Sex Education in Schools

The topic of sex education continues to raise more debates, not only in the United States but across the world. Technology, along with other factors, has brought more information about sex to children. To ensure that children learn about sex from the right people, several governments, including America, incorporated sex education into the syllabus. However, many people in society still doubt whether it is appropriate for sex education to be taught in schools.

Article supporting education in schools

The first scholarly article I read was,’ ‘It’s good to teach them, but … they should also know when to apply it’: parents’ views and attitudes towards Fiji’s Family Life Education curriculum about sex education in Fiji which falls under the curriculum Family Life Education. From the article, it was evident that lack of knowledge about sex contributed to societal problems including early pregnancies and diseases (Varani-Norton, 2014). However, most parents held on to conservative ideas and thus avoided discussing sex issues with their children.

Premise 1: the influence of the Christian religion concerning homosexuality and the use of protection is strong.

Premise 2: Parents resistance to discuss sex education with their children is contributing to sexual issues among children in society.

Conclusion: It is necessary to counter parents resistance to what they believe is unbiblical ideas.

Evaluation of the quality of reasoning in the source

The argument is realistic and supports the conclusion. The first premise demonstrates that the Christian religion is against sex education since among the methods taught of preventing unwanted pregnancies is prevention, yet the church believes in procreation as a biblical commandment that should not be interfered with. The second premise also seems valid since parents who are conservative and believers are unwilling to talk to children about sex. The two correlate with the conclusion which indicates that it is only by encouraging parents to embrace sex education by observing their beliefs from a different perspective that the society will be able to manage issues of STIs and unwanted pregnancies.

Article against sex education

The article I read against sex education was named ‘Reasons to reject comprehensive sexuality education. The author argued that sex education in schools only focused on reducing risks and not building character (Bleakley, Hennessy & Fishbein, 2010).

 Premise 1: sexuality means more than just information about sex relevant to health

 Premise 2: Comprehensive sexuality education encourages sexual behaviour, which can lead to damaging effects on children. 

Conclusion: Comprehensive sexuality education is based on beliefs of sexual activity that disagree with parental authority and ought to be reviewed.

Evaluation of reasoning

The first premise is reasonable, and it indicates that sex education does not literally mean to offer any information about sex. On the contrary, it requires the creation of a character that constitutes a holistic upbringing. The second premise is also sound as it shows children are likely to try out what they learn from their teachers. The two align with the conclusion that it should be reviewed to form a curriculum based on facts.

Scholarly and non-scholarly articles

  After doing analysis using both types of articles, I realized scholarly articles have various advantages as compared to non-scholarly materials. Scholarly articles are highly credible, offer clarity, provide evidence for their claims, offer research options, provides case studies, and are detailed enough, thus providing a wealth of knowledge (Neumann, 2016). More advantages include they are focused, capture a wide perspective and the information comes in various forms.

Conclusion.

This activity has enlightened me on the benefits of supporting my claims with evidence. Unlike non-scholarly articles, scholarly articles provide information and evidence to validate claims. The activity has made me realize why I should use scholarly articles as they will offer details and broad perspective during research.  

References

Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., & Fishbein, M. (2010). Predicting preferences for types of sex education in US schools. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7(1), 50-57.

Neumann, C. (2016). Teaching Digital Natives: Promoting Information Literacy and Addressing Instructional Challenges. Reading Improvement, 53(3).Varani-Norton, E. (2014). ‘It’s good to teach them, but … they should also know when to apply it’: parents’ views and attitudes towards Fiji’s Family Life Education curriculum. Sex Education, 14(6), 692–706.