(“Sex Education in America,” nd).

Sex Education in America: Learning from the Past, and Finding Hope for the Future

1

Sex Education in America: Learning From the Past and Finding Hope for the Future

Blake Nicholas Pierson

Pacific University


2

Abstract

In a democratic society, media can be seen as a snapshot, a visual display of the values within that society. An analysis of media in America reveals a strong emphasis on sexuality as evidenced in the book title written by Rodger Streitmatter, Sex Sells! The Media’s Journey from

Repression to Obsession . With such sex saturation in the media, one would expect America to be a model nation of healthy sexuality. The statistics for American adolescents paint a different picture.

In 2009, the U.S. teen birth rate was highest for all developed countries with 37.9 births per 1,000 girls age 15-19 (“International Comparisons Teen Birth,” 2012) . The United Kingdom, ranked second among developed countries, had 1.5 times less the amount of unwanted teenage pregnancies in America. Each year, there are approximately fifteen million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the U.S., which translate into the highest rate of STD infection in the industrialized world (?). If there was a global honor roll for healthy teenagesexuality, America would not be on it.

Although teens are ultimately responsible for their own sexuality, schools are often seen as the main source of information regarding sex education. The majority of parents lean on schools to teach sex education to their children (“Sex Education in America,” n.d.) . Given adolescent America’s failing grades, it begs the question, “What aren’t they teaching in sex education?” The answer is not that simple. To greater understand the shortcomings of sex education this paper will examine the ambivalence found in the history of sex education in

America, which gives context to the present-day tussle between Abstinence Only and


3

Comprehensive curriculum programs. Lastly, the author will use current research to identify best sex-ed practices, and make suggestions to achieve a healthier sexuality, leading to a better life for teenage youth in America.


4

Great Intentions, Cruel Beginnings

“The primary goal of sex education was not to talk to youth about sex and how it works, but to teach them about sexual morality” (“The Beginning of Sex Education in the U.S.,” n.d.)

Sex education in the school system began in the early 1900’s. Since its inception,

Educators used sex-ed as a morality-loaded weapon to vanquish the evils of social misconduct and its ensuing venereal diseases. (Carter, 2001) Progressive era activists such as Charles Eliot and Miss Grace Dodge helped establish the American Social Hygiene Association (ASHA) to eradicate social problems stemming from moral degradation (“The Beginning of Sex Education in the U.S.,” n.d.). ASHA was pivotal in persuading the public that disseminating scientific knowledge about venereal diseases justified moving sex-ed into the realm of public schools.

Once integrated into the classroom, the goal of sex-ed then became to dispel two common publicly held superstitions (“The Beginning of Sex Education in the U.S.,” n.d.). The first superstition was the belief that Gonorrhea is no worse than the common cold. Apparently there was some confusion at this time in history between green mucus coming out of the penis as opposed to the nose. The second superstition, the doctrine of necessity, was the belief that sex is a biological necessity for men. This superstition provided men an excuse to seek relief from prostitutes, and have affairs. Sex-educators found themselves in a real pickle attempting to address this second superstition in school.

Discussion of these two superstitions with students in school was controversial with the public because it would mean examining seedy topics such as prostitution, adultery, and prophylactic methods. On top of the public pressure to abstain from such rank subject matter, sex educators and the like were concerned that frank conversations about sex could unleash the deep surges of passion running wild in students. Much to the chagrin of everyone, sex


5 educators found a way to make solve the issue. Rather than hit the ball directly, educators were able to “evade direct engagement with human sexuality” (“The Beginning of Sex Education in the U.S.,” n.d.) by introducing the birds and the bees. Clearly birds and bees have nothing to do with sex, but that wasn’t the point. Educators could check the box; feeling reassured that they taught “sex-ed” without soiling the innocence of their students.

This ambivalence between the goal of sex educators of the day and what was actually taught to their students is important to note because of the direct correlation to the current day conflict between Abstinence Only and Comprehensive programs.

