Let's Talk About Sex...Ed

APPLE PODCASTS

GOOGLE PLAY

STITCHER

SPOTIFY

Comprehensive sexuality education refers to sequential learning between grades K-12, where young people are building education and skills related to medically-accurate and scientific topics that are age, developmentally, and culturally appropriate and related to a host of sexual health issues. These issues include human development, healthy relationships, communication, pregnancy and reproduction, HIV and STD prevention, and sexual health and behaviors, including abstinence. The goal of sex education is to equip young people with the skills and knowledge they need to live sexually healthy lives. So why is it such a contentious battleground in the U.S.? Jesse Boyer with the Guttmacher Institute talks to us about sex education across the country.

There are two types of sex education programs in the U.S.: Comprehensive sex education and abstinence only programs. Abstinence only programs differ from sex-education programs in that the goal is to promote a single course of preventing and avoiding sexual activity until marriage. They often are fear and shame-based as opposed to building comfort and skills around one’s own sexuality.

Decades worth of research shows that abstinence only programs not only are ineffective but often times harmful to young people due to stigma, shame and fear-based content. On the other hand, young people that take part in programs that include a more comprehensive view of sexuality (including education on contraception and healthy relationships) tend to wait longer to have sex and are more likely to use methods of contraception, like birth control or condoms.

The efficacy and outcomes of sex education are difficult to measure, but we have seen that sex education programs are more likely to improve student’s educational outcomes, allow students to build healthier relationships, reduce sexual abuse and violence, and improve young people’s use of contraception. In terms of abstinence only programs, there may be short-term blips of abstinence, but in the long term, abstinence only programs are ineffective and harmful.

Whether a student has access to comprehensive sex education versus abstinence only education depends on teachers, principals, type of school (private, public, religious, etc.), school districts, state-mandated laws and federal laws. There is no standard sex education statute at the state level. To date, only 24 states and the District of Columbia mandate sex education, and only 13 of those states require that information to be medically accurate. Many states have ‘if, then,’ laws- if schools are implementing a sex education program, then they are mandated to have certain requirements. 27 states require that if there is sex education being taught in schools, then abstinence must be stressed. 18 states and the District of Columbia require information on contraception in sex education.

Where do sex education requirements come from? Follow the bread crumbs back to the Department of Health and Human Services. There is no dedicated funding for comprehensive sex education or sex education itself, but there are funded programs that seek to prevent unintended pregnancy and prevent HIV and other STI’s among adolescents. These programs are the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPPP) and the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP). At the school-level, only less than 40% of U.S. public high schools are providing the 19 critical sex education components (as named by the CDC), and the rate is lower middle schools (14%).

In the U.S. Congress, sex education is an increasingly partisan issue. There have been particular attacks against the TPPP- the current administration is attempting to dismantle it and divert the emphasis of the program to abstinence only. While there is no federal funding for comprehensive sex education programs, 2.1 billion dollars have been spent on abstinence only education programs- over thirty years of federal investment. These programs (rebranded as sexual-risk avoidance programs) is a state-based grant program and an entirely separate competitive grant funding stream for abstinence only, respectively.

Trump has appointed life-long abstinence only champions within the administration. Valerie Huber is the former head of the National Abstinence Education Association, otherwise known as ASCEND. Political appointees within the administration intend to direct funding for regular programs to abstinence only-based programs.

For more information on each state’s sex education requirements, check out Guttmacher Institute’s website.

Links from this episode

Guttmacher Institute
Guttmacher Facebook
Guttmacher Twitter
Information on Sexual Risk Avoidance Programs
Information on Abstinence Only Programs
Information on Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Contraception

Transcript

Jennie: Welcome to rePROs Fight Back a podcast on all things repro. I'm your host Jennie Wetter. In each episode, I'll be taking you to the front lines of the escalating fight over our sexual and reproductive health and rights at home and abroad. Each episode, I will be speaking with leaders who are fighting to protect our reproductive health and rights to ensure that no one's reproductive health depends on where they live. It's time for repros to fight back.

Read More

Jennie: Welcome to this week's episode of rePROs Fight Back. Today we're going to talk about sex education. I'm really excited because this is something I am a little bit secretly passionate about. So helping me dig into this, I am really excited to have Jesse Boyer from the Guttmacher Institute with me today to talk all things, sex education. So welcome Jesse, and thank you for being here.

