So a new study on the effectiveness of abstinence education came out and it’s interesting to look at how it’s being covered. First, let’s look at a story from the past about a study that showed that there was no difference in the effectiveness of abstinence programs and their counterparts that instruct teens in how to use birth control:
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs
A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration’s social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.
Two things to note. The first is how a study showing that there is no difference in the effectiveness of these two types of sex education programs becomes an indictment of only one. Why doesn’t the study cast doubt on programs that teach kids how to put condoms on penises?
The second point is how, well, “conclusive” the study is made out to be. The four communities studied become a “national study.” And while there were people who thought that the study did a poor job of separating out students who received both types of education or controlling for socio-economic factors — the lede is very cut and dry. The study “concluded” something very bad about all abstinence education.
Compare that with how the Associated Press reported a new study showing abstinence education to be highly effective in reducing and delaying sexual activity among youth compared to programs that teach children how to use birth control and condoms or combine abstinence messages with birth control instruction. The study, which appears in the American Medical Association’s latest Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, showed a surprisingly significant one-third decrease in rates of sexual activity compared to non-participants. And the decrease persisted a full two years after they attended the class. Students in the other programs showed no reduction in sexual activity or increase contraceptive use in the short or long term. OK, here’s how the AP’s Lindsay Tanner began her story:
An experimental abstinence-only program without a moralistic tone can delay teens from having sex, a provocative study found.
Isn’t that interesting? Some studies “conclude” while other studies merely suggest that something “can” happen. Why is that? And what in the world is up with that “without a moralistic tone” line? The reporter continues:
Billed as the first rigorous research to show long-term success with an abstinence-only approach, the study differed from traditional programs that have lost federal and state support in recent years. The classes didn’t preach saving sex until marriage or disparage condom use.
Instead, it involved assignments to help sixth- and seventh graders see the drawbacks to sexual activity at their age, including having them list the pros and cons themselves. Their cons far outnumbered the pros.
Now, I had to review abstinence curriculum for a story I wrote last year and the fact is that there is no one “abstinence-only approach.” Any reporter who has reviewed the curriculum of popular abstinence programs knows that it is improper to describe them as “abstinence-only.” That is the term favored by critics of abstinence programs and it’s a great term of polemics but that does not describe what the programs aim to do. The abstinence curricula I reviewed actually dealt very little with any discussion of avoiding sexual activity. For the most part, they aimed to teach youth how to set goals and achieve them, how to assess and avoid risky behavior, how to improve one’s self esteem. None of the programs I reviewed “preached” anything or even “disparaged” anything.
The fact is that Tanner’s opinions aren’t appropriate for the lede of a story about a study. These opinions and characterizations of abstinence programs do exist in the sex education thunderdome and it certainly wouldn’t be difficult to attribute them to someone from, say, Planned Parenthood. But they shouldn’t be in an AP story presented as fact.
I’m still completely uncertain how the abstinence program in this study, which shows such dramatically different outcomes, differs from some of the myriad other abstinence programs out there.
The Washington Post’s story on the study, written by Rob Stein, is better. The top of the story lays out the facts without too much editorializing. But then we also get this:
Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.
It’s really weird for me to read a paragraph like this. And not just because both Stein and Tanner use some of the same phrases (I think they may have borrowed from the press release announcing the study).
The curricula I reviewed spent much more time on boosting self-esteem, achieving goals and avoiding risky behavior than discussing — much less disparaging — condoms or premarital sex. And I also wonder how we’re discussing “most” abstinence programs. I don’t know how many abstinence programs there are but has there been a good comprehensive review of the curriculum? Or are these reporters merely summing up their own research? If I hadn’t done my own review, I’d be much more accepting of these blanket statements. But something isn’t quite right about them. At least Stein’s story does note that there are other perspectives:
But abstinence supporters disputed that, saying that the new program is equivalent to many other well-designed abstinence curricula that are thorough, tailor their messages to students’ ages and provide detailed information.
“For our critics to use marriage as the thing that sets the program in this study apart from federally funded programs is an exaggeration and smacks of an effort to dismiss abstinence education rather than understanding what it is,” said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.
When dealing with a beast as complicated as sex education, it behooves a reporter to let the advocates battle it out rather than taking sides in the news pages. Some did better with that than others.
 | Posted at 7:38 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (12) |
February 2, 2010, at 9:05 am
*beats head against desk*
“An experimental abstinence-only program without a moralistic tone”
Oh, leave us not have anything to do with a moralistic tone, heaven forfend! A programme telling school-aged children not to smoke because Smoking Is Bad presumably has a “moralistic tone” (because if smoking is bad, does that not imply that smokers are bad to smoke?) but I’ve never seen anyone tut-tutting about that.
I suppose the only comment I have to make is that I agree with what some Catholic bloggers have said; as long as matters pertaining to sex and chastity are presented as negative(absintence, ‘you can’t have this’) then it will be seen as an imposition and a burden. Chastity is not a negative, it is a positive. It is not the lack of something, it is a thing in its own right.