The Never-Ending Story

“This exemplifies the differing goals of the two camps. While comprehensive sex education proponents offer alternatives to sex to help students avoid intercourse and its consequences, abstinence-only proponents want students to remain pure and chaste for reasons other than avoiding pregnancy and disease. While avoiding pregnancy and disease are noble goals, explicitly suggesting sexual activities to teens goes beyond the human right of heath information. (Vescolani, 2012, p. 89)

In 1996 Bill Clinton helped pass a law called the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act. This law amended the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant

Legislation (Title V of the Social Security Act) to generate funding for Abstinence Only programs in schools (Howell, 2007). Programs hoping to receive funding had to demonstrate that they met an 8-point definition of Abstinence Only curriculum as defined by congress. This law was unprecedented for two reasons: 1) There had never been such generous amounts of federal


6 funding for sex education. 2) The US government was now socially norming for the nation what kinds of sexual experiences would be acceptable. Initially, this law would provide $50 million a year in funding for Abstinence Only programs.

It’s important to note that none of the 8-points of Abstinence Only refer to the concrete act of sex. In a way, the Abstinence Only party has continued the use of the same rehashed evasive method of communicating with students about sex without actually talking about sex.

In the early 1900’s, the topic of sex was avoided with the use of birds and bees. Nearly 100 years later, the government-funded message of Abstinence Only focuses on the benefits of waiting until marriage, and the consequence of not waiting till marriage, while the act of sex, and different ways to go about performing the act safely are intentionally disregarded. Critics of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act argued that a more comprehensive approach would be essential to teach students the necessary components of personal sexual health, as well as prepare students for healthy sexual relationships.

According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States

(SEICUS, Sexuality Education), comprehensive sex-ed programs have four primary goals: to provide accurate information about sexuality, promote a safe environment for adolescents to develop and become empowered in their sexual identity, help teens build interpersonal and dating relationship skills, and practice strategies for making responsible decisions about sex

(SIECUS, Sexuality Education). The final goal also integrates instruction on abstinence, peer pressure, and the use of protection (“Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education 2nd ed,” 2006). SIECUS lists these supporting organizations on it’s website: The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Foundation for AIDS Research, The American Medical Association,


7

The American Psychological Association, The American Public Health Association, The Institute of Medicine, The Society for Adolescent Medicine, The National Education Association, and The

American School Health Association (Vescolani, 2012). Stephen F. Morin, a lead research expert on sex education also includes Advocates for Youth, the American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, and the National School Boards Association as supporters of comprehensive sex education (Collins, 2002).

The debate over proof of program effectiveness is ongoing even today in 2013 in spite of such strong support for comprehensive sex education programs. However, in 2007 two major studies came out that put caused a flat tire in the Abstinent Only movement: Emerging

Answers and Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs Final Report.

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy put together a taskforce team of 14 members led by world-renowned expert Douglas Kirby. Their job was to perform a literature review of 115 different studies on sex education programs (Kirby & National

Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001). This review is called Emerging Answers. 56 of the studies were curriculum based sex and STD/HIV education programs (Abstinence Only vs.

Comprehensive). Of the 56 studies, 8 were Abstinence Only, and 48 were Comprehensive. The disproportionate representation of the two opposing views stems from the strict requirements for a study to be considered eligible for review. Douglas makes the following conclusive statements regarding the controversy between Abstinence Only and Comprehensive sex-ed,

“At present, there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners. In addition, there is strong evidence from multiple randomized trials demonstrating that some


8 abstinence programs chosen for evaluation because they were believed to be promising actually had no impact on teen sexual behavior. That is, they did not delay the initiation of sex, increase the return to abstinence or decrease the number of sexual partners” (Kirby & National

Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001, p. 15).

