Wednesday, March 10, 2021

The Failures of Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Evidence from Research Findings

The Discrepancy Between Research Findings and CSE Claims

Studies of Program Outcomes Do Not Show Success for School-Based CSE

In 2012, a landmark CDC-supported meta-analysis of CSE programs in the U.S found a lack of evidence of effectiveness for school-based CSE. The combined results of U.S school-based CSE studies from 1990-2008 showed no statistically significant positive effects on teen:

•Condom use

•Pregnancy

•STDs

•Use of protection (condoms or other contraceptives)

A similar lack of evidence of effectiveness was found by a 2019 U.S Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Meta-Analysis. The combined results of 44 federally-funded studies of sex education programs (85% were CSE) Found no statistically significant positive effects of any duration on teen:

• Sexual activity

• Condom use

• Pregnancy

• STDs

A lack of sufficient evidence for school-based CSE was also found by--Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, a University of Colorado agency that recommends programs to prevent youth risk behavior based on research evidence.

A recently published study by The Institute for Research & Evaluation (IRE) reviewed 120 of the strongest, most up-to-date impact studies of school-based sex education worldwide²⁷

The 120 studies spanning 30 years of research were vetted for adequate scientific quality by:

▪ UNESCO, 2009 & 2018²⁸, or

▪ CDC-supported Meta-Analysis Study, 2012¹³, or

▪ HHS Teen Pregnancy Prevention Evidence Review, 2010-2019²⁹

(to insure a credible database)

The IRE review found that When measured by credible criteria derived from the science of prevention research:

▪Comprehensive Sex Education shows little evidence of effectiveness in schools worldwide (only 6 out of 103 CSE studies)²⁷

▪In contrast, 7 out of 17 studies of Abstinence Education (AE)* in the U.S. show effectiveness

▪ Globally, there appears to be more evidence of harmful CSE impact than CSE effectiveness for programs in schools (16 vs. 6 studies, p<.02)²⁷

* AE does not teach or promote condom and/or contraceptive use

Only 3 out of 60 studies found an increase in abstinence or frequent/recent condom use:

• at least 12 months after the program,

•for the target population (not just a subgroup),

•without other negative program effects.

However, these 3 studies were conducted by the CSE program’s authors, not by independent evaluators, and the results have not been replicated.

None of the programs reduced teen pregnancy or STDs, or increased consistent condom use:

• at least 12 months after the program,

• for the target population (not just a subgroup)

•without other negative program effects.

The evidence for Abstinence Education in U.S schools appeared better than CSE

•7 out of 17 studies found effectiveness at increasing abstinence

•Only 1 out of 17 AE studies found a negative program impact

•Strong evidence showed AE does not decrease teen condom use

Significant evidence of harm by CSE in school classrooms (U.S. & Non-U.S. combined):

•16 out of 103 CSE studies globally found increased sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, or STDs for teenage program participants.²⁷

•This is about 16%, or more than 1 in 7 school-based CSE studies across the globe.

•The evidence of harm was highest for CSE in African schools: nearly 1 in 4 studies.

4 popular CSE programs that have produced significant harmful effects:

¡Cuídate!

• increased vaginal and oral sex and decreased condom use³³

It’s Your Game: Keep It Real

• increased sexual initiation and number of sex partners³⁴

Reducing the Risk

• increased vaginal and oral sex³⁵

Teen Outreach Program/TOP

• increased teen pregnancy³⁶

Note: Even though the Society for Prevention Research and Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development stipulate that such harmful effects should nullify designation as an “effective” program, HHS’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention website includes the above programs on their list of programs “showing…effectiveness.”³²

In summary, a database of 103 CSE studies, spanning 30 years and vetted by three noted agencies (UNESCO, CDC, or HHS/TPP), shows a consistent pattern: a lack of evidence of CSE success in schools worldwide.

Some CSE studies may yet emerge showing positive results, but they would need to be vetted for scientific rigor and their results would need to meet credible criteria for program effectiveness. Moreover, it would take many such studies to reverse the pattern of poor CSE results.

