Sex Ed in America: North Carolina

A Government Not of the People

North Carolina exemplifies what Paige Johnson, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina (PPCNC), terms the “giant chasm” between parents and policymakers.  A recent Journal of Adolescent Health study found that almost 90 percent of North Carolina parents support CSE, and 93 percent oppose politician-determined content.  Until 1995, policy reflected preference: K–12 students received model CSE.  Planned Parenthood staff trained teachers and health-department educators, led school and after-school CSE classes, and facilitated parent-child workshops.

The door slammed shut in 1995, when legislators mandated K—nine public-school sex education organized around “the positive benefits of abstinence until marriage and the risks of premarital sexual activity.”  Under the Healthful Living Curriculum, “abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage” is the “expected standard," while a “monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage” is the best method of avoiding STIs.  According to Christopher Hollis, vice president for governmental and political affairs at Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Inc. (PPHS), based in Raleigh, NC, teachers must discuss contraceptive failure rates, but additional information — the role of condoms in safer sex, for example — is “not covered effectively.” Practical information on contraceptive use is not offered unless requested by a student, and per state law, teachers must obtain parental consent before informing students “where to obtain contraceptives and abortion referral services.”

A Chilling Effect

Suddenly, in the mid-1990s, educators in North Carolina no longer knew what they could and couldn’t teach.  More than a decade later, they still don’t.  A 2006 Duke University study found that “some teachers are so afraid of violating the state law that they err on the side of providing even less information than the law allows.”  Despite overwhelming support for CSE, Johnson says, a small, vocal group of opponents brings in busloads of abstinence-only-until-marriage supporters, effectively shutting down debate.  She adds that school districts are “scared to death” of this extreme minority, and teachers are “terrified to answer questions appropriately or accurately” for fear of backlash.  As the “chilling effect” spreads, says Karen Bley, PPCNC chief operating officer, demand for CSE training has plummeted.  While school districts may re-implement CSE after a rigorous public hearing and review process, few do — chastened, no doubt, by the example of Wake County, NC, which worked to reinstate CSE for two years, only to have the school board reverse the decision.  Currently, more than 100 of the state’s 117 school districts teach state-sanctioned, abstinence-until-marriage education.

The Bigger Picture

North Carolina’s shift toward abstinence-only-until-marriage education reflects a national trend, bolstered by federal funding.  These federal programs include:

• the Adolescent Family Life Act, which promotes “chastity” and “self-discipline” in addition to supporting pregnant and parenting teens;
• Title V Abstinence Funding, a block-grant program passed as part of welfare reform in 1996.  This grant allots $50 million per year to states for abstinence-only-until-marriage education.  In 2006, 115 North Carolina school districts and charter schools received funding;
• the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program, which directly funds state and local abstinence-only-until-marriage education programs for ages 12-18.

Federal abstinence-only-until-marriage programs must teach federally defined “abstinence education,” which states that “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of all human sexual activity” and that “sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.”  Sarah Langer, a former evaluation and abstinence consultant for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, admits the semantics may raise “interpretation issues.”  Schools cannot use Title V funds to “promote the use of contraception,” for example, but may permit discussion of “forms of sexual conduct” other than abstinence-only-until-marriage — as long as dialogue occurs “in a different setting than where and when the abstinence-only-until-marriage course is being conducted.”

Scientifically (Dis)proven

Many of the abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula are more than ambiguous — they’re inaccurate.  A 2004 report by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) found that more than 80 percent of federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs provide “false, misleading, or distorted information” about reproductive health, including contraceptive effectiveness and risks of abortion, as well as “blur religion and science,” treat gender stereotypes as “scientific fact,” and “contain scientific errors.”  In 2006, the Government Accountability Office found that most federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are not reviewed for accurate data on contraception, STIs, and other health information, nor do program assessments meet “minimum scientific standards.”

Adolescents pay for this laxity.  A 2004 study found that teens taking “virginity pledges” not only get STIs at the same rate as non-pledgers, they are less aware of their STI status and less likely to see a doctor regarding infections.  The “all-or-nothing approach” of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, note the authors, “may create additional barriers to knowledge and protection for adolescents.”

Undeterred, the federal government funneled almost $156 million into abstinence-only-until-marriage funding in 2005. (North Carolina received almost $1.7 million).  Including state-matched funds, the government has spent more than $1 billion since 1996 urging teens to just say no.

Knowledge is Power

Against this backdrop, Johnson says PPCNC is “chipping away” at biased language in the state law.  In 2005, for example, the requirement that HIV/AIDS educators specify the current legal status of homosexual acts was dropped.  Ultimately, PPCNC hopes to reintroduce CSE by rewriting the law entirely.  “Rather than trying to work from the existing document,” Johnson says, “we’re going to say ‘this is what needs to be taught,’ and bring it to the general assembly.”

In the meantime, PPHS is reaching out to community leaders and educators with the hope of instigating “honest conversations,” says Hollis. And PPCNC and other allies, including some churches, are training peer educators to work in schools and after-school programs — and with parents. “Parents think they talk to kids about sex,” says Emily Adams, PPCNC director of education and training, “but sometimes it doesn’t even register.  Or parents will wait until past the point when a child really needs the information.”  Surprisingly, when it comes to sex education, many parents have little idea what their children are — or are not — learning.  “Parents are amazed when they find out what is not being taught,” says Bley. “There’s a big disconnect, a sense of ‘I just assumed it would happen in schools.’”

Parents are busy, acknowledges Adams, and “haven’t really organized” around CSE.  As CSE legislation gathers momentum, there is hope that they will.  After all, most parents believe their children deserve comprehensive information about sexual health, and agree with the findings of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ National Committee on Adolescence — that “encouraging abstinence and urging better use of contraception are compatible goals.”