Teen P.E.P. stands for teen prevention education program, where a group of senior students teach freshmen health. In High School I was a Teen P.E.P. peer leader and now that I have graduated I am a stakeholder. In Teen P.E.P. we covered topics like alcohol, other drugs, & sexual decision-making, communication with peers, parents, and partners, homophobia reduction, preventing sexually transmitted infections, understanding sexual harassment, negotiation and refusal skills, along with a variety of other topics. I am interested in a national comprehensive health education because I have seen the impact that learning these skills can make on a young adult's life; and because curriculum varies form district to district, many students aren't receiving the education they deserve. I have also been trained to understand and teach these topics. I'm qualified to write about this because I have done a good amount of research on the current state of our country, including the STI epidemic, the increasing number of sexual assaults on college campuses. A national comprehensive sexual health education could be the solution to these problems by informing young adults before they are faced with making tough choices. 

To answer the question, I have compiled several sources to pull discussions from, including research published by a non-profit called The Guttmacher Institute. The review published in 2016 is a compilation of data pertaining to state policies on Sex and HIV Education. The information given is divided up state by state and by what each state mandates. Numbers that stood out include that only "20 states and the District of Columbia mandate both sex education and HIV education," (Guttmacher Institute p.2), and "only 13 states require that the instruction be medically accurate." The information is credible and the data has references at the bottom of the document. There is bias because The Guttmacher Institute is an organization seeking to advance sexual and reproductive.

My second source is a book titled No Time to Loose by the U.S. Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. The book presents the institute of medicines plan for the prevention of HIV and AIDS as new advances in technology and treatment can lower the risk of contracting and spreading HIV. The plan is to promote prevention by effectively allocating resources, prevention programs that are proven to work, new technology to aid in treatment, as well as the elimination of social barriers to make information reach a greater number of people. I hope to use this document and model a similar plan for a national comprehensive sexual health education plan. In particular, I will focus on what this plan did for funding and resource allocation because is one of the major concerns for a national core curriculum. This is a credible source because it was the governments plan to increase U.S. population knowledge on the HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment options. The book is older but I was able to find out that many pieces of this plan were put into place and had a positive outcome.

My third source is an article published by U.S. news about the common core state standards. The article is called "Common Core: Myths and Facts" by Amy Golod. While the common core is not state mandated, because 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act impedes federal government in creating curriculum, it has begun to be adopted by schools to create their curriculum. This is an important piece when thinking about creating a national sexual health education plan. Because the federal government can not get involved in state affairs it can create a plan that can be enforced by each state. Looking at the common core as an example, it is important to create a plan that takes everyone's needs into consideration. The source uses other sources to create an argument and makes it more credible. There is no bias because it is an informative piece that does not sway towards or against the common core.

Many states do not require to teach a health education that is anything more than abstinence. Only 18 states are required to teach a health class that is factually accurate. This put up a debate that in a world were teens are being bombarded by the media to have sex, or drink, when they may not have the right information or resources to protect themselves and face the consequences of being unprotected. There are also barriers to creating a national sexual health education that include the argument that education curriculum is a state right and does not fall under national jurisdiction. But, a good opposing argument can help make my argument better by helping me see both sides of the story. What I have to also look at is I have a very broad research question, making it more specific might help me focus and delve deeper into the most important topics. 