Why do these research findings seem so different from the claims made by some CSE advocates and authoritative agencies?

The Discrepancy between Research Findings and CSE Claims

Some CSE proponents and notable agencies say that CSE in schools has been “proven effective” and that Abstinence Education is “ineffective” and “potentially harmful.” (e.g., see Advocates for Youth³⁷and UNESCO³⁸)

However, as shown above, the studies of program outcomes do not support these claims.

This discrepancy may occur because many reviews of CSE research use questionable criteria for effectiveness to define program success.

Then they claim there is evidence of CSE success, based on these questionable criteria.

Questionable Criteria for Effectiveness: Two Examples

The 2019 Global CSE Report revealed:

87% school-based CSE failure rate worldwide
89% CSE failure rate in Africa
Many CSE programs increased sexual risks (24% in Africa)

Using criteria from the field of prevention research:

1. No evidence showed that school-based CSE prevents teen pregnancy or STDs.

2. No evidence showed that CSE increases abstinence.

3. Too many CSE programs increased sexual risk taking

IRE RECOMMENDATIONS

When measured by credible criteria derived from the field of prevention research, a database containing 103 of the strongest and most recent CSE studies, vetted for research quality by three reputed scientific agencies (UNESCO, CDC and HHS), showed little evidence of CSE effectiveness in school settings and a concerning number of negative effects.

Three decades of research indicate that CSE has not been an effective public health strategy in classrooms around the world and that too many programs may be doing harm.

Given the threat posed by STDs, HIV, and pregnancy to the health and well-being of young people worldwide, the compelling lack of evidence of effectiveness for school-based Comprehensive Sex Education after three decades of research, and a concerning rate of harmful impact, policymakers should abandon plans for the global dissemination of CSE.

For more information, see the presentation on The Failure of Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) and the Case for Abstinence Education What the Research Shows

Feel free to review the Reports on Re-examining the Evidence for comprehensive Sexuality Education in Schools:

1. A Global Research Review

2. Research Findings in the USA

3. International Research Findings

You are an African?, Please sign the Petitions below to protect our children from being warped and propagandized by the sexual Rights Activists

1. Protect Ghana Children Petition

2. Protect Uganda Children Petition

3. Protect Children of South Africa Letter

4. Protect Kenya Children Petition

5. Protect Nigeria Children Petition

6. Protect Tanzania Children Petition

7. Protect Zambia Children Petition

8. Protect Namibia Children Petition

9. Protect Malawian Children Petition

10. Protect Rwanda Children Petition

11. Protect Ethiopia Children Petition

12. Protect Eswatini Children Petition!

Moreso, Sign the International petition by Clicking International Petition to Stop CSE

Source: SexEdReport

See CSE Exposed Part 1/3

See CSE Exposed Part 2/3

See CSE Exposed Part 3/3

Comprehensive Sexuality Education EXPOSED: The Facts and Harmful Elements - Part 3/3

Watch the War on Children

11 Minutes Version

35 Minutes Version

Harmful Elements of CSE

There are 15 Harmful CSE Elements typically found in CSE curricula. Each of these 15 harmful elements has the potential of causing long-term negative effects on the health and well-being of children. Having even one of these elements should be reason enough to disqualify a program from being taught to children. A program containing several of these elements should be banned from use in any school or community setting.

1. SEXUALIZES CHILDREN. Normalizes child sex or desensitizes children to sexual things. May give examples of children having sex or imply many of their peers are sexually active. May glamorize sex, use graphic materials, teach explicit sexual vocabulary, or encourage discussion of sexual experiences, attractions, fantasies or desires.

2. TEACHES CHILDREN TO CONSENT TO SEX. May teach children how to negotiate sexual encounters or how to ask for or get “consent” from other children to engage in sexual acts with them. Note: “Consent” is often taught under the banner of sexual abuse prevention. While this may be appropriate for adults, children of minor age should never be encouraged to “consent” to sex.

