Sex education is a waste of valuable class time

The argument

Proponents of this position argue from the scarcity of lesson time rather than from any objection to the subject matter itself. School hours are finite, so every topic taught displaces another, and the question becomes which topics only a school can deliver. On this reasoning, lesson time would be better spent on something parents cannot teach — mathematics, history, science, or music, each of which requires specialist knowledge and structured instruction — than on a subject that parents can and do teach at home. The second strand of the argument concerns academic value. Sex education, proponents contend, has no academic merit: it does not develop a pupil's capacity for abstract thought, it builds no transferable analytical skill, and it provides no deeper understanding of life and the world around us in the way that a discipline with its own body of knowledge and methods does. They add that it is largely unstimulating for most children, so the time is not only academically unproductive but poorly spent as engagement. Put together, the two strands yield the conclusion that the subject occupies hours it does not earn. If a topic can be covered at home and contributes little to intellectual development, there is no need to teach it in schools, and the timetable slot it occupies has a clear alternative use. Schools should instead focus their efforts on fostering creativity, improving productivity, and developing the skills that will enable adolescents to thrive in the working world — outcomes proponents take to be the distinctive purpose of formal education. Because the case rests on opportunity cost rather than on the content of sex education, the argument holds that it should not be taught in schools: the time it consumes is valuable, and the school is not the only institution able to provide it.

Context

We need to maximise the time children spent in school. They would be far better served using their contact time with a teacher to learn subjects that parents cannot teach them. Because parents can competently teach sex education, it is a waste of valuable class time to teach it in schools.

Premises

Counter-arguments

What subject is more important and integral to your child’s future health and wellbeing than sex? Subjects like maths and science, while still important, are only useful to a portion of future careers and lifestyles. Sex is relevant to all of us. Sex education also goes well beyond teaching the mechanics of sexual intercourse. It teaches tolerance, the definition of consent, and the scientific processes involved in contraception. Many parents are not able to teach these subjects, either because they themselves do not know, or because they are unable to effectively communicate with their child about sensitive topics like sex and relationships.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Many parents cannot effectively teach sex education.