The Sex Education Crisis in the Garland Public Schools

Sermon 1 of 12 from the Critical Issues series

May 1988 - It all began on Sunday, February 28, 1988, when the following headline appeared on the front page of the Garland Daily News: "District Faces Sex Education." The subhead told the rest of the story: "Trustees Consider First Extensive Program." From that beginning has come a controversy which has spread across our city. It is a measure of the depth of feeling that many people who only a month ago could not name a single school board member are now campaigning vigorously for or against certain candidates in this Saturday's election. It is a second measure of the nature of this issue that the evangelical pastors of Garland—who have never met together in the five years I have been here—have met twice in the last three weeks to consider the sex education issue.

In the time that is before us this morning I would like to do several things: First, I would like to trace the history of this particular controversy. Second, I would like to say a word about sex education in a broader context and, in so doing, address the question, Can you teach morality in a public school classroom? Third, I would like to offer a basic framework for a Christian understanding of sex. Fourth, I would like to give a few conclusions and recommendations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Before I do all that, there are several preliminary things I need to say. If you have been following this controversy, you know that the sex education curriculum has already been revised in light of many, many complaints by the parents. I had a chance to study the revised curriculum this week. It is available at the Nicholson Library for anyone who cares to look at it. [1]

Let me say that I am grateful to our school board and to the GISD (Garland Independent School District) administration for their willingness to make some changes. It is certainly in the spirit of a democratic society for our leaders to listen to the people.

And I realize that being on the school board is something of a thankless job. There are endless hours of meetings and negotiations that go on year round that have nothing to do with sex education. Most of what the school board does we never pay any attention to. The seven men and women who serve Garland are under pressure from all sides—from the administration, from the teachers, from unhappy contractors, from the state and federal governments, from the press, from the students, from the parents, and even occasionally from the local pastors. I would not want the job myself, and I do not blame them if they are sometimes very frustrated.

No matter what I may say later about this particular crisis, I would like to state that in my personal opinion we have a very fine school system here in Garland, one that would be the envy of many other cities our size. About five years ago a man came by to see me and told me something which seems to be absolutely true. He said that a city like Garland takes great pride in two particular things: Its schools and it churches. I did not fully understand that statement then, but I have seen its truth many times since then. While I am aware that the GISD wrestles with all the contemporary problems of our day, and while I know that things are not perfect, I do believe that the teachers and administrators have the best interests of our children at heart.

I say that so you will know that I have no particular axe to grind. I have no personal animus at all. My concern is as a pastor. There are currently 33,860 children enrolled from pre-K through the 12th grade in the various public schools of Garland. Some of these children are from our church. All will be affected by the proposed sex education curriculum. In the future, many more of our children will enter the GISD. Therefore I speak on behalf of both the current and future students of our public schools.

And, finally, I want you to know that I have never spoken on sex education before today. In fact, up until about three weeks ago I had never thought about it at all. [2] I did not finally decide to preach this sermon until Tuesday of this week when I went to a pastor's meeting at the Lavon Drive Baptist church. There were perhaps 20 Garland-area churches represented—Baptist, Church of Christ, Catholic, Episcopal, Assembly of God, and Bible churches. After attending that meeting, and after thinking about the deeper issues involved, I decided to speak out.

I. The Roots of the Garland Controversy

As I have already said, the first public notice of the new sex education program came on Sunday, February 28. But the program was in the works for many months before that. Sometime last year, a committee began to study the sex education programs in other cities in an attempt to find one that would be suitable for Garland. On Wednesday, February 24, the District Affairs Committee recommended to the school board that the proposed program—called "Education For Self-Responsibility"—be adopted for use in the GISD. Elements of the program included mandatory sex education beginning the 1988-89 school year for all children in the 1st through the 12th grades. In the lower grades, the program would have the goal of building self-esteem and teaching decision-making skills. Beginning in the fifth grade, boys and girls would be brought together to view films showing the reproductive process and the various physical changes of puberty. In the sixth grade, students would be taught dating skills. In the seventh grade, students would be exposed to information on various forms of birth control, including the use of condoms, the diaphragm and the pill. In the higher grades, the teaching would presumably be even more explicit.

