A little more on sex ed, and reasons why it might not work. Do you believe that drug education reduces drug use? If you're reading this web site, I bet you don't, and you're right--the most famous program, D.A.R.E., has consistently failed to show any positive effects, something which is disguised by the program producers by constantly changing the curriculum so that whatever program just flunked a reality check isn't the same as the awesome new program they're using now.
Do you think that driver's education reduces risky driving? If you do, it's because you were home schooled and never met any teenagers. Teen fatalities have declined thanks to other laws, but not because we told 'em they might be killed. The future beyond next month is not very real to teenagers, which is surprising, since they're immortal.
Indeed, as the proponents of comprehensive birth control education often readily comprehend in other contexts, such as smoking education and high drinking ages, telling kids that something is risky often makes them enjoy it more.
Of course, you could argue that preventing pregnancy is easy and attractive, while eschewing marijuana is not. But this is not quite true. Condoms reduce sexual pleasure. The pill can make you sick, has to be taken at the same time every day, and is likely to be found by your snoopy mother. The depo-provera shots suppress your libido, can make your periods heavier, and make you gain weight, a major drawback in fat-obsessed America. All three cost money that could be spent on other things, like the marijuana you're smoking despite the best efforts of your parents and teachers.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Megan, you might have a point on this overall issue. I'm at least willing to accept that the benefits of sex-ed are unlikely to be large.
But, your comparison to DARE misses the target. Isn't DARE more comparable to abstinence-only education? DARE says "don't do any drugs." Abstinence-only education says "don't have any sex."
I've always believed that we'd be better off giving teenagers realistic information about drugs. Once a teen tries pot and realizes it didn't instantly ruin his life, he's less likely to believe what "the man" told him about ecstasy, cocaine, meth, heroin, etc.
>The future beyond next month is not very real to teenagers, which is surprising, since they're immortal.
I think you mean *not* surprising for the snark to work. I just posted on the other thread -- drug education does work. It teaches you that a little pot once in a while isn't going to kill you or turn you into a junkie. At least that was a valuable lesson from my 7th grade drug ed. (You did have to read between the lines a little bit, though.)
Pronk is spot on. Drug education is a lot more akin to abstinence education than the regular sex-ed that gets conservative's blood a-boilin'. Poor analogy.
I'm trying to imagine the classes in a drug curriculum that is analogous to a contraception curriculum.
"Johnny, would you run the film strip of how to properly dispose of bong water?"
Informational posters about different delivery systems for cocaine?
Foolish kids will try drugs and sex. But it's still good for them to have the facts. Just remember that facts without underpinning ideals are like fuzzy math. Not really useful for any kind of measurement.
Kids fail at math, too. We still teach it to them because it's True. The ideal of perfect sums, and moral ideals might be foreign to our government, but that's why we have elections every few years.
Why speculate when the answer is known?
Abstinence only programs do not reduce sexual activity
Sex Ed leads to less teen pregnancy
Michael,
You could give kids honest information about the relative dangers of various drugs, and especially various combinations of drugs. Most overdose fatalities result from drug interactions, but nobody really knows which drugs you're not supposed to mix. Right now we tell them "all drugs are infinitely evil and dangerous," which is clearly bullshit.
I had a class in college as an undergrad on "subtance abuse," which was a little scare-mongery for my taste, way more balanced and informative than anything they teach you in high school. There was information about the dangers of drugs and also about the chemistry, and the social and cultural importance of various drugs.
Come on Megan. Sex-Ed isn't about telling kids that sex is risky - that's what the Abstinence-Only programs do. You've got it completely backwards here. Your analogies are, if I may be frank, awful.
It would be more accurate to say:
Drivers Ed is similar to Sex Ed, in that it tells you how driving works and the safest ways to do it if you so choose. Doesn't mean nobody will crash/get pregnant, but it makes it less likely.
