I’ve written two U-K articles in response to the recent study released on abstinence-only education.  One was focused on the liberal media’s bias in reporting on the study, and the other was a satirical proposal to train children in other subjects using the methodologies recommended by the anti-abstinence faction.  My first article provoked a rebuttal that presumed I was making a judgment in favor of abstinence-only education.  I wasn’t, and hadn’t, and there was no reason to state that I was, so I laughed it off as an over- or under-medicated contributor.  Now, my second article has been responded to as if it were not satirical, and again, as if I am a supporter of abstinence-only education.  My intent has been to show the bias from certain media sources in covering this story and the absurdity of those who exhibit that bias, but I’m getting dragged into a discussion of whether abstinence-only is right or wrong.

What Is the Goal?

Can we agree on the goals of sex education programs?  Too many people want to make this some kind of moral issue (usually by accusing their opponent of having moralistic foundations to their position).  If I understand correctly, these programs are justified as attempts to:  

1.      Prevent unwanted pregnancy, ergo unwanted children.

2.      Avoid, or at least minimize, the number of underage, undereducated parents who are unable to provide the basic support and guidance to a child.

3.      Avoid, or at least minimize, the creation of single-parent households that result from unplanned pregnancies by uncommitted sex partners.

4.      Prevent, avoid, and minimize, the transmission of STDs.

The alternative solutions to each of these problems have varying degrees of success potential.  They each have risks as well.  The ideal program solution would attain the highest potential for success, while taking the lowest risk.  Agreed?

Obviously, abstinence offers the highest potential for success for each of these problems.  Despite what some believe and others deceitfully proclaim, it is not impossible, or even unlikely, that a teen can abstain from sex.  The average of these four programs shows that 49% of teens did 4 – 6 years later; one city had a 62% abstinence rate.  To ridicule the concept of abstinence is stupid.  It seems patently ridiculous not to emphasize abstinence to children as the preferred solution.

I know of no risks from abstinence.  Critics claim there is a risk from abstinence-only education to those teens that do not abstain, IF the program left them uninformed about the other alternative solutions such that they did not take any precautions.  I acknowledge that risk, but the study showed that wasn’t happening.  Obviously that risk is easily overcome by simply including additional training in the curriculum.  

The alternative to abstinence as a solution is to have protected sex.  Some methods have better success than others, for preventing both pregnancy and STD transmission.  None are fool proof however, and the method most successful at preventing STDs (condoms) is one of the least successful at preventing pregnancy.  Obviously, we should tell children that if, for whatever reason, they do not abstain, using some form of protection is preferable to none, and some protection is better than others.

Has anyone of those who’ve commented on this study here at U-K actually read the report?  I doubt it.  What most of you believe about the report is what you read in the headlines – that abstinence-only education produces no significant differences in abstinence rates in teens.  I have read that report and do not see that it supports such a sweeping claim.  When I read the headlines that support the study’s bias, and read the articles that prove the author did actually read the report, and read the same news organizations drill into reports supporting conservative issues to find fault at micro levels, I recognize a problem.  Even a cursory review of this report shows the absurdity of making any broad conclusions from its data.

The Facts:

·          The study used four sample sets of teens, in four different cities across America, in rural and urban environments, with different age groups, different economic groups, different ethnic majorities, and varying percentages of single- and two-parent households. 

·          One abstinence-only program instructed girls only and competed with a program that taught both boys and girls.  Another was only a voluntary after-school program, but competed with a mandatory in-class program.

·          In each city, teens were separated into a group that took an abstinence-only program and another that took the standard curriculum available in the public schools of that city.

·          The abstinence-only classes were different programs in each of the cities, with different syllabi, differences in focus, and different reference materials.

·          Likewise, the standard curricula that the other students attended were all different with different syllabi and different reference materials.

·          The success of both programs in the four cities varied widely, approximately 20 basis points.

