Growing achievement gap in favor of home educated kids versus public educated kids; it's not income, education level of parents, or amount spent.

A study of standardized test scores of home educated and public school educated students reveals a growing achievement gap in favor of home educated kids. According to a recently released study, "Progress Report 2009", the percentile gap increased between home and public educated students from 30 percentage points in 1997 to 37 percentage points in 2009.

"Progress Report 2009: Homeschool academic achievement and demographics" is a study commissioned by The Home School League Defense Association (HSLDA) on the the academic performance of home educated kids. It compared the nationally recognized standardized test results of 11,739 home educated students to public school educated students nationally.

It found a growing gap between the academic performance of home versus public educated students. It found home educated kids continued to do very well regardless of socio-economic background, education level of parents, whether the parent was a certified teacher, whether the state imposed heavy or light regulations on home education or style of home education.

Why do home educated students perform so well? From demographic info in the study, I think there are a couple of factors.

First, family structure and parental involvement. Nearly 98% of the families studied were married. And second, most of the time one parent stayed at home. Just under 20% of home educating mothers worked outside the home and most them, nearly 85%, worked part-time.

The key is parental engagement and time with their kids. That's just not possible in a single parent household or where both parents are working outside the home.

This reaffirms the incredible importance of intact families on our children, our next generation of leaders.

What can government do? Obviously, it can't mandate that parents stay together or educate their children at home. But it can encourage strong families by reforming no fault divorce laws and empowering parents with more educational choices -- like educating their kids at home if they choose to do so. An added benefit of more students educated at home is saving taxpayers a lot of money. The median home educating parent spent between $400 to $600 per student a year.

American College of Pediatricians gives strong endorsement of abstinence-until-marriage approach to sex education.

A national organization of pediatricians, the American College of Pediatricians came out with a surprisingly strong endorsement of abstinence education. I say surprisingly because most professional organizations are usually to the left on controversial topics like abstinence.

Their report said:

The American College of Pediatricians strongly endorses abstinence-until-marriage sex education and recommends adoption by all school systems rather than "comprehensive sex education". This position is based on "the public health principle of primary prevention - risk avoidance in lieu of risk reduction," upholding the "human right to the highest attainable standard of health."[1]

They point out the problems associated with teenage sexual activity:

By every measure, adolescent sexual activity is detrimental to the well being of all involved, especially young women, and society at large. Children and adolescents from 10 to 19 years of age are more at risk for contracting a sexually transmitted infection (STI) than adults.[2] This is due to the general practice of having multiple and higher risk sexual partners, and to the immaturity of the cervical tissue of girls and young women. The CDC recently stated that of the 19 million new cases of STIs annually reported in the United States, 50 percent occur in teens and young adults under 25 years of age.[3] Twenty-five percent of newly diagnosed cases of HIV occur in those under 22 years of age.[4] This translates into one in four sexually active female adolescents being infected with at least one STI.[5]

Bacterial STIs may cause life-threatening cases of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and infertility. Viral STIs which include herpes, the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and HIV are generally incurable. Herpes afflicts its victims with life-long painful recurrences, may be passed on to sexual partners even when asymptomatic, and may be life threatening to newborns if passed on at birth during vaginal delivery. HPV is found among 90 percent of sexually active young adults and teens.[6] While often self-limited, HPV has high risk strains that may persist for life and cause cancer of the cervix. HIV not only may cause premature demise, but also significant suffering with life-long dependence on multiple toxic and costly medications. The CDC estimates that STIs cost the U.S. health care system as much as $15.3 billion dollars annually.[7]

Adolescent pregnancy is similarly associated with adverse socioeconomics that have an impact on the family, community and society at large. One in thirteen high school girls becomes pregnant each year.[8] Adolescent pregnancy results in decreased educational and vocational opportunities for the mothers, an increased likelihood of the family living in poverty, and significant risk for negative long-term outcomes for the children. For example, children of adolescent mothers are more likely to be born prematurely and at a low birth weight; suffer from poor health; perform poorly in school; run away from home; be abused or neglected; and grow up without a father.[9]

They talk about the emotional scars from teenage sex:

Even if sexually active teens escape acquiring sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and becoming pregnant, few remain emotionally unscathed. Overall, one in eight teens suffers from depression,[10] and suicide has risen to become the third leading cause of death for adolescents, paralleling the rise in STIs within this population.[11] Infection with an STI has long been recognized as a cause for depression among teens. More recently, however, adolescent sexual activity alone has been acknowledged as an independent risk factor for developing low self-esteem, major depression, and attempting suicide.[12] In studies that controlled for confounding factors, sexually active girls were found to be three times as likely to report being depressed and three times as likely to have attempted suicide when compared to sexually abstinent girls.[13] Sexually active boys were more than twice as likely to suffer from depression and seven times as likely to have attempted suicide when compared to sexually abstinent boys.[14] This is not mere coincidence. Scientists now know that sexual activity releases chemicals in the brain that create emotional bonds between partners. Breaking these bonds can cause depression, and make it harder to bond with someone else in the future.[15]