Jesse: Thanks Jenny. Really happy to be here. Since this is pretty much a not so secret passion of mine, I'm happy to dig into sex ed policy.

Jennie: All right. So before we get too far into this, we need to do some basic scene setting so that everybody's on the same page. We want to make sure that when we say things, people know what they mean. So we want to make sure we do some terminology definition. So what do we mean when we talk about comprehensive sexuality education?

Jesse: Great. So comprehensive sex ed is one of those terms that uh, people bring whatever their preconceived notions are, and oftentimes their own experience with sex ed to what we mean when we say comp sex ed or comprehensive sexuality education. But really in the policy arena when we're talking about comprehensive sexuality education, we're talking about sequential learning, ideally K through 12, um, where young people are building their education and skills related to a whole range of topics that are grounded in science that are medically accurate and complete, that are age and developmentally and culturally appropriate, and that's on a whole host of, um, issues related to sexual health. So it's human development, it's healthy relationships, it's personal safety and communication ,as well as pregnancy and reproduction, HIV and other STD prevention, and sexual health and sexual behaviors, including abstinence. And, but I think what's really critical to remember when we're talking about sex education is that education part, um, that the goal of sex education is to equip young people with the information and skills that they're going to need and that they have the right to, to lead sexually healthy lives across their lifetime.

Jennie: Well, that's not super familiar to me, only in that, that is absolutely not the kind of sex education I had. I had this next one, which is abstinence-only, which what is, what do we mean when we say abstinence only?

Jesse: Yeah. And, and unfortunately, you are not alone. That I'm an abstinence only program or approach or intervention is unfortunately what a lot of us in our general age, if you grew up in the eighties and nineties, early aughts and today, unfortunately you're likely to receive abstinence only programs as your sort of fake mode of education. Um, and why abstinence only programs are so different than sex ed is that the goal is different. Rather than the goal being about educating on people, the goal is about promoting a single course of preventing and avoiding any sexual activity until marriage. Now pretty blatantly, we are also seeing abstinence only programs really focusing around the concept of preventing poverty as part of the ideological motivation behind the approach.

Jennie: Yeah, mine was very much the, as we like to say the Mean Girls variation of sex education, like you're going to have sex, here are all these horrible diseases you'll get and you'll die, you're going to die.

Jesse: Yeah. Yeah. And unfortunately that's a pretty common content within abstinence only programs is that uh, that fear and shame based as opposed to building skills and building comfort around one's own sexuality.

Jennie: They are two very different types of programs. So what does the research tell us about sex, comprehensive sex education versus abstinence only?

Jesse: Yeah. Well, fortunately we have decades worth of research looking at, um, the different components of these whole range of approaches to adolescent sexual health. Everything from randomized control trials, looking at evaluation of specific interventions, um, looking at specific content of programs and the research is pretty clear in that the preponderance of the last two decades worth of research shows that abstinence only programs, um, and again, those are programs that are emphasizing abstinence, uh, and particularly abstinence outside of marriage are not only are ineffective at their primary goal of young people delaying sex until marriage, but oftentimes can end up actually harming young people because of their fear and stigma and shame based content. On the other hand, there's a whole host of research that shows that programs that include more components of comprehensive sex ed, so building off of abstinence, including contraception information, building in information about healthy relationships and consent, um, and breaking down gender stereotypes, um, actually end up, when compared to students who participate in absence only programs, these young people are delaying when they have sex for the first time. And when they do end up having sex, they're actually more likely to use contraception or condoms. Um, so therefore, you know, demonstrating that more information means that young people are better equipped to make informed and autonomous decisions about their sexual health.

Jennie: I know after having abstinence I was definitely not prepared. I, you know, didn't have this stuff about healthy relationships and so, you know, there's just many skills that you didn't get that you might have gotten or would get in a comprehensive sex education scene, setting versus abstinence.

Jesse: Yeah. And I think what oftentimes happens, um, uh, uh, unfortunately in the debate, um, in this sort of false choice between abstinence only versus comprehensive sex ed is this, um, false notion that comprehensive sex ed is about everything but abstinence when obviously, um, the purpose of that education is to provide information including abstinence as a way for young people to make their own informed decisions. Um, and it's unfortunately, um, this concept of a one size fits all approach on the abstinence only, uh, proponents motivations, um, that doesn't provide young people with the tools they need, whether they have sex as a young person or if they do choose to wait to have sex until they're older.

