr. Raymond Moore studied several thousand homeschooled children throughout the United States. His research found that these children have been performing, on the average, in the 75th to the 95th percentile on Stanford and Iowa Achievement Tests. Additionally, Dr. Moore did a study of homeschooled children whose parents were being criminally charged for exercising their right to teach their own children. He found that the children scored on the average in the 80th percentile. xvii

13. Statistics also demonstrate that homeschoolers tend to score above the national average on both their SAT and ACT scores.

For example, the 2,219 students reporting their homeschool status on the SAT in 1999 scored an average of 1083 (verbal 548, math 535), 67 points above the national average of 1016. In 2004 the 7,858 homeschool students taking the ACT scored an average of 22.6, compared to the national average of 20.9.

According to the 1998 ACT High School Profile Report, 2,610 graduating homeschoolers took the ACT and scored an average of 22.8 out of a possible 36 points. This score is slightly higher that the 1997 report released on the results of 1,926 homeschool graduates and founding homeschoolers maintained the average of 22.5. This is higher than the national average, which was 21.0 in both 1997 and 1998. xviii

 

[lefty]

If a kid is homeschooled, he or she probably has a lot less social interaction than a kid that goes to a public school, which would probably lead to less sex, sex ed or not.

I mean, that's probably not what you meant, but there you go. And yeah, I'm only gonna respond to your first couple sentances.

 

[CptStern]

:rolling:

Please. Teaching a technical skill is alot different than telling your kid why they should use a condom, or what goes on during sex. You don't need a degree to do that. You really don't even have to talk about biology for them to understand what a condom does (I am not saying biology should not be taught) Don't kid yourself.

why is it that some people think the sole issue around sex education is preventing teen pregnancy? sex education first above all else is dedicated to teach human reproduction ..so yes you need to have some educational basis in this or else you're just providing preventative tools against teen pregnancy thereby giving children only a small portion of sex education. And it is you who are kidding yourself if you think you could do just as good a job as someone who has formal education in teaching.

 

[lefty]

Hell, I could be a sex ed teacher. "Dick gets hard, you put it in the c*nt, and then you trollop."

 

[CptStern]

dont forget to wipe off the c*nty makeup

 

[CptStern]

SNIP

the facts are skewed to suit their agenda:

In spite of the large size of the student sample, there are notable limitations to the study. Foremost, home school students and their families are not a cross-section of the United States population. The act of home schooling distinguishes this group in terms of their exceptionally strong commitment to education and children. As highlighted above, there were major demographic differences between home school families in this study and the general United States population.

This was not a controlled experiment. Students were not randomly assigned public, private or home schools. As a result, the reported achievement differences between groups do not control for background differences in the home school and general United States population and, more importantly, cannot be attributed to the type of school a child attends. Thus, the study was not designed to compare home schools with public or private schools


It should be noted that it was not possible within the parameters of this study to evaluate whether this sample is truly representative of the entire population of home school students. Noting that the press had reported the results as if the sample had been random, Welner and Welner (1999) correctly cautioned that the results may not be an accurate portrayal of the home school population.

and furthermore:

The superior performance of home school students on achievement tests can easily be misinterpreted. This study does not demonstrate that home schooling is superior to public or private schools. It should not be cited as evidence that our public schools are failing. It does not indicate that children will perform better academically if they are home schooled. The design of this study and the data do not warrant such claims. All the comparisons of home school students with the general population and with the private school population in this report fail to consider a myriad of differences between home school and public school students. We have no information as to what the achievement levels of home school students would be had they been enrolled in public or private schools. This study only shows that a large group of parents choosing to make a commitment to home schooling were able to provide a very successful academic environment.

which is supported by this:

Many home school parents were formally trained as teachers. Almost one-fourth of home school students (24%) have at least one parent who is a certified teacher.

The median income for home school families ($52,000) was significantly higher than that of all families with children ($36,000) in the United States.

