Sex Education Could Mean Charges for Teachers

[PokerGuy]

So who do you side with? A single prosecutor with an obvious extreme right-wing agenda, or the state legislature who created a law mandating (from the looks of it) fairly sensible sex ed?

I generally don't think this stuff belongs in school anyway, but that aside, you can't just ignore the law. If the new law is written such that teachers could end up behind bars for adhering to it, then it's a bad law that needs revised. The prosecutor obviously has his own agenda, but as a teacher I'd be very concerned that I could end up in a lot of trouble simply for following the new law. Talk about a no-win.

 

[Linflas]

"Conservative opponents counter schools should focus on abstinence."

FAIL.

Really?

Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for U.S. efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Abstinence-only programs might work, study says

 

[xj0hnx]

Knowing bout about STDs doesn't get you a job.

Neither does having a kid, or Hep C at age 14.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why is this taught in the schools in the first place?

Schools need to focus on actual education and drop the crap.

This is the job of the PARENT.

Could the move of PARENTING from the actual parent to the state, have a role in the decline of todays youth?

Because when parents don't teach kids about STDs and contraceptives, the state pays in the end.

 

[Vette73]

Really?


Abstinence-only programs might work, study says

MIGHT delay, BUT....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503957.html

"The pregnancy rate among teenage girls in the United States has jumped for the first time in more than a decade"
and
"Several experts blamed the increase in teen pregnancies on sex-education programs that focus on encouraging abstinence."

 

[CrackRabbit]

I generally don't think this stuff belongs in school anyway, but that aside, you can't just ignore the law. If the new law is written such that teachers could end up behind bars for adhering to it, then it's a bad law that needs revised. The prosecutor obviously has his own agenda, but as a teacher I'd be very concerned that I could end up in a lot of trouble simply for following the new law. Talk about a no-win.

One way or another if you taught in that district you end up having to ignore a law(s).
So if it were up to you, as an educator (lets even say a health ed teacher), do you ignore the law being preached by some guy with an agenda that MIGHT prosecute you for doing your job garnering him all of the negative publicity that goes with it.

Likewise do you ignore the law that states you have to teach sex ed as part of your curriculum or possibly lose your job because you are not teaching to state standards.

Or do you end up as so many other educators and say "fuck it", quit your job and ditch the system and do something else entirely?

 

[TruePaige]

Some of you are naive.

Kids are gonna have sex. (FACT)

We have a lot of idiots out there.

Keep the idiots from having babies.

Some of these idiots might grow as people, if they have the opportunities, which they won't have if they become idiots with an idiot litter.

 

[Patranus]

Or do you end up as so many other educators and say "fuck it", quit your job and ditch the system and do something else entirely?

Start a charter or private school.

choice and competition!

(Oh wait, that is only when the competition isn't against the government)

 

[zsdersw]

(Oh wait, that is only when the competition isn't against the government)

Stop being a troll for once. You might like the alternative.

 

[Jaskalas]

Southworth also argued that teaching contraceptive use encourages sexual behavior among children, which equates to sexual assault because minors can't legally have sex in Wisconsin.

That's a big WTF?! Throw it out.

 

[Exterous]

Some of you are naive.

Kids are gonna have sex. (FACT)

Seriously. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blind to the truth. Kids need to know about the proper use of contraceptives AND how a 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old will destroy your life

 

[Fear No Evil]

Since we are paying for everyone's healthcare now the government WILL have a right to tell you what to do with your body. Except they will focus on things like candy, soda, and transfats. The days of your body being your decision are long gone. Its a government employees job to determine whats best for you now.

 

[Matthiasa]

Seriously. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blind to the truth. Kids need to know about the proper use of contraceptives AND how a 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old will destroy your life

Umm you forgot what state this is in... a 16 year old having sex with a 16 can destroy their lives, if reported.

 

[piasabird]

What is sex ed? Saw more films on what stupid people did when they got drunk and drove their car. If only they would teach abstinance from tobacco and alcohol and drugs.