Jennie: When you talk about comprehensive sex ed, a lot of people assume abstinence isn't there, but then they also assume that it's just about sex and it misses a lot of the broader conversations that are a part of it. Whether that's consent or what a healthy relationship looks like or even stuff with gender based violence that gets put into some of these programs that doesn't get talked about. You, you just hear the arguments about sex, sex, sex.

Jesse: Yeah. And um, I think because we as a society bring so much weird stigma, um, and prudishness frankly, um, around sex, and sexuality, and sexual health. And remembering too that we are likely, many of us now who are engaging both in policy and in society likely also received abstinence only. So a lot of those messages, um, sort of permeate, permeate our own, um, ideas about how we talk about sex. But that, and there's nothing wrong about sex ed, including information about sex and sexual health and sexual behavior, that obviously is a critical component. But absolutely when we think about what, um, education and particularly when we have more than 50 million young people in public schools in this country, it's such an opportunity to talk about things about how young people are critically analyzing and assessing the messaging messages that they're getting in media about sex, the messages that they're getting online and with their peers about sex and sexuality and you know, assumptions. And, and you know, because, um, the research here is so compelling. Yes. We know overall the benefits of programs that include more topics beyond abstinence. But even things like looking at programs that are specifically working on breaking down gender stereotypes have been demonstrated to show that young men are less likely to be physically violent when they have gone through programs that are very clear and breaking down, you know, male, female, gender, quote unquote norms.

Jennie: Yeah. And especially when you see abstinence, you definitely see a very focus on a heteronormative frame and you don't really hear about any LGBTQ issues that you can hear more about often in comprehensive sex.

Jesse: Absolutely. And I think, um, and I'm glad that you've added the often cause it's certainly, um, you know, an area where there's always room for improvement. As we are learning more and listening to young people more in terms of what they actually say that they need. But even in looking at how some of the abstinence only programs have evolved and claim to address the fact that they have a long history of denigrating and ostracizing LGTBQ youth, we see that just creating gender neutral pronouns and programs isn't enough. Particularly, when you have programs such as Heritage Keepers that specifically instructs teachers to say that marriage is an institute between a man and a woman um, and that then also, uh, continues to perpetuate this idea that women are the ones who, and young girls are the ones who are responsible for controlling young men's sexual appetites. Um, you know, these are the kinds of content that we know are, are harmful, not just for young people, but for our society.

Jennie: So we know there's a lot of research. So when we talk about effectiveness, what are we talking about when we talk about how effective each method is?

Jesse: Yeah, efficacy is such an interesting concept when we're talking about education, which I think sometimes gets lost in this and why remembering that the goals of sex ed versus the goal of abstinence only programs are different. Because the efficacy and outcomes of sex ed are frankly much harder to measure. In fact, I believe that there was an estimate done, um, uh, within a federal agency once in terms of trying to figure out how long and how much it would cost to do a randomized controlled trial of a K through 12 comprehensive sex ed, um, in a school. Right? And we're talking over 20 years, we're talking, I think at the time the estimate was over $3 billion. And so instead what we're looking at is sort of the trends of what, um, what those outcomes look like. So with programs that do include information beyond abstinence, we see that these programs are more likely to improve students' educational outcomes. Um, they're more likely to help young people build healthier relationships, you know, in addition to supporting people's improved use of contraception and condoms. Um, and reducing sexual violence and sexual abuse and bullying. While at the same time looking at abstinence only programs, it's actually a bit easier to talk about efficacy because there is none. When we look at their goal of young people delaying, in terms in research terms, sexual initiation, the research just isn't there. That consistently, while there may be shorter term, you know, three or six month blips, um, while young people are participating in these programs and the long-term abstinence only programs aren't effective at their own goal. And I think we can't forget that it's not just that they aren't effective at their own goal, it's that they are harming young people in the process.

Jennie: Um, and I know there's a huge range of what kind of sex education people are getting and where the decisions are made. So what determines what kind of sex education a student gets?

Jesse: So many factors. Um, and you know, like so many policy decisions, sex ed isn't particularly, particularly unique in that decisions are made at every level of government. But I think what is particularly unique is that really that the layering effect of the different policy decisions that are making by the teacher in the classroom, by that teacher's principal within the school, by the school district's policy, by the school board's policy, by the State Department of Education's policies and standards, as well as the state legislature, like the laws on the books. And that's even before you get to what's happening at the federal level and where federal funding is going, or in this case, not going since we still to date have never had dedicated funding for comprehensive sex ed in this country.