Almost all home school students (98%) were in married couple families. Most home school mothers (77%)did not participate in the labor force; almost all home school fathers (98%) did work.

this wasnt an equal comparison by any stretch of the imagination

The distribution of home school students by grade in grades 1-6 was consistent with that of all school children. Proportionally fewer home school students were enrolled at the high school level.

this statement is very telling as to what problems parents face in home schooling at the post elementary phase of education ..in other words far fewer parents are qualiified to teach at a high school level


http://www.ericdigests.org/2000-3/home.htm

 

[SIGbastard]

why is it that some people think the sole issue around sex education is preventing teen pregnancy? sex education first above all else is dedicated to teach human reproduction ..so yes you need to have some educational basis in this or else you're just providing preventative tools against teen pregnancy thereby giving children only a small portion of sex education. And it is you who are kidding yourself if you think you could do just as good a job as someone who has formal education in teaching.

I've said over and over and over that sex education is ok in school. The biology etc. I don't think anything should be promoted though and like it or not handing out condoms is promting it. This is common practice.

There are lots of studies about homeschooling. I found that stuff fast and posted it. I don't have much time as I am in class we can't use our labtops right now besides during breaks.

I do think I can teach my kids better than a teacher. If the teacher was to teach my kids on a one and one basis he may do a better job than I, but that's not how it works. I can do a much better job one on one with my kid than he/she could do teaching my kid and a whole class at the same time. There isn't any material at a high school level or lower I can not go over ahead of time and have a good enough understanding of it to teach my son or daughter.

Now I'm going to lunch and then will be doing a root canal. If I post here anymore it will be this evening Central Time.

 

[CptStern]

I've said over and over and over that sex education is ok in school. The biology etc. I don't think anything should be promoted though and like it or not handing out condoms is promting it. This is common practice.

no, this is just reality ..they WILL have sex, abstinence is not a realistic option for the overwhelming majority of people ..it's just forcing people to deny a part of themselves for the sake of the community and outdated morality that has no basis in reality

There are lots of studies about homeschooling. I found that stuff fast and posted it. I don't have much time as I am in class we can't use our labtops right now besides during breaks.

well I'm sure I could find lots of studies that say these studies are slanted to support an agenda ..so if you have more time at some point in the future I'll be sure to post those articles

I do think I can teach my kids better than a teacher.

yet here you are sitting in a CLASSROOM being taught by someone other than your parent ..ironical


there's no way you can be as competant as a teacher with ZERO experience and NO cirriculuum to your name

If the teacher was to teach my kids on a one and one basis he may do a better job than I, but that's not how it works. I can do a much better job one on one with my kid than he/she could do teaching my kid and a whole class at the same time.

education is by no means simply paying attention to a student .the cirricuulum is everything, how will you develop a ciricuulum if you have zero experience in creating one ..in this you have no hope of being on the same level as a certified teacher. You can give your child one on one attention till you're both blue in the face but if you're reading "See Spot run" because that's as far as your knowleddge of early reading goes then you're not providing anything except one on one attention

There isn't any material at a high school level or lower I can not go over ahead of time and have a good enough understanding of it to teach my son or daughter.

ya what happens when you get to the origin of the universe? what about physics? what about the history of the boer war as pertaining to the impact it had on sub saharan politics and culture of the time? ..are you trying to tell me that 20 minutes research will put you on the same level as someone with a degree in teaching science, history or math?

I would never feel competant enough to teach my children everything they need to know ..and I was a teacher and my wife is a behavioural therapist for children with special needs which often deals with learning disabilities and together we couldnt provide our children with everything they need to know

 

[Sulkdodds]

I've said over and over and over that sex education is ok in school. The biology etc. I don't think anything should be promoted though and like it or not handing out condoms is promting it.

Abstinence-only education focuses on a lot more than simply the biology.

Let's see those federal requirements again:

A) Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

B) Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;

C) Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

D) Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;

E) Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

F) Teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child?s parents, and society;

G) Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and

H) Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Title V-funded programs were not permitted to advocate or discuss contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.[4]

Why is this alright with you?

 

[SIGbastard]

I decided to check one more time before I set up for clinic.

First your comment on how ironical it is that I am in a classroom is pointless and stupid.

You are comparing elementary/highschool etc with continuing education. That's apples to oranges. I am in dental school and my parents are not dentists.

Public school teachers are not mathmaticians, physicists, astronomers etc for the most part. They have a generalized knowledge. Sometimes teachers end up teaching classes that they really have no extra expertise in. It's not at an expert level though so it works.

I am in no way suggesting that a parent is substitue for college or higher learning.