And abstinence only program would be like a 'don't drive' program. It tells you all the risks and asks you not to. But you still have to get from A to B. So are you going to listen?
Sex Ed reduces the likelihood that kids will have sex before age 15
In defense of driver's ed, I was home schooled until college and found that taking driver's ed was very useful when I was a teenager.
Just because it's tough to teach teenagers that aren't disciplined doesn't mean that we should just give up on teaching them at all.
Apparently, judging by the frequency with which commentators here keep citing it, that University of Washington study is the most credible study extant finding a significant beneficial effect from sex education. It's garbage. You can't do these sorts of studies by asking people to remember what kind of sex education they had. The only reliable kind of study for this sort of question is a panel study where you select the participants upfront.
The University of Washington study could best be summarized as "those who get pregnant as teenagers are less likely to remember having learned about contraception in high school." It's a poor guide for determining what was actually taught in the relevant high school.
I totally disagree with the argument that drug prevention programs don't work. Based on a study I recently conducted on me (for 30 plus years) I have not tried cocaine or heroin because the drug prevention programs scared the crap out of me. And rightfully so.
Since people still do lots and lots of cocaine despite DARE and other programs does not mean that the programs are worthless. The website you linked to compares kids who had DARE prevention classes and kids who did not. The DARE grads had no more significant resistance to using drugs over the kids who didn't have a DARE class.
Well, what happened to the kids who didn't? No one ever walked up to them and said, "Drugs are dangerous"? Not bloody likely. I guarantee you that control group got a ton of drug prevention messages along the way; and it would be not just unethical and insane to make a control group of kids who never get drug prevention, it would be plain old impossible. I went to a Catholic School in Chicago and we had no DARE stuff ever. But we had the Perils of Cocaine shoved down our throats (or up our noses, if you like). And it took. I know for sure from another study I did of talking to my pals over the years that we have no interest in serious, hard drugs because people who we trusted and respected said it is a pretty bad idea. Oh, and Len Bias. His name stuck with me for years. Heart attack at 22? I'll stick with beer. Likewise here, don't assume that just because celebrity overdoses have not banished drug abuse from the earth that they don't serve as a lesson to many, many others.
Maybe the point is that DARE and its ilk are overkill-- the kids like me who get spooked by ex-coke heads giving lectures in 7th grade science classes need to hear only one or two, and the kids who are gonna do drugs are the riskier type who would probably do them no matter what the program said. But that in no way means that the rest of us don't need to hear it.
For the record, yeah, I still think shooting up and smoking crack is a bad idea. Call me a Puritan, but I don't think that message is dorky. And yes, I smoked weed for a while and rolled my eyes like everybody else at the squares who said not to. But that did not mean that I then thought, or that tons of people will then think, "That wasn't so bad... I'll try heroin." That's because the bullshit detector is at work here. Kids figure out pot isn't that bad, but their bullshit detector does not light up when it comes to the harder stuff. (Of course, some might very well say that the hard stuff might not be bad, but again, that does not mean the prevention arguments are then worthless.)
This is so long, and no one will read it. There's a whole internet of fun out there. Go away! I'm hammering the point home because I think to say that kids don't listen to advice (which is the premise here) is really poor logic because it is impossible to prove with any substance. Sex ed doesn't work... except for the people who take the counseling about birth control to heart and sail through many years of single and active sexuality with nary an STD or pregnancy. Drivers ed doesn't work... except for the kids who take the admonitions about the danger seriously and then drive more safely. It's just a slippery slope to not even bothering with the kids about extremely serious issues like drugs, driving, and sex. Yeah, studies prove a lot of kids don't listen. That does not mean many others don't.