In contrast to Abstinence only, almost all comprehensive programs “had a positive impact on one or more factors affecting behavior. In particular, they improved factors such as knowledge about risks and consequences of pregnancy and STD; values and attitudes about having sex and using condoms or contraception; perception of peer norms about sex and contraception; confidence in the ability to say ‘no’ to unwanted sex, to insist on using condoms or contraception, or to actually use condoms or contraception; intention to avoid sex or use contraception; and communication with parents or other adults about these topics. In part by improving these factors, the programs changed behavior in desired directions” (Kirby &

National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001, p. 16)

One of the strongest arguments Abstinence Only supporters use against comprehensive education is the age-old belief that being frank with students about sex is going to make them wanna get it on (just being frank). Kirkland found that “No comprehensive program hastened the initiation of sex or increased the frequency of sex” (Kirby & National Campaign To Prevent

Teen Pregnancy, 2001, p. 16). This data shot down another major clay pigeon of concern held by the Abstinence Only movement. “Emphasizing both abstinence and protection for those who do have sex is a realistic, effective approach that does not appear to confuse young people”

(Kirby & National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001).


9

Congress commissioned a separate study during the same year (2007) to confirm whether or not the Abstinence Only programs being funded by Title V were effective (Trenholm et al., 2008). They found that students in abstinence programs were just as likely as those in a comparison group to have sex over the next four to six years; 49 percent in both groups remained abstinent. Those who had become sexually active had a similar number of partners, whether they had been through abstinence education or not.

President Obama responded to these two studies by drastically cutting the budget for

Abstinence Only programs from $175 million down to $50 million a year, while increasing the budget for comprehensive programs from $0 to $375 million over the next 5 years through a grant called PREP (Rabin, 2010). In addition to the huge cut to Abstinence Only funding, Obama also required any federal dollar given to be matched by State funds. Many states had already turned down federal funding for Abstinence Only programs, and now, due to further lack of evidence, even fewer states would be willing to join the dying cause.

Sexy Silver Bullet?

In the vast expanse of differing opinions on how to go about teaching (or not) sex education, one idea stands out like a lighthouse in a storm: Examine what other successful developed countries are doing, and transfer those strategies to an American context. Thank

God this student at Pacific University wasn’t the only one to have this epiphany. Three researchers put together a study that examined how the Netherlands, France, Australia, and the United States approach sex education (Weaver, Smith, & Kippax, 2005). One shared statistic between all four countries was an average first sex-initiation age of between 15 and 17 years


10 old. In contrast, the authors found several sexual health factors where the United States is completely different from the other three countries examined. These differences potentially help explain why the United States fairs so poorly in adolescent sexual health when matched against all other developed nations. The following findings are supported by outside research.

This collection of research illuminates three crucial areas of growth for the United States.

One area of growth for U.S. sex education programs is teacher training. The United

States was the only country in the study that doesn’t have programs in place to further teacher training in specifically in the area of sex education. The other countries also required their teacher to be qualified to teach sex education. A separate study done by SIECUS in the United

States did a survey of courses offered from teacher education programs at 169 universities to find out if teachers would be prepared to teacher health education, sex education, and Human

Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency System (HIV/AIDS) prevention education

(Rodriguez, Sexuality Information and Educational Council of the United States, & And Others,

1995). Only 14% of the colleges and universities required a health education course for all preservice teachers. Virtually no programs require courses on sexuality. Only 61% of institutions required health education students to take a sexuality course. Only 3% of physical education programs require a sex-ed methodology course. Another sex education teacher preparation study explored the qualitative experience of 41 sexuality educators from diverse backgrounds

(Eisenberg, Madsen, Oliphant, Sieving, & Resnick, 2010). The collective interpretation of their experiences indicated that the majority of teachers felt underprepared to teach the subject that they felt was the most challenging to teach. The findings also revealed that sex-ed requires it’s own methodology, that is distinct from other subjects. If the United States is serious about


11 increasing teenage sexual health, then we must develop better resources for teachers to grow in their knowledge and ability to teach sex-ed.

A second area of growth for U.S. sex education is teaching students when they are younger. The authors in the international study found that the Netherlands, France, and

Australia all begin sex education in the primary grades, while the United States usually starts sex education in middle school, and in some cases even secondary students might not receive sex education in a school setting at all.