What exactly were the trustees and the administrators thinking of when they brought this program in? These are the words of one of the trustees: "It's a sensitive subject, but I think every parent understands the importance of it. We have a responsibility to give basic information to the students so they can make their own decisions." One of the administrators said, "We want to equip them with the information and decision-making skills needed to make educated decisions." [3]

Another interesting comment came from another administrator. "We don't want to attach a mystique to a normal body process. If you separate the kids, they think, ‘There must be something wrong if we can't talk about this together.'" She went on to add, "We talk about ears together, we talk about the respiratory system together. Why not the reproductive system?"

The most crucial comment comes from the administrator who said that the program's emphasis on factual information should help teachers avoid "the morality issue." "We've tried to be very careful. First and foremost, we must be accurate. What we've done is try to stick to the information and teach decision-making without teaching morals. We have tried to refrain from any position that might promote one viewpoint over another." She went on to say that "abstinence is stressed throughout the curriculum as the only sure answer to all these problems."

And what is meant by "all these problems?" Two things primarily. The first is the problem of S.T.D.s. That stands for Sexually-Transmitted Diseases. It includes every kind of venereal disease and it especially means AIDS. Thanks to Surgeon-General C. Everett Koop, the threat of AIDS has become the key to a massive new effort to expand sex education in schools across America. AIDS is on everyone's mind these days, including the leaders of the GISD. The second problem is teenage pregnancy. Roughly one million teenagers get pregnant each year. About half have a baby. Most of the rest have abortions. The problem of babies having babies is truly appalling, and many people hope that sex education will somehow make a difference. [4]

The Garland Daily News gave us its opinion of the new program on that same day. Their editorial was called "Local sex-ed plan very progressive." They called the program "newly enhanced" and said that sex needs to be discussed "in an open, intelligent manner that demystifies sex and reproduction." The editorial went on to say that becAuse of its progressive nature, the program may cause some "ripples of protest." The writer concluded by saying that "A fine program on sex-education is about to be launched, and the community can show its progressiveness by supporting such a program." (p.4-A)

I can summarize the events since then by saying that the ripples of protest soon became a tidal wave of opposition. The school board held two public meetings, primarily for those with grace concerns. The first was attended 200 people, the second by a crowd of about 500 people at South Garland High School. Behind the scenes a great many people have voiced opposition to the program. Meanwhile the three-week pilot program proceeded as scheduled for the sixth, seventh and ninth grades.

It's difficult to say exactly where the sex education program stands today. Clearly, the administration and school board did not expect such vocal opposition. They know now that they went too far, too fast. They have made a number of substantive changes and have proposed a series of community meetings for this summer for parents to talk about their concerns.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

What really is the issue here? While some parents have focused on various details—such as separating boys and girls in the fifth through the eighth grades (a concession which was granted, by the way), the far greater problem stems from the philosophical assumptions behind the program.

The school board and the GISD administrators seem to believe that it is possible to teach value-neutral sex education. Value-neutral means, as one of the administrators said, avoiding "the morality issue." It means teaching the facts of biology, the facts of birth control, the facts of reproduction, the facts of puberty, the facts of maleness and femaleness, the facts of AIDS, the facts of pregnancy, and never telling the students the difference between right and wrong. That's what the trustee meant who said, "We have a responsibility to give basic information to the students so they can make their own decisions." That's why this program teaches "decision-making skills." It's a way of avoiding the while issue of morality. Sure, they want to encourage abstinence, but they are afraid to say that pre-marital sex is wrong. That's morality and they can't get into that.

The whole stress is on providing accurate information and teaching students who to make responsible decisions. The rest is up to the teenagers. It's as if our school board has said, "We can go this far and no farther. Good luck." One of the administrators made the matter very plain when she said that the district is prohibited by law from teaching moral values in the classroom. [5] At the large meeting at South Garland, the school board president said, "We can't take the religious position you're asking us to take. You're asking us to teach morals and we can't do that." The superintendent of GISD said they were working to incorporate abstinence while staying removed from moral and religious grounds. [6]

What happens when you have a philosophy like that? You end up with a program that tries to take the mystique out of sex. It's just another bodily function. After all, as the lady said, "We talk about ears together. We talk about the respiratory system together. Why not the reproduction system?" That's what's called progressive sex education.