Are you seeing a trend in those facts?  There are no apple-to-apple comparisons here; it’s not even apples-to-oranges.  This study has apples, oranges, peaches, blueberries, potatoes, T-bone steaks, etc.  There are 8 groups of students, each taking a completely different curriculum.  From this mishmash of incomparable data, the researchers AVERAGE the results to make their conclusions.  How do you average completely different things?  The first flaw of this study is that it uses these false averages as the basis of its conclusions.  It is those conclusions that the liberal media snapped up trumpeted across the headlines for days.

Instead, let’s look at the individual programs and compare them only to the other program in that city.  In other words, just ignore the false averages and make our own conclusions.

Yet, understand that we are limited.  The fact that success rates varied so much by city, while the opposing programs were fairly close in each city, tells us that there are other huge factors influencing the success of any program that are not even being measured by this study.

Program #1

My Choice, My Future!  Located in Powhatan, VA, a semi-rural town of mostly middle- and working-class, two-parent, white, non-Hispanic families. 

The existing Health, Family-Life, and Sex Education Service used by the non-abstinence group consisted of a nine-week health and physical education class in 8th grade that did not include topics directly related to abstinence or STD risks.  An additional health class in 9th grade covered abstinence, but did not cover STDs or contraceptive use.

In other words: older, middle-class white kids living in the country who were receiving almost no sex education. 

The 52-hour abstinence-only curriculum was delivered to grades 8 (30 hours), 9 (14 hours), and 10 (8 hours).  It did cover STDs along with comprehensive topics on character development, marriage, relationship skills, etc.

If you caught the irony, the existing program was actually more abstinence-only than was the supposed abstinence-only class.

Program #2

ReCapturing the Vision  Located in Miami, FL, an urban area of largely poor, single-parent, African American and Hispanic families. 

The existing Health, Family-Life, and Sex Education Services consisted of a mandated school curriculum for 6th through 8th grades, including a weeklong unit on human growth and development; sixth grade curriculum covers STDs, abstinence, and drug and alcohol prevention.

In other words: poor, ethnic kids living in the city who were receiving a pretty good sex education program in the school.

The abstinence-only curriculum was delivered to GIRLS ONLY in grades 6 – 8.  The program had similar content to program 1 and also included home visits by social workers, referrals to local services, after-school tutoring, community service projects, cultural events, a family retreat, an annual Teen Abstinence Rally, and an annual Teen Talk Symposium with celebrity panelists. 

Program #3

Families United to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (FUPTP)   Located in Milwaukee, WI, an urban area of predominantly poor, single-parent, African American families. 

The existing Health, Family-Life, and Sex Education Services consisted of a mandatory family life curricula for K through 12; units on abstinence and contraceptive use

beginning in 5th grade.

In other words: poor, black kids living in the city and receiving what seemed to be the best sex education of all four programs.

The abstinence-only curriculum was delivered to grades 3 – 8 and was an after-school program that children attended on a voluntary basis.  If a child attended every day, it would be an intense program.  The study acknowledged that this did not happen, attendance varied.

Program #4

Teens in Control   Located in Clarksdale, MS, a rural setting of predominantly poor, single-parent, African American families.

The existing Health, Family-Life, and Sex Education Services consisted of limited district-wide health, family-life, and sex education curricula for middle-school youth.

In other words: poor, black kids living in the country and receiving “limited” sex education.

The abstinence-only curriculum was delivered for to 5^th or 6^th graders.  Its program had similar content and did discuss STDs.

The Final Survey from which all of the data was amassed was assessed to the students from 4 – 6 years after their participation in the program.  The researchers do not reveal why they chose to assess the Survey at varying terms, nor do they reveal which programs were assessed early or later.  They do state that the oldest participants in the Survey were 20, the youngest 12, and the average age 16.

THE RESULTS

The percentage of students that had remained abstinent since the classes, and the percentage who had remained abstinent in the last 12 months, were calculated and compared to students in the standard program of that city. 

Program #1

The program produced no discernible difference between the two groups in either category.  Also, both groups had the lowest numbers in both categories out of all four programs.

Conclusion

These results really tell us nothing about the value of abstinence-only education because the standard school program in Powhatan only taught abstinence as well.  That weak program taught nothing about STDs or pregnancy.

