
The most effective way to teach the subject of sexual health among American students is to provide a comprehensive sex education program through which young people acquire the information they need to know about their bodies and natural behaviors, as well as dicuss the risks of unhealthy behaviors that can negatively alter a young person’s well being and environment. To be able to provide information on sexual risk-preventing behaviors to both male and female students of different races and backgrounds, these topics should be taught in the classroom where, on average, American students spend 6.64 hours a day for 180 days out of the entire year (NCES). That amounts to one thousand, one hundred and ninety-five hours a year. The main problem American schools have implementing this type of educational program and having it be impactful is due to problems with their approach and the lack of research on the demographics of the area. Another reason is that a majority of educators are afraid of the reactions that they will face from the local community, if sex related topics as well as information on contraceptive methods are being discussed in a classroom setting. Bustle writer Rachel Sanoff in her article "7 Problems With The State Of Sex Ed In America Today, And How We Can Make It Better” explains that as a result of this fear, “only 22 states mandate sex education,” and only 13 require the information taught to be “medically accurate” (Sanoff). Unfortunately, this not only affects the quality of information given to the students and the knowledge of what health programs exist to benefit them, but it is also deceiving to the public of how serious and real the issues within our nation’s youth are. Furthermore, as a result of not being taught healthy sexual behaviors, there are approximately 70 teenage pregnancies per 1000 in today’s youth, a 21.6 percent report of drug usage before sex, and only a two-thirds report of condom usage nation-wide, points out Advocates for Youth author Lauren Kalina. This data seems to sweep a large area of sex-related issues that might not exist in all areas, but can all be tracked back to the decentralized nature of U.S. sex education programs and the inconsistency of taught topics. In a 1999 national survey analyzed by authors Valerie J. Huber and Michael W. Firmin, researched showed that “41 education courses taught about puberty, STDs, and pregnancy prevention, with at least a mention of abstinence,” but, “Birth control methods, abortion, and homosexuality were topics that were more scattered in their coverage by most public schools” (Huber, Firmin). There are still not enough school-based programs in place to teach the prominent issues of today’s sexualized society, nor enough educators willing to teach the gritty topics. For example, Leah Weisgal, an educator with Planned Parenthood reflects on one of the topics that is still commonly left out, “Queer sex — I’m gay and have been out for years, but that was a real information gap. I felt comfortable talking about heterosexual intercourse, condoms, HIV/AIDS, and STIs, but I had no idea about the kinds of protection queer couples can use” (The Fader). Today’s educators have to approach sex education with the knowledge of new frameworks that exist in society. It is different than it was even twenty years ago, but with the changes brought by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights movement, feminism, the Civil Rights movement, and religious conservatism we can not afford to overlook a type of sexuality and the information that applies to them (Marsh, Fields).

Another reason high schools in America need to start teaching their sex education courses in a more direct way is so that students feel comfortable to openly discuss important topics, which will ultimately lead to safer habits in the future. Teen pregnancy, for example, is frowned upon in our cultural society at young ages, and preventing this outcome with teaching proper contraception could potentially stop further harassment from peers, reduce abortion rates and prevent major lifestyle changes to an adolescent’s life. Adolescence is a time of experimentation and learning, and the majority of this learning is done during school hours. As researchers Douglas Kirby and Karin Coyle explain in their 1997 Children and Youth Services Review,  “Virtually all youth are attending schools before they initiate sexual risk-taking behaviors, and a majority are enrolled at the time they initiate intercourse” (Kirby). By executing a comprehensive sex education method in all secular American schools, an engaging but direct sex education method where students are trained to develop the skills, attitudes and personal values to make appropriate and health-conscious choices regarding their sexual behavior, there would be a steady increase in the safety and self-efficacy of high school-aged students (Sanoff). A comprehensive sex education method should be the default educational method for all high school sex education programs throughout the country. This should be done with more attention to the demographics of the area and well researched before starting up programs in specific areas. This type of educational program does not discourage sexual activity completely, yet it provides a more comfortable environment for students to openly ask questions about the important topics that can keep them safer in those activities. 

