The Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP)

Modern era sex education programs in the United States began in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of the AIDS/HIV epidemic. With the introduction of curricula teaching safe sex and the effectiveness of contraception, other curricula refuted these ideas thus creating a conflict about sex education in the U.S. Sex education in the U.S is divided into two categories: abstinence-only and comprehensive, the former being the most implemented among states nationwide. Abstinence-only programs stress the importance of abstaining from sex until marriage, fitting the “traditional” set of American morals. Covering more than just abstinence, comprehensive sex education programs not only teach students about the options they have when it comes

Studies show that the national average for an adolescent’s first sexual intercourse encounter is seventeen years old. Despite this number being very close to the average age in other industrialized countries, the United States holds a higher percentage of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) contraction than those countries (Harper et al, 2010, p. 125). It’s becoming evident that while a majority of the nation’s youth is sexually active, they are not doing so with the appropriate knowledge to keep themselves and others healthy.

Sex education for American youth has been a topic of discussion across the nation since the early 1980s. Teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease are two major problems throughout the U.S.. Sexually transmitted infections have been an ongoing problem for American people since World War I. To combat the growing teen pregnancy and STI rates, the U.S. established organized sex education. Since sex education has been integrated in schools across the nation, it has been heavily influenced by religion. The federal government has funded abstinence-only education programs for over a quarter century. Abstinence-only

Master of Professional Health Debra Hauser states that sexual education is an essential part of the development and growth of teenagers. In her article “Youth Health and Rights in Sex Education”, MPH Hauser provides a report of teenage pregnancies and STDs incidences, which points out that each year in the United States, about 750,000 teens become pregnant, with up to 82 percent of those pregnancies being unintended. Young people ages 15-24 account for 25 percent of all new HIV infections in the U.S (Hauser). According to Hauser, “sex education teaches young people the skills they need to protect themselves”, such as the ability to recognize patterns of a toxic relationships, learning to value and have control over their bodies, understanding

Since the HIV/AIDS epidemic began in the U.S. in the early 1980s the issue of sex education for American youth has had the attention of the nation. There are about 400,000 teen births every year in the U.S, with about 9 billion in associated public costs. STI contraction in general, as well as teen pregnancy, have put the subject even more so on the forefront of the nation’s leading issues. The approach and method for proper and effective sex education has been hotly debated. Some believe that teaching abstinence-only until marriage is the best method while others believe that a more comprehensive approach, which includes abstinence promotion as well as contraceptive information, is necessary. Abstinence-only program curriculums disregard

Even though sex education has been proven to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens, for years people have argued that comprehensive or safe-sex education encourages early sexual activity instead of steering the thought away. However, the main issue is not education about sex but specifically what kind of education. In 1986 Planned Parenthood commissioned a poll to determine how comprehensive sex education which teaches about abstinence as the best method for avoiding STDs and unintended pregnancy, when affected behavior. Much to the agency’s disappointment, the study showed that kids exposed to such a program had a 47% higher rate of sexual activity than those who’d had no sex education at all. In contrast, a 1996 study on “Project

require an inclusive health education and studies have shown that their curriculum works. Studies have shown that an inclusive health curriculum can delay the “onset of sexual activity, reduce the frequency of sexual activity, reduce the number of sexual partners, and increase condom and contraceptive use” (Advocates for Youth). In a study by Douglas Kirby for the National Campaign to End Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, he discovered that two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive sex ed programs studied had positive effects (Advocates for Youth). “40 percent [of programs] delayed sexual initiation, reduced the number of sexual partners, or increased condom or contraceptive use. 30 percent reduced the frequency of sex, including a return to abstinence and 60 percent reduced unprotected sex.”, according to the study. Another study by Advocates for Youth evaluated 26 effective programs, 23 of which included comprehensive sex education. Their findings are as follows: “14 programs demonstrated a statistically significant delay in the timing of first sex. 13 programs showed statistically significant declines in teen pregnancy, HIV, or other STIs. 14 programs helped sexually active youth to increase their use of condoms. 9 programs demonstrated success at increasing use of contraception other than condoms. 13 programs showed reductions in the number of sex partners and/or increased monogamy among program participants. 10 programs helped sexually active youth to reduce the incidence of unprotected sex”. With the significant amount of success these programs have had, it is safe to implement a similar one in