As G.K. Chesterton put it in his essay “A Piece of Chalk”:
“One of the wise and awful truths which this brown-paper art reveals, is this, that white is a colour. It is not a mere absence of colour; it is a shining and affirmative thing, as fierce as red, as definite as black. When, so to speak, your pencil grows red-hot, it draws roses; when it grows white-hot, it draws stars. And one of the two or three defiant verities of the best religious morality, of real Christianity, for example, is exactly this same thing; the chief assertion of religious morality is that white is a colour. Virtue is not the absence of vices or the avoidance of moral dangers; virtue is a vivid and separate thing, like pain or a particular smell. Mercy does not mean not being cruel or sparing people revenge or punishment; it means a plain and positive thing like the sun, which one has either seen or not seen.
Chastity does not mean abstention from sexual wrong; it means something flaming, like Joan of Arc.”
February 2, 2010, at 9:07 am
Some Catholic I am, that can’t even spell “abstinence” right (and Ash Wednesday, a day of fast and abstinence, coming towards us in a fortnight’s time).
February 2, 2010, at 9:49 am
I am currently teaching and Abstinence program in the county I live in public middle and high schools. This is something we see a lot when people decide our program does not work. Our program is not an abstinence only program but a program that teaches teens to avoid risky behavior, set goals and attain those goals, and how sex is something that affects all aspects of our lives not just physical. I would not call that a moralistic program but one that teaches teens maturity. I believe our program works but how do you judge this? Who do these studies determine if a teens is sexually active? By asking them? At the end of our week of teaching we take an anonymous survey to see if the teens in our class have chosen abstinence, secondary abstinence or sexual activity. According to our stats the majority of students (over 50% in high school and higher than that in middle) choose abstinence. Teens make better decisions with this kind of education. We talk about condom usage but we give the facts about condom usage. We don’t change the facts, sensationalize them, we just give them. We let the teens make their own choice, we just help give them the tools to make the best one.
February 2, 2010, at 10:28 am
What I’m still missing is a discussion of sex education as education, that is, something preparing the student for life as an adult. Abstinence-oriented sex ed may well prepare students to be better behaved teen-agers but does it educate them for healthy sex lives as adults?
February 2, 2010, at 10:41 am
Are they Tanner’s opinions if they are in the press release created by the researchers? Has anyone read the study to see how they describe the other abstinence programs funded by the Bush administration? Since this program was created by the researchers, the assumption is that is different from what is being funded by the government or the ones reviewed by Mollie.
February 2, 2010, at 11:00 am
One thing that didn’t receive top billing in the news is that the study looked only at urban black youth from a northeastern city.
My own research indicated that one reason why studies about sex ed effectiveness varies so much is because different programs work better for different types of students.
In other words, college-bound girls responded more favorably to STD training while girls who weren’t trying to delay children for careers or families and were, in fact, trying to get pregnant responded better to abstinence education. I wonder if this abstinence program would fare so well if researchers looked at a more diverse population.
February 2, 2010, at 1:03 pm
Mollie —
Since you’ve looked at some of these programs, how would people describe the following curriculum:
* Information about birth control methods, STDs, prevention techniques, and failure rates.
* A larger discussion about life & career goals, ethical perspectives surrounding sexual decision-making, planning ahead, consequences, relationships, self-esteem, etc…
Since you say a lot of abstinence only courses don’t really disparage pre-marital sex and condoms, you’re making me think perhaps this combo might be considered abstinence only? If so, I guess that’s news to me. This whole debate seemed to be one of those peculiar cultural clashes where each side stubbornly refuses to embrace one half of common sense.
February 2, 2010, at 1:16 pm
Ben,
I’m not sure if there are “official” definitions but many people call what you describe “comprehensive” sex education. But as with abstinence-focused programs, there’s no one comprehensive program or sex positive program. They run the gamut, too. That’s one reason why effectiveness studies tend to be all over the map.
February 2, 2010, at 1:23 pm
A missing segment in this debate is the population which thinks sex ed shouldn’t be taught in schools. Last survey I saw on the topic was about 50% “safe sex” 25% “abstinence” and 25% “Not in school, please.”
February 2, 2010, at 1:53 pm
What I don’t understand is this. If the media can enter in to the interpretation of empirical/sociological studies as to whether this or that kind of sex education works, why can’t they entertain a more fundamental discussion of what ‘education’ and ‘working’ are?
February 2, 2010, at 5:31 pm
Mollie asks:
No clue here. Part of the problem seems to be that the press presents this as a war of quotes. Someone against abstinance only speaks up, then someone for it responds. I don’t think I have ever seen an overview of the various sex education curricula, let alone the abstinence ones. I wonder how the curricula vary, and how the presentation of them vary by teacher.
This subject seriously needs nuts and bolts reporting.
February 3, 2010, at 9:34 am
Question, how is a abstinence only program giong to help the children who are already having sex?