Jennie: And even public or private school. I mean, I know, right? Like that really makes a difference. I know I went to a Catholic school so I definitely had a different version when you get sex ed from a nun versus maybe what the state could have mandated.

Jesse: Absolutely. And so much of the policy discussions are related to to public education. But you're absolutely right that that isn't taking into consideration the, um, the experiences of students in private schools and, and the growing number of young people who are in charter schools and what the relationship is there in terms of the standards or oftentimes lack of standards for sex ed in charter schools.

Jennie: So we'll break it down and look at kind of the different areas. So what kind of requirements do we see at the state level?

Jesse: So every state is different. There is no standard sex ed statute. There is no standard sex ed standards themselves at the state level based upon some of the analysis that my colleagues at Guttmacher have monitored over the years. To date, there are still only 24 states and the District of Columbia that mandate sex education. Alarmingly, only 13 of those states require that the instruction be medically accurate. Um, which is a number that continues to astound to me in 2018. But many states, if even if they don't have a mandate, often have what we refer to as an if/then laws so that if schools are in fact implementing some kind of sex education program, that there are certain content requirements, um, and alarming alarmingly in these if/then states the most frequent, uh, requirement is that these programs stress abstinence.DSo 27 states require that if there is any quote unquote sex ed topics being taught in schools, that abstinence must be stressed. Um, which is oftentimes a way that we have seen an abstinence only approach being the primary form of instruction or information or lack of information that's provided. Um, and on the other hand, only 18 states and the district of Columbia require information on contraception, so that you can definitely still see that disparity just within the state laws themselves.

Jennie: So we do a 50 state report card that relies heavily on the amazing data that Guttmacher has. And some of the states that didn't have comprehensive, I always found shocking. And then all that's changed in the last couple of years that states has gotten better. But so you don't necessarily know just because you are in a blue state that yeah, obviously they're mandating comprehensive sex education, cause that's not necessarily true.

Jesse: Absolutely. Because so many states actually, um, who have really robust, comprehensive sex ed practices on the ground and in their schools, may not actually have statutes that are, um, are as rigorous in terms of what they are requiring. Um, unfortunately, conversely, um, you know, we've also seen that there are states that may have requirements on the books that are perhaps being loosely implemented, um, at the school level.

Jennie: Okay. So that's the state and it's again, kind of a hodgepodge. So how is the federal government involved in sex education?

Jesse: So you think that because we're talking about education, that the department of Education might play a role in all of this and that would make sense. Unfortunately, that's not the case. There is um, uh, uh, you know, long fought, um, language that was included in the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I believe two years ago, that did allow some flexibility for local school district to choose and to choose to use some of their local block grant funds if they wanted related to some healthy relationship instruction. But that's about as close as we get within the Department of Education for there to be any kind of leadership frankly from the Department of Ed at the federal level for states. On the other hand, because we're talking about adolescent sexual health, um, where we have seen the range of funding and different kinds of programs is through the Department of Health and Human Services. As I mentioned earlier, there is still no dedicated funding for comprehensive sex ed. There's still no dedicated funding for sex education itself. Instead, there are two different programs that, um, support, evidence-based interventions intended to prevent unintended pregnancy and prevent HIV and other STD, STIs among adolescents. Um, these are, uh, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which has certainly gotten a lot of coverage in the last couple of years, sadly due to attacks from this administration. Um, as well as a program that has gotten a little bit, uh, less coverage, the Personal Responsibility Education Program or PREP, um, which it primarily awards states resources not only for interventions for pregnancy, HIV and other STI prevention for adolescents, but also requires programs that include topics related to adulthood preparation. So more of an opportunity for healthy relationship and communication, uh, building skills, um, beyond just the sexual health focus.

