Teen Birth Control: Do Morals Matter?

I was browsing through the blogosphere during the past week and stumbled upon two posts that I found to be extremely interesting. They both deal with giving birth control to teenagers in middle school and high school environments. I will be critiquing the aforementioned essays in order to give my thoughts to the respective authors and exchange ideas on an important and compelling topic. The first post, “Given bad options, birth control the right call for these kids,” is authored by Froma Harrop of the Seattle Times and taken from the blog, “RedV.” In this piece, the writer talks about the hard decisions that arise when thirteen year old children are being impregnated at elementary schools in the United States. The second post is by Marc Moore from the blog, “The Van Der Galiën Gazette,” and is titled “Should Schools Dispense Birth Control?” In this essay the merits of giving birth control to young teenagers are questioned as are the rights of the schools to prevent parents form making important decisions such as should their child be given a contraceptive. My comments can be found by clicking on the links contained in this paragraph or by simply reading them as they are presented below:

“Given bad options, birth control the right call for these kids”
I thought that you wrote on an interesting and provocative topic. You present your ideas in a clear manner through the use of strong language which helps to articulate your opinions. However, I think that perhaps the style was a little to casual for such serious subject matter. For instance, you open the post with “Thirteen-year-olds come to school very pregnant.” This seems to be attempting humor in a situation that does not merit such whimsical language. I was also unable to find your stance on giving adolescents birth control. You argue for both sides fairly well, but never actually come out and say whether you agree with one side or the other. At the end of the post you say, “There are no easy answers here, are there?” That is true, but what is the point of writing the post if not to inform others of your opinion and your reasons for supporting whatever side you choose? I believe that you make the issue too black and white. You introduce the topic by saying that the options are giving the teens birth control or sending the girl to a school for wayward children. I understand that this was meant to be a joke, but it still leads to an oversimplification of the choices available to an impregnated young girl.

“Should Schools Dispense Birth Control?”
I enjoyed the lively and entertaining style that was used in writing your post. It made this piece both fun to read and easily understandable. However, you may want to consider being a little more respectful. You open with “Demonstrating that a lot of Americans aren’t too bright . . .” which I must say I find to be offensive. You go on to compare having sex to eating candy which doesn’t seem to make much sense. You also state that “It’s one thing to say that teens should have relatively easy access to birth control . . . but quite another for nearly 1/3 of Americans to say that parents have no right to manage that decision for their kids.” So, you are saying that giving contraceptives to these adolescents is taking the decision away from the parents. But do you think that the girls who are getting impregnated ask their parents’ permission first? No, they simply go out and have unprotected sex because they are either too scared to ask their parents to buy them a condom or were told that sex is wrong and not given a condom when they asked for one. It really isn’t the parent’s decision since they cannot keep their children from having sex unless they never let them out of the house. So why not be safe and give these teenagers access to birth control. I think that you need to realize that there are not just two sides to this argument. It is not as clear cut as you seem to imagine and I suggest you take a closer look at the issue and refrain from putting your views on Americans in your posts.

Single Sex Classrooms: A Better Learning Environment?

Is it right to separate boys from girls at a public school? Apparently so, according to the United States Department of Education which changed federal laws in 2005 to give schools more freedom to operate single sex classrooms (pictured to the left). The new law states that as long as there is a coed class being taught on the same subject as all of the single sex classes, the latter type are permissible. Some might say that this is sexist and can lead to issues later in the child’s life. Others claim that it improves the student’s academic performance and allows them to concentrate on the teacher without the distraction inherent in coed classes.

Many schools have already implemented this new system. In a recent article from a Virginia newspaper it was stated that, “there are at least 363 public schools in the United States that offer single-gender classes.” One would assume that this means that the method has been proven to have a positive impact on the children’s ability to achieve academically. However, results have been questionable at best. An Ohio newspaper claimed that “A 2005 U.S. Department of Education review, comparing coeducation to single-sex schooling found indefinite results.” Thus, it appears that this rising trend is not linked to rising grades. So what is causing this increase in popularity?