There you have the basic issue. Our leaders proposed to bring in a sex education program that would avoid moral values. No wonder the parents are upset.

Let me add before I go on that I believe all the people I have mentioned—and the others on the board and in the administration—are good, decent law-abiding, moral people. I'm sure their intentions are noble. They desire to help, not hurt, our children. But they have unwittingly bought into a system of thinking that in its own way is far more dangerous than the AIDS virus.

II. The Controversy in a Broader Perspective

In considering this issue, it will be helpful to know that Garland is not the first community to be embroiled in this controversy. Sex education has been around in various forms for almost a hundred years. And it has existed as an organized movement in American education since the early sixties.

There are three names and two organizations you need to keep in mind. The first name is Margaret Sanger. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood and a champion of sexual freedom in all its various forms. I saw an ad in a recent issue of Humanist magazine lauding her as a hero of that philosophy. The second name is Dr. Mary Calderone. She was the co-founder of an organization called SIECUS. The third name is Dr. Sol Gordon. He is Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Family Research and Education at Syracuse University. It would be fair to say that Without Dr. Calderone and Dr. Gordon there would hardly be a sex education movement. You will see their names quoted over and over again in the sex education literature.

SIECUS stands for the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States. They have done more than any other group in the last twenty years to bring sex education to the public schools. In one of their early statements, they expressed their viewpoint this way: "Free access to full and accurate information on all aspects of sexuality is a basic right for everyone, including children as well as adults. It is their right to engage in relationships regardless of gender, so that sexual behavior that is satisfying and non-exploitive is good. [7]. Notice, again, the emphasis on information. It is a hallmark of the secular approach to sex education.

Planned Parenthood you no doubt know about. They provide pregnancy counseling, birth control information and abortion referrals. Their current president is Faye Wattleton. In the March, 1988 issue of Education Digest("American Teens: Sexually Active, Sexually Illiterate," pp 51-53), she says that current sex education is dangerously deficient. Why? Because we aren't telling teenagers enough. Her major point is that teenagers need to know more about contraceptives in order to avoid teen pregnancy. In particular, she says we need ads for contraceptives on television and we need "a nationwide network of school-linked clinics that provide contraceptive information and services as a part of general health care." )(p. 53) She notes that this idea is endorsed by most sexually active teenagers. She also advocates mandatory K-12 sex education in every school district in the country. To sum up, she believes we need more explicit sex education, more open talk about contraceptives and easier ways for kids to get them.

She is not alone in those sentiments. Dr. Sol Gordon says as much and more in a most revealing article in the October, 1986 issue of Psychology Today ("What Kids Should Know," pp. 22-27). Dr. Gordon says that they main problem in the area of sex education is ignorance and unbridled curiosity. He goes on to say that "the idea that kids get information about sex from their parents is totally erroneous." (p. 22) Parents fail, the media fails and the schools fail because they don't teach what kids really want to know.

He goes on to say that "I doubt there are a dozen school districts (in America) that have a K-12th grade sex education program that can approach those available in Sweden." (p. 24) What's so great about Sweden? Well, he says, studies show that in Sweden most of the teenage boys who are sexually active use birth control, while over here most of them don't.

Then he says, "Useful sex education should tell children what they want and need to know. And we know what they want to know." (p. 24) He bases that on an analysis of 50,000 questions written anonymously by American teenagers. Here is his list of things teenagers want to know about:homosexuality, penis size, masturbation, orgasm, oral and anal sex, the best contraceptive to use, and when girls are most likely to get pregnant. He added that "recently, the most frequent (question) seems to be why boys are only interested in girls for sex." (p. 24) His point is that good sex ed programs will major on those areas.

