Teach your kids sex ed early

[TheMercenary]

The Three P's

Pills, prophylactics and penicillin are replacing reading, writing and 'rithmetic.

Do you remember the three R's - reading, writing, and 'rithmetic?

Technically, it's one R, a W and an A, but phonetically you get the point.

It seems that in a growing number of schools across the United States, however, the three R's are being replaced by the three P's - Pills, Prophylactics, and Penicillin.

Let me explain.

This year in Washington, D.C., city school officials are planning to offer voluntary tests for sexually transmitted diseases to all high school students. Why you might ask?

According to the D. C. Department of Health, after a pilot project was performed in eight D.C. high schools last year, 13 percent of about 3,000 students who participated in the project tested positive for an STD, namely gonorrhea or chlamydia.

It gets better.

The Washington, D.C., public school system conducted a study in 2007 that discovered the following:

-- 60 percent of high school students and 30 percent of middle school students reported having had intercourse.

-- 20 percent of the high school students had sex with four or more partners, and 12 percent of the middle school students had sex with three or more partners.

I don't know about you, but when I was in middle school (which was called junior high school back then) I was not having sex. I couldn't spell chlamydia, and gonorrhea sounds like the name of the girl who sat next to me in homeroom.

Can you imagine asking your 12-year-old what he or she learned in school and having him or her say, "School was great. I learned about writing, I learned about science and I learned I have herpes."

But that's not all.

It seems that the STD testing program (which should not be confused with the SAT or the ACT), is a replica of a program in Philadelphia. As a matter of fact, school systems in New York, Chicago, Baltimore and New Orleans are either already performing the STD testing or they are preparing to begin the tests.

Although these tests, which consist of a urine sample, can be performed with or without parental consent depending on the school district, all 50 states and Washington, D.C., allow minors over the age of 12 to be screened for STD's at any health care facility.

Before the tests are administered, students are given a lecture about STD's. After the lecture, the students are given the option of submitting a urine sample. If found to be positive for a disease, the city will pay for treatment. If the students opt to have a family physician administer the test, then the student, or the student's parents, would be responsible for the bill.

I understand the need for early detection of STD's because those who have sexually transmitted diseases are at an increased risk of contracting HIV. However, I don't understand why our public schools feel the need to test students for STD's when the students barely know their ABC's.

Once again, the public school system is stepping on the toes of parents who should be aware of what is happening in their children's lives. Even though students are "encouraged to share the results with their parents," parents should be notified regardless.

True, there are parents who are not doing their job. And yes, in some communities, STD's and especially HIV/AIDS is an epidemic. But no school officials should know more about the health of a student then that student's parents.

In addition, 12-or 13-year-olds are not mentally capable of making mature decisions. They barely know who they are at this age. They should not be burdened with keeping a secret that could ultimately end up with them developing other diseases, and possibly even death.

It's irresponsible for any school system or adult to encourage a child to lie by omission to his or her parents.

Furthermore, although infected students are given cards so they can alert their sexual partners of their STD status, what middle school student or high school student is going to give a card (which can be easily scanned and placed in anyone's Facebook page) to his or her sexual partners that states he or she has tested positive for gonorrhea or chlamydia?

Having officials with so little common sense running school systems is one of the reasons our children are getting dumber and dumber and dropping out of school at alarming rates. I'm sure the intentions of the school systems are good, but schools need to go back to the three R's and let parents and children handle the three P's.

Geveryl Robinson

http://savannahnow.com/node/764314

[Aliantha]

What's the age that a child can get a prescription over there? It's 16 here I think, otherwise the parents have to be involved.

I think testing for STD's in school is ok, and I agree that the parents should be notified if the results come back positive. For that matter, I think they should be notified if the child decides to have the test. Surely that would inform the parents even part way.

Kids are very secretive as teenagers. The more communication there is between parents and teachers, the better off the kids are going to be.

[TheMercenary]

I agree. I am not sure at what age they can get BCP without parental consent, I would imagine it is 18 yrs. There is absolutely no reason not to have discussions about the use of birth control with your children, male and female, long before they are sexually active.

[casimendocina]

That would be great if all parents could actually discuss this kind of stuff with their kids.

[Aliantha]

That's a fair point casi, but on the flip side, there's no point burying your head in the sand if you can't. As the parent, you're the grown up. It has to start with you somehow. Don't ask me for the answer to communication problems with kids. I don't have all of those, but I do know it has to happen.

[ZenGum]

I get a lot of red flags reading that article (no, that's not an STD). The way it drifts from fact to opinion without clearly demarcating the two.

It also fails to consider the other side of the argument.

Suppose there IS mandatory notification of the parents if the child either chooses to have the test, or tests positive. That will deter a lot of kids from having the test. Thus defeating the purpose of finding out who has STDs and treating them and preventing the spread.

Meh, this is an old and intractable problem. There is no clear threashold age at which kids suddenly leap to adulthood. They have bodily urges, poor decision making, demand privacy but also support. We muddle through as best we can.