Parental concern about sex education in the primary grades is one major reason for the difference between the U.S. and other countries. However, sexual abuse statistics reveal a potential conflict of interest. The average age of first sexual abuse is 9 years old, and 80% of sexual abuse occurs at home (Wooden, 2012). Who will teach children how to respect their body and lead them to develop a sense of empowerment to set appropriate boundaries regarding their body? These statistics confirm the decision of other nations to teach sex education to primary students.

The work of Louisa Allen, a prominent voice for change in American sex education, denotes a second reason to teach sex ed. to primary students. Allen did a qualitative study gathering empirical evidence with high school students (Allen, 2004). Student responses suggest that there is some confusion about sexuality due to apparent teacher apprehension when the subject comes up in class. When adults give the message that sexuality is not appropriate to talk about at school, students may receive the message that their sexuality is inappropriate or even shameful. This message begins at the primary education level by evading simple concepts like body growth and development.


12

A third area of of growth for the U.S. is developing the most effective elements of comprehensive sex education. Not surprisingly, the author found that the United States was the only country in the study that still promotes messages of Abstinence Only. The Netherlands,

France, and Australia all use comprehensive models of sex education. As noted earlier, America is now trending toward Comprehensive models of sex education as evidenced by current national funding for those programs. Still, It’s important for educators to understand that there may be lingering effects of Abstinence Only messages that will need to be addressed for students to grow in their sexual health.

One lingering effect of the Abstinence Only message is teacher reluctance to talk about sex in the classroom. This fear stems from ASHA’s concern that actually talking about sex will rev-up student’s sexual cylinders, and in so doing destroy their purity. Catherine Ashcraft would argue differently. Ashcraft did a nine-month ethnographic study with adolescents in a community-based education program (Ashcraft, 2012). She discovered that students indeed have many questions regarding sex. She views their questions as an opportunity to make school relevant, and significant to student daily life. Rather than respond with fear, educators can utilize these “Fragile Interruptions”, to help students develop critical literacy skills. Teachers can give students the skills needed to move forward through complex, belief-loaded topics.

A second effect of the Abstinence Only message is the lack of discussion in sex education surrounding the feeling pleasure in sexual experience. In her study, Louisa Allen also found that many students are looking at pornographic sites as their main source of information about sex (Allen, 2004). Allen makes the case that educators must normalize the experience of


13 pleasure in a mutually romantic context without making it the norm (to avoid exclusion). More research needs to be done to provide guidelines for successful teacher facilitation of this topic.

In sum, the history of sex-ed in the United States offers an informative lens for understanding culturally normalized indirect ways of addressing sexual issues with adolescent youth. This understanding provides context for the current debate over Abstinence Only or comprehensive sex ed programs. Research both in America and internationally seems to conclusively demonstrate that Abstinence Only programs are currently not effective.

On the other hand, Comprehensive sex-ed. has demonstrated effectiveness in studies across the world and close to home. It must be noted though, that flexibility within comprehensive programs, and the differing results of effectiveness indicate there is much to be explored in determining which aspects are most effective. These elements might include, but are not limited to different types of parent involvement, peer-involvement in curriculum design and implementation, online interactive videos, and time-released and/or gender specific sex education. Equally important for future conversations is the topic of equity in sex education by empowering students of different gender, sexual preference, race, and socio-economic status.

Until recently, our entire approach towards sex-ed in the United States has been a bit backwards; we are evasive and uncomfortable. We’ve majored in the minors and minored in the majors.

Rather than measuring or identifying healthy sexuality characteristics, the current measure of sexual health seems to focus on stopping negative trends. There is hope however. There is great research available and more being done to help point us in the right direction. It’s crucial that teachers are provided with the most current research-based best practices rather than relying on personal values or cultural normative methods of


14 communicating about sex. If we are willing to learn from our past, learn from current research, and learn from the success of other nations, our schools have the great opportunity to act a useful tool for the development of healthy sexual identity formation in every student.


15

References

Aggleton, P., & Crewe, M. (2005, November). Effects and effectiveness in sex and relationships education. Sex

Education, pp. 303–306.

