Left In Lowell

Support Comprehensive Sex Ed In Lowell

26 Responses to “Support Comprehensive Sex Ed In Lowell”

1. kpem Says:
   August 18th, 2008 at 10:49 pm

   Are you trying to say that my husbands theory that they just won’t date until they are out of college, and no sex until marraige won’t work? I am a little shocked that Lowell does not have a comprehensive sex ed program already in place. Are they still teaching only abstinence here in Lowell?

2. Josh Says:
   August 18th, 2008 at 11:41 pm

   Look, you know I’m a libertarian and not a conservative (some would even mistake me for libertine). But seriously, you want government bureaucrats teaching kids about the birds and the bees??? It is a definate imposition of morality one way or another and this sort of thing belongs at home.

   How about focusing on English, math, history, and science?

3. Lynne Says:
   August 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am

   kpem: I don’t know what Lowell has, although I imagine it’s some sort of sex ed. This is an invite by the new super for PPLM to show what they can offer.

   Josh: ONE word. YES.

4. tim Says:
   August 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

   Sex ed ain’t morality, it’s biology.

5. Sarah Says:
   August 19th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

   Comprehensive sex education programs like the one offered by PPLM give students the tools they need to stay healthy throughout their lives by presenting medically-accurate and age-appropriate information. They help students learn the skills to make healthy decisions and to advocate for those decisions. What’s truly unique about comprehensive sex education is that it helps kids incorporate their personal, family, and community values into the decisions they make.

6. joe from Lowell Says:
   August 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

   I love it how they’re devoted school teachers when teaching math and English, and “government bureaucrats” when they’re teaching certain aspects of human biology and health.

7. fishydude Says:
   August 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

   I don’t trust anything coming from Planned Parenthood. This organization was found on the principals of eugenics. The founder sought to use the practice that is its primary source of income to reduce the number of undesirable people giving birth.
   As for those who say abstinence only education does not work? Funny how they make this claim because it is at least as effective as “traditional” sex ed. But because it is not “more effective” it is called a failure.
   That area of education is the responsibility of parents.
   Some teachers can’t even teach math without injecting politics into lessons. How can parents possibly trust their children will not be indoctrinated into believing abnormal is “normal” in a sex ed class?

8. kpem Says:
   August 19th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

   A few interesting and related articles on abstinence teaching:
   http://www.massteenpregnancy.org/pdfs/Lowell%20teaching%20abstinence.pdf
   http://www.massteenpregnancy.org/program/evaluation.html

   I really do not think it is fair to base our sex ed program on a federal grant that was given to a religous group to teach abstinence. Lowell jumped on board because it was free, but their pregnancy rates do not show that it was a wise choice.

9. kpem Says:
   August 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

   “Healthy Futures describes its mission as promoting sexual health through abstinence. It is one of a growing number of federally funded agencies that urge teenagers to wait until they are married to have sex. The group, the largest of its kind in Massachusetts, was formed in September 2002 by A Woman’s Concern, a pregnancy health services agency, that lists its guiding principles on its website as the importance of the gospel, the sanctity of human life, and the soundness of sexual purity, marriage, and family”
   I really do not agree with abstinence only sex ed, but I take great concern with it being taught in my childs school by a christian, right to life group.
   http://www.hfchurch.org/offer.htm
   Where is the seperation of church and state. Good thing Governor Patrick put an end to these grants.

10. Lynne Says:
    August 19th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Here we go again. Hey Fishy (great name for the sorts of comments you leave), if you believe in conspiracy theories, how about at least a few credible links to back yourself up?

    Oh and by the way, you’re wrong, and wrong again.

    Amen, kpem!

11. tim Says:
    August 19th, 2008 at 11:47 pm

    “abstinence only education” isn’t even education. Just Say No. Just Wait Until You’re Married. It’s a directive, it’s not information, it doesn’t provide knowledge or understanding, and it sure doesn’t help them think for themselves.

    Lynn: I’m assuming that’s a rhetorical question…

12. Christopher Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 8:15 am

    I don’t know what Lowell has or exactly what Planned Parenthood offers. My own view is that we should try to teach abstinence without preaching it. The difference is between explaining why abstinence is the best option and simply saying don’t do it because we said so. There is no reason for teenagers to be engaging in this activity and there’s always a slight chance preventative measures won’t work. On the other hand schools should have not more qualms about teaching the reproductive system than they do the digestive or circulatory systems for example. Public schools should teach the facts; families and faiths should discuss the morality.

13. tim Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 11:24 am

    Hey, let me throw some more fuel on the fire…

    “there is no reason for teenagers to be engaging in this activity”

    umm, been a while since you were a teen? I’m young enough that I can still think of a few. Anybody here look back to when they were teens and think “gee, I wish I had less safe, consensual sex”?

14. kpem Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    I am now a bit outraged to learn that Lowell lets this extremely religious group run their sex ed program. I am not at all saying not to teach abstinence, but I am saying the city knows better to allow some right wing nuts to teach it. Shame, shame, shame on Lowell. Great to hear that Dr. Scott was looking into other means. Send your kids to some of the parachial schools in town if you never want them to hear the word birth control. Oh thats right half the city cc and school commitee already do! (perhaps why Health Futures is here?)