Jesse: Um, and the other program. Yeah. Yeah. And um, so it's, uh, rather than a program, it's resources that are funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health, which is a mouthful. DASH as it's colloquially known, um, by many of its recipients across the country. And DASH is really unique both for the federal government and particularly within CDC and that this is, these are resources that are actually awarded to local school districts as opposed to local public health departments, really with the idea of helping school districts to make sure that the sexual health instruction that is taking place in the schools is reliant on the most up to date, science and evidence is medically accurate and complete, and is encompassing a broad range of sexual health topics beyond just abstinence and contraception. DASH is one of those, um, those investments that has been so critical to be able to help demonstrate to us what young people need in terms of sexual health information, because in addition to the resources that go to school districts, DASH is also where the Youth Risk Behavior Survey lives and other critical survey tools like the School Health Profiles, critical adolescent and student health survey tools that help show us what young people are reporting their sexual behaviors to be. Um, which comes out every two years.

Jennie: These programs, I know, but they have been kind of under attack by congressional Republicans for quite awhile.

Jesse: Yeah. And unfortunately, while it's not necessarily the case at the local and state levels that sex ed is a bipartisan issue. Unfortunately in the United State Congress that is currently the case that at least under this current Congress and particularly with this administration, we've seen, um, particular attacks against the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program. Um, and not only in an attack, in order to try to eliminate the program entirely, but failing that we've seen with this administration an effort to completely dismantle its grounding and foundation in evidence, and instead use it as another way of funneling money toward abstinence only programs. There haven't been similar attacks from the administration aggressively, uh, or publicly on PREP. But we have been hearing and are concerned and want to make sure to monitor that PREP as a program to states is also being implemented the way it was originally intended. Which is to, to put equal emphasis on abstinence as well as contraception as opposed to it being yet again another way for this administration to stress and emphasize an abstinence only approach onto young people.

Jennie: Um, just one thing we didn't mention is there are abstinence only federal programs.

Jesse: Yes, indeed. Um, and, uh, in fact we are now at this point over two point or $2.1 billion that have been wasted on abstinence only until marriage programs since their inception in the, the 80s and more formally in the 90s. So at this point we're talking of over 30 years of federal investment for dedicated abstinence only approaches. Um, there are two programs now that are, they have actually been rebranded as sexual risk avoidance, um, which definitely is synonymous with abstinence only. Um, these are the same programs that were funded for the past three decades called abstinence education, which are those abstinence only programs. One of these is a $75 million state-based grant program, that primarily goes to states, um, but was changed this past year um, so that when, and if states choose not to receive this abstinence only state based grant program, local community based organizations and faith based organizations in those states can compete for the leftover funding. Um, additionally, there is an entirely separate competitive grant funding stream for abstinence only programs. Um, that is currently funded at $25 million. But based upon the funding bills that passed out of both the House and the Senate earlier this year could be increased by as much as 40%.

Jennie: Nothing like throwing good money after bad programs.

Jesse: It does seem to be the history when it comes to the federal government's attitude toward adolescent sexual health.

Jennie: You know one thing that's really worth talking about, you know, we've talked about how comprehensive sex educations have been effective, but the numbers are pretty startling. Like the how fast the teen pregnancy rate has fallen in the US in the last 10 years is pretty astounding.

Jesse: Yeah. And I think what often gets so conflated, um, because it is such a notable, uh, stat and is, is positive but positive because it means, and we have research to back this up, that young people are increasing their use of contraception, which means that young people are, have the ability to control if and when they want to become parents. So I just want to, you know, caution, when we talk about adolescent pregnancy or teen pregnancy, that even in talking about unintended teen pregnancy, that it's really about whether or not the young person has the ability to make that decision for themselves. It's not about the, you know, oftentimes it gets construed as this broad public health victory because the overall rate goes down when really it's a victory because young people have autonomous control of their body.

Jennie: Yeah. And I really just see them as interrelated. Like you need the foundation of good comprehensive sex education to know about your options, to know about the birth control out there, and to be able to make healthy decisions in a relationship and you need the access to affordable contraception that you can use and access and have access to youth friendly services that together are responsible for the drop in the teen pregnancy rate.

