critical discourse 
With 65 conceptions per thousand women aged between 15 and 19 in 1998, England and Wales has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Western Europe.1 This rate rose by four per cent in the space of one year.
But while everyone agrees on the need for action, there is a wide spectrum of opinion on how to deal with the problem. At the heart of the debate is whether information or innocence is the best way of protecting Britain’s children from the problems associated with teenage sex.
In the blue corner are the family values campaigners, led by churches, the Conservative Party and the high-circulation Daily Mail newspaper. While in the red corner are those who believe that the only way to tackle issues such as teenage pregnancy and sexual health is to provide accurate non-judgmental information. The latter includes most children’s charities, the liberal wing of the Labour Party and the department of health. “The more information young people have, the less likelihood there is that teenage girls will become pregnant,” says Anna Coote, director of the King’s Fund, a health think-tank. “It doesn’t look like what we are doing at the moment is working, particularly in secondary schools.”
Poverty and social exclusion
Caught in the crossfire between these two camps are Labour ministers wary of offending the right-wing press and keen to hold together their “one-nation” coalition which swept them to power in 1997 after 18 years in the wilderness. But much as it may like to, the government cannot stay above the fray. Cutting the number of teenage pregnancies is vital if it is to meet its targets of reducing child poverty and social exclusion.
The government has pledged to halve teenage pregnancy rates by 2010 and is expecting to reduce by 2,000 the number of girls who become pregnant this year. In June 1999, the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU), a government body which reports directly to Prime Minister Tony Blair, produced a blueprint for tackling Britain’s alarmingly high number of teenage pregnancies. Its conclusions were stark. “Too many teenagers are being pressured into having sex rather than really choosing to, are not using contraception, and are, as a result, ending up pregnant or with a sexually transmitted infection.”
According to Jill Francis of the National Children’s Bureau, “There are four main reasons why girls in Britain become pregnant. We don’t give children enough information; we give them mixed messages about sex and relationships; social deprivation means girls are more likely to become pregnant; and girls whose mothers were teenage mums are more likely to do the same.” Both teenage mothers and fathers come predominantly from lower social classes. According to the Children’s Bureau, “teenage mothers are less academically able than their childless contemporaries and more likely to leave school at the earliest opportunity with few or no qualifications.”
One national study suggests that a quarter of teenage mothers were themselves born to teenagers. The brutal fact is that teenage parenthood helps to ensure that those at the bottom of the social pile stay there. Policies such as the New Deal for Lone Parents (which gives young mothers information, training and other help to find work), improved parenting advice and increased availability of childcare are all designed to help young parents escape this trap. But they are costly. Ministers would prefer prevention to cure.
So far however, they are running into stiff opposition. One of the SEU’s central recommendations was to extend sex education in primary schools. But it did not take long for Education Secretary David Blunkett to backtrack, saying that he did not want children under ten to have their “age of innocence” taken away from them. While in principle primary school students learn about how a baby is conceived and born, the SEU report observed that thousands of ten- and eleven-year-olds receive no information about periods, despite the fact that one in ten girls starts menstruating before finishing primary school.
Nor can secondary schools rest on their laurels. “We’re not good at talking to young people about sex. Lack of sex education is an important contributory factor in individuals getting pregnant,” says Francis. Sex education is compulsory in secondary school, but parents have the right to withdraw their children from lessons. The curriculum chiefly focuses on the reproductive system and how the foetus develops in the uterus, along with the physical and emotional changes that take place during adolescence. Anything beyond this is discretionary, including contraception, safe sex and access to local advice and treatment services.
Several studies into unplanned teenage pregnancies point to a lack of information about contraceptive use and embarrassment about discussing contraception with a partner. In February 2000, the University of Brighton conducted a survey of nearly 700 pupils between 14 and 15 that revealed a deep-seated anger about sex education in their schools. Girls felt that classes focused on the mechanics of sex and contraception rather than on emotions. Boys claimed they were denied access to information judged too explicit. The majority were “furious” because they felt legislation, such as that which requires teachers to inform pupils’ parents if asked about contraception, has stopped them from gaining access to information. Schools are expected to inform parents when a pupil tells a teacher they are having sex or asks about contraception in all but the “most exceptional circumstances”.
