The Importance of Sexual Education in Public Schools

Rebuttal Essay - Sex Education at the Elementary School Level

In a recent podcast, “Sex Ed Should Not be Taught in Schools,” Candace Owens, a popular activist political commentator, argues that like Shakespeare, sexual education should not be taught at the elementary school level. In support of her position, Owens maintains that during the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of young people graduated “with their virginity intact”; however, after the introduction of sexual education which was promoted based on the assertion that “everybody’s doing it,” the majority of students graduate without their virginity. In addition, Owens also cites other potential motivations for the introduction of sexual education at the elementary school level including most especially an insidious plot by Planned Parenthood and like-minded organizations to exploit children in the United States by grooming them for future sexualization and monetize the process. The purpose of this paper is to explain why Owens’ claims are flawed because she fails to cite any evidence in support of her misguided assertions and ignores the critical importance of teaching young people about sex to help them avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. To this end, the paper presents a rebuttal to Owens’ arguments that sexual education should not be taught at the elementary level, followed by a counterargument highlighted the reasons in support of these curricular offerings. Finally, the paper presents a summary of the review and significant findings concerning these issues in the conclusion.

Rebuttal

According to the podcast by Owens, sexual education (“sex ed”) was not taught in public schools in the United States prior to the 1960s and its introduction during the 1970s resulted in a cascade of evils on the American people thereafter. Indeed, if Owens is to be believed, sex ed was not even a twinkle in lawmakers’ eyes until Planned Parenthood and their like-minded ilk decided there was money to be made by sexualizing children through the sales of condoms and textbooks.

In addition, Owens makes the point that proponents of sex ed was justified because young people were engaging in sex anyway so sex ed was appropriate since it could help keep young people safe and even prevent unwanted pregnancies. Without any evidence in support, though, Owens claims that most young people were still virgins when they graduated from high school, thereby allowing them to enter adulthood as moral and productive citizens. This situation was unacceptable to Owens and like-minded critics since it actually encouraged children to have sex. It is also noteworthy that Owens inflates her arguments against sex ed in the public schools at the elementary level with inflammatory and alarmist rhetoric by blaming any interest in gender transitions in her calculus “especially now that their sex ed includes being taught that you don’t need those testicles anymore, just get rid of them and you can be a woman.” These arguments, though, are wrong on their face and dangerous to American society in general as discussed further below.

Refutation

The multiple claims by Owens discussed above are not only misguided, they are also blatantly false. First and foremost, fully 40 percent of American public schools featured some type of sex ed as early as the 1920s, and support for the addition of sex ed to the public-school curriculum was growing. In this regard, Lavin emphasizes that during the Progressive Era, “A [1920s] study by the U.S. Public Health Service and the U.S. Bureau of Education also found that 85% of principals believed there needed to be sex education in schools regardless of whether their school offered it at the time” (16). Indeed, Chicago became the first city in the United States to include a formal sex ed course in its public schools in 1913 when 20,000 students completed the course (Owens 17).

Likewise, virginity rates were transitioning in the 1960s but most data suggest a substantial proportion of high schoolers did have some sexual experience by graduation during that decade as well as the preceding decades. For instance, a study by Wu et al. (2020) found that, “For women born in the late 1930s and early 1940s, 48 percent to 58 percent reported abstaining from sex while never married,” meaning of course that around half of the women in the U.S. during these decades engaged in sex at least once (Wu et al. 31). In other words, the claims by Owens concerning sex during the first half of the 20th century in the U.S. seem unsupported and overly exaggerated regarding youth sexuality trends based on the existing research. The 1960s, however, did begin a shift towards more premarital sex exploration for young people, but these trends cannot be attributed in whole or even in part to the introduction of sex ed in the public schools.

Counterargument

In truth, the provision of sex education in the public schools at both the primary and secondary levels is a challenging enterprise for numerous reasons. For example, according to Keegan et al. (2023), “Traditional school-based sexuality education has a myriad of problems with its successful delivery, including access to comprehensive sexuality curricula, access to trained facilitators, and community and parental fears” (531). Likewise, there are significant regional differences across the nation concerning what sex ed, if any, should be taught in the public schools and at what level.

Notwithstanding the challenges that are involved in the provision of sex ed in the public schools, there are a number of importance reasons in support of its inclusion in the elementary school curricula. Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes that, “Children and adolescents have the right to be educated about themselves and the world around them in an age- and developmentally appropriate manner – and they need this learning for their health and well-being” (“Comprehensive Sexuality Education” 2023: 4).

What is missing from Owens’ and like-minded critics’ calculus, though, is a call to action on the part of parents who have the fundamental responsibility to help their children learn about sex and what is means to be boy or girl – or otherwise -- in 21st century America. In addition, it is also clear that more – not less – sex education is needed at the elementary school level despite Owens’ arguments to the contrary. Rather than “sexualizing them for exploitation” as Owens claims, sex ed actually “equips children and young people with the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that help them to protect their health, develop respectful social and sexual relationships, make responsible choices and understand and protect the rights of others” (“Comprehensive Sexuality Education” 2023: 5).

Conclusion

The research showed that Candace Owens’ arguments against providing sexual education at the elementary school level are fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Her claim that the majority of students graduated as virgins prior to the introduction of sexual education in the 1960s is simply false and unsupported by evidence. Research shows almost half of women born in the 1930s-1940s engaged in premarital sex. Moreover, Owens also ignores the many benefits of sexual education, including equipping youth with knowledge and skills to protect their health, develop healthy relationships, and make responsible choices. Ultimately, Owens’ inflammatory arguments against elementary school sex ed lack factual basis and overlook the needs of young people in modern society. In the final analysis, more sexual education can help protect children, not harm them. The evidence clearly supports introducing age-appropriate sexual education earlier, not later.