Opposed to Abstinence-Only programs, that in 1996 under President Clinton’s Welfare Reform Act Section 510 Title V Abstinence Education Program, known as the “A-H Guidelines,” reestablished abstinence as the expected standard for school-age youth (Huber, Firmin), comprehensive sex education does not set an unrealistic goal of stopping sex among youth completely. Today, most people believe that as a result of these programs young people feel ashamed of their natural inclinations and behaviors. While many people might still choose to practice abstinence, Abstinence-Only programs, overall, do not address the reality of harmful sexual risk-taking behaviors or how to take handle contraceptives properly. In doing so, they also do not account for victims of sexual abuse and people who have not chosen to be engaged in sexual behaviors. Sex education is simply larger than intercourse, which is the main behavior wanted to be prevented by these types of programs. For example, in Sanoff’s article the writer explains, “Abstinence-only education also straight-up victim blames, promoting that classic rape apologist mantra, "boys will be boys," which is exactly what a nation in which 1 in 3 women will be raped in their lives doesn't need.” Therefore, many of the students that go through these educational programs are usually uninformed of the resources available to them for sexual-related needs and care. On top of that, teenagers are more likely to rebel as quoted from Oxford Bibliographies article, “And yet, even as abstinence continues to dominate US sex education debates, the term itself evokes ambivalence and conflict among teachers, parents, and health care providers. As Hess 2010 notes in the author’s study of abstinence-only sex educators, adults often navigate tensions between the abstinence-only-until-marriage policies and their own commitments to the health and well-being of youth” (Marsh, Fields). As history shows us, “Educational progressives and social hygienists prepared the environment for sex education. Advocates argued that sexual problems prevailed because there was an unwillingness to address the problems openly by even the teachers. ‘Mystery and silence’ were not effective in keeping young people sexually abstinent” (Huber, Firmin). If educators remain silent, their students will too. By informing our nation’s youth on the proper contraceptive services and care seeking methods they can take in regards to their sexual health, the rates of transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies among adolescents in our country are likely to decrease. Ultimately a student’s health should be more important, as well as their right to by taught the information, than a teacher’s fear of rejection. 

Along with the need of establishing more comprehensive sex education programs, our educators’ desire to teach our young people the information they need to know to take care of their sexual health should trump the fear educators have of society’s negative reactions. Change is often seen when leaders step forward for people who cannot speak for themselves. But there are certain ways to go about it. Authors Huber and Firmin share their findings that, “Changing the direction of sex education classes to economic and relational subjects also helped them become much more palatable to the public (Carter, 2001).” Since sex education standards are set by district and the approach of the information depends on the teacher delivering it, often it can be difficult to set up a program that is immediately effective. An interviewee named Weisgal explains, “There are so many laws in the U.S. that restrict what words can be used, what demonstrations can be done, and whether we can talk about different sexual orientations. Under Utah’s Administrative Code, you cannot advocate for homosexuality or the use of contraceptive methods or devices,” however he goes on to explain that this will not stop his goal of being a part of bettering the education process, “That’s the basic education I’m fighting for: the right to use proper language, tell people about their bodies and rights over their bodies, and how to get resources” (The Fader). American school systems need more educators with this mindset. 

Young people in our nation have been taught to not ask questions about their sexual health or related behaviors, and are trained to feel ashamed of their inclinations. As a result of ill education, they turn to unreliable sources and people for direction. Magazines like Cosmopolitan and Seventeen are two most popular sources that are widely known to give relationship and sex advice to their young, targeted audience. Students would be more engaged if adults that they trust with every other topic of their education taught the pros and cons of this information to them. The truth is, most students are not going to be asking their parents for direction on these topics, so it’s time for the other role models in their life to step up. In 1988, the truth actually came out. A Harris poll revealed that, “73% of American adults favor making contraceptive information and contraceptives available through school-based clinics (Louis Harris and Associates, 1988)” (Kirby, Coyle). So it is more likely that teenagers will not hear this information from their parents, at least not about methods that would protect them in the behaviors their parents might not want them to be involved in. But this does not solve the high rates of infection, teenage sex, pregnancy, or experiementation from happening. So adolescents are still engaging in these behaviors, but in a less safe way than if they were given better information of their sexual health. It is now 2017, and although a majority of schools have still not responded, data shows that parents are increasingly on board to have sex education topics taught at their children’s high schools. Society has become more sexualized than ever and there are some questions that parents just do not know how or do not wish to answer. 

