As Texas Goes… (Howe: bankrupt, public schools, living)

[TXNGL]

Originally Posted by ATX Homeboy

Is it just public education? Do private schools in texas have sex ed classes or dole out contraceptives?

Private schools can teach what they want. I don't think (?) any public schools in Texas dole out contraceptives.

[ATX Homeboy]

Txngl, Private schools are just that, private. They can teach what they want but most arent teaching sex ed cuz most are religious schools. No, they dont dole out contraceptives but i remember health class in texas public school and we learned about human anatomy and learned about sexual reproduction, std's, and contraceptives; what they are, used for, and where to buy them. Just to be clearer private schools dont report teen pregnancy cuz that is private and might impact enrollment negatively. Why then do public schools report teen pregnancy? That happens at home when the parents arent home to supervise their kids extra curricular activities.

[TXNGL]

Originally Posted by ATX Homeboy

Txngl, Private schools are just that, private. They can teach what they want but most arent teaching sex ed cuz most are religious schools. No, they dont dole out contraceptives but i remember health class in texas public school and we learned about human anatomy and learned about sexual reproduction, std's, and contraceptives; what they are, used for, and where to buy them. Just to be clearer private schools dont report teen pregnancy cuz that is private and might impact enrollment negatively. Why then do public schools report teen pregnancy? That happens at home when the parents arent home to supervise their kids extra curricular activities.

I guess I'm not following. I attended private school and there was plenty going on there as far as sex, drinking, drugs. My daughter has been in public school up until now but will be attending a private Christian school next year (high school). If you saw my previous post, I think "sex-ed" should be taught at home. Actual sexual reproduction falls under biology, I have no problem with that being taught.

Was your question about sex-ed and contraceptives in private schools rhetorical? If so, sorry I misunderstood. I thought it was a straight out question.

[ATX Homeboy]

TXNGL, thanks for your response to my question. I appreciate your insight. I agree with the OP and article, ideally it would be nice if our tax money paid for something as practical as sex ed in middle school and high school. The fact remains that parents should teach their children about sex, the responsibilities involved, and the consequences of individual choices.

[blkgiraffe]

These people need to get it together. I knew what sex was by the time I was 5. Sex is everywhere; ignoring it isn't going to make it go away. Kids are rebellious and clueless; telling them not to have sex is only going to drive their interest to.

[Rathagos]

Originally Posted by Fillmont

You can teach your kids abstinence all you want.

I don't teach abstinence... well... actually, I do. But what I've said to both my sons and daughters is: "I'd prefer you didn't have sex until you really are ready to have a child. But, I also know that's not realistic in today's age where all you youngsters want instant gratification. So, if you're going to have sex... be smart about it." For my daughters, I had them come to me when they thought they were ready for sexual activity (about 16 or 17), and I took them to the doctor to get the pill started. For my boys, I told them that I don't care what girls say about "being on the pill", you wrap that rascal anyway.

But... bottom line is if you think you're ready to have sex... you better be ready to be a parent.

Originally Posted by Fillmont

But in the absence of proper sex-ed from some parents, I think the best "default" that a school could provide is one that properly teaches the dangers of STDs and the need for safe sex, should teens choose to partake in it. That is why I feel sex-ed is important - not all kids have the privilege of having responsible adults to teach them these things. And because teens do tend to be hormonal to the utmost, I'd rather they learn proper sex-ed than learn nothing at all.

Parents who disagree with this style of sex-ed should have the right to opt out, or just tell their kids what they would rather have the kids do. Any parent who is paying attention should know when to step in and say "this isn't for my particular kid, but it might still be very useful for others."

You said two things I would like to address here. First, is that if one supports the idea of forcing sex ed on a child they aren't the parent of in the interest of what's best for the child, then I would have to assume one would also behind the concept of pulling kids from parents who are on multiple government subsides? Say, welfare and foodstamps? I mean... afterall, if forcing one's opinion of "proper sex ed" on a child seems fair - much more enlightened than the parent - then one should be for taking a child out of a situation when a parent (or parents) can't get their life together enough to provide basic necessities for themselves, let alone their children(s) needs, right?

The second thing is that I agree sex ed can be offered, but instead of opt-out, it should be opt-in. Opt out is a default used by people catering to forced idealism. It's a passive-agressive way of still forcing one's idea unsolicited into someone elses life. Instead of manditorily getting it unless you say "no", the more fair thing is "It's here if you want it, you just have to say "yes".

Originally Posted by Fillmont

Basically I'd advocate modern sex-ed as the default, with readily available opt-out options for parents who feel differently. Abstinence only education does a great disservice to those kids whose parents aren't as capable at teaching their kids about these things.

