I had NPR on at work today when I started listening to a story about teen pregnancy in California. After hearing that the California Department of Finance conservatively projects a 23% increase in annual teen births in California within 5 years which will result in approximately 12,500 more California teen births in 2008 than there were in 2001. More dusturbing is that the San Joaquin Valley has the highest teen birth rates (69 per 1000 females ages 15-19 of any region in California - over twice the rate of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Historically there has always been teen pregnancies both intentional and unintentional, however there seems to be less of a stigma attached to it these days. In the 50s you would have been shipped off to a "special school" where you secretly gave birth, the child was adopted and it was off you go like nothing ever happened. Today teen mothers are not as shunned by society which is both positive and negative. Positive because mothers are not treated as if they have some contagious illness and sent away in order to uphold reputations and keep the family secret. It can also be negative if young women start to see becoming pregnant as more normalized. Getting pregnant at a young age is not as big of a deal as it once was. However if you look at the individual and societal consequences of teen pregnancy, it is a huge deal.
The consequences these teens face when becoming pregnant at such an early age can be detrimental. 70% of teen mothers drop out of high school, making pregnancy the primary reason young women drop out early. Only 30% of teen mothers complete high school by age 30, compared to 76% of women who delay parenthood until age 21 or older. (Berglas, N., Brindis, C., and Cohen, J., p. 24).
Teen moms drop out of school for various reasons related to having a child but thats not so much the case for the fathers of these children since fathers of children born to teens are on average almost four years older than the mothers, and a majority is over the age of 21. (Public Policy Institute of California, p. 5). So the older men knock up the girls and their lives aren't nearly as effected, nice. 78% of all teen mothers in California had never been married but even if they were, teen mothers also have higher divorce rates. Only one out of five teen mothers receive any financial support from their child's father.
Although I basically knew all this to be true, the numbers are much more staggering then I expected. At 27 years old, if I became pregnant unexpectedly I don't know how I would be able to handle it so I cant imagine a 16 year old having a clue of what to do. It is deflating to think about all of the possibility and promise that can dissapear from a girls life when she becomes pregnant at an early age. Additionally children of parents with low educational attainment, occupation, and income are more likely to have sex at an early age, not use contraception consistently, and become pregnant or cause a pregnancy. (Berglas, N., Brindis, C., and Cohen, J., p. 17). And so the cycle continues.
Yet even with all of these startling statistics, sex education is still not taught frankly and openly as it should be because some parents and educators find it inapropriate. I can't even remember being taught sex ed in school or by my parents. I learned about sex through the media and from talking to friends which is terribly inaccurate. It's a good thing that I didnt have sex at an early age because I am sure I would have missed a thing or two. It is asinine to believe that merely educating students on the hard facts when it comes to sex and its consequences can lead to increased sexual behavior when the consequences of not doing so are clear. Leaving them in the dark about the consequences of sex does not make them less likely to engage in sexual activities. And while you attempt to hide your sons and daughters from the truth about sex keep in mind that you as a tax payer are also paying into the 1.5 billion dollars that Californians have to pay annually for teen moms.
I know this isn't as big as a hot issue that it has been in the past but this is also the first year that the teen pregnancy rate has gone up in many years so it should go back on the table in educational debates.
All the info and stats I referenced are from the California Department of Education.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Maybe the next administration won't push abstinence so hard.
"Leaving them in the dark about the consequences of sex does not make them less likely to engage in sexual activities."
who's being left in the dark about the consequences of sex? who doesn't know that if you have sex you might have a kid?
and, i'm pretty sure california currently does have sex education in it's curriculum. i remember in my own educational history of sex ed beginning in 6th grade. now, this wasn't a comprehensive sex ed course, but other parts were added later (like contraceptives, std's, etc.). i'm pretty sure that students currently take a course in 9th grade that deals w/health & human sexuality.
my question is whether or not school is going to the best place for sex ed. this isn't because i have some moral objection to it being taught there. i just wonder if there is a more effective place for it to happen. because frankly, we are teaching how to prevent pregnancy & std's in school and the message isn't being heard.
I never took a sex ed class.
If parents were doing their jobs at home and teaching kids about sex then I would agree but many are not.
"children of parents with low educational attainment, occupation, and income are more likely to have sex at an early age, not use contraception consistently, and become pregnant or cause a pregnancy."
Teens who get pregnant are more likely to have low educational attainment and be of lower income, thus this cycle likely continues.
California recently passed its first ever standard for what students should be learning about sexual education. Roughly this means that fifth graders will learn about STDs, and middle school teachers will talk about rape and sexual assault, and in high school the curriculum includes information about condoms and the morning after pill. Before this was passed, there were no standards so depending on the school you could have been taught a great deal or not much at all.
I support a more comprehensive program and think sex should be taught in schools because it is too important to be left to parents, hoping that they will teach them appropriately.
Everyone knows the obvious consequences of sex but there is a lot of information that is not so obvious about stds, like you can spread HPV even when you use a condom and any new research procures new information, schools may be more apt to keep up to date on versus parents.
Basically I am not confident in parents and families teaching their kids what they need to know. It is an uncomfortable topic for most parents to begin with and if they are not educated they can pass on misinformation as well as miss a lot of important information they may not even be aware of. Therefore if you were to take sex ed out of schools I think pregnancies and stds would increase, not decrease. I can understand having a moral objection and even though this recently passed program includes teaching the kids that abstience is the best way to prevent pregnancies and stds, that message may not be very loud.