Yeah, I'd make a weaker claim for driver's ed: I think it reinforces the messages you're getting from other authority figures as well about taking driving seriously and about a series of rules. It's actually pretty important to know that when you get to an intersection, the person on the right has the right of way, and stuff like that. Also I think there are population-level effects that are hard to measure in an individual comparison on this. In the US and France, driver's ed is mandatory; traffic in the US and France is pretty safe and predictable. In Vietnam and Nigeria driver's ed is technically mandatory but nobody does it, you just bribe someone for a passing grade. Traffic in Vietnam and Nigeria is totally insane and the fatal accident rate is off the hook.
brooksfoe,
US driving laws are quite diverse, and driver's ed is not required in many states, what it typically allows a teenager to get a permit/license earlier. Some states make u get a permit (by passing a written test) before getting a license (by passing a driving test), and some states don't. In regard to the above discussion, the driver's ed classes are probably taught in school, many states do not have this. A reasonable test would be if kids that got taught a full driver's ed class in school did better in either later driving or in success rate of acquiring a driver's license, compared to kids that did not have that formal class. Without justification, I doubt that you would see much difference, since almost uniformly, nobody can drive until they have a lot of practical driving experience.
As an anecdote, in my state there was no driver's ed in school, but if you took a two week course, you could get your permit at 15. If you did not, you could get a permit at 16. Regardless of whether you took the class, you could get a license at 16. Also, the driver's ed instructors could perform license tests for 16+ (in addition to the DMV). There was not much oversight, so anyone who failed or was worried of failing a DMV test, just paid the $300-400 for a two week class and test, and passed. This is functionally equivalent to a bribe.
Do you think that driver's education reduces risky driving?
I don't know of statistics on this, but based on my personal experience I would be surprised if it didn't have some effect. After taking Driver's Ed, I:
- Started religiously wearing a seatbelt, even though no one else in my family did. When my father hit another car, the cops asked if anyone was wearing a belt, and my father said, "Well, my son probably was."
- Was much more cognizant of the things I needed to be aware of. I still recall, 25 or so years later, some of the films and training exercises we went through.
Now, none of that was as effective as what I learned from actually getting into an accident, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it kept me from getting into a few before that.
I think that the presence of kids resistant to sex/drug/driving education does not at all disprove that these programs are useful. Yeah sure some kids still drive dangerously even after they have taken road safety classes--but some kids will always drive dangerously. I live in South Korea now, and everybody drives dangerously. There's a huge difference between having only strategic outliers not respond to programs and not having those programs at all.
Even if sex education doesn't reduce pregnancy it is a good idea. It is just inherently good for people to have more information about their bodies and their health. I am not saying they should be preachy about it, just that they should seek to give people the benefit of knowledge. Most of this is just a proxy fight over values. Gov Palin just doesn't reflect my values while Barack Obama does. Also teaching creationism in science class is repugnant. If you want to expose students to William Paley and David Hume great, just don't pretend like its science.
Boo for gratuitous homeschooler slam. Although I'll assume it was good-natured.
Driver's Ed is a terrible comparison since to receive a license you have to pass a test that contains the same information. So let's through that out.
Drug education is not as bad a comparison, but I think there is a crucial difference: sex education reinforces an existing fear of pregnancy in teen girls that peer pressure will do little to counteract (pregnancy is not cool, weird Juno-inspired mass pregnancies aside), whereas drug education is at best reinforcing a fear that peer pressure is actively working against.
Speaking of drug education, Gov. Palin said that 'when marijuana was legal in Alaska, she smoked it and didn't have Clinton's excuse. She inhaled' and went on to be really the fine person she appears to be; apparently no harm done. The case of her daughter can't help but be 'sex ed' for any teenager remotely following the news. These Palins are a treasure of 'education' in liberal enlightenment. What's not to like?
McArdle: "[the pill] is likely to be found by your snoopy mother"
aside from the question whether sex education works or not.
isn't this the bigger problem? Shouldn't the mother be happy that her daughter acts responsible. Teens start to have sex between an age of 15 - 18. They simply do. Therefore the parents should encourage their sons and daughters to use contraception or not.
rekniht, the basic thing about driving and education is that you aren't allowed to drive, anywhere, unless you've passed a test. That test includes a lot of written answers about things you have to learn. You can skip driver's ed, but you have to master that information somewhere or you won't get your license. One could propose an alternate approach to sex ed where we instead would start issuing sex licenses at age 18 and making it a misdemeanor to have sex any younger or to have sex without contraception outside of marriage, but that doesn't seem like it'd garner much support from anyone.