Past history of sex education shows that more comprehensive training of educators makes a difference. In 1967, SIECUS leader Patricia Schiller formed the American Association of Sex Educators and Counselors and Therapists to offer training and standards for sex education providers (Huber, Firmin). This group supported the values behind comprehensive sex education and rights of the students to hear this information. These SIECUS consultants were asked to assist the development of sex education classes, which was a radical idea at the time, and within only six years more than 450 people applied to the association for certification as professional sex educators (Huber, Firmin). During this time, other organizations sought to promote reproductive health and rights “through the use of research, analysis, and education” (Huber, Firmin). These are the same three points (research, analysis, and education) that researchers notice today being the reason certain programs out last and leave a greater impact than others. It’s a right of students to hear information that benefits their health and wellbeing.  Since the 60s, groups like Planned Parenthood are advocating for better healthcare and new ways to get health information out to all kinds of people, however secular school districts have not progressed nearly as far in improving their educational programs with our country’s youth population. 

This problem of few effective sex education programs in the U.S. has taken too long to resolve, yet the urgency is ever increasing with new ways of transmitting diseases and the lowering age of teenage pregnancy. As for those starting up in-school programs, there should be a general criteria as for the information presented, so that students get a basic knowledge of puberty, STDs, pregnancy prevention, various birth control methods that exist, a brief overview of abortion and abstinence, and homosexuality. Thorough research will produce a more effective program, along with an engaging class style where students are not afraid to speak up and ask questions without being discouraged. Before beginning a course, educators could conduct an anonymous survey among the students to gain insight on what topics to go more in depth with if needed by students in that particular area. That is the key to a comprehensive sex education method. In opposition to some states current highschool administration codes, teachers should be able to answer all questions that apply to the students’ sexual health and allow for open discussion. 

A majority of Americans do not realize how bad a lack of sex education is to our adolescent youth, with sexual experimentation and risky sexual behaviors among our nation on the rise today. As these behaviors are being more widely accepted, the probability of disease and negative habits in a young person’s life increases. The most amount of time that a young person spends their day is at school, proving to be the best place to reach a majority of our nation’s adolescent youth with this risk-preventing information. Our country’s educators hold the majority of young people’s time in their hands, providing them with a unique responsibility to care for students’ academic knowledge and behavioral awareness, especially when parents fail to do so. Although some states have been successful with their sex education programs, many have failed to address the most needed information to the younger population. The goal of implementing comprehensive-sex education programs, that directly deliver a well-rounded course of sexual health and risk-preventing behaviors, is the hope that rates of unhealthy sexual behaivors will decrease among teens as more programs are put in place. As AIE’s article “School-Based Programs to Reduce Sexual Risk-taking Behavior” suggests, the 9 characteristics of an effective sex education program are as follows: effective programs focused clearly on reducing one or more sexual behaviors that lead to unintended pregnancy or HIV/STD infection; the behavioral goals, teaching methods, and materials were appropriate to the age, sexual experience, and culture of the students; programs based on theoretical approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in influencing other health-risk behaviors; programs lasting a sufficient length of time to adequately complete a variety of activities; programs that employed a variety of teaching methods designed to involve the participants and have them personalize the information, programs that provided basic, accurate information about the risks of unprotected intercourse and methods of avoiding unprotected intercourse; programs that included activities that address social pressures on sexual behaviors, programs that provided modeling and practice of communication, negotiation, and refusal skills; and programs that selected teachers or peers who believed in the program they were implementing and then provided training for those individuals (Kirby, Coyle). Abstinence-only programs have proven to be unsuccessful and to only lead to rebellion and lower self-confidence in sexually active students, but comprehensive sex education programs for teens have proven effective in multiple studies (Kirby). (Jackson). No one can stop young people from doing what they want with their bodies, but they can be better protected from harm by simply being taught the information they need to know to take care of their sexual health. 