Aitken, J. E., & Shedletsky, L. (1998). On-Line Strategy To Teach Intimate and Safer Sex Communication Skills.

Albarracin, D., Gillette, J. C., Earl, A. N., Glasman, L. R., Durantini, M. R., & Ho, M.-H. (2005). A Test of Major

Assumptions about Behavior Change: A Comprehensive Look at the Effects of Passive and Active HIV-

Prevention Interventions Since the Beginning of the Epidemic. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 856–897.

Allen, L. (2004). Beyond the birds and the bees: constituting a discourse of erotics in sexuality education. Gender &

Education, 16(2), 151–167.

Allen, L. (2007). Examining dominant discourses of sexuality in sexuality education research. International Studies in

Sociology of Education, 17(1-2), 163–180. doi:10.1080/09620210701433910

Arliss, R. (2008, July 1). A comparison of the sexual risk behaviors of Asian American and Pacific Islander college students and their peers.(Research Article)(Report). American Journal of Health Education, 39(4), 221(7).

Ashcraft, C. (2012). But How Do We Talk about It?: Critical Literacy Practices for Addressing Sexuality with Youth.

Curriculum Inquiry, 42(5), 597–628.

Bale, C. (2011). Raunch or romance? Framing and interpreting the relationship between sexualized culture and young people’s sexual health. Sex Education, 11(3), 303–313.

Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2003). The Trouble of Teen Sex: the construction of adolescent sexuality through school-based sexuality education. Sex Education, 3(1), 61.

Blaise, M., & Taylor, A. (2012). Using Queer Theory to Rethink Gender Equity in Early Childhood Education. Young

Children, 67(1), 88–96,.

Blake, S. (2008). There’s a Hole in the Bucket: The Politics, Policy and Practice of Sex and Relationships Education.

Pastoral Care in Education, 26(1), 33–41.

Bonell, C. P., Strange, V. J., Stephenson, J. M., Oakley, A. R., Copas, A. J., Forrest, S. P., … Black, S. (2003, November

1). Effect of social exclusion on the risk of teenage pregnancy: development of hypotheses using baseline


16 data from a randomised trial of sex education.(Research Report). Journal of Epidemiology & Community

Health, 57(11), 871(6).

BrianDodge, MichaelReece, & DebbyHerbenick. (2011, September 20). School-Based Condom Education and Its

Relations With Diagnoses of and Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Men in the United States.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.159038. research-article. Retrieved January 13, 2013, from http://ajph.aphapublications.org.proxy.lib.pacificu.edu:2048/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2008.159038

Caldeira, K. M., Arria, A. M., Zarate, E. M., Vincent, K. B., Wish, E. D., & O’Grady, K. E. (2009, August 1). Prospective associations between alcohol and drug consumption and risky sex among female college students.(Clinical report). Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 53(2), 71(22).

Carter, J. B. (2001). Birds, Bees, and Venereal Disease: Toward an Intellectual History of Sex Education. Journal of

the History of Sexuality, 10(2), 213.

Chin, H. B., Sipe, T. A., Elder, R., Mercer, S. L., Chattopadhyay, S. K., Jacob, V., … Santelli, J. (2012). The Effectiveness of Group-Based Comprehensive Risk-Reduction and Abstinence Education Interventions to Prevent or Reduce the Risk of Adolescent Pregnancy, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and Sexually Transmitted Infections: Two

Systematic Reviews for the Guide to Community Preventive Services. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 42(3), 272–294. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.11.006

Collins, C. et al. (2002). Abstinence Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education: What are the arguments? What is the evidence? Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YnDnJcMeBfkJ:ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf+

&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjUnR9r60QrpuxZUQ7kNFuQDdOrJ0ibhzXkJWmwToEmpZ-

_SzpIHZNSuHhuPKbnEjD1MGaN3PU7b8vJv_VAibG1eU0kcwBWUNpQA1UiTZvTCLffjjk2P-O8-

665e3JWstJc94gq&sig=AHIEtbQ7u3YeqPEWy8WMXU_cvjN6DCepUg

Counting it up. (n.d.). deFur, K. M. (2012). Don’t Forget the Good Stuff! Incorporating Positive Messages of Sexual Pleasure into Sexuality

Education. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 7(2), 160–169.