15. K-R-S Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    kpem, the Feds aren’t interested in funding sex ed programs, when it comes to promoting effective birth control and the like. Abstinence based ed is the only type of programming they will fund.
    Time will come soon enough when we’ll have to have the “talk” w/ our girls. Ceratinly, they will not be given that ed. in the Catholic school.

16. loving lowell Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    I agree with many of you who say this topic should be discussed and taught at home. But the reality is that in many household in Lowell and surrounding communities that is not happening. The schools need to provide a comprehensive health curriculum because right or wrong many girls and boys are not being taught at home. I’m not saying hand out condoms in the cafeteria, but just give the kids the cold hard facts about those crazy birds and bees.

17. Robby Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Gloucester High School.

    Just the name should say enough.

    Clearly whatever is being taught in class about sex ed is a waste of time. Look at how many young mothers (and fathers) there are in Lowell. I had sexual education in the Lowell school system when I was in the 7th and 8th grade. Honestly, this class just made everyone want to go out and experiment on one another.

    When I am ready to have children, I will have them privately educated for many reasons, this being one of them. As a parent, it will be MY responsibility to discuss with my children puberty, sex, etc. That’s my job as a parent, not some teacher in a classroom.

    People wonder why American kids are now behind Europeans, and there are many reasons behind it that are up for debate. But the more time that is taken away from learning real classes like history, math, and english, the more worse off kids will be.

18. tim Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    Robby, look past the headline. 17 students out of 1200 - that’s a whopping 1.5%. The national rate is 10%, while the mass rate is about 3%. I can’t find any stats comparing public schools to private schools.

19. Lynne Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    Thanks for actual stats, tim.

    My health/sex ed in high school was pretty comprehensive and the teacher teaching it pretty hip. I would say that it was well worth having it. For one thing, a class like that can dispel all sorts of sex myths kids come up with which are not only wrong, they are dangerous.

20. kpem Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

    “the Feds aren’t interested in funding sex ed programs”

    The real issues I have with this program was that Lowell chose to use a faith based organization. You could have had health agencies apply for the grant and teach it in a neutral manner . It also is based on all teachings of waiting until you are married. (not wait until you are an adult, or have a commited partner) The feds should be providing programs about things that “some” kids will listen to (condoms) and abstinence that others will. I sat at a local resteaurant and could not help but hear two teens talk about their hiv diagnosis as if they had caught the flu. “Just take the cocktail and you will be fine one reassured the other.” Of course their parents should have taught them this at home but not teens have that great relationship that we like to preach should occur. Lets not just throw them to the wolves.

21. Robby Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    Sure looking at the statistics you can draw a conclusion that a very small minority in Gloucester were pregnant. The real disturbing issue was the way in which these girls got pregnant; there was supposedly a “pregnancy pact” happening. Meanwhile, the local corrupt politicians as usual try to cover it up but are exposed. The entire incident was very disturbing to say the least, especially occuring in a quiet community on the ocean.

22. Mr. Lynne Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    As has been already pointed out, the abstinence only programs pimped out to us by the faith based federal government don’t really educate. I can’t speak for the Lowell program specifically, but in general it has been shown that, far from being informative, these programs tend to peddle actual misinformation. As such, a great comparative tool for what things might be like if the schools abandoned providing the ‘real’ information would be to compare these abstinence only programs to other programs. Such a comparison quickly shows that an education policy that abstains from providing ‘real’ information quickly fails its students. Given that if you left it up to the parents to provide the ‘real’ information, you’d find your success rate would be lower than if it was comprehensively taught in school, it follows that a strategy that abandons using the schools to disseminate ‘real’ information is also a failure to educate our youth population. Given the real societal costs and consequences to fail to educate on this particular subject, I simply feel that abandoning the mission for schools and hoping parents pick up the slack is too much wishful thinking and not a pragmatic solution in any way.

23. Mr. Lynne Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    Premise: Gloucester High didn’t utilize an abstinance only sex ed program and instead offered something more comprehensive.
    Premise: Some girls apparently demonstrated unwise sexual behavior.
    Conclusion: Comprehensive programs don’t work.

    Sorry… that conclusion doesn’t really follow from the premises. This is why anecdotes do not, by themselves, constitute analysis you can rely on. The statistics of sexual activity, unwanted pregnancy rates, and VD rates would be much more informative than a single anecdotal data point.

    Furthermore, there are doubts that an actual “pregnancy pact” ever really existed.

24. kpem Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    I think my moms idea of “the talk” was something along the lines of “did you hear it all from your friends, Oh good” Please don’t leave it up to all parents. My friends still in this day and age are saying “here read this book” My school had a great program that stressed abstinence but added in the important things to remember if you don’t abstain and was not taught by a Lowell Minister.

25. joe from Lowell Says:
    August 21st, 2008 at 10:36 am

    I always wonder if the people who oppose teaching kids about contraception, because it will send the wrong message about risky behavior, also oppose teaching kids about seat belts. We wouldn’t want them to think there’s such a thing as risk-free driving. It might lead them to take more chances.

    I’m guessing the answer is “No.”

26. Christopher Says:
    August 21st, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Response to #13

    Plenty of us did get through high school without such activity thank you very much. I don’t think anybody wishes they had less safe sex, but there are certainly those who wish they had waited.

Leave a Reply