Saturday, June 26, 2010

Condoms for First Graders?


Oh, don't you just love it? Public school--it's awesome!



olde.fashioned said...

I'm so disgusted, I'm speechless.

Nuttycomputer said...

Disgusted? What I find disgusting is the way media and political opponents will twist a story to make it evil. Reminds me of the media using titles like "NRA wants more people killed by guns" when big concealed carry pushes were happening.

I very much doubt first graders were on the mind of the school board when they approved this policy for the district (which includes high schools). One I personally think is very sound and the right step forward. It requires one to see a medical professional, it requires that professional to provide counseling on safe sex (including abstinence), and it allows that individual to deny access.

It's not like there is an open jar of condoms being put in every class which the title and media seems to want to portray here.

I believe we should teach kids abstinence sure, but to close our eyes and pretend those kids are going to listen and not have sex anyway is, in my opinion, foolish. As such we should teach both abstinence and safety. Maybe one of the two will get through.

Mike said...

So much wrong with this. o.0

Mariah :) said...


The Warrior said...

NC: As always, your views are welcome and respected. However, I strongly disagree.

(While the media loves to sensationalize I know...the point was that first graders "could" get condoms. And on top of that, I saw an interview with some school boardie or other and she told a very different view, more in line with what is most revolting.)

Nuttycomputer said...

Could and will though are very different. For example I could get hit by a meteor or run into the back of a truck on my way home from work today. Will I? Unlikely. More likely I would contend than a first grader getting a condom under this policy.

The steps required:
1 First grader would have to ask for the condom.
2. Medical Professional would have to provide counseling.
3. Medical Professional would have to approve/deny.

I would say 99 if not 100 percent of first graders wouldn't know what a condom is to even ask for one. Let alone would it be approved for that age. If they do at that point I'm glad for step 2 as serious counseling is definitely needed.

I argue it's nothing more than sensationalism over an otherwise reasonable policy. I've made a a full counter post in my blog:

You can login via OpenID (Blogger Credentials) to comment or just comment anonymously. (Sorry couldn't resist realized I haven't plugged my blog yet to you at all) :P

On lighter news - Supreme Court Incorporated 2nd Amendment. Look forward to your post and opinions on that.

Mariah :) said...

What bothers me most is that these school officials felt that there was a need for this policy. That doesn't reflect very well on our teaching. By teaching, I do not mean the school teachers (at least not primarily), but our societal teaching. You know--media, social, and family attitudes and beliefs that influence this sort of behavior even in elementary school students.

NC has some good points, but I feel that they may be as simplistic as Spencer's. (No offense meant, Spencer. Or NC, for that matter.)

Also, I don't know that having the school provide condoms so universally is necessarily the best idea--for another reason. The reasoning seems to be, "if they're going to have sex, they ought to at least have sex safely." This action, however, may be seen by individuals involved (particularly students) as saying that premarital sex is acceptable, and that "everyone is doing it." The "everyone is doing it" myth is a dangerous one, because if a student thinks that he/she is the only one not participating in certain behaviors, he/she is more likely to cave in to peer pressure. This is also, I fear, not doing justice to the true complexity of the problem.

Research suggests that "abstinence only" sex education is ineffective, again on the grounds that if they're going to do it anyway, they ought to do it safely. I actually don't like either alternative (i.e. "abstinence only" education vs. promoting abstinence but also teaching about safe sex). Unfortunately, what I would prefer to do would probably be too religious to be allowed in a public school. (i.e. teaching Bible stories, etc.) Bummer.

(Did I mention that I'm thinking about finding a private school to teach in?)

The Warrior said...

Mariah: No offense taken! :-D I like your idea of Bible stories...let's go with all-out Christianity!

And as to private's time that we make a national move towards privatizing education. To me, that means homeschooling up until high school, and private higher education. Booyah!

Nuttycomputer said...

Mariah: This action, however, may be seen by individuals involved (particularly students) as saying that premarital sex is acceptable...

Mariah, no offense taken as always different viewpoints are accepted and that is the only way to resolve problems anyway. Which means I hope you don't take offense when I say your view as well is also simplistic in that you are making the assumption in your argument that premarital sex is NOT acceptable and therefore we've failed as a society in coming up with a good solution to prevent kids from having sex.

Now I'm not saying it is or isn't I won't take a position in this current argument either way. However it does highlight one of many problems with public education. Since it's public it must conform to constrained viewpoints. It cannot nor should introduce religious doctrine. It can and should teach that anything that does not intrude on another person's rights is okay. This of course includes consensual sex whether premarital or not.

Yes, some of us may personally find this morally objectionable. So I will echo Spencer's comments that public education should be torn down. That way you can send your kids to a school whose curriculum appeals to you and I can send mine to one that appeals to me.

Eventually the public will vote with their dollars.

In the meantime I believe the policy presented here is really as clear-headed as a public policy can be without entering into the topics of religious or moral choices which are inherently different and as such Government should stay out.

Mariah :) said...

I support homeschooling when it's done well (actually, I think it is often closer to the public school model that I would like than our public schools are), but not everyone can (or should) homeschool. :) At least, I know some parents (for example, the less than responsible type, or the hardly ever at home type) that shouldn't be homeschooling!

One of my teachers says that the best and the worst schools he knows are homeschools, and from what I've seen, I quite agree. :)

Mariah :) said...

NC, I guess I can't really be offended by your misinterpretation etc. because Spencer knows the background to my comments and you didn't.

when I say your view as well is also simplistic in that you are making the assumption in your argument that premarital sex is NOT acceptable

It is not.

and therefore we've failed as a society in coming up with a good solution to prevent kids from having sex.

We have. But I don't blame the schools, nor will I ever impose my religious beliefs on others. As one who has had experience teaching/aiding in a number of very different elementary schools, I will not put the burden of solving our current societal on the public schools, but on the people. Our society is made up of individuals, and then families, not of school districts.

I'm done. I don't feel like writing any more...