 

[lothar]

That's kind of dumb. Telling people that they exist but not showing how to use it properly?

It's not the teacher's job to demonstrate how to properly put a condom on a penis in the classroom.
That's the job of the parent or family doctor.

 

[Brainonska511]

It's not the teacher's job to demonstrate how to properly put a condom on a penis in the classroom.
That's the job of the parent or family doctor.

If you're going to have sex education classes, you should demonstrate how to use the common ones, like condoms. You don't need to be ripping out a penis in class - just put it on a freakin' banana and explain the steps that a person should go through when using a condom.

 

[sao123]

Umm you forgot what state this is in... a 16 year old having sex with a 16 can destroy their lives, if reported.

a 16 year old having sex with a 16 year old can destroy their lives regardless of it being reported.
Teens need to just NOT have sex.

 

[TruePaige]

a 16 year old having sex with a 16 year old can destroy their lives regardless of it being reported.
Teens need to just NOT have sex.

 

[Matthiasa]

a 16 year old having sex with a 16 year old can destroy their lives regardless of it being reported.
Teens need to just NOT have sex.

Eh most places it won't get you potential jail time and your name on some registry though.
The state has a solid line for age, there is no sliding age scale.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

The law can not be enforced without opining on it. The role of the DA is to form opinions of what the law means for enforcement practices, and to act accordingly. If you don't like how politicized a DA's opinions happen to be, that might be an indication of an institutional flaw, but the problem is NOT that forming opinions is somehow outside of the job description of a DA.

The very definition of an attorney's job is to form opinions. Preferably defensible ones, but that distinction is left up to judges...

No the role of a DA is to prosecute crimes. He is entitled (indeed, an essential part of his job) to determine whether or not he has enough evidence to prosecute a crime that comes before him, but his job is not to threaten criminal prosecution of a duly passed law and preemptively eviscerate or make enforcement of the law dependent on his political views. He's a prosecutor, not a legislator.

 

[nonlnear]

No the role of a DA is to prosecute crimes.

And doing so requires forming an opinion about the criminality of the act in question.

He is entitled (indeed, an essential part of his job) to determine whether or not he has enough evidence to prosecute a crime that comes before him, but his job is not to threaten criminal prosecution of a duly passed law and preemptively eviscerate or make enforcement of the law dependent on his political views. He's a prosecutor, not a legislator.

Some would consider it a courtesy if a DA announced an unforeseen consequence of a duly passed law, rather than springing a surprise prosecution on an unsuspecting teacher. I agree it runs the risk of politicizing the office, but that line is already way in the rearview mirror when you make the position of DA an elected office...

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Eh most places it won't get you potential jail time and your name on some registry though.
The state has a solid line for age, there is no sliding age scale.

Depends on the state; some do have "Romeo-Juliet" laws where if one person is under the age of consent, the other partner won't be charged *if* within a certain range of the partner's age (usually 1-3 years).

a 16 year old having sex with a 16 year old can destroy their lives regardless of it being reported.
Teens need to just NOT have sex.

In an ideal world, that would probably be a smart choice. But since that's not always going to be the case I don't think that teens sexting, to use but one example, should *always* lead to draconian measures such as a lifetime sex offender listing. The law should be able to distinguish between two teens exchanging pictures, and a spurred suitor vindictively sending pictures to everyone.

 

[Matthiasa]

Depends on the state; some do have "Romeo-Juliet" laws where if one person is under the age of consent, the other partner won't be charged *if* within a certain range of the partner's age (usually 1-3 years).

Well yeah depends on the state... In the state at hand even two 16 or 17 year olds having sex is illegal.

 

[Chaotic42]

Knowing bout about STDs doesn't get you a job.

Define the education children should recieve in school. You probably won't get a job having analized a poem, but you might gain some valuable language skills. You probably won't get a job knowing how to find a derivative, but you might gain some analytical skills.

Proper sex education is a part of health education which I argue that we desperately need in the US. Nutrition, fitness, sex ed.