Homeschool curriculum is not created buy the parent. You buy it as a program set out for you to teach. Most homeschool kids can complete the same amount of work as someone in public school can in a day by lunch time. On top of that they can run circles around public schoolers.

In the pediatric clinic here at the school I have alot of homeschool patients. Probably 30-40% of my patients. They are in general better behaved, more respectful, and just all around easier to treat. They also usually have less cavities and other oral hygiene problems. Their parents are much more involved and reliable about appointments.

I don't think every parent should do homeschooling, but there are plenty that are perfectly capable without teacher training. I personally have a BS in Zoology Biomedical Sciences. I have had lots of Biology, chemistry, organic chem, biochem, pathology, physics, physiology, genetics, calculus, algebra, pharmacology, etc etc. My degree focused heavily on evolution. I know alot about it but I also take a large part with a grain of salt because some conclusions were based on little evidence.

My wife will be a stay at home mom when I graduate this May to become a dentist. We plan for her to homeschool my son and daughter through elementary. At that point we will look into both the private and public schools in our area. That is our plan. Many homeschool families differ.

Now I really hve to go!!

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Nice job ignoring Sulkdodds post.

 

[SIGbastard]

.....

 

[SIGbastard]

Nice job ignoring Sulkdodds post.

I was not ignoring it I simply had no time to respond. It takes like 40 min to set up a chair for endo and I was 30 min away from my appointment and wasn't even in the clinic. I responded to Stern and had to run.

I don't really disagree with the stuff in bold from Sulkdodds. I don't really think the contraceptive failure rate is worth mentioning though. Sex at a young has been shown to be a cause of some psychological issues. Some kids are simply not mature enough when they engage in sexual acts and are scarred somewhat when relationships go south. When your older you are better able to handle it. You can't stop anyone from having sex but with the right guidance you can ofter delay it until they are more mature. There's no perfect solution. No matter what you do or teach somebody is not going to listen.

 

[PvtRyan]

I was not ignoring it I simply had no time to respond. It takes like 40 min to set up a chair for endo and I was 30 min away from my appointment and wasn't even in the clinic. I responded to Stern and had to run.

I don't really disagree with the stuff in bold from Sulkdodds. I don't really think the contraceptive failure rate is worth mentioning though. Sex at a young has been shown to be a cause of some psychological issues. Some kids are simply not mature enough when they engage in sexual acts and are scarred somewhat when relationships go south. When your older you are better able to handle it. You can't stop anyone from having sex but with the right guidance you can ofter delay it until they are more mature. There's no perfect solution. No matter what you do or teach somebody is not going to listen.

So basically what you're saying is that you should decide when people are ready for sex rather than the people themselves? And to do that, you want to frighten them with abstinence-only lies? People are ready for sex when they feel ready, and I can guarantee you that there is no serious sex education class that teaches that you should have sex even if you don't feel ready. And when they do feel ready, those people need to know the ins and outs of it, and for that you need proper sex education.

You're just defeating a strawman with "sex damages young kids". Yes, having sex is not good for an 8-year old, but that's not the age group that we're talking about.

 

[SIGbastard]

So basically what you're saying is that you should decide when people are ready for sex rather than the people themselves? And to do that, you want to frighten them with abstinence-only lies? People are ready for sex when they feel ready, and I can guarantee you that there is no serious sex education class that teaches that you should have sex even if you don't feel ready. And when they do feel ready, those people need to know the ins and outs of it, and for that you need proper sex education.

You're just defeating a strawman with "sex damages young kids". Yes, having sex is not good for an 8-year old, but that's not the age group that we're talking about.

I am not saying we should decide when people can have sex, but here is nothing wrong with encouraging kids to wait until they are more mature. We are talking about minors here. It is ok to decide a number of things for minors historically but you bring up the topic of sex and all of a sudden every 15 year old has the God given right to boink anyone they well choose according to you guys without a second thought. I'm not talking about adults here. I suspect many of you are not adults yourselves, but I do know many of you are.