Parents and teachers are simply relying on theories instead of facts. Instead of basing how they teach on actual results, they are choosing to accept this new way of doing things just because someone posited that it might work. Interest at an elementary school in Virginia was sparked when “a . . . teacher attended a conference where Leonard Sax, founder of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, spoke about the research behind all-boy and all-girl classes.” Sax (shown to the right) claimed that girls hear better than boys and so when a female teacher is instructing a coed class, the boys might stop paying attention simply because they cannot hear the teacher. This is sexist and leads to stereotypes like women are better listeners than men and so forth. Also, the way that the material is taught changes depending on whether it is an all-boy or all-girl class. One teacher tosses a ball around in his male class while another teacher puts her students in a circle and has a quiet lesson in her female class. That certainly promotes the sexist idea that boys are athletic and girls are quiet and dainty. And what do the children think about these changes?

Surely, single sex classrooms must be popular with the students since they are an ever increasing phenomenon. However, the exact opposite is true. A story from a Wisconsin periodical claims that “some (boys) said they missed being with the girls” and that “some girls said they missed playing with the boys.” Don’t these schools realize that it is natural for males and females to interact and that preventing that from happening is detrimental to a child’s development? These kids need to be around each other so that they can figure out how to deal with the opposite sex. Proponents of the single sex classes say that a fourth grade boy is too young to be interested in girls, but what about a seventh grader? The aforementioned story from Virginia states that “A few single-gender classes are also offered in the seventh grade.” These are now teenagers who are being separated from the opposite sex. That cannot be healthy. In fact, “one (girl) wrote she feels shyer around them (boys) now.” Are social skills less important than school work? That is apparently what these schools believe, unfortunately for their students.

Single sex classrooms prevent children from developing much needed social skills, promote stereotypes, and provide ambiguous academic results. There is no reason to have them in public schools. In one article, it was stated that this way of teaching was “Once thought to be illegal or discriminatory.” What exactly has changed to make that statement no longer true? Is it now okay simply because the government says so? I, for one, don’t think so. Hopefully, these people will see the light and listen to that old adage: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Special Education: To Test or Not?

Is it reasonable to expect a special education student to pass the same graduation test that is given to the average high school senior? This is the question being asked by many of those concerned who are part of the special education programs that exist throughout the United States. The relatively recent and much-maligned No Child Left Behind act has made the aforementioned standardized test a requisite if one wants to obtain a high school diploma. For some reason, the government did not take into account that they were putting an insurmountable obstacle in the way of those adolescents who suffer from either physical or mental disabilities. Instead, they chose to ignore the complexity of a situation that involves more than just the average student. There are, however, many who support this method of testing despite the rather obvious unfairness inherent in such a system.

The proponents of the NCLB maintain that forcing the special education students to pass the test in order to get a diploma will push them to higher levels. In an article from the Baltimore Sun, a woman claims that because her son had to take the exam, he made “years of progress in a short time.” She thinks that he simply needed the extra motivation. This same parent goes on to say that she does not “want someone handing VJ (her son) a diploma that means nothing” because he was given a special accommodation. Some people might be reading this and thinking: “This argument makes no sense.” I agree and here is why. As one would presume, the percentage of special education students that pass the exit exam is much lower than the national average. In fact, while “two-thirds or more of students are passing the tests, only about one-third of those in special education are doing so.” This fact probably does not surprise anyone. It is blatantly obvious that students enrolled in special education programs would not do as well on a standardized test as an average student. In a Times Daily story, a special education official alleged that “It's like saying we're going to put every child on a professional football team and expect them to perform at that level.” It is simply not fair to judge someone who has a disability with the same criteria as one is using for unaffected children.

Another argument against the test stems from the fact that special education students are now being taught a curriculum based on the exam. Therefore, they are not being instructed about the everyday interactions that they will need to take part in later in life. For these children, this could cause problems. The mother of a child with Asperger’s Syndrome, a type of autism, says that “Working a two- or three-step math problem won't help her. She needs to know how to pay a cashier and expect change back.” These children need to be taught how to function in society, not how to find the value of x in an algebra equation. It could be argued that life skills should be taught by the parents, but this assumes that they will l be around the house and available to instruct their offspring. What if both parents work? What if they are divorced? These children need to be instructed at school where they are assured of having a teacher who will be able to spend time with the students on a regular basis.