I guess we might presume that both programs are bad.  But, can we be sure?  Couldn’t the fact that these were middle-class white kids and all the other cities were poor, ethnic kids make a difference?  I don’t know, but I wonder if these results are typical for its demographics?

The program curriculum was also judged to be of modest intensity and was delivered to the oldest students.  Thus, at the time of the survey, these kids were 18 – 20 years old – I have no doubt that a lower number of 20-year olds will have been abstinent in the last 12 months than 8^th graders.

All in all, we just don’t have enough data to tell us what this program means.  While it doesn’t seem successful at first glance, comparing it to significantly different programs doesn’t prove that.

Program #2

This program showed the most improvement rates of the four programs.  Four more percent of program attendees remained abstinent since the class and five more percent had been abstinent in the last twelve months.  However, its overall scores were still next to lowest – only more than Program #1 and less than Programs 3 & 4.

Conclusion

This appears to be a better abstinence-only program.  It’s making a difference. The participants were girls only and they attended a high-intensity curriculum every day for one year in either of grades 6 – 8. 

And, it had a tough opponent.  We are talking about 16-year old girls who are having sex almost as often as the 20-year old males of Program #1.   Plus, the standard program in this city was pretty strong and this program still produced better results. 

But, the overall numbers were still low, so is it really good?  While the description of the standard program seems strong, was its execution lousy?  The abstinence program got better results here, but would it improve on the even better results of Programs 3 & 4?

We can’t tell.  Because both of the programs have close results, which vary widely from the better programs, it suggests that other, unmeasured factors are determining success.  This program taught girls only.  Also, it was a very intensive curriculum with daily lessons unlike all of the others.  It was only one year and the others were multi-year.  Again, this program is so unique that it is worthless to compare it to other programs.

Program #3

Both study groups in this city produced excellent results with over 60% of students remaining abstinent.  However, this abstinence program had less success by 2% in both categories.

Conclusion

We can’t make any conclusions because the program attendees were also required to attend the public school curriculum.  And the program curriculum was not mandatory; it was an after-school program with voluntary attendance.  While technically an “intense” program of daily meetings over several years, who really believes that many students voluntarily attended after school for years?  The researchers acknowledge this fact.

And it certainly can’t be compared to other Programs since those were all mandatory, in school classes.  This program also started much earlier, in the 3^rd grade, than the other programs.

No, the voluntary attendees do not see improved results; theirs are even slightly lower.  But again, what does this mean since the overall results are still very high?  It could be that there is a “virtual cap” on the potential success of abstinence training.  Maybe no amount of education is going to prevent 35% of teens from having sex.  I don’t know, but trying to conclude that a voluntary, after-school program is flawed because it doesn’t improve upon the great results from the mandatory program all the students attend is suspect. 

Program #4

This program had similar results to program #3 – overall high numbers for both groups, but slightly lower results for the abstinence-only program.

Conclusion

This one makes no sense; there must be something in the water in Clarksdale, MS.  The standard program is the weakest of the group and yet it produces the best score in one category and second best in another.  The abstinence-only program is mandatory, but it’s not that intense, meeting only once a week over two years.  Still, it produces great results compared to programs 1& 2, but can’t even beat the virtually nonexistent standard program in its city.

It can’t be explained by demographics – it compares to neither the other ethnic groups nor the other rural group.

Realistically, the unexplainable results of this study cast the entire study into doubt for me.  I think there are other factors at play in these results, most importantly the execution of these programs.  It is one thing to recite a course outline and syllabus; it’s another to actually execute those outlines.

My point, however, is that the liberal media did not note any of this conflicting data, nor did it point out the absurdity of AVERAGING the results of disparate programs.  It’s like calculating the average of 3 apples, a bushel of peaches, a pound of potatoes, and a gallon of milk. 

That the researchers chose to publish this report in this format reeks of partisan politics.  At the highest level, the fact that abstinence-only programs was characterized as failures by the media and these researchers for achieving the same results of other programs seems partisan as well.  Why aren’t the other programs failures as well?

	Web useless-knowledge.com