Nanny State Gone Wild—More Stupid Rules to Make School More Unpleasant

Image from Flickr, by KazVorpal

Last week, in her column “The Answer Sheet,” Valerie Straus listed “eight weird things schools banned this year.” Some of the bans were absurd overreactions to freak accidents that were unlikely to ever occur again and that could be averted much more simply through greater caution by students and teachers. For example, frilly socks were banned at Kingshold Primary School in Gloucester, England, after a child tripped over her dangles and fell, according to the Independent. In another bizarre example, Castle View School in Essex, England, prohibited triangular flapjacks (in England, flapjacks are hard cookies, not pancakes) after one was tossed and hit a student in the eye, the independent reported. To “solve” this dangerous problem, school officials are now requiring that flapjacks be square—apparently these officials had cut geometry class the day they talked about how squares have more sharp corners than triangles.

Other bans stemmed from the hysteria over bullying, (here and here), and are equally misguided. The Eagle-Tribune wrote that the Wyndham School District in New Hampshire, for example, has banned dodge ball and other “human target” games as a way to reduce bullying. Yet bullying (as well as run of the mill teasing, harassing and meanness) can occur in virtually any game or sport. A child can choose to slide tackle in soccer out of poor sportsmanship, vindictiveness or outright hatred of the victim. A batter or runner can be hit by the ball in baseball, kickball or softball for similar reasons. A person jumping rope can be deliberately tripped by the rope turners. A person playing hopscotch can be tripped by pebbles or a banana peel tossed onto the playing field. Where does it end?

However, another way of parsing this perplexing ban is that dodge ball does not just provide an opportunity for a few bullies to gang up on one kid. It also provides an opportunity for a kid with any grievance whatsoever, including having been victimized by bullies, to target his tormentor in return. However, it seems like Wyndham School District is assuming that the victims of bullying truly are the feeble weaklings their tormentors say they are and, therefore, lack the capability of fighting back on the playing field (or the common sense to opt out of contact sports in which their tormentors are playing).

The other great hysteria around children—molestation (see here, and here)—has led to the banning of adult hugging in St. Mary’s County Public Schools, in Maryland, according to Southern Maryland News. According to the ban, adults may hug any child they wish, as long as it’s their own, but better keep their slimy, pervy hands off of everyone else’s children. While this might seem a prudent rule for teachers of middle and high school students to avoid any perception of prurient interest in the students, the situation is significantly different for elementary school teachers, whose students have much greater need for regular physical reassurances that they are loved and cared for. Personally, I do not want my son in a kindergarten class with an icy robot teacher who tells him to put on his own bandage, wipe his own tears and just go grab a hug from his friend whenever he’s feeling insecure or sad.

Speaking of prurient interest, thank God Kenilworth Junior High school, in Petaluma, California, has had the hindsight to ban girls’ leggings (stretch pants) which, when they bend over and the fabric stretches, provide more hindsight for their classmates than the fashion police feel is tolerable. ABC News suggested it was causing “distractions” in the classroom (i.e., boys, and no doubt some girls, too, were more interested in their classmates’ butts than their history lessons). This reminds me of my own school days, when only the most popular brands of tight-fitting pants and shorts were banned for similar reasons. Of course this begs the question: if teenagers are more interested in each other’s butts than the curriculum, shouldn’t something be done to make the curriculum more exciting and meaningful to them? It also highlights a fact that most adults and educators are constantly trying to suppress or deny: Teenagers are sexual beings. They have lusts, like adults. Banning one particular style of clothing will not change this. They will still be titillated by their peers’ looks and think about how cute so and so is, even after banning every other provocative and popular article of clothing for our students own protection.

Every generation comes up with its own popular genre of music and older generations routinely poo poo it as trash. . . When I was young. . . that was real music back then! Lawrence Welk and Frank Sinatra kick ass on Elvis and Frankie. But wait, what about the 60s? Music then was revolutionary. It was political. It was part of the anti-war movement, and today’s music is just a bunch of misogynistic, homophobic, violence-glorifying dreck. And why should our schools promote such anti-social messages? Thus, Arcadia High School in Southern California has banned Lady Gaga’s “Starstruck,” as well as 19 other songs at prom, because they are degrading to women.

While there is certainly some logic and perhaps even ethical basis for avoiding overtly misogynistic music, it is, in reality, completely arbitrary and pointless. The overwhelming majority of popular music throughout history has been mindless dreck if you really pay attention to the lyrics, including during the “revolutionary” 60s, when the majority of songs were insipid odes to puppy love and rants about being jilted. And the 60s, as well as the 50s and most other generations have had a subset of music with antisocial, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and otherwise offensive lyrics (though sometimes the offensive lyrics are meant to be satirical). Banning 19 songs leaves the thousands of others that still violate whatever arbitrary moral guidelines the thought police have set.

St. Mary’s County Public schools has also banned birthday invitations so as to not make the uninvited kids feel bad. This reminds me of an administrator who said that kids’ names shouldn’t be written on the board to remind them they have detentions and that you should never tell a student he is failing because such forms of communication could humiliate students. It also reminds me about some anarchists in the 1990s who tried to create an End to Unhappiness Festival and movement.