I fail to see how anyone could possibly view the current across-the-board testing system as anything but a poorly thought out quick fix for low graduation rates. Some states, such as Utah, are attempting to rectify the problem. In an article from the Salt Lake Tribune by Lisa Schencker, it was stated that “The Legislature . . . discussed a draft of a bill today that would exempt special education students with certain individualized education plans from having to take the Utah Basic Skills Competency Test (UBSCT) to graduate.” It is relieving to see that someone is taking a stand against this unfair testing policy. I previously mentioned the mother who did not want her son to get a diploma unless he took the test. I guess she did not want him to get any special treatment. After all, it is not like he is in a special education program.

Male Teachers: Why are They Disappearing?

If one was to take a look inside the average elementary school classroom in America, chances are there would not be a man presiding over the students. In fact, according to a story from CBS, “the number of male schoolteachers is at a 40-year low.” What is causing men to turn away from this career? Is this shortage really even a problem?

Teachers are simply not paid enough. That seems to be a plausible explanation for this lack of male teachers. It is the certainly the most obvious reason. The previously mentioned CBS piece claims that “Pay is one major reason men do not become teachers.” It is a well known fact that educators in this country are not paid very well. Payscale.com, a website that gives the average salary for various professions, states that the median pay for an elementary school teacher is about thirty-eight thousand dollars. That is simply not enough to make a decent living. Some might find all of this rather sexist. These people might ask why women take the jobs if the pay is so low. Proponents of the salary theory would say that men are the providers and therefore have to take jobs with better pay. They would also claim that women depend on men and thus can take jobs that have a smaller salary. I think I speak for most people when I say that these viewpoints are outdated and stereotypical. Therefore, I do not think that this easy answer is the correct one.

Some people believe that prospective applicants worry about being suspected of taking liberties with their pupils. An ABC article states that “there is a stigma . . . where men who want to work with children could be child predators.” Men who might want to teach fear that they will be seen as having ulterior motives and so they simply choose to take another job. This viewpoint may seem rather paranoid and it is somewhat hard to believe that it could be the reason for the aforementioned shortage. Yet, when one looks at the facts, it does seem as though this is the cause. In a recent AP article, it is stated that “men are more fearful of being sued by lawsuit-inclined parents who might equate the slightest nurturing gesture with child abuse.” What with all of the reports in recent years of priests molesting children, it is easy to see how male teachers might be viewed by some as a threat to the young children they teach.

While it may be easier to believe that it is simply the money that is behind this worrisome lack of male teachers, it is simply not the case. The fact is that men are worried that in today’s society, so filled with news about children being inappropriately touched or spoken to by authority figures, that they will automatically be seen as some kind of pervert. Although this may seem irrational, the facts are that the US Department of Justice states that “there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies.” The median age of the victims of sexual assault was thirteen. This illustrates that there are a huge number of cases being brought against child molesters. All of these statistics serve to make parents very cautious and extremely suspicious of anyone who they might have to trust alone with their child.

Many people are concerned that “fewer male teachers means fewer positive role models for boys.” Divorce rates are extremely high and many children grow up without a father. These youngsters turn to their instructors to fulfill their need for some kind of father-figure. This scarcity of male teachers is taking away that role model. Society needs to correct this problem by taking more precautions when hiring teachers. Thus, we can stop children from getting molested by ensuring that those who are given positions as instructors are not prone to sexual assault. This should eventually put an end to the stigma associated with male teachers and cause these men to stop being afraid of how they are seen by the people around them. However, in the aforementioned AP article, it is said that “little is being done to increase the number of male teachers.” People see the problem, but are doing nothing to remedy it. Hopefully, in the near future, steps will be taken to make sure that this trend does not continue.

ADHD: Does Medication Make a Better Student?

Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has become a major issue in the modern classroom. In a recent article from a Florida newspaper, it was stated that about nine percent of children between the ages of eight and fifteen have this disorder which “affects a child’s ability to focus and to control impulsive behaviors.” That is approximately 2.4 million children going to school every day with ADHD. The image below illustrates what percentage of children between the ages four to seventeen are currently on medication for this ailment. These numbers illustrate that this issue needs to be addressed and could potentially have an impact on the future of this country. What can be done to help these students to reach their potential despite a penchant for talking out of turn and not paying attention in school?