Sexual activity is defined as genital contact. This includes mutual masturbation, as well as oral, vaginal and anal intercourse. While only vaginal intercourse may result in pregnancy, all of these practices may spread STIs, and lead to emotional trauma. Abstaining from all sexual activity is the only 100 percent safe and effective way to avoid teen pregnancies, STIs, and the emotional fallout of adolescent sexual activity. Almost 40 years of emphasis on "safer sex" with "values-neutral sex education," condoms and contraception has clearly failed our young people. The effectiveness of abstinence sex education in delaying the onset of sexual debut, on the other hand, has been demonstrated in rigorous scientific studies. Abstinence education does not occur in a vacuum, making it especially difficult to separate its influence from the opposing influence of the media and cultural milieu. Nevertheless, five out of seven programs recently reviewed showed a significant reduction in sexual initiation rates (two programs showed rates decreased by half).[16] Evaluation of community-based abstinence programs in peer-reviewed journals showed that they are effective in significantly reducing pregnancy. According to an April 2008 report by the Heritage Foundation "fifteen studies examined abstinence programs and eleven reported positive findings of delayed sexual initiation."[17] Reviews by The Institute for Research and Evaluation state that "several well designed evaluations of abstinence programs have found significant long- term reductions in adolescent sexual activity."[18] These do not begin to thoroughly evaluate the hundreds of ongoing programs.

They address the difference between the abstinence until marriage versus comprehensive sex education approach:

In its endorsement of abstinence-based sex education, the College calls attention to the scientific controversies surrounding alternative educational platforms. Most sex education curricula fall into two categories, abstinence-until-marriage or comprehensive sex education programs (occasionally, referred to as "abstinence plus" programs). Recently, abstinence education has been accused of not providing critical health information about condom use. Abstinence education curricula, however, do not discourage the use of condoms; rather they note that chastity obviates the need for condoms. Abstinence education programs do not claim that condoms have no place in preventing STIs. Comprehensive programs, on the other hand, are misleading in the emphasis they place on condom use. These programs give teens the impression that condoms make sexual activity safe. In reality, there has been much conflicting medical literature on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STIs since the 2000 NIH report on the subject and much of the controversy remains unresolved.[19] Teens must be informed that condoms do not offer complete protection from either pregnancy or STIs.

The College position supporting abstinence-until-marriage education, unlike alternative education platforms, also recognizes the unique neurobiology of adolescent brains. The frontal cortex of the adolescent brain is still in development and unable to make the consistently wise executive decisions necessary to control action based on emotional input. Researcher Jay Giedd has stated that, "Until the mid-twenties young people do not have the physical brain capacity to make fully mature decisions."[20] programs that address smoking, drugs, and alcohol use. Emphasis on contraceptive methods undermines the authority of parents and the strength of the abstinence message. This approach reinforces the ubiquitous (yet erroneous) message presented by the media that engaging in sexual activity is not only expected of teens, but is the norm. Adolescent brains are not equipped to handle these mixed messages. Parents and teachers need to "function as a surrogate set of frontal lobes, an auxiliary problem solver" for their teens, setting firm and immutable expectations.[21] Adolescents need repetitive, clear and consistent guidance.

And they endorse involving parents in the sex education process:

As families address this issue of sex education, the American College of Pediatricians recommends that parents be fully aware of the content of the curriculum to which their children are being exposed. The national "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sex Education" that were drafted by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) place strong emphasis on "values neutral" sex education beginning in kindergarten. According to these guidelines, children between the ages of 5 to 8 should be taught not only the anatomically correct names of all body parts, but also the definitions of sexual intercourse, and masturbation.[22]

Overall, these comprehensive programs only emphasize "safer sex." Many comprehensive programs also provide sexually erotic material to teens with explicit condom demonstrations. Other programs suggest alternative types of sexually stimulating contact (referred to as "outercourse") that would not result in pregnancy but still could result in STIs. Some of these activities, depending on the ages of those involved and the state in which they occur, could actually be illegal. These education programs can break down the natural barriers of those not yet involved in sexual activity and encourage experimentation. Additionally, many programs emphasize that teens do not need parental consent to obtain birth control and that teens therefore need not even discuss the issue with them.[23]

Discouraging parental involvement eliminates one of the most powerful deterrents to sexual activity, namely, communication of parental expectations.[24] Firm statements from parents that sex should be reserved for marriage have been found to be very effective in delaying a child's sexual debut. Parental example and "religiosity" have also been found to be similarly protective. Adolescents reared by parents who live according to their professed religious faith [25] and are actively involved in their worship community,[26] are more likely to abstain from sexual activity as teens. Successful sex education programs involve parents and promote open discussion between parents and their children.