Downing, J., Jones, L., Bates, G., Sumnall, H., & Bellis, M. A. (2011). A Systematic Review of Parent and Family-Based

Intervention Effectiveness on Sexual Outcomes in Young People. Health Education Research, 26(5), 808–833.


17

Downs, J. S., Murray, P. J., Bruine de Bruin, W., Penrose, J., Palmgren, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2004). Interactive video behavioral intervention to reduce adolescent females’ STD risk: a randomized controlled trial. Social Science

& Medicine, 59(8), 1561–1572. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.032

Eisenberg, M. E., Madsen, N., Oliphant, J. A., Sieving, R. E., & Resnick, M. (2010). “Am I Qualified? How Do I know?”

A Qualitative Study of Sexuality Educators’ Training Experiences. American Journal of Health Education, 41(6-

), 337–344.

Evans, D. L., & Tripp, J. H. (2006, April). Sex education: the case for primary prevention and peer education. Current

Paediatrics, 16(2), 95+.

Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2011). Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006.

Contraception, 84(5), 478–485. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2011.07.013

Frost, J. J., Lindberg, L. D., & Finer, L. B. (2012, June 1). Young adults’ contraceptive knowledge, norms and attitudes: associations with risk of unintended pregnancy.(Report). Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive

Health, 44(2), 107(10).

Glanzer, P. L. (2011). Disestablishing Sex: The Case for Released-Time Sex Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(1), 59–

61.

Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education 2nd ed. (2006). SIECUS. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bV_GZIzc7YYJ:www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/SIECUS%2520Gui delines%2520for%2520Comprehensive%2520Sexuality%2520Education.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=AD

GEESipP9XKSD6N0UeL_C5M-

GD9aW2q_8ORenPyCmDa_8agqD8aB1qcqHhSCPBG4nD9G85ZzITQ8v1TOlWTpYrU2_Ib7rwm02plU61BsnUfDl

1fJPm1ANP2Z8i22amODcirlRnU8L5z&sig=AHIEtbSP_hjnYSbc9sNq5jcEZxUlkAHVLw

Guilamo-Ramos, V., & Bouris, A. (2009, November 1). Working with parents to promote healthy adolescent sexual development.(Report). The Prevention Researcher, 16(4), 7(5).

Guilamo-Ramos, V., Bouris, A., Lee, J., McCarthy, K., Michael, S. L., Pitt-Barnes, S., & Dittus, P. (2012). Paternal

Influences on Adolescent Sexual Risk Behaviors: A Structured Literature Review. Pediatrics, 130(5), e1313– e1325. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2066


18

Halpern-Felsher, B. L., Cornell, J. L., Kropp, R. Y., & Tschann, J. M. (2005, April 1). Oral versus vaginal sex among adolescents: perceptions, attitudes, and behavior. Pediatrics, 115(4), 845(7).

Hampton, M. R., Jeffery, B., McWatters, B., & Smith, P. (2005). Influence of teens’ perceptions of parental disapproval and peer behaviour on their initiation of sexual intercourse. The Canadian Journal of Human

Sexuality, 14(3-4), 105+.

Howell, M. (2007). The History of Abstinence Only Funding. Advocates for Youth. Retrieved from http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/429?task=view

Hutchinson, M. K., & Cederbaum, J. A. (2011, April 1). Talking to daddy’s little girl about sex: Daughters’ reports of sexual communication and support from fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 32(4), 550–572.

Ingham, R. (2005). “We didn”t cover that at school’: education against pleasure or education for pleasure? Sex

Education, 5(4), 375–388.