After post it seems many of you think kids have equal rights as adults. I am not even just speaking of sex but lots of things. In my mind kids have limited rights. Of course they have basic human rights but lots of decisions ultimately are not left to them and for good reason. If you put no restraints on growing young people you will get worthless adults later in life in general. That's the main reason pregnancy rates are so high among teens. It starts in the home. Families are not what they once were. Kids grow up in day care etc etc.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I am not saying we should decide when people can have sex, but here is nothing wrong with encouraging kids to wait until they are more mature. We are talking about minors here. It is ok to decide a number of things for minors historically but you bring up the topic of sex and all of a sudden every 15 year old has the God given right to boink anyone they well choose according to you guys without a second thought. I'm not talking about adults here. I suspect many of you are not adults yourselves, but I do know many of you are.

After post it seems many of you think kids have equal rights as adults. I am not even just speaking of sex but lots of things. In my mind kids have limited rights. Of course they have basic human rights but lots of decisions ultimately are not left to them and for good reason. If you put no restraints on growing young people you will get worthless adults later in life in general. That's the main reason pregnancy rates are so high among teens. It starts in the home. Families are not what they once were. Kids grow up in day care etc etc.

Yes, but it is irrelevant whether kids are allowed to have sex or not. The point is that they will. I had sex underage. My best friend had sex underage. Most of the people I know had sex underage. This is the 21st century, not the 18th, and too tell kids that watching porn, masturbating or having sex before marriage is somehow bad for they're physical, emotional or even spiritual health (you really think God gives a toss if you wank or not?) even though all psychologists and doctors say otherwise is child abuse and most western societies have abandoned it. Hopefully America will also see sense soon.

 

[Mr Stabby]

While I don't consider sex education to be the governments job. Pregnant teenagers will cost the welfare state far more than sex education will. So if we have a system that pays for all the problems teenage pregnancies causes, we should try and prevent it.

 

[CptStern]

I kinda dropped out of this conversation because it's hella boring ..but sigbastard I have to say it sounds like you're just regurgitating stuff that's been spoon fed to you.

Both my kids went to day care and they are more advanced academically and socially than those that remained at home with a parent or relative ..now I'm not talking in absolutes like you so often do, I'll quantify it: twice a week, half a day the rest is split between my wife and grandparents. both my wife and I spend their every waking minute interacting with them in a positive way..my soon to be 5 year old son is reading at a full grade above his age group and my daughter, a hellion on two little legs actually sits down with a group and participates, she's happy well adjusted and ready for when she starts school. Go to any junior kindergarden class the first few weeks in september and you'll see just how maladjusted some kids are to being with their peers in a classroom setting

saying children are growing up in day care is just being ignorant and an overgeneralisation made to suit your agenda. daycares are not the sole providers of everything children need, they're just one facet of it. Sure there are parents that leave their kids in daycare for the entire day every day, but it's usually because they have no other choice. that doesnt mean that the rest of their time with their children isnt filled with engaging their children in a meaningful way.

even the daycare you choose makes a huge difference ..anyone can put a sign in front of their door and call themselves a daycare but are no better than baby sitters. however there are plenty of daycares that actually have structured educational programs. they're usually certified or run in part with government or private funding. Daycares are just one facet of development as is school in general ..but it can be an important one

 

[nerdcorerocks]

What's wrong with teaching kids to wait? Sure, let them know that if they're not going to wait that they should use protection to avoid disease and pregnancy...but teaching youth that they should wait isn't retarded.

Sometimes I think people forget that sex can lead to pregnancy and therefore being responsible for and raising another HUMAN FREAKING BEING. That is not trivial. That should be one of the most important tasks of most people's lives. I doubt any 16 year olds are ready for that and ready to be good parents.

I think that anyone who is not ready for that possibility should keep their pants on.

 

[delusional]

What's wrong with teaching kids to wait? Sure, let them know that if they're not going to wait that they should use protection to avoid disease and pregnancy...but teaching youth that they should wait isn't retarded.

Sometimes I think people forget that sex can lead to pregnancy and therefore being responsible for and raising another HUMAN FREAKING BEING. That is not trivial. That should be one of the most important tasks of most people's lives. I doubt any 16 year olds are ready for that and ready to be good parents.

I think that anyone who is not ready for that possibility should keep their pants on.

Or wear a condom, or use birth control. Preferably both. You should mostly worry about STD's.

 

[SIGbastard]

sigbastard I have to say it sounds like you're just regurgitating stuff that's been spoon fed to you.

now I'm not talking in absolutes like you so often do,

Funny, I'd have to say I have the same general feelings regarding you. Especially the spoon feeding. You speak in absolutes all the time. Sometimes your comparisons are quite ludicrous as well usually at an attempt at irony.

