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, preventing sexually transmitted infections, and 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, and 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. The data includes information on what topics are covered in health classes and how accurate the information taught is required to be. 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 can be seen as credible because the data has been cited at the bottom of the document. There is bias because The Guttmacher Institute is an organization seeking to advance sexual and reproductive education. The values and make-up of the organization are progressive adding to the importance of what is at stake. For the Guttmacher Institute what is at stake is the knowledge that sexual health education is lacking in the U.S.

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 it 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. The information can be seen as credible because all information in the book has a source. There is bias because The U.S. Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention is the committee in charge of heath promotion and disease prevention and one goal of the committee is to tackle HIV and prevent the spread of HIV. For the committee, being able to educate those at risk of HIV and preventing the spread of HIV is what is at stake.

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. The Common Core are standards for education created by the government that many schools have begun to adopt. The common core is not state mandated because of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act that impedes federal government in creating curriculum. The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the biggest roadblock in creating a national comprehensive sexual health education plan because many argue that the government does not have jurisdiction to do so. This article is an important piece when thinking about creating a national sexual health education plan because the act states that school curriculum is a state right and the federal government can not get involved in state affairs. 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. Instead it is informative and seeks to educate people on the plan. I hope to use the common core to model an educational plan that would be adopted by the states.

Many states are not required 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 the debate that in the technological era were teens are being bombarded by the media to have sex, that 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 my very broad research question, making it more specific might help me focus and delve deeper into the most important topics. This is a topic very important and that I would like to advocate for outside of my research paper.