[/non-parent]

[Ibby]

As a teen, someone just out of high school and not far from middle school, and with rather uptight and uncomfortable if not unsupportive parents, I definitely agree with the sentiment. Things are easier when the kids don't have to hide, and while I'm not exactly in favor of middle schoolers shagging, I'm less a fan of them doing it unsafely. The reality is, the kids are gonna do it one way or the other, so it would do their parents - and society at large - well to give them support and education rather than sweeping teen sex under the rug.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The fact that STDs are rampant shows the parents are not doing their part. Most of them are in denial that their precious babies even know about sex. I'm glad the school/public health people are at least offering the kids some help.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Ibram

while I'm not exactly in favor of middle schoolers shagging, I'm less a fan of them doing it unsafely. The reality is, the kids are gonna do it one way or the other, so it would do their parents - and society at large - well to give them support and education rather than sweeping teen sex under the rug.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The fact that STDs are rampant shows the parents are not doing their part. Most of them are in denial that their precious babies even know about sex. I'm glad the school/public health people are at least offering the kids some help.

Yup and yup.
13% with an STD (albeit in a pilot project, probably aimed in an area they knew would have a problem).
So, what? You allow that 13% to infect every other teen they sleep with from then on in? No - you educate, educate, educate. And offer free testing.

Sorry if your kid can't talk to you honestly about sex.
I never have with my Mum and now I never will. The first time I had sex I had unprotected sex. Luckily my bf questioned me and was horrified at the risk we'd just taken. He was wrong to assume I was on the pill, but his reaction afterwards was completely right. My first ever contraceptive was the morning after pill

If students are sexually active, and know they can be tested in confidence in a place that's convenient to them, I'm all for it. Like my wake-up call, just the fact of the test might make them ask what they are doing, and be more responsible in future.

[OnyxCougar]

and then we get situations like this.

[joelnwil]

Well, looking at the original article, just remember it was about DC. The level of social disorganization there is rather high, and it is quite likely that some of the children do not have parents who are sober enough to talk about anything coherently. Much less pay attention.

Speaking of disorganization, I remember when my stepfather, who was drunk most of the time anyway, got even more drunk and tried to talk to me about sex and "the thing I run water through". Useless. That was about 60 years ago, and I still get furious whenever I think about him.

I also remember when I was driving my kids home from school and the DJ made a joke about somebody who went to a taxidermist because his two horses died. The taxidermist said, "You want them mounted?" And the guy said "No, side by side is OK." My kids demanded an explanation of that joke, and they got it. I don't remember their ages, but they had already had some education on the subject.

[Cloud]

Sex education is absolutely crucial, as I'm sure everyone would agree. What people don't agree on is who should do it (parents/schools); and how much confidentiality should apply.

In an ideal situation, parents would be up to the task, and speak openly, informatively, and reassuringly to their kids at the right teachable moment.

Who the fuck has this "ideal" situation? Certainly, the article is about kids who don't. All things considered, I'd rather have kids informed and tested than not.

[Sundae]

I had the basics from my Mum. My sister was due to receive sex education at school, and she was allowed to opt in or out, via a letter to parents. Partly because of a recent episode of a school soap opera called Grange Hill, where a kid was laughed at for ignorance, but mostly because she always tried to keep us ahead of the stream, Mum went through things with Laura. About a week later she felt bad about keeping me in the dark, given that I was the more curious (intellectually) of the two of us, and explained things to me too.

But I had sex education at school when I was 11. And this was a Catholic school.
And then every damn year after that, from Combined Science, to Social Sciences, to Biology. Trust me, I knew the ins and outs of sex like... well - intimately.

And yet, like I say, the first time could have got me up the stick if my bf hadn't asked that all-important question. Teens think they are invulnerable. I did anyway, and further knowledge suggests it's a widespread phenomenon.

Keep asking, keep telling, keep questioning and testing.
I'll bet 200 years ago far more teens had STDs - and probably even died from them. We are moving forward.

Oh and OC - it's nasty that spiteful girls meant a girl had a pregnancy test. But I still think it's better that she was tested and negative than not tested and hiding it. If she is a virgin, then I can see it would be an issue for her - she would feel accused, and maligned. When I was 12 I was still sunshine, lollipops and lemonade. But I certainly know schoolmates of mine had breats, periods and other semblances of being women. They weren't of course - they had the life experience of children. But I think at 12, peeing in a cup is far better than an internal exam.

And after all, if she was sexually active (and even a my school there was a girl who got pregnant at 13) then good for them - she might feel targetted, but that's a bullying issue, not a healthcare issue.

Oh and I hope the girl goes to school in a really rich area. Otherwise, what are the parents doing sueing? Hoping to reduce budgets even further? I can only assume they have no younger children, to want to damage the school system that way.

[DanaC]

I really don't think the two cases are in any way analagous. If the girl were pregnant, it would eventually become known and be dealt with (one way or another). If a youngster has an undiagnosed STD and that isn't found and dealt with they will more than likely infect other youngsters, who will likewise probably remain unaware of it unless they become symptomatic. One is a response to an individual case, the other is a systematic attempt to stem a growing health problem within the younger population.

[piercehawkeye45]

I do not like this article at all. This author is blinded by the social stigma of sex.

I would assume most everyone here would agree with schools taking responsibility to prevent the spread of non-sexually transmitted diseases such as the flu or mono because it only takes one ignorant parent to allow a sick child to infect the entire school. Why is it so different for sexually transmitted diseases? STDs do not just affect individual children, but the entire student population because it can easily spread from one person to another and it is extremely easy for a selfish asshole child to ruin a good innocent kid's life through the use of alcohol and smooth talking. Parental guidance is the most important influence for children but with issues such as these, it only takes one mistake.

STD's are a social issue and therefore should be addressed by the schools. Many parents do not fully inform their children of the risks of unprotected sex and that could be one of the reasons for such high STD and pregnancy rates among today's teenagers. This is not the most preferred way to address this issue in my opinion, but I also see it better then the alternatives.