Why Johnny Can’t in: Sex Education*

A. Gray ThompsonDirector of Teacher Education^ Marquette University,

Milwaukee^ Wisconsin

INTRODUCTION

Joseph Rice is usually credited with launching the well wornAmerican custom of examining the academic deficiencies of the na-tion^s youth. Rice^s concern was spelling. His findings in 1892-93offer no surprises to the teacher of the 197(Fs. In fact, the evidencegathered and the commentary of the study as published in theBoston Daily Advertiser, the Chicago Dispatch, and the DetroitFree Press1 could be replicated in tomorrow morning^s newspaperwithout any loss of contemporary credibility. Max Rafferty, Cali-fornia’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, would tend to blamethe results on the progressive pampering of the youth; while ex-governor George Wallace might castigate with blame the pseudo-intellectual professors of teacher training institutions.

Since Rice, the schools in America have encountered a vast varietyof traumatic situations which had national impact. Some exampleswould include the startling question of George Counts book Darethe Schools Build a New Social Order?, Fleshes attempt to answer theirking question Why Johnny Can^t Read, and the coup de grace givenAmerican education with the launching of Sputnik because theschools were completely deficient in their approach to the teaching-learning of science and math.The examples of curricular issues given here, and a host of others,

received the attention of the nation. Each ran its conflict course.Many sparked curricular innovation. Some issues faded into oblivionwhile others, especially in reading, reappear, with the regularity of a

comet, to plague teachers and recharge the consternation of thepublic. Scapegoats are sought out and the cycle is on again.

AN ISSUE or THE 1970^: SEX EDUCATIONThe mass media leave us with little doubt that sex education

has come to the fore as a major issue facing education today. Thesituation is national in scope. Strong reaction to the issue originatesfrom virtually every segment of the population . . . the church,political organizations, legislative bodies, educators, veteran groups,medicine, law, and most importantly Mr. and Mrs. Average Citizen.As the battle in reading usually boils down to a manufactured

generalization of "phonics^ vs. "look-say,^ the central issue of sex

* Paper presented at the CASMT Convention, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 1969.

^ Lawrence A, Cremih, The Transformation of the School^ Random House, New York, 1964, p< 6,,

597

598 School Science and Mathematics

education has become polarized: Sex education vs. no sex educationin the schools. Because of the space race American schools wereexpected by the "scapegoaters^ to emulate what Ivan was learning;however, sex education in the schools is identified as a part of theinternational communist conspiracy conceived in Moscow.The Chicago Szm-Times recently quoted an opponent of sex

education as saying that some supporters of it "have subscribed tothe Communist theory all of their lives and are using sex as a vehicleto overthrow democracy and capitalism.n2A California newspaper headlined parent rejection of sex programs

with sub articles focusing on action to recall the school board.3 Thepaper noted, "a Flurry of Handouts listing ^Communist Rules forRevolution^ ". The John Birch Society is quoted as claiming thatsex education in the schools ^is a Communist plot to undermine themoral fibre of our youth/74

Father Francis E. Fenton of Bridgeport, Connecticut, states ti!don’t think it should be taught in schools�period! It should betaught by parents.715 He also identifies the SIECUS materials asbeing "raw sex."At the other end of the spectrum the point of view is not so clearly

stated. While the answer to the underlying question in this issue is,"Yes, the schools do have a role in sex education/7 the response isusually predicated upon a variety of related questions:

(1) who should decide whether sex education should be a part of the curricu-lum in this school community?

(2) how should this part of the curriculum be organized?(3) what materials should be utilized?(4) who should be taught?(5) who should do the teaching?(6) what about evaluation?(7) who should be involved in gaining answers to the above questions?

A constant concern and a real source of irritation to many proponentsof sex education is that too frequently curriculum programs areinitiated without giving proper attention to all these related ques-tions. The result is explosive, and the antagonists have freshly plowedground to sow their seeds of opposition.

It is a continuing source of surprise that apparently interestedindividuals and groups (including educators) attempt to develop sexeducation programs in the same manner they adopt a basal readingprogram. It would appear they are completely oblivious to the factthat this area is so charged with emotional dynamite that any mis-handling could be disastrous.

2 Chicago Sun-Times. Sunday November 9,1965. P. 5.3 Redwood City Tribune. (California) September 26, 1968. P. 1.

^ Milwaukee Journal. (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) May 29, 1969. P. 14.J* .Catholic Hendd.Citizen, (l^ilw^ukee, ^iscpns|ip)^u,ne,21, 1969..P. 1.