The upshot is that the evidence Megan's supplied here is pretty convincing that there is significant doubt about whether sex ed classes in schools in the US and UK do anything to reduce teen pregnancy rates. I was pretty much wrong on that question. Cultural and social factors are clearly more important factors in determining teen pregnancy rates -- I believe I would have acknowledged that before the discussion started; but the problem to be addressed is, why do cultures as disparate as the Netherlands, France, and Japan have low teen pregnancy rates, while cultures as disparate as the US and Russia have high ones?
I don't think promoting shotgun weddings between high-schoolers is pro-family. It seems to me that one major cultural problem in the US connected to high teen pregnancy rates is Sarah Palin's culture. Sarah Palin's culture is not only ethnically alien to me; it is a proselytizing culture. And that's part of why I wouldn't vote for her.
TYPO ALERT: I meant to write "ethically alien", obviously, not "ethnically alien". The latter sentiment would be totally gross. I hope this comment makes it through the filter as I really don't want to be associated with that typo!
"Just because there isn't measurable benefit, doesn't mean they're not useful..."
Unless you're talking about abstinence education?
What ever happened to the ABC method. Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condom. Best proven method. Abstain. Barring that, one relationship at a time. And use condoms.
Our education should include abstinance education, but not to the exclusion of anything else (has anyone seriously suggested otherwise). In fact, our education probably needs to be updated now that Be Faithful has proven to be a major factor in keeping HIV infections down. People need to know that having multiple concurrent relationships really ups the risk of infection for HIV. The viral load is highest (other than when person becomes symptomatic) during the first couple weeks of infection. Concurrent relation ships really increase spread of the disease. Women and catchers are at greater risk of infection than pitchers.
Does it not matter that abstinence-only education is, em, less true? To teach abstinence-only, you have to basically deny the eficacy of contraception, and the eficacy of condoms as defense against disease, and before you know it you're onto "you can get AIDS from tears." (Hard to prove causality, sure. Could happen under a more comprehensive sex-ed plan, I suppose.)
Heh, brooksfoe, relax. Ethnic can be cool. Be it; grow. Assembly of God, which she is, is not traditional Catholic. It's not supersessionist; we follow that 'whore of Babylon' to them. Personally I wish he would get more into Abelard; cf. Constantine's Sword.
Of course, you could argue that preventing pregnancy is easy and attractive, while eschewing marijuana is not. But this is not quite true.
Unless you're a male nerd, in which case women won't have sex with you and therefore there's no danger of unwanted pregnancy.
How can anyone assume that not giving correct information about sex may be better because I define a metric, conduct a study, and see weak correlation? How can anyone assume that imperfect information is better?
(Insert some stupid remark here about religious beliefs being unprovable vs. actual or perceived benefits of prayer)
(Insert some stupid remark about prejudice about X being highest when your exposure to X is lowest; let X= gays, Jews, blacks, lefties, libertarians, geeks)
I have three, count 'em, underage daughters. If I don't give them (or make sure they have access to) correct information about sex, shame on me if they get STD or become pregnant. And I am aware that there is no warranty.
The future beyond next month is not very real to teenagers, which is surprising, since they're immortal.
I think the line works, either in the affirmative or negative. Immortality could mean that one had enough time to repair any mistake, obviating the usefulness of not making mistakes. Or, it could mean that you were going to be stuck, for eternity, with whatever idiotic choice you made early on. Depends on whether the immortal teenager is an optimist or a pessimist, but the line isn't wrong.
How can anyone assume that not giving correct information about sex may be better because I define a metric, conduct a study, and see weak correlation? How can anyone assume that imperfect information is better?