Sorry folks, but unhappiness, embarrassment, feeling left out, and bad news are all unavoidable conditions of life. People die. Conflicts occur. Relationships end. Reformers make life harder for regular people.  . . “Daddy, where is Mommy?” . . . “Er, well son, she’s certainly not dead. You don’t have to worry about that. Absolutely not dead. Not in the slightest.  . . Hey, let’s make some birthday invitations.”

Obviously, as educators we have a responsibility to address academic and disciplinary matters with tact and appropriateness, including not deliberately humiliating a student. However, getting caught being naughty and earning an F are inherently embarrassing situations and, even if a teacher is tactful and appropriate in her response, a student may still end up feeling embarrassed. Likewise, does the school really believe that the uninvited kids aren’t going to find out about the party anyway and still feel bad?

All of these bans have far more to do with social control, prejudice and paranoia about lawsuits than protecting children. This is perhaps best illustrated by Strauss’ last example, where two students’ pictures were removed from the yearbook at White Cloud High School in Michigan because their “baby bumps” (i.e., pregnant bellies) “sent a bad message to other students. However, according to New York Magazine, Superintendent Barry Seabrook felt that the girls’ photos would be an advertisement that their abstinence-based sex education program was a failure. So much for “evidence-based” education reform.

Teens Sex Safer Than Ever

The media continue to publish hysterical articles about the teen pregnancy and STD epidemics, despite the fact that teen pregnancy and STD rates are at their lowest levels ever. One reason for the decline may be the effectiveness of sexual education programs that teach teens how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and STDs by using condoms.

Teen condom use is certainly up. The 2011 National Survey of Family Growth, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), found that 80% of teen boys ages 15 to 19 reported using condoms the first time they had sex. This is a 9% increase over the last time the CDC checked in 2002 (See the Good.IS website) and a remarkable statistic when one considers how much older males complain about condoms.

The high rate of condom use by young males is either indicative of their concern for their own health and that of their partners or their partners’ unwillingness to fool around with them without protection--or both. In either case, it shows a level of responsibility, foresight and planning for which teens are seldom given credit.

The rate of teen sexual activity has not changed in the last 11 years, remaining at 40% for both genders, suggesting that sex education programs have not been increasing (nor decreasing) sexual activity. However, those who are abstaining, are not doing so because of abstinence only programs or state laws that require sex education classes to emphasize abstinence as the only 100% effective method.

Rather, the number one reason teens gave for remaining abstinent, according to the study, was that sex was "against their religion or morals," not fear of STDS or pregnancies, which they know perfectly well how to avoid.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Dumb—Bachmann, Paul Try to Out-Stupid Perry

As reported earlier this week on Modern School, right wing Christian fundamentalist Rick Perry, supported rampant teen sex in the state of Texas by mandating Guardsil (HPV) vaccinations for teen girls, in opposition to the rhetoric and philosophy of his ilk. Not surprisingly, it turns out that nearly $30,000 was donated to his gubernatorial campaign by drug giant Merck, manufacturer of Guardasil.

Regardless of his motivations, the policy would certainly save lives. Guardasil protects against human papillomavirus, which can cause cervical cancer, a disease that currently has a fatality rate higher than 30% (see Discover Magazine Blogs “Bad Astronomy”).

Despite the benefits in terms of public health, Perry’s GOP presidential nemesis Michele Bachmann used the Guardasil flap as an opportunity to rip him a new orifice to stick his head into (and in the process, wedged her head more deeply into her own orifice). During the recent GOP debate she said that Gardasil "can have very dangerous side effects." She also said that a woman came up to her claiming that her daughter became mentally retarded because of a Guardasil vaccination.

Such high profile criticism of a vaccine will certainly provide strong inspiration to the anti-vax movement, which thrives on pseudoscience, superstition, and unsupported claims. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the vaccine can cause mental retardation, while other side effects and dangers are relatively minor (see Michele Bachmann needles Perry on vaccinations from Discover Magazine blogs).

Not only has there never been a single confirmed case of Guardasil-induced mental retardation, but a bioethicist has offered Bachmann $10,000 if she can provide some evidence for her claim.

What is most appalling and dangerous is that such a claim could be made by a presidential candidate and left unchallenged by the media. Bachmann’s source was an unnamed woman who may or may not exist, while there was no vetting or confirmation by any doctors or scientists. As far as anyone knows, the claim could have been fabricated by Bachmann or her handlers. However, even if the woman does exist and did make the claim, that does not make it true and Bachmann should not have publicized the claim until she had solid evidence from medical or scientific professionals. By doing so, she fanned the flames of anti-vaccination hysteria and the general anti-science tendency that has been growing in this country.

The anti-vaccination movement is based almost entirely on fear, while fear itself depends more on the perception of a threat than the actuality of a threat. It is like crying “fire” in a crowded theater: people will likely react first to the cry, and not stop and consider whether there is any truth to the claim.

