Quote: “Sexual education classes at NYC public high schools and middle schools might feature some usually unmentioned lessons next year. [Among those lessons are porn and other things we’d rather not repeat in this post.] According to the report, the Department of Education has recommended students learn “everything there is to know about sex” in the new curriculum. The new lessons could make their way into classrooms as soon as this spring, as well as a free condom program at every NYC public school, as sex education is becoming more commonplace in schools — and among younger students. D.C. Public Schools announced last month, in a move that’s the first of its kind in the country, that students in grades 5, 8 and 10 will be administered standardized tests on sexuality, contraception and drug use.” Huffington Post
Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.
Society Stacktrace 
It appears there is a need for this curriculum upgrade. I know many middle and high school teachers and having worked in the environments, these kids, even in middle schools, are pretty sophisticated in what they will do sexually. They are learning from their friends and doing the things that Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton did. They social network about it. No, they don’t fully understand the ramifications of these immature decisions, so evidently, there must be a need to go a step further in educating students and I would say technology increases that need. We have to remember that not all children will get what’s required at home educators have had broaden their scope of the types of children they are teaching in their classrooms.
It’s unfortunate but a small percentage of students become pregnant in middle school. No matter how small that percentage is however, it’s too much.
Kids that are “sophisticated sexually”? I would not use the word “sophisticated”. Maybe “polluted”, “pre-exposed” or something like that. “Sophisticated” sounds like a good thing. I’m guessing abstinence is not something that you would support as a realistic solution (would you?), but it’s absolutely plain to me and others with a similar world-view that there is simply no other option. It is the “slippery slope” argument, but it’s also only the “slippery slope” argument for the sake of those that need more “secular substantiation” around this topic. Sexual purity isn’t attained by exposing kids to the kinds of things that this kid (in the photo above) is visibly shocked by. The rest seem de-sensitized to this already. Sad. As the Bible hints to / explains, the root of misbehaviour is in our thought-life. Pre-exposure & filling our thought life with this kind of stuff (the shocking topics mentioned in the Huffington Post article) does nothing good to guide the things we think of. This line of thinking is foreign to secular reasoning, but I’m convinced it’s true. As the “site mission” tries to explain – I can see where secular reasoning leaves us. God is much more clever than us. His ways are really best – but we like to make our own mistakes first before we believe that. Unfortunate.
“…they don’t fully understand the ramifications of these immature decisions, so evidently, there must be a need to go a step further in educating students…”
You must have substantial faith in government education. I don’t. Hitler made comments like “give me the textbooks & I’ll control the nation” (paraphrase). The importance of what our kids are taught cannot be underestimated.
I fully believe in abstinence. And you’re correct, sophistication would not be the correct terminology. I was struggling to find the appropriate term and yours is.
While I believe in abstinence, I don’t see it as a realistic avenue that everyone will opt. It never has been. So, in my supporting the sex education at this level, I can only speak from the perspective of a teacher and one who knows others who work in these environments. It’s quite sad to me when I hear or see students carrying books and babies. I believe that much of what children are pre-exposed to robs them of their childhood and develops their thinking in directions that aren’t on a God-centered path, unfortunately. But you do understand that foundation isn’t in every home, correct? I’m viewing this from a perspective of protecting the child by some means, for those who aren’t fortunate to have the style of parenting that’s most ideal for raising children. And actually, the cycle is already in motion for something as what the children are watching in the image, as some in many cases, a child at 10 years of age may have a 25 year old mother. I know that’s not always the case but for that percentage this applies, I don’t expect them to have a great deal of knowledge in exposing their children according to your standards.
I don’t want to minimize the role of public school education because I believe the system is overloaded with teachers dealing with behaviors that require so much more than an education degree. I also get that what we’ve ultimately come to in our society is somewhat directionless. I just don’t see what your solution may be for those children who, in their homes, are being fed so little of what you advocate.
The kids that come from the homes you mention do need to get reached somehow, yes. How? Indeed tricky – but since the (US) schools can only teach Bible-divorced ideas (I think) I cannot see how adding this content can be positive at all. We can hope for (true) church outreach to these kids I guess, but there’s not enough of that going on. People naturally gravitate towards improper behavior & especially with the most problematic temptation of all being introduced this early – but I guess TV is doing all the damage already – even without the schools. What can I say … the cancer is deep in the US … and Europe I guess.
I agree and respect your view on this. 🙂