The topic of sex education is all the more sensitive at the moment as it has been clubbed together with another row, which has centred on the government’s proposed repeal of Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act, which bans the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities. Passed under the Thatcher government, this clause is judged discriminatory by the present Labour majority. Although not directly related to the government’s drive to reduce teenage pregnancies, it has sparked heated debate. The House of Lords (the upper house of parliament) has repeatedly rejected the government’s push to repeal the clause. To break the deadlock, the government, in consultation with church leaders, has come up with new guidelines on sex education in schools that would become statutory—obliging all teachers to adopt them—if they are passed. They would notably oblige teachers to teach about the importance of marriage and stable relationships.
Morning-after trials
Many teachers in Britain feel that they are already being asked to single-handedly tackle society’s ills and are reluctant to accept responsibility for reducing the rate of teenage pregnancies as well. “Teenage pregnancy is a major social issue which education alone cannot solve,” said a spokeswoman for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. “This is a cross-departmental issue, we need more joined-up thinking.” The ATL is concerned that the new statutory guidelines would undermine teachers’ ability to conduct sex education well. “If there are legal constraints, teachers will not have the confidence to teach it well.”
Coote agrees that more is needed than just improving sex education. “There are a number of factors at work. People don’t feel the services on offer are properly accessible to them. Professionals often don’t speak their language, either literally or metaphorically.” Meanwhile, as debate over the guidelines lingers on, the department of health has approved trials in some parts of the country making the morning-after pill available from pharmacies—including to schoolgirls as young as 14. Doctors usually prescribe this pill. The initiative has sparked a media backlash and it is by no means certain that it will be extended nation-wide. But the government holds firm to its line. As the SEU report states, “preaching is rarely effective. Whether the government likes it or not, young people decide what they’re going to do about sex and contraception. Keeping them in the dark or preaching at them makes it less likely they’ll make the right decision.”
But while everyone agrees on the need for action, there is a wide spectrum of opinion on how to deal with the problem. At the heart of the debate is whether information or innocence is the best way of protecting Britain’s children from the problems associated with teenage sex.
In the blue corner are the family values campaigners, led by churches, the Conservative Party and the high-circulation Daily Mail newspaper. While in the red corner are those who believe that the only way to tackle issues such as teenage pregnancy and sexual health is to provide accurate non-judgmental information. The latter includes most children’s charities, the liberal wing of the Labour Party and the department of health. “The more information young people have, the less likelihood there is that teenage girls will become pregnant,” says Anna Coote, director of the King’s Fund, a health think-tank. “It doesn’t look like what we are doing at the moment is working, particularly in secondary schools.”
Poverty and social exclusion
Caught in the crossfire between these two camps are Labour ministers wary of offending the right-wing press and keen to hold together their “one-nation” coalition which swept them to power in 1997 after 18 years in the wilderness. But much as it may like to, the government cannot stay above the fray. Cutting the number of teenage pregnancies is vital if it is to meet its targets of reducing child poverty and social exclusion.
The government has pledged to halve teenage pregnancy rates by 2010 and is expecting to reduce by 2,000 the number of girls who become pregnant this year. In June 1999, the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU), a government body which reports directly to Prime Minister Tony Blair, produced a blueprint for tackling Britain’s alarmingly high number of teenage pregnancies. Its conclusions were stark. “Too many teenagers are being pressured into having sex rather than really choosing to, are not using contraception, and are, as a result, ending up pregnant or with a sexually transmitted infection.”
According to Jill Francis of the National Children’s Bureau, “There are four main reasons why girls in Britain become pregnant. We don’t give children enough information; we give them mixed messages about sex and relationships; social deprivation means girls are more likely to become pregnant; and girls whose mothers were teenage mums are more likely to do the same.” Both teenage mothers and fathers come predominantly from lower social classes. According to the Children’s Bureau, “teenage mothers are less academically able than their childless contemporaries and more likely to leave school at the earliest opportunity with few or no qualifications.”