3. NORMALIZES ANAL & ORAL SEX. Normalizes these high-risk sexual behaviors and may omit vital medical facts, such as the extremely high STI infection rates (i.e., HIV and HPV) and the oral and anal cancer rates of these high-risk sex acts.

4. PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL / BISEXUAL BEHAVIOR. Normalizes or promotes acceptance or exploration of diverse sexual orientations, sometimes in violation of state education laws. May omit vital health information and/or may provide medically inaccurate information about homosexuality or homosexual sex.

5. PROMOTES SEXUAL PLEASURE. Teaches children they are entitled to or have a “right” to sexual pleasure or encourages children to seek out sexual pleasure. Fails to present data on the multiple negative potential outcomes for sexually active children.

6. PROMOTES SOLO AND/OR MUTUAL MASTURBATION. While masturbation can be part of normal child development, encourages masturbation at young ages, which may make children more vulnerable to pornography use, sexual addictions or sexual exploitation. May instruct children on how to masturbate. May also encourage children to engage in mutual masturbation.

7. PROMOTES CONDOM USE IN INAPPROPRIATE WAYS. May inappropriately eroticize condom use (e.g., emphasizing sexual pleasure or “fun” with condoms) or use sexually explicit methods (i.e., penis and vagina models, seductive role plays, etc.) to promote condom use to children. May provide medically inaccurate information on condom effectiveness and omit or deemphasize failure rates. May imply that condoms will provide complete protection against pregnancy or STIs.

8. PROMOTES EARLY SEXUAL AUTONOMY. Teaches children they can choose to have sex when they feel they are ready or when they find a trusted partner. Fails to provide data about the well-documented negative consequences of early sexual debut. Fails to encourage sexually active children to return to abstinence.

9. FAILS TO ESTABLISH ABSTINENCE AS THE EXPECTED STANDARD. Fails to establish abstinence (or a return to abstinence) as the expected standard for all school-age children. May mention abstinence only in passing. May teach children that all sexual activity—other than “unprotected” vaginal and oral sex—is acceptable, and even healthy. May present abstinence and “protected” sex as equally good options for children.

10. PROMOTES TRANSGENDER IDEOLOGY. Promotes affirmation of and/or exploration of diverse gender identities. May teach children they can change their gender or identify as multiple genders, or may present other unscientific and medically inaccurate theories. Fails to teach that most gender-confused children resolve their confusion by adulthood and that extreme gender confusion is a mental health disorder (gender dysphoria) that can be helped with mental health intervention.

11. PROMOTES CONTRACEPTION / ABORTION TO CHILDREN. Presents abortion as a safe or positive option while omitting data on the many potential negative physical and mental health consequences. May teach children they have a right to abortion and refer them to abortion providers. May encourage the use of contraceptives, while failing to present failure rates or side effects.

12. PROMOTES PEER-TO-PEER SEX ED OR SEXUAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY. May train children to teach other children about sex or sexual pleasure, through peer-to-peer initiatives. May recruit children as spokespeople to advocate for controversial sexual rights (including a right to CSE itself) or to promote abortion.

13. UNDERMINES TRADITIONAL VALUES AND BELIEFS. May encourage children to question their parents’ beliefs or their cultural or religious values regarding early sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.

14. UNDERMINES PARENTS OR PARENTAL RIGHTS. May instruct children they have rights to confidentiality and privacy from their parents. May teach children about accessing sexual commodities or services, including abortion, without parental consent. May instruct children not to tell their parents what they are being taught about sex in school.

15. REFERS CHILDREN TO HARMFUL RESOURCES. Refers children to harmful websites, materials or outside entities. May also specifically refer children to Planned Parenthood or their affiliates or partners for their lucrative services or commodities (i.e., sexual counseling, condoms, contraceptives, gender hormones, STI testing and treatment, abortions, etc.) Please Note: A conflict of interest exists whenever an entity that profits from sexualizing children is involved in creating or implementing sex education programs.

Feel free to evaluate the Sex Ed Programs in your school or country by using the CSE Harmful Elements Analysis Tool