International Comparisons Teen Birth. (2012, March). National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned

Pregnancy. Retrieved from http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/FastFacts_InternationalComparisons.pdf

Kann, L., O’Malley Olsen, E., McManus, T., Kinchen, S., Chyen, D., Harris, W. A., … Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (DHHS/PHS). (2011). Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors among

Students in Grades 9-12--Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, Selected Sites, United States, 2001-2009. Morbidity

and Mortality Weekly Report. Early Release. Volume 60. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Kim, C. R., & Free, C. (2008). Recent Evaluations of the Peer-Led Approach in Adolescent Sexual Health Education: A

Systematic Review. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 40(3), 144–51.

Kirby, D., & National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, W. (2001). Emerging Answers: Research Findings on

Programs To Reduce Teen Pregnancy (No. 1-58671-037-0).

Masters, N. T., Beadnell, B. A., Morrison, D. M., Hoppe, M. J., & Gillmore, M. R. (2008, June 1). The opposite of sex?

Adolescents’ thoughts about abstinence and sex, and their sexual behavior. Perspectives on Sexual and

Reproductive Health, 40(2), 87(7).

McCarthy, B., & Grodsky, E. (2011, May 1). Sex and school: adolescent sexual intercourse and education.(Author abstract)(Report). Social Problems, 58(2), 213(22).


19

National Sexual Activity Facts. (n.d.).

Rabin, R. C. (2010). New Spending for a Wider Range of Sex Education. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/policy/11land.html?_r=1&

Rodriguez, M., Sexuality Information and Educational Council of the United States, N. Y., & And Others. (1995).

Teaching Our Teachers To Teach: A SIECUS Study On Training and Preparation for HIV/AIDS Prevention and

Sexuality Education. SIECUS Report.

Sex education in America. (n.d.).

The Beginning of Sex Education in the U.S.: A Historical Perspective - Amplify. (n.d.). Amplify - A Project of

Advocates for Youth. Retrieved March 4, 2013, from http://amplifyyourvoice.org/u/tristaann02/2009/12/03/the-beginning-of-sex-education-in-the-us-ahistorical-perspective

Trenholm, C., Devaney, B., Fortson, K., Clark, M., Quay, L., & Wheeler, J. (2008). Impacts of abstinence education on teen sexual activity, risk of pregnancy, and risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management, 27(2), 255–276. doi:10.1002/pam.20324 tristaann02. (2009, December 3). The Beginning of Sex Education in the U.S.: A Historica... The Beginning of Sex

Education in the U.S.: A Historica... Retrieved from amplifyyourvoice.org/u/tristaann02/2009/12/03/thebeginning-of-sex-edcuation-in-the-us-a-historical-persepctive

Underhill, K., Montgomery, P., & Operario, D. (2007). Sexual abstinence only programmes to prevent HIV infection in high income countries: systematic review. BMJ, 335(7613), 248–248. doi:10.1136/bmj.39245.446586.BE

Vescolani, M. (2012). Ethical and Effective Sex Education to Prevent Teenage Pregnancy. Retrieved from http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553410/vescolaniMegan.pdf?sequence=1

Walker, J. (2004). Parents and sex education--looking beyond “the birds and the bees”. Sex Education, 4(3), 239–

254.

Weaver, H., Smith, G., & Kippax, S. (2005). School‐based sex education policies and indicators of sexual health among young people: a comparison of the Netherlands, France, Australia and the United States. Sex

Education, 5(2), 171–188.


20

Wong, J. P.-H., Chan, K. B. K., Boi-Doku, R., & McWatt, S. (2012, September 22). Risk discourse and sexual stigma: barriers to STI testing, treatment and care among young heterosexual women in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Toronto. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 21(2), 75(15).

Wooden, K. (2012). Research and Articles: Reports and Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.childluresprevention.com/research/report.asp

Wyckoff, S. C., Miller, K. S., Forehand, R., Bau, J. J., Fasula, A., Long, N., & Armistead, L. (2008). Patterns of Sexuality

Communication between Preadolescents and Their Mothers and Fathers. Journal of Child and Family Studies,

17(5), 649–662.

(“Sex Education in America,” nd).

Related documents

Products

Support

(“Sex Education in America,” nd).

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib