Introduction
Sex education has been a source of contention for decades, with different views on whether it should be taught in schools. Others say that comprehensive sex education in schools is required to encourage healthy sexual behavior and lower the incidence of sexually transmitted illnesses and undesired pregnancies. Others argue that sex education should not be a school subject and that parents should teach their children about sex.
Examining the arguments for and against sex education in schools, evaluating the quality of reasoning in academic sources on both sides of the issue, and discussing the distinctions between scholarly and non-scholarly sources provides insight into how to make strong claims.
Argument Supporting Sex Education in Schools
Evidence from one literature review and one cross-sectional research study underpins the argument that sex education should be taught in schools. Goldfarb and Lieberman (2021) argue that comprehensive sex education should be introduced in schools. The authors present data from 218 research articles demonstrating the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education programs in encouraging healthy sexual activities, lowering teen pregnancy rates, and avoiding STIs. They claim that sex education programs that teach abstinence are ineffective and may even be damaging to students (Goldfarb & Lieberman, 2021).
As a result, it is right to conduct comprehensive sex education programs that inform about contraception, safe sex practices, and relationships in schools. Additionally, a study by Astle et al. (2021) on six focus groups involving 38 college students emphasizes the need for comprehensive sexual education. Since 46% of teenagers are sexually active, sex education programs are important to mitigate STIs and teen pregnancies. According to the survey, the research found that learners support a diverse approach to sexual education. The primary argument can be presented as follows:
- Premise 1: Comprehensive sex education in schools has the potential to minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted illnesses (STDs) (Goldfarb & Lieberman, 2021).
- Premise 2: Thorough sex education can encourage healthy sexual attitudes and behavior (Goldfarb & Lieberman, 2021).
- Premise 3: Current sex education programs in schools focus too much on contraception and STDs (Astle et al., 2021).
- Premise 4: Sex education should cover a broader range of topics, including healthy relationships and communication skills (Astle et al., 2021).
- Conclusion: Literature of the past three decades provides strong support for comprehensive sex education across various topics and grade levels (Goldfarb & Lieberman, 2021).
Evaluation of the Supporting Argument
Comprehensive sex education programs can lower rates of unwanted pregnancies and STDs while also promoting healthy sexual behavior and attitudes. The writers support their views with diverse research and data, producing a clear and persuasive argument. The argument’s premises are properly substantiated, and the writers present a compelling case for comprehensive sex education to be taught in schools. However, their paper may fail to address any counterarguments to their argument, such as questions about the propriety of teaching sex in schools or the role of parents in sex education.
The thesis of Astle et al. (2020) is based on college students’ ideas for enhancing sex education programs. While the authors’ recommendations are consistent with current studies on successful sex education, their article lacks data to support their assertion that current sex education programs place too much emphasis on contraception and STDs. The study describes that considering the highest school students are exposed to sexual activities, sexual education is relevant to avoid risks such as unwanted pregnancies. Furthermore, their essay does not address any counterarguments to their ideas, such as the potential expense of extending sex education programs in schools or the possibility of controversy surrounding some of the issues they propose to include in the curriculum.
Argument Against Sex Education in Schools
The authors suggest that sex education in schools may not be suitable for young children and that parents should be their children’s primary source of sex education. They argue that sex education in schools may contribute to children’s early sexualization and may be contrary to the cultural beliefs of some families (Shin et al., 2019). The article provides some evidence that sex education is the responsibility of the parents rather than educators.
Additionally, the news article by Dampare-Osei (2023) highlights a case of parental concern over sex education in schools. Nevertheless, the article does not explain why parents may be better suited to this job. It does not evaluate the idea that some parents may be ill-equipped to deliver accurate or complete sex information to their children.
- Premise 1: Schools should concentrate on academic subjects rather than contentious social matters such as sex education.
- Premise 2: Parents are their children’s primary instructors, and they should be able to select what their children learn about sex.
- Premise 3: Sex education in schools may damage children by exposing them to graphic or confusing content.
- Premise 4: Schools that teach sex education may undermine traditional values and promote dangerous or immoral actions.
- Conclusion: Parents who are the primary authority for young children and teenagers prefer to provide sex education for their children at home.
Evaluation of the Counterargument
The essay discusses the need for parental engagement in sex education. The authors claim that parents should be able to determine the content and timing of their children’s sex education and that sex education in schools may conflict with their values and views. The argument, however, is based on the premise that parents are always eager and competent to give thorough sex education, which may not be true for all parents. Furthermore, the article fails to consider the possible benefits of sex education in schools, such as offering information to kids whose parents may be uncomfortable or uninformed about the subject.
Notably, some research in the article implies that sex education in schools may not be beneficial in changing pupils’ views or behavior. The article, however, does not address the possibility that this is due to insufficient or poorly planned sex education programs rather than a problem with the notion of sex education in schools. Evidence from the study supports that parents hold negative attitudes toward sex education in schools. Since the article provides no actual data to support its claims and its reasoning is primarily based on assumptions and personal views, it presents a weak argument.
Arguments in Non-Scholarly and Scholarly Sources
On the issue of sex education in schools, there are considerable disparities in the level of reasoning between academic and non-scholarly sources. Goldfarb and Lieberman (2021), Astle et al. (2020), and Shin et al. (2019) are academic publications that present well-researched and substantiated arguments with empirical data to back up their findings. Contrastingly, Dampare-Osei’s (2023) article is a non-scholarly source that bases its arguments on anecdotal evidence.
Furthermore, unlike unscholarly sources, scholarly sources are peer-reviewed and fact-checked, strengthening the research quality and assuring the credibility of the arguments. Ultimately, compared to unscholarly articles, academic publications are often more trustworthy and provide more compelling arguments supported by solid evidence and logical reasoning.
Conclusion
To conclude, the issue of sex education in schools is divisive, with arguments both for and against it. When the logic in these sources is evaluated, it is evident that academic sources provide more solid and well-supported arguments than non-scholarly ones. Evidence supports comprehensive school sex education because it provides students with the knowledge and skills necessary for making informed decisions regarding their sexual health. Therefore, it is crucial to assess the relevance of the material and ensure that it is presented in a culturally sensitive and inclusive manner.
References
Astle, S., McAllister, P., Emanuels, S., Rogers, J., Toews, M., & Yazedjian, A. (2021). College studentsâ suggestions for improving sex education in schools beyond âblah blah blah condoms and STDs.’ Sex Education, 21(1), 91â105.
Dampare-Osei, P., & Osei, P. D. (2023). ‘parents…We’re lost’: Father deeply concerned by school’s sex education after a teacher wrote ‘c*nt’ on board. LBC.
Goldfarb, E. S., & Lieberman, L. D. (2021). Three decades of research: The case for comprehensive sex education. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(1), 13-27.
Shin, H., Lee, J. M., & Min, J. Y. (2019). Sexual knowledge, sexual attitudes, and perceptions and actualities of sex education among elementary school parents. Child Health Nursing Research, 25(3), 312.