Again, I'd recommend tweaking it as "opt in", otherwise I agree with your last statement here entirely.

I'm just against the hypocrisy of society thinking they know what's best for a child, but refusing to hold the parent accountable across the board. If one thinks they have to get involved in sex education, then they should definitely get involved in the entire life of the child - and/or lack of parenting responsibility of the adult(s).

[Rathagos]

Really, it boils down to it's a "rights" issue to me.

I took sex education in school - wasn't forced to... wanted to (as did my parents).

I don't believe sex education is offered in my kids schools here, but if it were, I'd've sent them to it.

But, I don't believe in forcing my beliefs down the throats of others - all guised as "mass concern for kids." At last man up and call it what it is. Some just think they know better than others (and it may be true in some cases), and think that everyone should follow their beliefs.

I, on the other hand, don't believe in forcing others to adhere to my self-proclaimed enlightened view of life in any way. They have the right to raise their child with the concept of abstinence if they want. Other's have the right to discuss sexual issues with their child. Other's should have the option of scholastic education on sex if they want.

But the hypocrisy of holding parents responsible for their children's sexual education but not other facets, well... that just jerks my chaw.

[Minathebrat]

The underlying problem here is that people don't want to be financially responsible for other people's life-choices.

So in the interest of financial self-preservation they demand that "something be done" by government, or government run schools to teach the offenders how to stop costing them money.

The trick to that is how do you satisfy the demand that "something be done" without infringing on the rights of others? It can't be done.

Therefore, when you boil things down, the real solution seems to stop forcing other people to be financially responsible for another person's choice.

Where we go from there is up to society.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by RedJacket

Telling teens not to have sex doesn't work. Most of them are hornier than a two-peckered Billy Goat. They're nothing but hormones wearing sneakers. They're going to have sex.

LOL Of course they are. Hell, I was the same way when I was teenager (and even beyond that! ). I bet most of us were that way...male and female!

And I would definitely agree that "abstience only" oriented sex-education is not going to change horny kids' nature. For one thing, it is rooted in human nature! Else we wouldn't reproduce and have more horny kids!

But seriously, I think -- if anything -- a major point made by some of us is that -- at the least -- the "liberal" approach fails just as bad as does that scoffed at today by the "progressives". Really, it reminds me of an approach which is quite akin to just continually building a bigger garbage can to hold the trash...and call it successful.

Sex Ed is very important, not only to help prevent pregnancies, but help kids understand the dangers of STD. Parents can do it, schools can do it, or they both can.

I agree with this on some levels. But good intentions don't always make for good results. Since the introduction of the school of "OK, it's gonna happen so why not make it safe" yielded any positive results in terms of sheer numbers of teenage pregancies?

Heck no, it hasn't. Reason why (at least IMHO) is because of a paradox that many don't recognize or refuse to admit. That is, that just as kids are going to have sex, regardless? Then they are ALSO likely to get the wrong message that it is ok to do so if they use a condom. Welllll, problem with THAT is, many throw that condom away because it "interferes" with the real thing! Just like many of us did back in that day! *whew*

I know exactly what I am talking about because I taught high-school kids for 10 years...and the ignorance -- even with the sex education -- was baffling to the point of ironic amusement. What many of them gleaned from it was that it is "safe" and approved to have sex, whether or not one was responsible (for the financial and/or other aspects) to have the child or not.

And that is really the crux of the matter. To wit, no "sex education program" -- regardless of the approach -- is going to work if society at large does not back it. Sad fact is, ours doesn't. Saving oneself for marriage no longer a virture among young women. As outdated as that sentiment might seem, it sure as hell seemed to work in a saner day and age.

Meanwhile, tax-payers foot the bill and many of these teenage mothers see a financial windfall from the government for having yet another baby sans any clue at all as the said bill. And many of the "fathers" do too....

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by texdav

So in a time where sex educastion is wide spread that means that not having it does sharm. One only has to look at the past when there was no sex eduaction and many less teens having this problem to see the real problem. Its not sex edcuation; but 21st society itself ;clearly.

How far back are you talking about? As long as I've been alive and aware, there's been this problem (unwed teen parents).

If you go far enough back, teen parents were the norm, they were just married teen parents and that was the norm.

Granted, sex education should come from the parents, not the schools. I agree that parents should be held responsible for the consequences of their children's behavior until said children are legally adults. But we're in a situation now where there are generations who were never taught that and so are not in a position to teach it to their children.

We need to be educating the parents as well as the adults, rather than making them dependent on the government (that would be us) for the rest of their lives. Otherwise, they're nothing more than very expensive pets, when you come right down to it.

Is that REALLY a respectful way to treat an adult human being?