When sex ed becomes a means to incorporate hyper-progressive views on gender, sex, and behavior, it ceases to be neutral material necessary for development.
When sex ed becomes a means to incorporate hyper-progressive views on gender, sex, and behavior, it ceases to be neutral material necessary for development.
I f inflation feels like we’ve returned to the 1970s, the current education culture war more resembles the early 2010s, when arguments over abstinence-only or comprehensive sex education filled op-ed pages. Sex education is once again the issue du jour. Unlike the previous decade, however, this argument centers on gender ideology and sexual expression.
Rather than picking through the most outlandish examples of sex education, it might be helpful to analyze a popular curriculum, observing what the majority of schools endorse, not a fringe few. Positive Prevention Plus, a program that began with federal grants in 2004, grew to one of California’s most popular curricula, and has now spread to “schools and districts around the country,” is such a program.
To begin, there are two points worth noting: First, research finds that a general overview of sex education (via basic anatomy and physiology) delays the onset of sexual activity and reduces risky behavior; second, polls find that a plurality of voters across demographics support this basic form of sex education. This debate is not an “if” issue but rather a “what, how, and when” issue. The problem isn’t whether kids should learn about the birds and the bees. The problem with many sex-ed curricula is that they go far beyond that stated goal, do so increasingly early, and incorporate sensual and graphic elements considered inappropriate for minors.
Positive Prevention Plus is expansive in its vision. In a parental guide, the program argues that sex education “should not just mean providing information about the basic facts of life, reproduction, and sexual intercourse.” It instead informs parents that a fundamental goal of the program is to “develop values” in students.
There is a distinct worldview behind the program. It wants to affirm children in “exactly who they are” — their whims, their desires, their passions. Children might “define their genders in ways we didn’t even know existed,” and parents are to simply accept “this new frontier of gender identity.”
Agree or disagree with those premises, they are in fact premises, and controversial ones to boot: Adults should leave children to develop in whatever way the child pleases, and the gender dichotomy is an arbitrary concept. Neither of these is a scientific fact nor a universally accepted theory.
Herein lies the problem: This style of sex education isn’t just another area of content. There are implications for behavior regarding sex education that simply do not arise when discussing the dates of World War II or the basics of germ theory. Ethical differences, worldviews, and social pressures are necessarily at play. With whom? When? How? To what end? Teaching about condoms differs from teaching about Band-Aids regardless of what activists might think.
Left-wing teachers would bristle were we to inject conservative Christian views into the classroom. Parents equally bristle when teachers force contentious claims into publicly funded institutions. Any curriculum in a public school is, by design, stamped with the approval of that state’s department of education, provided for by each taxpayer, and presented to young, impressionable minds.
When sex education becomes a means to incorporate hyper-progressive views on gender, sex, and behavior, it ceases to be ideologically neutral material necessary for development. Activism presented to students as moral education, often in direct opposition to the standards of their parents, smacks of the Pied Piper of Hamelin rather than the classic American teacher.
Florida’s approach to sex education, marketed by legacy media as a point of contention, seems more like a point of consensus. It allows for sex education in schools but limits the age of instruction, requires a focus on the anatomy and physiology of reproductive science, and includes age-appropriate language and considerations. Despite the reported controversy, a majority of voters support the bill — while 35 percent oppose its measures.
The most astounding aspect of this debate rests in the shock and outrage in response to the common parent’s desire that their child should encounter sexual instruction from another adult in a politically biased, unscientific, and at times even outright vulgar fashion. With Positive Prevention Plus setting the modern standard, public-school sex education is awkwardly political at best and deeply concerning at worst.
Daniel Buck is a teacher and a senior visiting fellow at the Fordham Institute. His writing can be found at National Review Online, City Journal, and Quillette. Anthony Kinnett is the executive director of Choice Media and Chalkboard Review. He is a former STEM coordinator and developer in Indianapolis, with bylines in the Federalist, the Daily Caller, and the Washington Examiner.