A study by the Mayo Clinic found that “compared to children without ADHD, children with the disorder are at risk for poor long-term school outcomes such as low achievement in reading, absenteeism, repeating a grade and dropping out of school.” This is the first hard evidence that supports the fact that children who have untreated cases of this disorder are less likely to do well in an academic setting. In an article by Amy Tieder it is stated that this same study also found that “by age 13, on average, stimulant dose was . . . correlated with improved reading achievement scores” and that “both treatment with stimulants and longer duration of medication were associated with decreased absenteeism.” In other words, it appears as though medication is the answer. Drugs like Ritalin and Adderall have become household names and it turns out that they do more than simply curb a child’s hyperactivity; they can also help them earn better grades. With all of these positive results, why would one not give every child with ADHD these pills?

Opponents of these drugs claim that they have serious side effects. An Associated Press article asserted that the government is going to undertake a large-scale study to determine if the drugs taken to treat ADHD really do lead to medical problems. Antidepressants have been linked with heart disease for quite some time, but no research has been presented to support these suspicions. However, “last year the FDA asked drug makers to add new warnings to their drugs based on reports of heart attack, stroke and death among children and adults treated for ADHD.” This illustrates that although children who take medication for ADHD appear to be more at risk for heart attacks, there is not enough evidence to state that the pills do, in fact, cause health issues and so the aforementioned study is necessary.

Some people battle the use of drugs (pictured on the left) for this affliction because they feel that there are too many misdiagnoses. Clarke Ross, the CEO of Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), a group that supports those with ADHD, says that “There is no doubt that in certain areas of the country, there is misdiagnosis. The lack of consistency in physician diagnosis and treatment is frustrating.” However, there is now a new test being used to ascertain whether or not a young person has ADHD. This new method should do away with most of the misdiagnoses that have previously occurred due to a lack of consistency concerning how to test for the disorder. In a study performed by the US government, “researchers detected ADHD cases by asking questions derived from medical criteria used to diagnose the disorder.” These “criteria” can be found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Now that it has been proven that these medications not only reduce a child’s excess energy, but also gives him or her the chance to reach their potential in the classroom, only one question remains: Is medicating these students worth the risk? In the aforementioned AP article, it is also posited that the “FDA's recent scrutiny of antidepressants and hyperactivity drugs . . . could overshadow the benefits of medications to treat mental disorders.” I agree with this sentiment. The health issues have yet to be scientifically proven and until they are, the advantages of taking medication for ADHD are far more important than claims that are not based on solid fact. As for the misdiagnoses, they should now be a thing of the past. The new standardized test creates a way to consistently and correctly determine if a child has the disorder. I see no reason to refrain from treating ADHD with medication.

Sex and Religion: Two Hard Topics to Teach

Until recently, I was relatively unaware of the importance of the blogosphere and the wealth of information that it contains. Now that I am a part of this unique online world, I have begun to explore it and have found a couple of interesting posts that relate to the topic of my blog. I have decided to comment on these and thus contribute to my peers in the aforementioned internet-based universe. The first post I am going to talk about is called “Like A Virgin? Teens Think So” from the blog, “Reality Check,” and is authored by Wendy Norris; a freelance writer from Fort Collins and a political columnist for the “Rocky Mountain Chronicle.” In this post, she discusses the confusion present in the minds of teenagers concerning the difference between abstinence and virginity. The second piece I am taking a look at is by Roger Sinasohn and is from the blog, “Parent Dish.” The post, “Improving science edumacation in Louisiana,” deals with teaching creationism in the classroom and how this affects the thinking of the students. Both of these posts relate to different issues faced by public school teachers concerning what to teach. My comments can be found by clicking on the links below or by simply reading the following paragraphs.

“Like a Virgin? Teens Think So”
I enjoyed this post and thought that it was very informative and dealt with a very important topic. However, I cannot agree with the reasons you state are behind the confusion over certain sex-related terms. You talk about how teens are confused when it comes to the meanings of the words “abstinence” and “virginity.” You claim that this is due in part to “vague language in sex education classes.” I would argue that the reasons are far more basic than how this subject is being taught. I think that the confusion arises because many students do not take their sex education classes seriously(see picture to the left). They look at them as jokes and disregard the information as unimportant or funny. I have experienced first hand the offhand manner in which students talk about sexual diseases and different sexual acts. Perhaps it is not what we teach that is the problem as much as it is how we teach. You also argue that “Abstinence . . . appears to be linked to the time frame in which sexual behavior occurs.” Yet, I do not see any statistics in your post that support that idea. I am not saying that there is no basis for that statement, but that you should always include facts that support your opinions.

“Improving science edumacation in Louisiana”
I thought that this post was very well-written, interesting, and provocative: Three things I look for in any piece of writing. Yet, I felt that your argument was flawed in several areas. You state that Senator Vitter wants to give money for “a Louisiana Christian group to undertake a study of and to produce a report on ways to improve science education in Louisiana.” You go on to discuss how teaching creationism in the classroom is detrimental to the education of the students. If you look back at the quote, you will see that Mr. Vitter wants to fund a study of how teaching creationism mixed with evolution(see image to the right) works in Louisiana schools. The keyword there is study. The money will not go toward teaching creationism on a state-wide level, but rather selecting a few schools and noting how the students respond to parts of the Bible being taught at their schools. You go on to claim that the Louisiana Family Forum wants to “replace the teaching of established, uncontested science” with creationism. It appears that you wrote that and then try to pass it off as the goal of the LFF. I am not sure if you were paraphrasing something from the LFF or simply making that up. Next time, quote directly so as to avoid possible confusion between your opinions and your facts. At the end of your post you say “I’m glad my kids aren’t going to school in Louisiana.” This seems like a rather insulting and unnecessary addition to your post. The one thing that I really agree with you on is the separation of church and state. You say that “science can be left to the scientists and religion to the churches.” Overall, I thought that your post was not as informative as it could have been and too full of opinions to be looked at as a fair commentary on the subject matter. However, I thought it was both entertaining and fun to read.

Merit Pay: A Way to Better Teaching

Should a teacher’s salary reflect the test scores produced by that educator’s students? That is the idea behind the practice of merit pay. The debate over this question is currently in full sway in both local arenas and on Capital Hill. Some might say that this system is inherently unfair because the quality of the school or the ability of the students might be unequal and therefore give an advantage to a teacher in a wealthy area whose students are given all the tools necessary to achieve on a standardized test. One Oklahoma teacher, Barry Beauchamp, claimed that merit pay based simply on test scores is “not fair to the students or the teachers.” He claims that you can’t “look at every teacher and say they should achieve exactly the same thing.” Beauchamp says that this is due to the fact that the instructor’s are dealing with different subjects, different students, and different issues.

Yet, there are several examples of the effectiveness of merit pay. In Little Rock, Arkansas, one school has discovered the advantages of this approach. A few years ago they implemented a plan that would reward teachers for higher test scores (merit pay) and the results have been very promising. Vanderbilt University has gone so far as to create a research program to investigate the worth of the merit pay system. In fact, the aforementioned Arkansas school took part in this study and it was found that test (sample answer sheet shown below) results went up seven percentage points when compared to a similar school that was not giving bonuses to its instructors. The only real problem seen by most prognosticators is how the public would react to the utilization of such an arrangement. This question was answered when the voters in Denver decided to take a tax hike in order to increase teachers’ salaries through the merit pay system.

The only group standing in the way of a federally sponsored implementation of this method is, and this will be a surprise to most people, a teacher's union. Specifically, the National Education Association and its leader, Reg Weaver(top left photo), opposed a bill being proposed by California Representative George Miller that would include merit pay in an updated version of the No Child Left Behind education law. In an Associated Press article, Weaver states his belief that the decisions as to who is eligible and what constitutes an improvement in test scores should be decided locally rather than at a national level. The article goes on to explain that Weaver had earlier stated his support for merit pay and how his flip-flopping angered the aforementioned California Representative.

Despite Weaver’s sudden opposition to this method, most teachers are pushing for merit pay. They believe that it is the only way to make their salaries respectable. So, this system is not only intended to increase test scores, but to give teacher’s a much deserved pay raise.

Is this system completely fair? Probably not, but nothing is perfect. Most people who have knowledge of this situation agree that the pros outweigh the cons. If, as the Vanderbilt study suggests, the system works, why not use it? Even Mr. Beauchamp agrees that merit pay would work regardless of whether or not it favors certain educators because of the subject they happen to teach. Even in the face of scattered criticism, merit pay is taking off as is illustrated by its spreading to Tennessee, Florida, and Minnesota: It is also being considered by a number of other states. Needless to say, merit pay looks like its here to stay and I, for one, think that is a good thing; teachers deserve to be paid more than what they’re getting now and more importantly, the system works. If it’s raising test scores, the students are getting a better education and everyone benefits. It certainly seems like its worth a few extra dollars in taxes if the returns are so positive.