The American College of Pediatricians also believes parents should be aware of the current state of funding, and government involvement in sex education choices. Comprehensive programs receive seven to twelve times the funding of abstinence programs.[27] However, according to a recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services, comprehensive programs do not give equal time to abstinence.[28]

And they address the efforts to discredit abstinence education:

In 2004 Congressman Henry Waxman of California presented a report before Congress critical of the medical accuracy of abstinence education curricula.[29] The Mathematica Study was similarly critical of the medical accuracy of abstinence education programs.[30] However, in 2007 the U.S .Department of Health and Human Services conducted an extensive review of nine comprehensive sex education curricula using the same methods employed by Congressman Waxman and the Mathematica Study. These comprehensive programs were found to have no better record for medical accuracy. The HHS review also found that the comprehensive programs were hardly comprehensive. The amount of discussion dedicated to "safer sex" exceeded that spent on abstinence by a factor of up to seven. Some of the programs failed to mention abstinence altogether. None of the programs carefully distinguished between reducing and eliminating the risks of sexual activity, and nearly every program failed to mention the emotional consequences of early sexual activity. Although some of the comprehensive programs showed a small effect in reducing "unprotected" sex (7 of 9 programs) and to a lesser extent in delaying sexual debut (2 of 8 programs), the impact did not extend beyond six months.[31]

According to a 2004 Zogby Poll, 90% of adults and teens agree with The American College of Pediatricians position that teens should be given a strong abstinence message.[32] Programs that teach sexual abstinence until marriage are about much more than simply delaying sexual activity. They assist adolescents in establishing positive character traits, formulating long-term goals, and developing emotionally healthy relationships. These programs increase the likelihood of strong marriages and families - the single most essential resource for the strength and survival of our nation.

Three cheers for the American College of Pediatricians.

Cohabitation as "Trial Divorce"

One of those dangerous, damaging social phenomena which rarely gets much press or public attention, yet is enormously detrimental to society is cohabitation. Many view it as a trial marriage. A way to see if the relationship will work out. But Mike McManus, marriage expert and author of Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers, refers to it as "Trial Divorce" because 85% of the time they don't last.

In an interview McManus said:

Couples who live together are gambling and losing in 85 percent of the cases. Many believe the myth that they are in a “trial marriage.” Actually it is more like a “trial divorce,” in which more than eight out of ten couples will break up either before the wedding or afterwards in divorce. First, about 45 percent of those who begin cohabiting, do not marry. Those who undergo “premarital divorce” often discover it is as painful as the real thing. Another 5-10 percent continue living together and do not marry. These two trends are the major reason the marriage rate has plunged 50 percent since 1970. Couples who cohabit are likely to find that it is a paltry substitute for the real thing, marriage. Of the 45 percent or so who do marry after living together, they are 50 percent more likely to divorce than those who remained separate before the wedding. So instead of 22 of the 45 couples divorcing (the 50 percent divorce rate) about 33 will divorce. That leaves just 12 couples who have begun their relationship with cohabitation who end up with a marriage lasting 10 years.

This points out that cohabitation does just the opposite of encouraging folks to stay together. It increases the likelihood that they won't stay married once they do get married.

McManus calls marriage disintegration the "central domestic problem of our time... not the recession." Of course children suffers as does society. McManus points out that

"Children of cohabiting parents are perhaps ten times more likely to be sexually abused by a stepparent than by a parent. They are three times as likely to be expelled from school or to get pregnant as teenagers than children from an intact home with married parents. And they are five times more apt to live in poverty, and 22 times more likely to incarcerated."

While so much time and attention is focused on the symptoms of the problem, e.g. poverty, welfare, crime, juvenile delinquency, STDs, the major source of the problem is hardly even looked at -- breakdown of marriages and/or the failure to raise children in a marriage relationship.

Of course, the answer doesn't primarily lie with government, yet there are things government can and should do to improve the situation. For instance, move away from the no fault, unilateral divorce regime and establish joint custody/mutual parenting if couples do decide to get divorced.