Jesse: Yeah, and this is where, you know, it's never fun to get into nuance when you're trying to make bold policy and advocacy statements. But I think the nuances are really important here that when we're talking about the historic decline in the adolescent pregnancy and birth rate in this country, what we know based on the research is that that's driven by increased and improved use of contraception by young people. We don't have the data and the research to draw that direct line to comprehensive sex ed, to abstinence only, to any one single thing. There are many different factors, but what we do know is just by using logic and being rational is that if young people are accessing contraception and that is driving this decline at this population level rate, that programs that either misconstrue or withhold or give incomplete information about contraception certainly aren't going to help contribute to that continuing decline. Whereas we do have the research from programs that incorporate topics, um, that are prevalent in comp sex ed, that do demonstrate that it helps young people learn about and build skills and learn how to access and use contraception. So, um, you know, it's that it's those dotted lines and especially representing a research organization, you know, want to be really clear that we can't, we can't jump to the conclusions and certainly because we don't have dedicated funding for sex ed and especially because what funding there is for adolescent pregnancy prevention and HIV and STI prevention programs through TPP, DASH and PREP is so limited that we can't draw a direct line other than to say that we know that it is at a critical first step toward helping to continue young people be able to access that information and services.

Jennie: So I know we touched on this a little bit, but what has changed since the Trump pence administration took office?

Jesse: One of the things, you know, it's certainly not as if, you know, I mentioned that this is a 30 year trend, unfortunately at this point of federal wasted investment in abstinence only programs. I think what's most notable is that, um, you know, and this was, um, perhaps a cliche that was used a bit too much early on in the Trump administration, but it's a bit of the Fox guarding the Hen House in that the, uh, the person and people now who are best positioned to determine the direction of federal investment are themselves lifelong community leaders of the abstinence only movement. I believe Valerie Huber is a very commonly known name at this point for folks who have been paying attention or seeing some of the headlines around the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program. Valerie is the former head of, uh, the National Abstinence Education Association, which then became a, the organization called Ascend. Um, and so we're seeing the political appointees within this administration in the position to determine how to redirect some of the funding that's intended for evidence based programs, not abstinence only programs. I think another thing that advocates of comprehensive sex ed are really aware of is that because decisions are so localized when it comes to sex education is thinking about the long-term effects of this administration and the role that federal funding plays on the decisions that get made at the community level and seeing how communities are having to adapt in order to be able to continue to get any kind of federal funding to be able to offer some kind of service and intervention for young people in their community. That I think there's going to be long-term effects that we really won't fully be able to wrap our head around long after this administration. Whether or not we continue to find abstinence only programs, the, you know, the, the implementation of programs doesn't just change on a dime across this country particularly because we are talking about every program being a bit different in the community, um, and different communities within a community where it's being implemented. So, um, you know, yes, it's about an attack on the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program or undermining the Personal Responsibility Education Program, but it's also about some of those long-term residual effects as this administration is challenging what evidence and science means and trying to redefine the outcomes to suit their own purpose, to advance abstinence only programs.

Jennie: You know, one thing that always is so confusing to me is, you know, really pushing for abstinence only. It, it just, it kind of boggles my mind in that, you know, they say they're doing it to protect their kids and kind of sex shaming and stigma and all this stuff. But to me it seems so basic. Like don't you want to empower your kids with the tools to make healthy, informed decisions about their lives? And that's how I see comprehensive sex ed is giving kids the tools they need to lead a healthy, successful lives.

Jesse: The challenging thing is that that is what the vast majority of parents and young pupil and yes, because we're talking about policy likely voters also think, um. In fact, uh, the most recent national polling, um, that was published in 2017 found that 89% of likely voters supported sex ed in middle school and an astounding 98% of likely voters supported sex ed in high school. So we aren't talking about unpopular concepts or unpopular policy, we're talking about a very vocal minority driven by ideologically motivated coercive intent that the abstinence is the only answer for young people. And again, you know, I think it's important to stress that abstinence is absolutely an important choice for every individual to make for themselves. What we know though is that marriage is not a panacea answer. Um, you know, young people's and people of all ages don't suddenly understand sex and sexual health and sexuality just because they get married. And that this idea that more information breeds more comfort and more ability to make decisions that best suit where we are in our life is so critical to the discussion around sex ed versus, you know, the idea of promoting a one size fits all abstinence only approach.

Jennie: So we talked about what's happening at the state level and what's happening at the federal level, what is happening at the school level?

Jesse: Yeah, um this is where, um, we actually do have some really helpful data. Um, again, uh, that we are able to, uh, to access because of the survey within CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health that tells us that actually only less than 40% of of public high schools in the country are providing all 19 sexual health topics that CDC has identified as critical to ensuring student health. That percentage is alarmingly lower for middle schools at just 14% of middle schools. So even though we know that there are young people who are entering high school who are already sexually active, only 14% of middle schools are providing these 19, we're not talking about a huge number of topics in 19, you know, sort of essential critical sexual health topics. We've seen that, um, that number also decline over the years or rather that percentage decline over over the last few years, you know, which sort of merges the, the public health and the education policy worlds together as educate, public education is being further and further strapped for resources and time at the local level. We're seeing not just sex ed but health health education in general bearing the consequence of that.