(Insert some stupid remark here about religious beliefs being unprovable vs. actual or perceived benefits of prayer)
(Insert some stupid remark about prejudice about X being highest when your exposure to X is lowest; let X= gays, Jews, blacks, lefties, libertarians, geeks)
I have three, count 'em, underage daughters. If I don't give them (or make sure they have access to) correct information about sex, shame on me if they get STD or become pregnant. And I am aware that there is no warranty.
People want abstinence only sex-ed because there are some really horrible sex educators out there. The sex positive ones are really disconcerting for pretty much any parent, especially when they are aiming at younger kids.
Parents who are telling their kids that they should wait for marriage don't want other authority figures, whom they have to support in all other matters and who they pay for, to tell their kids "go have an orgy, it's fun, just wear a condom!" And I fully understand and support that.
We have to realise that essentially none of this stuff works. People are idiots and ignore stuff, they are lazy, and mistakes happen. Nearly every heterosexual person I know has had pregnancy scares despite using birth control. It seems like every serious relationship has them, in fact, whether the people involved are 19-20 or 35+.
The best way to keep people from dying due to drugs would be to legalise them and put them under the FDA. You do't die from accidental poisonings or overdoses of alcohol, and you won't from Marlboo Cocaine (TM). People died from Al Capone's bathtub gin and die from all sorts of horrible crap from a guy in an alley who promised that the random white powder is the drug you want.
"Do you think that driver's education reduces risky driving? If you do, it's because you were home schooled and never met any teenagers."
Or one of the insurance companies that offers a discounted rate to teens that have completed a driver's ed course. Mine did. Guess there is some actuarial table somewhere that says it helps.
For me, the ideal teacher is one who gives the kids the most accurate information that she or he has, and does his or her damnedest to persuade them to mange their lives reasonably responsibly. I am sure also that it would help those teachers if they had discretion to cut out any program that has been shown to fail to get useful information over to kids. Anyone who is hung up for or against an eductional programme that has been shown not to produce any useful results is just getting in the way of the good education. Good teachers have enough problems in trying to educate our kids (not least, their Unions) without us adding to them.
hey
We have to realise that none of this stuff will ever work perfectly. We also have to realise that is stuff does not work at all, we should kick up hell at wasting time on it; and at not finding out what will work.
Comments are still wonky. Or there one link limit. Anyway, people will enjoy Dubner's Immodest Proposal over the the Freakonomics Blog. It's a sex tax.
Accurate Drug Education:
"Drugs make you feel Fabulous. Never trust ANYTHING that makes you feel that way."
"I totally disagree with the argument that drug prevention programs don't work. Based on a study I recently conducted on me (for 30 plus years) I have not tried cocaine or heroin because the drug prevention programs scared the crap out of me. And rightfully so."
Do you mean you actually believed them?!?!?
Some forty years ago, I sat through school drug prevention movies that were so ridiculous it was hard to keep from rolling on the floor laughing. But I did my own research, and what I learned about heroin and various often-abused prescription drugs did scare the crap out of me. ("Meth" is just a homemade version of the "bennies" that were amazingly common back then considering that you supposedly had to get a prescription for them. Of course, meth is more dangerous, in the same way that Uncle Cletus's moonshine is likely to be more dangerous than 150 proof imported rum, but either one will do you in...)
The facts about marijuana, OTOH, are scary in quite another way: Many allegedly responsible government officials have found political rewards from demonizing a substance that (if uncontaminated) is at worst about as dangerous to the user as alcohol and tobacco, and far less likely than alcohol to cause danger to others. But in the 1930's, out-of-work Prohibitionists could make political hay out of racist accusations against "marijuana crazed Mexicans", and in the 1960's hippies were as good a target...
Of course, the facts about alcohol are bad enough in themselves, and knowing them didn't stop me from going through a drunken bum stage in the 70's.