Then he makes the point I have heard made by many others. He himself doesn't favor teenage sex. But most kids are going to do it anyway. Saying no just doesn't work. "I say to them, if you're not going to listen to me (or your parents) about postponing sex, us a contraceptive." (p. 25)

On homosexuality he says, "Homosexuals are people who in their adult lives are attracted to have a sexual relationship with others of the same sex. [8] That preference is not subject to conscious control. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. It's not okay to be antigay," (p. 27

This is just a sampling of his views. And he is without doubt the most significant writer in the area of teenage sex education in the last twenty years.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now, assuredly, the views of Sol Gordon and Faye Wattleton are not the same as the views of the GISD school board. But both views rest on the same philosophical premise. Give kids all the up-to-date information, take the "mystique" out of sex, teach the kids decision-making skills, and the rest if up to them. The difference is a difference in degree, not in kind. Once you decide to teach sex education without also teaching moral values, you may start out by teaching reproduction and puberty, but there's nothing logically to stop you from ending up with school-based clinics that pass out condoms like lollipops.

Thank goodness, it doesn't have to be that way. It is very possible for school systems to teach sex education with traditional moral values. In fact, there are several excellent curriculums on the market that do just that—most notably one called "Sex Respect" now being used in San Antonio and Lubbock. These curriculum teach the facts of reproduction and contraception in the context of moral values and with an overriding view of encouraging abstinence. That is the kind of curriculum Garland desperately needs.

III. Can the Public Schools Teach Morality?

But what about the objection that you just can't teach morality in the classroom? To answer that, I'd like to read a bit from a very important article by William J. Bennett, the U.S. Secretary of Education. The article is printed in the February 4, 1987 issue of America (pp. 121-125). It is based on a speech Mr. Bennett gave to a meeting of the National School Boards Association in Washington, D.C. on January 22, 1987. The article is called, "Sex and the Education of our Children." I wish every school board member and GISD administrator would read it.

He begins by saying that he has spoken out frequently about the need for schools to build character. Then he says, "We simply need to put students in the presence of adults of sound character, adults who know the difference between right and wrong, who will articulate it to the students, who will remind them of the human experience with that difference and who will live that difference in front of them." He goes on to say that "Aristotle gave us this prescription 2,000 years ago: "In order to teach good character, expose children to good character and invite its imitation." It has been the experience of mankind, confirmed by the findings of contemporary psychology, that this prescription works, that it still works." (p. 120)

Then he says, "To neglect questions of character in a sex education class would be a great and unforgivable error." (p. 120) Here is his explanation: "Sex education has to do with how boys and girls, how men and women, treat each other and themselves. Sex education is therefore about character and the formation of character. A sex education course in which issues of right and wrong do not occupy center stage is an evasion and an irresponsibility." (p. 120) Compare that with the president of the school board who said, "You're asking us to teach morals and we can't do that." Who's right? I submit that Secretary Bennett is entirely right. The truth is, our schools can teach morals if our leaders are willing to do it.

In the article, Mr. Bennett goes on to describe a typical sex ed program—one with lots of information, lots of discussion, lots of help making students feel "comfortable" with their sexuality, lots of teaching about decision-making, but no clear instruction about right and wrong, i.e., a program very much like the one proposed for Garland. What's wrong with that kind of non-directive teaching? "First, it is a very odd kind of teaching—very odd because it does not teach. It does not teach because, while speaking to a very important aspect of human life, it displays a corresponding aversion to making moral distinctions. Indeed, it insists on holding them in abeyance. The words of morality, of a rational, mature morality, seem to have been banished from this sort of sex education." (pp. 121-122)

He goes on to say, "To do what is being done in these classes is tantamount to throwing up our hands and saying to our young people: ‘We give up. We give up on teaching right and wrong to you. Here, take these facts, take this information, and take your feelings, your options, and try to make the best decision you can. But you're on your own. We can say no more.' It is ironic that, in the part of our children's lives where they most need adult guidance. and where indeed I believe they most want it, too often the young find instead an abdication of responsible moral authority." (p. 122)

I am passing over a great deal that he said in order to come to his conclusions. He says that we can't be value-neutral about sex. Neutrality, he says, confuses children and may lead them to conclusions we wish to avoid. He says that sex education should stress the high value of marriage and the importance of fidelity and commitment. He even says that girls should be prepared to become mothers and boys to become fathers. He adds that sex education courses "should welcome parents and other adults as allies. They should welcome parents in sex education classes as observers. If they do not, I would be suspicious." (p. 124)