Jennie: So what can people do to get involved in policies affecting sex education?

Jesse: But I think what is such a great opportunity when we're talking about sex ed policy and affecting change is that because the decisions around what sex ed looks like in your community is impacted at so many different levels, that there are so many opportunities for a person to engage. And hopefully engage at many of those levels. So starting locally, right in your own backyard, find out what your local school district policy is related to sex ed and find out whether or not that's actually what's happening in your local schools or not. Um, there's some great resources available through Advocates for Youth and, um, Answer and SIECUS on, um, uh, trying to figure out what those policies look like at the very local level. Also, what's going on with your school board, what's your school board policy related to sex ed? Run for school board. Um, represent, um, represent your community on your school board and, and let your school board members know that sex education is important to you, um, and important to the young people in your community. At the state level, again, so much about it, it's finding out what exactly is on the books when it comes to sex ed. And unfortunately that means oftentimes having to look in a few different places cause many states will have a sex ed law, but have a separate HIV prevention instruction law and have a different consent or child sexual abuse or healthy relationships law. So piecing together what those, um, laws and policies are in your own state is a great way to start. Then getting involved with your local state reps and state senator and letting them know that you care. I think so much of, um, what drives this idea that clearly there is an overwhelming majority support for sex ed in this country is being more vocal with our representatives that we care about this. Um, and then ultimately at the federal level, um, because so many of the decisions, again, that trickle down at the local level depend on the funding, is make sure that your congressional representatives know that you care about funding for TPP, for PREP, and that you want those programs to continue with the same integrity and intent as when they were created eight years ago. Your continued support for increased funding for CDC's school-based student health efforts and survey information that's so critical to help shaping what the policies look like down the road. And then finally letting our elected representatives know that we're tired of wasting money that we know we don't have on abstinence-only programs that are ineffective at their own goal and harmful for young people. Over $2 billion is too much, and we shouldn't be at this point, wasting an additional penny on these programs that we know aren't supporting on people's lifelong sexual health. And firmly with my C3 hat on. I can still say that, find out what the candidates who are running, um, in this cycle, how they feel about sex ed. Find out if they've even thought about sex ed. G o to town halls, raise the question, let them know that you care and what you think about sex ed and then ultimately vote on November 6th.

Jennie: Absolutely. And I think it's so important to talk about being vocal about this, whether it's at a school board or at a town hall, because the Antis are, and we know that there are much smaller group than us, but we need to be just as loud.

Jesse: Yeah. And I think that there is oftentimes, understandably because there's so much going on in individuals' lives, in individuals' communities in our country, in the world right now, right. That, that not everyone has the privilege and ability to make sex ed their number one priority. And oftentimes I think that there is an assumption that for the most part we're doing okay, and it really depends on where you grow up and what school you're in and what teacher you have, frankly. Since that has such a huge impact on the quality of sex ed or lack of sex ed that you get finding out what is happening is such a huge way to then, um, help inform you when you do decide or if you decide to be vocal about supporting sex education. Finding out more information about what's happening, where you are and what your elected officials, um, think and what their positions are in sex ed are so critical because we know that young people don't have access, uh, uniformly to this information. That many young people are disproportionately affected by the lack of information and education, um, that they aren't able to get. Um, and that ultimately, whether it's the science and evidence and their research behind how sex education fulfills their need for information and access. Ultimately, it's also their right. It's the right of every individual and certainly and especially the right of young people to be given the information, education, and skills that they're going to need to lead healthy sexual lives.

Jennie: Well, Jesse, thank you so much for being here, this was a lot of fun.

Jesse: Thank you. Happy to, again, happy to, um, to have a chance to dive into some of the challenging but exciting world of sex ed policy in this country.

Jennie: Great. Thanks for listening everyone.

Jennie: For more information, including show notes from this episode and previous episodes, please visit our website reprosfightback.com. You can also find us on Facebook and Twitter at rePROs Fight Back. If you like our show, please help others find it by sharing it with your friends and subscribing, rating and reviewing us on iTunes. Thanks for listening.

Take Action