Why Johnny Can^t in: Sex Education S99

When Programs Explode: The newspaper accounts of the disasterin Redwood City, California mirror the major pitfalls which threatenthe success of sex education in the schools. The Redwood City SchoolDistrict includes about 17 schools representing a broad range ofsocio-economic levels. The district attempted to be a part of acounty-wide (San Mateo County) Family Life Education project.After weeks of conflict, the school board decided not to implement theFLE program before 650 irrate citizens in the glare of hot and tell-tale TV lights. The materials recommended for the program as wellas a film with the remarkable title "Time of Your Life^ were alsorejected.A basic question in the Redwood City situation to be answered is:

because of wide variations in ethical-moral concerns, can a sexeducation program really be successful district-wide, let alone county-wide or diocesan-wide?

Guidelines: Because of the nature of the conflict inherent in theissue of sex education in the school, the following guidelines mightprove helpful to the school administrator:6

(1) All parents in a school community should have the opportunity to formu-late the decision whether or not sex education ought to be a part of thatschooVs curriculum. (No school group, as the P.T.A., should make thedecision.) Such a decision would be made after an in-depth examinationof the problems and needs in cooperation with the professional personnelof the schools. (If the decision is favorable, the following suggestionswould guide.)

(2) These parents would have the major role in deciding:�how sex education would be organized as a part of the curriculum which

would include scope and sequence,�who should be taught,�who would do the teaching,�what materials (films, books, pictures) should be used and, how theprogram should be evaluated.

(3) Use caution in trying to imitate another sex education program. Theneeds of this school community must be the guide.

(4) Use caution in recommending published materials. It is the personalitiesinvolved who will insure success, not the materials advanced by MadisonAvenue.

(5) Consider having a (’fathers’ night" via mailed invitations from the schoolsto initiate the discussion of finding the Yes or No for sex education.

(6) Guide and enhance the decision-making process, don’t ^run" it.

Conclusions: The July, 1969 issue of Forum Newsfront brings intofocus the extraordinary predicament faced by curriculum workerswhen attempting to mediate the role of sex education in public orprivate schools. Two news items appeared. One was headlined thatthe subject of sex education was a Communist plot, while the otherarticle said sex education was seen by Communist governments as aCapitalistic plot.

a Phi Delta Kappan, Education, Population, Morality. Volume XLIX, May 1968. No. 9. Pp. 501-3.

600 School Science and Mathematics

With such a dichotomy facing educators, the integration of sexeducation as part of the curriculum is perhaps the most tenuous taskto be faced by the schools in this century. When the initiative, plan-ning, programming and implementation is taken on by the school andother organized groups, Joe McCarthyism in all of its horrendousimplications tends to fall upon the innocent heads of those involved.Who suffers? The Child.

It would appear that sex education programs which enjoy a success-ful place in a school curriculum are those which implement the con-cept which states: those affected by a decision ought to be involved inits formulation. All of the parents in a given school community oughtto have the opportunity to decide the�if, who, what, when, where,and how of sex education for their children. Such total communityinvolvement will minimize, if not completely immobilize, the politico-religious critics of sex education as a potential function of the schoolsin contemporary America.The schools are moving ahead in the "why Johnny can^t ... in

reading, math, science, and spelling, but when will the Americansociety move ahead in facing up to the question: "Why JohnnyCan^t in: Sex Education?^

PREVENTING POLLUTION FROM CANNINGRivers and streams may flow clearer, and canned vegetables may become more

nutritious as a result of a unique food processing technique developed by scientistsrecently.A blanching procedure which produces 90 per cent less effluent than methods

now commonly used has been developed. Blanching�the step in food processingafter cleaning that prepares the product for final packaging�is a major source ofpollution in the canning industry.The blanching method most common in canning today uses hot water to treat

vegetables. However, the large volume of water needed and its direct contactwith the product result in a great deal of leaching, causing a high pollutionstrength.In the new Individual Quick Blanching Process (IQB), cleaned vegetables go

into a hot air dryer which removes surface moisture, reducing total weight five to10 per cent.The vegetables, spread on a moving belt, then pass into a heating chamber

where each piece comes in direct contact with hot steam. The steam condenses onthe product and soaks in, replacing moisture lost in the dryer and also warmingup the inside of the vegetable. Very little water runs off as waste.The final step is a holding unit heated by indirect steam. Here, the heat is

redistributed until the temperature throughout the product is high enough tostop enzyme activity and remove excess gases from the tissues.In addition to increasing pollution, heavy leaching in the standard procedure

also drains off vitamins and minerals.Therefore, products treated by IQB should be of higher nutritional quality,

because they go into the can with less material washed away.