I dont know if you are allowed to remove kids from these courses if you dont want them to be subjected to the information but I think parents would be missing an opportunity for their kids to know the medical facts and talk to them in more depth to the morality at home. That would be ideal parenting but lets be honest, there are very few parents who are going to do that.
parents are allowed to remove their kids from courses that violate their moral standards. (i originally wrote that sentence as 'you are allowed to pull kids out' which was a hell of a lot funnier.)
anecdotal adam didn't have a sex ed course, and he doesn't have kids, and i'm hoping he doesn't have an std, for the ladies of course.
speaking of which, adam, why didn't you have a sex ed course? was there not one offered throughout your public school career? or did you opt out? or did you just not have a specific sex ed course and you learned bits of human sexuality in other health classes, soc for living classes, and so on?
or kasey, you also said you didn't have a sex ed course and you've avoided teen pregnancy. how did you manage?
No one wanted to have sex with me.
I am entirely serious actually, I was a late bloomer and had one date and never came close to having a boyfriend when I was in hs so sex wasnt so much an option.
And it goes without saying that if you have this course that doesnt mean you wont get pregnant or get an std and conversely if you get educated from home and not at school that you will get pregnant and/or an std. Obviously there are overlaps and there are no absoultes.
And if you want your kids to pull out (tee hee), you should be able to write a note to the teacher and remove your son or daughter if you so chose. That is the parents perogative (and also Bobby Browns).
I don't remember why I didn't take it. I'm assuming my parents took me out or band interfered.
And unless you're a celibate monk, it's really annoying to me that sex education violates anyone's moral standards.
Self-imposed ignorance due to religious belief is not the answer. I don't know how any religious person could be honest with themselves and claim that abstinence only education works. Shouldn't they be the first people to admit that all are sinners and will at some point or another fail?
i don't know how any person would be honest with themselves and say that abstinence education shouldn't be a part, if not a highly stressed part of the sex education conversation. regardless of any sin issue, sex carries weight. it has emotional, as well as physical effects. teens are already a mess of emotion, changing minds and bodies, and yes, many of them don't know how to make well thought out, reasoned decisions. teaching them how to use contraception doesn't mean that they will. giving them contraceptive doesn't mean that they'll use them.
and just because people fail, doesn't mean that they will fail at every area of life. just because i lie doesn't mean that i will have premarital sex, and just because you do have premarital sex doesn't mean that you'll commit murder. is there a time in school when we teach people that it's alright to lie?
Adam--I'm going to speak as a religious-righter (you love it) who (hopefully?) has some sense and isn't a complete douche...
It's not that it was against my parents' moral standards--it's just that they wanted to be the ones (and rightfully so) to talk to me about sex. Not Ms. Yothers (aka "Big Y")-my creepy gym teacher who had 6 german shepherds and smelled funny.
When I was older (in HS, versus Jr. High), I guess they figured they'd done the initial groundwork and so they didn't take me out of that. Period 6. We called it 'Sex With Ed.'
Okay so I'm going to go in a totally different direction.
What I would really like to see is people really looking at the consequence of being a teenage mother! In a nut shell kids are demanding and teenagers don't make the best parents.
This will never happen though because 1. Half of the people don't want anyone to think of a child as burden and 2. the other half don't want to say that teenagers make bad parents.
The rest has already been said by Lu.
Oh also I vote that we take away girls eggs at birth and then give them back once they can plead their case that they should have kids.
I would be happy to take aways boys sperm too but there are just too darn many of them to catch.
Carly - If you have parents that are responsible enough to teach you about sex thoroughly and accurately then thats great, more parents should be like that. Unfortunately a lot of parents wont do this so there are kids who may not receive the facts they should have and this leaves them vulnerable with mistakes.
This is why I believe sex should be taught in schools. It is science, it is the same as teaching kids about how any sytstem in the body functions. Explaining how the human body works and how what actions you engage in can effect your body should include pregnancy and stds is even more important. I dont really see it as a moral issue . Abstinence should also be discussed because medically that is the only way to prevent pregnancies and the spread of HIV but abstience only makes no sense to me.
Monticore I agree that there should also be a focus on the realities of being a parent or coping with a sexually transmitted disease. I think Child Development classes make the students take a fake baby around for a week but I dont think that is done in sex ed. Teenagers will underestimate how much their life is effected by having children so this could definitely be enlightening Sterilization of course could also be an option, but I think the ACLU might take issue:)
Ed, you must have missed my qualifier when I said "abstinence only."
Besides the fact that abstinence is a misnomer. If you have all the facts, the idea is that you'll abstain until you're ready because you know all about pregnancy, STDs, the responsibilities and effects of pregnancy (physically and socially).
People shouldn't abstain because they're guilted into it or because it's "moral". They should abstain because they're personally not ready.
Carly, I have no issue with parents pulling their kids out of a class and teaching them sex ed, as long as they teach them something. My parents pulled me and taught me nothing, other than I should wait until I get married. Ooops. Four or five partners later and I'm super fucking glad that my first girlfriend I had sex with worked at a campus center and hotline,had learned pretty much everything about sex ed, and was more than happy to teach me about it.
Post a Comment