?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Is anyone truly surprised? - A Suburbs Boy Living a Country Life [My Flickr Photos]
June 29th, 2007
07:53 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Is anyone truly surprised?
The abstinence-only sex education study referenced here shows that we spent almost $90 million dollars to achieve absolutely no change in teens' behavior.

Current Mood: aggravatedaggravated

(14 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:hammercock
Date:June 30th, 2007 12:44 am (UTC)
(Link)
Hey, but at least they spent almost $90 million of taxpayers' money on programs run by liars and religious fanatics, just like the members of this administration!

Oh...wait, I forgot, that's a bad thing. Nevermind.
[User Picture]
From:kitwench
Date:June 30th, 2007 01:10 am (UTC)
(Link)
No change ?
Read the study.
No difference from the control group - which DID have regular sex-ed.
Funny, I fail to see how proving that both programs do EXACTLY the same thing- means one is a failure.
[User Picture]
From:scruffycritter
Date:June 30th, 2007 02:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
Presumably because the stated goal of the abstinence-only ed was to get the group to abstain at a higher rate than the control group did.

But speaking to the scientific method here: by the very definition, in a properly conducted study, you don't "prove" anything about the control. If we had a study on regular sex-ed vs A/O sex-ed vs a control of NO sex-ed. Then we'd know something about both programs.

Anyone have a link to the study?

If the activity numbers were really even, then you would also have an experiment's worth of data on STD and pregnancy occurances where the abstinence-only group resembles the control. If they are identical too, thats an mark against the regular sex-ed classes.

[User Picture]
From:kitwench
Date:June 30th, 2007 01:19 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, I agree that this does not measure whether sex ed programs - of any type - are better than no sex ed programs of any type in the schools.
As a parent, I am opposed to sex ed programs in schools.
But as a homeschooler, I recognize that my parenting beliefs differ radically from much of what other parents take for granted as the wise and proper norm,lol.
I have no problem therefore with letting each district's constituents choose yeah or nay, and abstinence based or traditional.
It bugs me when one side insists that the other must be banned, and it's clear now that there is no difference between them.
[User Picture]
From:scruffycritter
Date:June 30th, 2007 03:47 am (UTC)
(Link)
This is weird. I just read through the study.

They didn't go into who caught what, but they asked questions.

The study group knew as much about condoms (maybe more but not statistically signicantly more) than the control group.

Something is going on the study doesn't account for (like kids educating eachother, or a/o instructors going outside the bounds of the classes, r something).

But the A/O group seems to know just as much (or as little) about risks and what lessens them as the control group, which one wouldn't expect. Could be the class was offered after then barn door was left open. Could be kids "educating eachother". Could be instructors deviating from class curriculum. No way to tell from this study.
[User Picture]
From:kitwench
Date:June 30th, 2007 01:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You're leaving out what every professional educator seems to assume is a non-factor-
What the kids are learning from their PARENTS.
[User Picture]
From:scruffycritter
Date:June 30th, 2007 04:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, i'm leaving out all sorts of stuff I guarantee. TV, Movies, C. Everett Coop, Bennifer, Anna Nicole, Barney...

Thats why they need a different study.
[User Picture]
From:madbodger
Date:July 3rd, 2007 03:24 am (UTC)
(Link)
Barney has been shown to contribute to teen pregnancy, so yeah, that's a factor.
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:July 3rd, 2007 03:31 am (UTC)

correlation does not imply causality...

(Link)
...of course it's often the way to bet.

By the way, your prime? * so * hosed it's not even funny....
[User Picture]
From:madbodger
Date:July 3rd, 2007 04:41 am (UTC)

Re: correlation does not imply causality...

(Link)
Oh, I'm not positing a post hoc derivation here.

Oh, what have they gotten themselves into this time? Their "ethics" seminar was a hoot, I tell you.

[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:July 4th, 2007 03:00 am (UTC)

Re: correlation does not imply causality...

(Link)
Call me...I don't want to dish the dirt even in this semi-private space.
[User Picture]
From:unquietsoul5
Date:June 30th, 2007 01:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
No, not surprised. I heard about it when they stealth released the study and hoped no one would notice.
[User Picture]
From:wombat1138
Date:June 30th, 2007 01:52 am (UTC)
(Link)
IIRC there were a few differences; compared to teens who had actual informative sex-ed, abstinence-only teens were less likely to use contraception and more likely to engage in oral or anal sex (due to not considering it to be "real" sex). Short NYT rundown from last year here.
[User Picture]
From:madbodger
Date:July 3rd, 2007 03:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
God himself made teens that way, and these supposedly God-fearing morons think mere mortals can CHANGE that? Fools. Clitoridæ, CLUE!
Powered by LiveJournal.com