“The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases” (Stanger-Hall, Hall, “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates”). According to several studies, this is mainly due to the fact that numerous states teach abstinence-only education, which usually does not include material on contraception, STIs, nor pregnancy. The alternative to abstinence-only education is referred to as comprehensive sex-education, where the practice of abstinence is promoted, but students are additionally taught about contraception, STIs, pregnancy prevention, and interpersonal skills. Despite the beneficial results of this alternative, abstinence-only education is still taught all over the

2. According to the Reproductive Rights Blog, the $114.5 million teen pregnancy prevention project signed into law by President Obama in December 2009 establishes a major turning point in U.S. sex education policy, according to a new analysis published in the Winter 2010 issue of the Guttmacher Policy Review. The project replaces many of the most firm and ineffective abstinence-only programs, which by law were required to have nonmarital abstinence promotion as their “exclusive purpose” and were prohibited from discussing the benefits of contraception.

Everyone remembers having to go to a sex-ed class in late middle school or early high school. Most people remember it as extremely awkward and slightly terrifying. The difference between comprehensive sex-ed and abstinence only education can be life or death. Comprehensive sex-ed teaches people about contraception, sexual orientations, which needs to be updated, and how to be safe in general. Abstinence-only sex-ed basically only teaches to wait to have sexual interactions until married, and the benefits of it. The United States has some problems. Teen pregnancies here are two times as high as other industrialized countries (Harris), and half of all STI cases are

During the A-PReP program, I will build the base for clinical pharmacology and translational science research including scientific skills as well as critical thinking. I hope I can establish the positive relationship with experienced researchers and talented professional students. I expect to present the findings at the professional conference, I also seek opportunity for publication. Additionally, I hope my mentor could provide me with further training after this summer program.

Schools receiving money from the government, in sponsorship of the program, must teach the students to “just say no” to sex until legally married. The schools are also not permissible to teach students safe sex and “may not mention contraception except to point out failure rates of various methods” (Brody). There are a few states that have stood up to the government and refused funds, so the state has the option to determine their own ways to teach sex education. However, 43 states still take part of the program and promote it. Millions of dollars are pulled from the government each year for the program and many schools support the abstinence-only movement. The programs have encouraging titles, such as “Teens in Control” and “ReCapturing the Vision” (Impacts). Students are greatly encouraged take virginity vows until marriage, carry an ATM card (abstinence till marriage), and conceitedly wear “purity” rings (Kelly). Programs, such as these, are used to develop a strong self-worth and to teach about the negative consequences that could occur from sexual activity, but there is a major flaw: abstinence-only programs are inefficient.

It has been almost thirty three years since the first federal funding was put to use in “. . . sex education programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage to the exclusion of all other approaches . . .” according to the article “Sex education” (2010) published by “Opposing Viewpoints in Context;” a website that specializes in covering social issues. Since then a muddy controversy has arisen over whether that is the best approach. On one hand is the traditional approach of abstinence (not having sex before marriage), and on the other is the idea that what is being done is not enough, and that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach. This entails not only warning against sex, but also teaching teens about how to have

Our program’s philosophy on positive child guidance is to discipline instead of punishing children for accidents or mistakes they make. With the help of our committed staff, we can provide a positive atmosphere that will allow the children to feel loved and accepted to help build their self-esteem. Our program will offer the children with choices, but there will also be reasonable, and developmentally appropriate limits. The educators will model positive behaviours that will teach the children to problem solve and build self-control in a healthy, and safe way.

Programs that encourage abstinence have become a vital part of school systems in the US. These programs are usually referred to as abstinence-only or value-based programs while other programs are called as safer-sex, comprehensive, secular or abstinence-plus programs which on the contrary promote the usage of effective contraception. Although abstinence-only and safer-sex programs disagree with one another, their core values and stand on the aims of sex education is to help teens develop problem-solving skills and the skill of good decision-making. They believe that adolescents will be better prepared to “act responsibly in the heat of the moment” (Silva). Most programs that have been currently implemented in the US have seen a delay in the initiation of sex among teens which proves to be a positive and desirable outcome (Silva).