About the teachers, he says "Parents and communities should pay attention to who is teaching their children about sex. They should also remember that teachers are role models for young people and so it is crucial that sex education teachers be examples of good character." He then quotes Oxford University professor Mary Warnock who said, "You cannot teach morality without being committed to morality yourself; and you cannot be committed to morality yourself without holding that some things are right and others wrong." (p. 125)

Here is his conclusion: "Make sure your schools are teaching our children the truth. Sometimes the simplest way to recognize the truth is to consult common sense. Let me urge you to follow your common sense. Don't be intimidated by the sexologists, by the so-called sex education experts, by the sex technicians. Character education is mostly a matter of common sense. If sex education courses are prepared to deal with the truth, with reality in all its complexity, with the hard truths of the human condition, then they should be welcome in our schools. But if sex education courses are not prepared to tell the truth, if instead they want to simplify, or distort, or omit certain aspects of these realities in in this very important realm of human life, then we should let them go out of business. If Sex education courses can't help in the effort to provide an education in character, then let them be gone from the presence of our children." (p. 125)

If only the leaders of the GISD would read that, and believe that, and follow that, there would be no controversy and we would all be happy. As long as they persist in believing they can educate without moral values, there will be no end to this battle.

IV. Charting a New Direction

As I have mentioned, the curriculum has already undergone several substantive revisions. But it is not clear that anything has changed philosophically. In the beginning, for instance, abstinence was listed as one method of birth control. Now it is emphasized to a much greater degree. But does that represent merely a change in teaching style made under pressure, or does it mean the board and the administration are abandoning their earlier statements about value-neutral education? No one knows for sure.

I would suggest that the GISD do one of two things: 1. Scrap this whole program and begin again. And do it on the basis of three clear moral values: CHASTITY, MONOGAMY, FIDELITY. Build it from a solid foundation in order to lead our children toward those high goals. It is crystal clear that our public schools can teach moral values if they want to. And they can do it without violating anyone's constitutional rights and without bringing in the Bible or prayer or any sectarian influences. 2. Adopt one of the already-available curriculums—such as Sex Respect—that stress those three moral values. And if we need to supplement it in certain areas, by all means let us do so.

V. A Christian View of Sex

Now I've preached a long time without mentioning a single Bible verse. What does the Bible have to say about all of this? Suffice it to say that sex was God's idea. He thought of it long before Sol Gordon did. In fact, the subject comes up in the very first chapter of Genesis: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27) In the next chapter, God says, "It is not good for man to be alone." (Genesis 2:18) So Eve is created to relieve Adam's loneliness. And where is that relief experienced? "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) It is experienced in the security of a one man-one woman-one flesh lifetime relationship. In the beginning, what was sex like? "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." (Genesis 2:25)

That's the way it was supposed to be, that's how God designed it. And although sin has entered our world, whenever a husband and wife come together in the security of an unconditional, lifetime commitment, they can experience—even in this fallen world—a bit of what life on earth was meant to be.

Which is why the Bible says, "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure." (Hebrews 13:4) Marriage is like a window in time through which a man and woman get a glimpse of eternity. It is no exaggeration to say that in God's design, marriage is meant to be a little bit of heaven on earth. And in that context, sex is holy and pure and good… and good for you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

We're not asking the public schools to teach all that. We don't want them to. We're just saying, don't work against us. Don't try to take the mystique out of sex. God is the one who put the mystique there in the first place. Don't try to de-sensitize our children. God is the one who made them sensitive. Please don't pretend that talking about sex is like talking about your ears. It's just not the same thing. We want children who can blush, who can be embarrassed easily, who won't grow up calloused by dirty words and cheap jokes, who will grow up believing that it's smart to say no and dumb to say yes. We are giving you our innocent children. Please don't take their innocence away by showing them too much, too soon.

VI. Where do we go from here?

I have several specific suggestions:

Make sure you vote this Saturday in the school board election. The school board has the final say about what happens in our public schools. Perhaps it is time we sent them a message about what kind of education we want for our children.

If you have a child in the GISD, get involved in his school. Join the PTA, get to know the principal, volunteer to help the teacher in class projects, take time to read the textbooks, let them know you are genuinely interested.

