
This research question interests me because I remember my sex education classes that began in fifth grade and continued into high school. I remember being "scared" into not having sex by being shown disturbing photos of severe and rare STDs as well as overly dramatized diagrams. I found this very unhelpful, and I know a number of my peers did as well. We were told to simply not have sex. Our differing beliefs and stances on sex were not acknowledged, instead they were ignored. Therefore, when some of my peers began to become sexually active, they were unaware of how to protect themselves. Birthcontrol, condoms, and other methods of contraception were only briefly discussed in our sex education classes. It affects me and my values because I believe teenagers are educationally unprepared for sex when they are only taught to just "not have it" and that does not seem right. I am qualified to write about this because I feel strongly about this subject, have had personal exposure to the current forms of sex education, and have done and will continue to do extensive research on the topic.

Schools and Sex Education: Does it Work? explores whether or not sexual education changed sexual behavior, contraception, and teenage pregnancy. After five studies were conducted, the evidence showed that there was "little to no effect from school based sex education" (Stoud and Rivara). This article goes on to state that due to all of the funding it takes to run these sex education programs, there should be an approach that shows more efficient results.

In this article, a major interest at stake is the amount of money that goes into programs that are not efficient in educating students on STDs or preventing teenage pregnancy. The value of justified spending is also at stake. In addition, the health of students is at stake when they are not properly educated on sex and how to protect themselves.

The authors, James W. Stout, MD, and Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH, are credible because Stout is from the Department of Pediatrics Harborview Medical Center at the University of Washington and Rivara is from the Children's Hospital and Medical Center in Seattle. They reference to a research project with graphs and evidence. They also cited all of their sources and information gathered. There is no bias because this article is based off of research only.

In Monica Silva's article, she discusses the many sexual education programs through schools that are "designed for the sole purpose of delaying the initiation of sexual activity" (Silva). Silva points out that the two most popular methods of sexual education, abstinence-only and safer-sex, have different goals and values, yet they both are attempting to help students with problem solving and decision making (Silva.) She explains that the effectiveness in delaying sexual relations was shown to be inconclusive when two studies contradicted each other. The value of waiting until marriage to have sex is at stake when comprehensive sexual education is used because some believe that it encourages sexual relations. Many religions and personal beliefs are impacted by that. In addition, teenage students that are receiving abstinence only sexual education are at stake for pregnancy because they are not informed. 

The author, Monica Silva, writes for Health Education Research, which is an academic source. She is credible because she has researched this topic and used many experiments to support her information. Silva references to a number of other doctors, academic sources, and researches. She has little to no bias because her article is strictly informative in relaying the information from others' research.

In Effective Sex Education, Brigid McKeon argues that "comprehensive sex education is effective and does not promote sexual risks" while "abstinence-only programs are dangerous, ineffective, and inaccurate" (McKeon). She states that not a single abstinence program has been proven to prevent teenagers from having sex nor has it helped to protect them. McKeon argues that the U.S. government should stop spending money supporting ineffective programs while ignoring the rights of teenagers to efficient sexual education.

The values and interests at stake include the government spending money on programs that do not benefit and teens that are not getting the information they deserve. Teens are at a high risk for pregnancy and STDs because they are not properly educated on sex when all they are told is to remain abstinent. The author, Brigid McKeon, is credible because she is writing for an academic journal and uses strong facts and cited evidence to support her claims. This article has some bias because it is obvious that the author prefers comprehensive sexual education over abstinence-only programs. Yet, her bias is supported by evidence so the reader is educated fully on the matter.

This research question is arguable because there are multiple different approaches to this subject and since not everyone agrees, it is an argument. One of my sources stated that no form of sexual education was effective, yet another source said that comprehensive sex education as effective and abstinence-only sex education was not effective.  These different perspectives strengthen my perspective because of the clear research that has proven that the current popular abstinence-only sex education is not effective in helping students remain abstinent nor protect themselves. In my research question revision, I may be able to explore the type of sex education that students most prefer and the type that parents most prefer. In addition, I could explore the best combination of abstinence and comprehensive sex education.