One national study suggests that a quarter of teenage mothers were themselves born to teenagers. The brutal fact is that teenage parenthood helps to ensure that those at the bottom of the social pile stay there. Policies such as the New Deal for Lone Parents (which gives young mothers information, training and other help to find work), improved parenting advice and increased availability of childcare are all designed to help young parents escape this trap. But they are costly. Ministers would prefer prevention to cure.
So far however, they are running into stiff opposition. One of the SEU’s central recommendations was to extend sex education in primary schools. But it did not take long for Education Secretary David Blunkett to backtrack, saying that he did not want children under ten to have their “age of innocence” taken away from them. While in principle primary school students learn about how a baby is conceived and born, the SEU report observed that thousands of ten- and eleven-year-olds receive no information about periods, despite the fact that one in ten girls starts menstruating before finishing primary school.
Nor can secondary schools rest on their laurels. “We’re not good at talking to young people about sex. Lack of sex education is an important contributory factor in individuals getting pregnant,” says Francis. Sex education is compulsory in secondary school, but parents have the right to withdraw their children from lessons. The curriculum chiefly focuses on the reproductive system and how the foetus develops in the uterus, along with the physical and emotional changes that take place during adolescence. Anything beyond this is discretionary, including contraception, safe sex and access to local advice and treatment services.
Several studies into unplanned teenage pregnancies point to a lack of information about contraceptive use and embarrassment about discussing contraception with a partner. In February 2000, the University of Brighton conducted a survey of nearly 700 pupils between 14 and 15 that revealed a deep-seated anger about sex education in their schools. Girls felt that classes focused on the mechanics of sex and contraception rather than on emotions. Boys claimed they were denied access to information judged too explicit. The majority were “furious” because they felt legislation, such as that which requires teachers to inform pupils’ parents if asked about contraception, has stopped them from gaining access to information. Schools are expected to inform parents when a pupil tells a teacher they are having sex or asks about contraception in all but the “most exceptional circumstances”.
The topic of sex education is all the more sensitive at the moment as it has been clubbed together with another row, which has centred on the government’s proposed repeal of Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act, which bans the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities. Passed under the Thatcher government, this clause is judged discriminatory by the present Labour majority. Although not directly related to the government’s drive to reduce teenage pregnancies, it has sparked heated debate. The House of Lords (the upper house of parliament) has repeatedly rejected the government’s push to repeal the clause. To break the deadlock, the government, in consultation with church leaders, has come up with new guidelines on sex education in schools that would become statutory—obliging all teachers to adopt them—if they are passed. They would notably oblige teachers to teach about the importance of marriage and stable relationships.
Morning-after trials
Many teachers in Britain feel that they are already being asked to single-handedly tackle society’s ills and are reluctant to accept responsibility for reducing the rate of teenage pregnancies as well. “Teenage pregnancy is a major social issue which education alone cannot solve,” said a spokeswoman for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. “This is a cross-departmental issue, we need more joined-up thinking.” The ATL is concerned that the new statutory guidelines would undermine teachers’ ability to conduct sex education well. “If there are legal constraints, teachers will not have the confidence to teach it well.”
Coote agrees that more is needed than just improving sex education. “There are a number of factors at work. People don’t feel the services on offer are properly accessible to them. Professionals often don’t speak their language, either literally or metaphorically.” Meanwhile, as debate over the guidelines lingers on, the department of health has approved trials in some parts of the country making the morning-after pill available from pharmacies—including to schoolgirls as young as 14. Doctors usually prescribe this pill. The initiative has sparked a media backlash and it is by no means certain that it will be extended nation-wide. But the government holds firm to its line. As the SEU report states, “preaching is rarely effective. Whether the government likes it or not, young people decide what they’re going to do about sex and contraception. Keeping them in the dark or preaching at them makes it less likely they’ll make the right decision.”
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar