Sex Education and the Seduction of Selective Science
by Valerie Huber, Public Discourse:
HHS has a responsibility to correct misinformation surrounding its list of “evidence-based” sex education curricula, to implement consistent research protocols, and to ensure that the sexual health of American teenagers is prioritized above politics or ideology.
Sometimes things are not as they seem. Sometimes the illusion occurs by accident, but sometimes it is by design. This is clearly the case when it comes to our cultural narrative surrounding sex education. “‘Comprehensive’ sex education” we are told, “is proven effective, and Sexual Risk Avoidance has been proven ineffective.” It’s a worn-out, disingenuous mantra: “abstinence education just doesn’t work.”
In 2009, the Obama administration created an (allegedly) “evidence-based” list of sex education programs that promise to produce positive results. Since creating the list, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has revised and added to it four times. In 2016, the list was expanded to include forty-four programs. To earn a place on the list, each program must conduct rigorous research showing a statistically significant impact on at least one of the following: sexual activity, number of sexual partners, contraceptive use, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), or pregnancy. While the rigor required for the quality and execution of research designs is strong, other concerns undercut the usefulness of the list as a compilation of national models of effective sex education programs. If we truly want to reach adolescents with effective programs addressing their sexual health and well-being, we must take an honest look at the findings of these programs.
Improving Sex Ed
HHS requires most federally funded sex education programs to select a program from the list and strongly urges states and others to implement these programs. Many communities and states have also begun to require that only programs on the list be presented to their students. But only two of the forty-four programs on the list focus on Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA). SRA programs are uniquely valuable, since they help youth eliminate risk by avoiding teen sex. Even if they would prefer to teach students SRA, many communities feel forced to select a non-SRA program from the list and somehow make it work for their purposes. Unfortunately, they do not realize that this sort of adaptation erases the research effect for the program.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