Absolutely critical is for churches to honor the marriage commitment by giving moral clarity to the covenant of marriage both in its teaching and preaching and how they prepare people for marriage.

Cohabitation coupled with a 38% of out wedlock birth rate will only deepen the social crisis facing our nation. If we as a society don't get a handle on this we will only see greater and more serious social deterioration.

Left bias from Star Tribune on abstinence until marraige sex education

Over the weekend the Star Tribune ran a story on the Department of Health's decision to not seek federal abstinence funding monies for a state program supported by Planned Parenthood. (That fact alone should raise red flags as to it's bona fides as a true abstinence until marriage program.)

The article by Josephine Marcotty served as an attack piece on abstinence until marriage curricula and message and again shows the liberal media bias against the common sense message, "Wait until you're marriage to have sex."

First, Marcotty uses the language of the left when she describes the abstinence until marriage approach as "abstinence-only" sex education. There's much more to true abstinence education than only abstaining. It's waiting to share the most intimate aspects of oneself with one person, not multi-partners or at one night stands.

Marcotty writes, "At issue is the question of whether adolescents and teenagers should be taught the view embraced by social conservatives -- that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases." What's controversial about that? It's true on its face. Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs.

She goes on to say "Several recent studies have raised the decibel level in the national debate because they found that abstinence-only programs are ineffective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers and adolescents." She doesn't say which studies those are or the controversial nature of those evaluations. There is plenty of evidence showing the abstinence message works.

Next she says, "In fact, critics of abstinence only education say it's prevalence might be one reason why the long decline in sexual activity among teenagers has stalled since 2001 and why American teens continue to have the highest rates of pregnancy and abortion in the industrialized."

Here she simply regurgitates the charges of contraceptive proponents without any response to the accuracy of these accusations. I would argue the exact opposite is true. The reigning orthodoxy in the sex education industry is condoms, condoms and more condoms. Since the onslaught of the sex revolution in the 60s we've seen an explosion of STDs from a few to a couple of dozen. I suppose she and "critics of abstinence only education" would say that abstinence caused that. In schools kids are inundated with condom messages; the main approach isn't abstinence until marriage but again condoms, condoms and more condoms.

Next she quotes from Michael Resnick, a UM professor who is a big proponent of condom education. He's hopeful we're moving away from the abstinence until marriage approach. "Are we seeing a turnaround in these positive trends because we are seeing the impact of ineffective educational strategies on kids?"

What's interesting about Dr. Resnick is a study he helped write was used as the basis for a monograph on sex education produced by the University of Minnesota in the late 1990s entitled, "Reducing the Risk: Connections That Make a Difference in the Lives of Youth." (The report Resnick helped write "Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health" published in 1997 in JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association." A longitudinal study on Adolescent Health published in JAMA in 1997.)

The monograph found that family characteristics that protect teens from early sexual intercourse and pregnancy were "perceived parent disapproval of adolescent sex" and "perceived parent disapproval of adolescent contraception." In other words, Resnick is now promoting activities which directly undermines factors which discourage early sexual intercourse and pregnancy among adolescents.

My comments on the subject, buried in the middle of the article, constituted three paragraphs of the 27 paragraph article.

Marcotty follows my comments by quoting from Bill Smith a vice president for SIECUS, the principal national promoter of comprehensive sex education standards which promote not only contraceptives, but also acceptance of homosexuality and oral and anal sodomy. He was aghast at my suggestion that STDs and emotional damage can happen to folks in their 20s not just teenagers.

Then she concludes with quotes from Brigid Riley, the head of MOAPPP the primary promoter of comprehensive sex ed in the state, and Resnick who said parents want to hear abstinence but also contraceptives.

Interestingly enough, a Zogby poll was done on parents views of the content of comprehensive sex education programs. If found that when parents discovered what's actually in comp sex ed curricula, e.g. promotion of condom use among other things, support drops dramatically.

Comprehensive sex ed advocates engage in a bait and switch approach. They say, "Oh we'll teach abstinence but we'll also information on contraceptives as well." A review of what their comprehensive sex ed curricula by the Heritage Foundation found the comp sex ed curricula actually spent less than 5% of their time on abstinence and zero on marriage. They spent over 600% more time on condom use than abstinence.

The bottom line in this battle over sex ed, abstinence and condoms is a worldview battle. On the one side are those who view sex as a recreational sport and have a pretty much anything goes attitude towards sex -- let's just try and mitigate the consequences through condoms and abortion. On the other side are those who maintain a moral vision of sexual expression within the context of a marriage relationship. History, common sense and morality point to the second approach as best for the individual and society.