Should sex education be taught in schools?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should sex education be taught in schools?
Position‹2 of 2: Yes, sex education should be taught in schools
Argument‹4 of 7›: Not everyone has access to sex education

Teenagers are always going to have sex. By putting sex education on a curriculum, no child gets left behind and is left vulnerable, without the knowledge to make informed decisions and protect themselves.

The argument

Studies indicate that there is no existing form of sex education that reduces the number of teenagers engaging in sexual activity. Whether they receive abstinence-only sexual education instruction, no instruction, or a comprehensive class in sexual education and relationships, teenagers engage in sexual activity at the same rate and frequency. That finding removes the premise on which the argument against sex education rests, because the case for withholding it has always assumed that teaching about sex encourages it. If the rate is the same either way, then withholding instruction buys nothing; it only changes how much teenagers know while doing the same things. The implications of this mean that instead of pretending teenagers are not having sex, we should accept that they are and focus our attention on ensuring they are aware of the necessary precautions to ensure a safe and happy sex life. Once behaviour is held constant, the only variable left is knowledge, and the question becomes whether young people meet those situations informed or uninformed. This means putting comprehensive sex education programs on the school curriculum. In doing so, governments and educators can ensure that no child is left vulnerable to sexual exploitation and abuse by not having the knowledge required to protect themselves. A child who has never been taught what coercion looks like, or that they are entitled to refuse, is defenceless in exactly the situation where the knowledge matters most — and that is a harm inflicted by the silence, not by the teaching. The school is the only setting that reaches every child. Left to families, this knowledge is distributed according to how willing or able a particular household is to provide it, which means the children with the least support at home receive the least protection. Taking it out of the parents' hands means that everyone gets the same access to information, and no child is left behind.

Context

Teenagers are always going to have sex, so we may as well accept that and make sure they are as safe as possible by providing sex education in schools. Leaving it up to parents could lead to some teenagers engaging in sexual activity without being aware of the dangers.

Premises

[P1]Studies show that no form of sex education — or its absence — changes the rate at which teenagers engage in sexual activity. [P2] Given that teenagers will have sex regardless, the priority should be ensuring they have the knowledge needed for a safe sex life and protection from exploitation. [P3] Leaving sex education to parents produces unequal access, whereas school-based programs guarantee every child receives the same information. [C] Therefore, comprehensive sex education should be taught in schools.

Counter-arguments

The school is the realm of the academic and the home is the realm of the spiritual and pastoral care. Sex is not an academic subject. It is a moral, spiritual, and ethical matter. The responsibility and choice of when and how much to tell a child or teen should be the parents’ alone.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] The school is the realm of academic instruction. Home is the realm of spiritual, moral and ethical instruction. Sex education is a moral and ethical concern. Therefore, it should be kept out of schools.