Furthermore, I never condemned all day care as bad like you seem to be implying. I would not consider day care 2 days a week as them raising your children. My son was in day care for about a year 2 days a week. He is not there any longer because the quality of the program tanked. He was going to socialize mainly. He gets plenty now going to the park, play area at the mall, etc, etc. I only have a problem with kids who end up going like 8am to 6pm or sometimes later 5 days a week. Now some people don't have a choice and my heart goes out for them, but I really don't think it is the best way for a kid to grow up personally.

There's really nothing more to say. I'd have to agree this is getting boring.

 

[CptStern]

What's wrong with teaching kids to wait? Sure, let them know that if they're not going to wait that they should use protection to avoid disease and pregnancy...but teaching youth that they should wait isn't retarded.

Sometimes I think people forget that sex can lead to pregnancy and therefore being responsible for and raising another HUMAN FREAKING BEING. That is not trivial. That should be one of the most important tasks of most people's lives. I doubt any 16 year olds are ready for that and ready to be good parents.

I think that anyone who is not ready for that possibility should keep their pants on.

abstinence doesnt teach to wait,it teaches you to abstain from having sex ..as in no sex, it doesnt teach the use of contraceptives it doesnt teach human reproduction, it teaches that sex is wrong, it teaches them that sex is dirty that sex is taboo ..UNLESS it's in wedlock ..they set the moral standard for when sex is ok: a religious based ceremony where two people exchange shiny rings and say a few words


from sulkdodds federal guidelines on abstinence only post:

A) Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

B) Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;

C) Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

D) Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;

E) Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

F) Teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child?s parents, and society;

G) Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and

H) Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Title V-funded programs were not permitted to advocate or discuss contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.[4]

I dont see teaching the use of contraceptives or even human reproduction, it's all moralising. there is nothing whatsoever educational about it, it's all conjecture and opinion based on an unrealistic set of standards

 

[Moto]

Let me help you, SIG. Abstinence only education is bullshit.

Teens need to be informed about what sex is and how it works, what contraception is and how it works, etc. Simply saying "Don't have sex" does nothing. It doesn't educate anybody. Sex education doesn't advocate having sex NOW, it just seeks to teach kids something they NEED to know about because they're horny as hell and they're going to do it anyway. Believe me, I'm a teenager.

There.

 

[Absinthe]

What's wrong with teaching kids to wait? Sure, let them know that if they're not going to wait that they should use protection to avoid disease and pregnancy...but teaching youth that they should wait isn't retarded.

Sometimes I think people forget that sex can lead to pregnancy and therefore being responsible for and raising another HUMAN FREAKING BEING. That is not trivial. That should be one of the most important tasks of most people's lives. I doubt any 16 year olds are ready for that and ready to be good parents.

There is nothing wrong with teaching teens about abstinence, and that would be included in any comprehensive sex education program.

The problem is when you only teach abstinence. And when that fails, you subject them to a world of problems and consequences they were ignorant to because of your own prudishness.

 

[kineaesth]

Abstinence only sex education is a bunch of motherf*ckers and is really bad and should not exist and it's really silly and bad.

 

[SIGbastard]

Let me help you, SIG. Abstinence only education is bullshit.

Teens need to be informed about what sex is and how it works, what contraception is and how it works, etc. Simply saying "Don't have sex" does nothing. It doesn't educate anybody. Sex education doesn't advocate having sex NOW, it just seeks to teach kids something they NEED to know about because they're horny as hell and they're going to do it anyway. Believe me, I'm a teenager.

There.

I agree they need to know it, but I don't think it is the schools place to teach it. It should be done in the home.

 

[kineaesth]

Why? The school has professional sex educators who actually know their stuff.

 

[theotherguy]

I have to say that college sex education is totally different from high school sex education.

High school:
"YOUR VIRGINITY IS A GIFT. KEEP IT UNTIL YOU'RE MARRIED. CONDOMS ALWAYS FAIL. AVOID ALL SEX."

College:
"HERE, HAVE SOME FREE CONDOMS. GO HAVE SEX, BUT AVOID HAVING SEX WHILE DRUNK."