Make sure you give solid answers to your child's questions. Our kids are growing up in a sex-saturated world. They know more now at the age of 8 than we did when we were 18. They know words and concepts we never knew growing up. They hear explicit lyrics and unconsciously imbibe the message. And they are increasingly exposed to so-called "alternative lifestyles." Don't be shocked when your child comes home with a hard question. Take a deep breath and give him a good answer. [10]

Spend time with your children this week. Set a date to get together for an ice cream cone or a ball game or to go bike riding. Our children see us so little and yet need us so much. If we spend time with them now, later on when they do have questions, they won't be afraid to come to us for answers. But if we've been too busy all through the years, they will probably go somewhere else. And then it will be too late. [11]

Remember that our greatest weapon is prayer. Fundamentally the battle over sex education is a spiritual battle. Our real fight is not with GISD or the school board. Those folks are doing the best they know how. Our real battle is with Satan. He's won a whole string of victories in America in the last thirty years, and we won't defeat him with the arm of flesh alone. I Timothy 2 tells us to pray for those in authority. That includes our Board of Education and the school administrators. I think we should begin to pray for them—that God would give them wisdom and courage and lead them in paths of righteousness.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

We have the great encouragement that "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1) It does not always seem like it. A sermon like this may make it seem that God has lost control. It's true that we no longer live in the Garden of Eden. It's also true that we can teach our children the truth about love and marriage and commitment and fidelity, about chastity and purity, about the wonders and mysteries of sexuality. When we do, both we and they can recapture a bit of paradise and live life the way God meant it to be in the first place.

Postscript

In the days since preaching this sermon, I have had a very nice phone conversation with one of our school board trustees. He expressed basic support for the positions taken in the sermon and stated he believed the school board desires to teach sex education from a position of strong moral values. He also said he believes the Garland Daily News did not fully report the story, i.e., that they reported only the most sensational quotes. He also indicated that the school board had made a mistake by pushing ahead with the pilot program.

All of that is very encouraging to hear. I still believe the basic philosophical question needs to be answered. The question is not, will we teach our children sex education? The answer must be yes because we are teaching and they are learning all the time—and most of that teaching and learning takes place as children watch the way their parents talk, think and act. It also takes place as teenagers talk with their friends, watch television, listen to the radio, and take their uncertain steps toward the opposite sex.

What place does the school system have in all of this? They can have a very positive and helpful influence if they will reinforce the values the children are receiving—or should receive—at home. The trustee pointed out to me that something like 70% of the students come from homes where there is divorce in the background. This, he said, means the kids live in a completely different world than the one we grew up in. I believe he was drawing—as one inference—that the schools must teach our young people about contraception lest they compound error upon error and die from AIDS. (I am paraphrasing this thoughts, but I believe this is substantially his meaning.)

Now I don't necessarily disagree with that. I can well believe that many of our teenagers will, in the heat of passion, do things they come to regret later.

But, in my judgment, it is a grave mistake to say, "Because it is this way, it will be this way no matter what we do." When you start from that premise, you will never teach value of abstinence with any great conviction. You have admitted defeat without bothering to play the game.

That is why it will take more than highlighting the word abstinence every time it appears in the lesson plans. Do we or do we not believe in abstinence as a moral value that should underlie all our teaching in the area of sex education? Are we willing to start from that premise and teach in order to lead our young people to a personal decision of chastity? That question remains unanswered.

Someone may say that I am asking a lot of the public schools. Indeed I am. But the children of Garland go to those public schools. Why should we settle for less than the ideal?

To summarize, I believe that all good sex education is, as Secretary Bennett said, education in character and in moral values. It will not be enough to simply print the word abstinence in bold-face type. Nor will it do merely to emphasize words like self-esteem, dignity, respect and kindness. As good as those things are, they are not sufficient guides in the area of sexuality. Let us build our program around chastity, purity, monogamy, fidelity and commitment. Let us do that for the children of Garland and the hurrahs will never end.

Notes

The material is contained in four legal size folders and consists of lesson plans stapled together. It is clearly marked on the front "Revised, April, 1988." The greatest part of the material concerns an explanation of the various changes which take place at puberty. Every time that abstinence is mentioned, it is highlighted in bold letters. The accompanying health textbooks are also available for review.

Like most people, I am a product of the public schools-not here in Garland, but in a small town in Alabama. My sex education in high school consisted of a few comments by the gym teacher and whatever I could figure out from other sources. For the record, I do believe it is worthwhile to teach young people the basic facts of reproduction and puberty.

Reported in the Garland Daily News, February 28, 198. The article begins on page 1-A and continues to page 5-A. All the quotes from local officials are taken from this article except for the two mentioned below. I have decided not to identify the sources of the individual quotes because I do not think it would serve any useful purpose. However, they are all taken from the pages of the Garland Daily News and the reader is invited to check them for himself.

There is naturally a great debate as to the effectiveness of sex education reducing teen pregnancy. The interested reader should consult Time magazine for November 24, 1986. In a lengthy article (which was slanted in favor of sex education), the writers note that research is inconclusive on the practical value of sex education to actually change teenage behavior. They cite a massive, sex-volume stud produced in 1984 by MathTech, Inc., which concluded that sex education had "almost no effect" on contraceptive use, views of premarital sex or social skills and self-understanding among teenagers. (p.56)

The article in the February 14, 1987 issue of America, Secretary of Education William Bennett notes the rising tide of sexual activity among teenagers in the last twenty years-the period when sex education has spread to so many schools. His conclusion: "I do not suggest that sex education has caused the increase in sexual activity, but clearly it has not prevented it." (p. 121)

Secretary Bennett goes on to quote Larry Cuban, a professor of Education at Stanford University: "Decade after decade … statistics have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of such courses in reducing sexual activity and teen pregnancy. In the arsenal of weapons to combat teenage pregnancy, school-based programs are but a bent arrow. However, bent arrows do offer an illusion of action." (p. 121)

For further discussion of the effectiveness of sex education, the reader is referred to the helpful booklet "Teenage Pregnancy and Sex Education in the schools," prepared by Dr. Dinah Richard for the San Antonio Pregnancy Centers. The report contains an up-to-date summary of research in this area as well as an extensive bibliography of pro-chastity material. The address is P.O. Box 792011; San Antonio, Texas 78279-2011 (512) 496-3288. The report costs $1.

Reported in the Garland Daily News, March 30, 1988, p. 2-A

Reported in the Garland Daily News, April 1, 1988, p. 1-A

This is only a fragment of the SIECUS statement. The full statement contains support for pornography as useful therapy for many adults.

Dr. Gordon's article represents almost everything that is wrong with modern sex education. He starts out by assuming that more and better information is the answer. He believes that we should structure our teaching around the desires of oversexed adolescents. He ridicules the ability of parents to provide meaningful sex education. He looks to Sweden as a model. He simply gives up on the possibility of challenging young people to the high standard of personal chastity. He advocates benign acceptance of masturbation, mental fantasies and homosexuality as normal behavior. He is in favor of giving full birth control information to teenagers. And all this from the man who is generally thought to be the single most influential author in the area of teenage sex education. ( ( For a concurring view of Dr. Gordon, see the column by William Murchison ("Gordon Exploits Sexual Revolution,") in the AFA Journal, May 1988. p. 5. Mr. Murchison calls Sol Gordon "a moral ignoramus."

I have included-as an appendix-the guidelines proposed by the Concerned Parents for Responsible Sex Education in the GISD> I believe it represents a reasonable approach to the problem.

There are many excellent resources available for parents to use in teaching their children. One of the most recent ones is Decent Exposure: How to Teach Your Children About Sex by Connaught Marshner, published by Wolgemuth and Hyatt. The booklet "Teenage Pregnancy and Sex Education in the Schools" (see note 4, above) lists a number of good resources. Most Christian bookstores will carry material in this area. I should also mention that Why Wait? by Josh McDowell and Dick Day (Here's Life Publishers) is especially helpful for teenagers and their parents.

I am indebted to Dr. Gary Coleman, pastor of the Lavon Drive Baptist Church in Garland, for this suggestion (and for the following one as well). Dr. Coleman preached on sex education on Sunday night, May 17, 1988. His sermon contains many helpful ideas and is well worth listening to for more information on this subject.