When the government said Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks or that he had weapons of mass destruction, this was sufficient to terrify the American public and convince them to support an unprovoked war and the curtailing of their rights and freedoms at home, despite the fact that neither claim was true and the evidence against both claims was readily available to those willing to look a little more deeply.

When Andrew Wakeman claimed he had evidence that vaccines caused autism, parents were quick to believe him and to deny vaccinations to their children, placing their own children and everyone else at increased risk for measles, pertussis, and other serious and preventable diseases. Yet when Wakeman was completely discredited, his paper retracted, and his license to practice medicine revoked for fraud and misconduct related to his anti-vaccination work, the damage had already been done. Despite the fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that vaccines do not cause autism and that there have been no documented and verified cases of vaccines causing autism, the seeds of fear had been so deeply planted that large numbers of people are still convinced that vaccines do in fact cause autism.

GOP contender Ron Paul has also jumped into the fracas. A political action committee supporting his candidacy produced a video calling Gardasil "a STD vaccine," a clever manipulation that implies that the drug allows wild, disease-free sexual activity. This, of course, is exactly the kind of anti-sex, anti-health and anti-teen spin that religious conservatives have been putting on the drug all along.

In actuality, Guardasil is a drug that protects against one deadly but preventable disease. It does not protect against any other STDS or against pregnancy, so it is not even close to a free-ticket to free love. Vaccinating teenagers against this disease does not promote or encourage unprotected or premarital sex any more than sex education programs or access to condoms do. There are still plenty of reasons for children to avoid or delay sexual activity and there are plenty of children will continue to have unprotected sexual encounters despite access to condoms, birth control and Guardasil.

What this debate is really about is America’s Puritanical attitudes toward sex and its hypocritical attitudes toward teenagers (plus some political grandstanding). In reality, teenage pregnancy and STD rates have been steadily declining for the past decade, while STD and unplanned pregnancy rates for their parents’ and grandparents’ generations have been climbing.

Childhood Poverty Hits 20% in California

Today John Fensterwald - Educated Guess published data on poverty rates among California’s youth. While not surprising, considering the state of the economy and the high rates of childhood poverty that already existed prior to the start of the Great Recession, an appalling one in five California children is now living in poverty, an increase of 2% from last year. For African-American and Hispanic kids, the numbers are higher, 29% and 28%, respectively.

As high as these numbers are, the situation could be (and probably will become) much worse, as 34% of children of California children are living in families where no parent has full-time employment. 51% African-American children live in families with no full-time bread-winners. Furthermore, the latest data do not take into account the effects of two straight years of state budget cuts to health care, education and child care.

While there were some bright spots in the report, overall, children poverty is growing, while support services are shrinking, both of which will likely worsen educational outcomes. Some of the improvements included declines in teen births, teen deaths and teen truancy. However, simply getting to class is only part of the picture. Students who show up regularly, but who are hungry, have untreated medical conditions or who are behind in credits or reading and math skills, will still struggle in class and each of these conditions is exacerbated by poverty.

The following links shows the breakdowns by county for most of the indexes discussed in the report.

Free Speech Victory For Teen Girls

A judge has ruled in favor of two girls who had been punished by their school for posting suggestive pictures on MySpace during the summer (Daily Mail Reporter). U.S District Judge Philip Simon ruled that an Indiana school district violated the girls’ First Amendment rights by punishing them for posting sexually suggestive photos on MySpace. However, he delayed his decision on whether to award damages while awaiting a ruling in a difference case before the 7th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana had filed a lawsuit on behalf of the teens in October 2009, claiming the district improperly banned the girls from extracurricular activities even though their behavior had not involved the school. Furthermore, the school humiliated the girls by forcing them to apologize to an all-male coaches' board and then required them to undergo counseling [for their own good?] after the photographs were circulated at school.

Schools may punish students for activities that occur outside of school if they can prove that the actions were disruptive to the school or posed a danger to its staff or students, according to a Supreme Court ruling. In this case, the girls had reason to believe that their actions would never be discovered by the school as the privacy settings on their MySpace pages had been set so that only their friends could see the photos.

While the girls hopefully learned a valuable lesson about trust (and who not to) as well as the risks of posting anything onto the internet, even with supposed security protections, they certainly should not have been punished for their actions, especially not by their school.

The school’s actions against the girls occurred after a parent, who obtained copies of the photos (from one of the trusted friends?) showed them to school Superintendent Steve Darnell and complained they were disrupting the volleyball team. The principal then suspended the girls from volleyball, choir and cheerleading for the year.

Even if the volleyball team was disrupted by gossip or name-calling stemming from the incident, it is the problem of the entire team and the coach. If the team was “disrupted” by their participation in an unpopular political protest or because they dressed like goths, the school would have been much less likely to punish the girls, because our society has zero tolerance for overt expressions of teenage sexuality.

Indeed, the overreaction by the school and the district reflect the irrational, Puritanical and teen-sex-phobic values that are so common in U.S. culture. The school’s athletic code even states explicitly that students may be punished for behavior on or off campus that disrupts the “moral” environment on campus.

Teens do think about sex. Some of them even have sex and usually without catching STDs or getting pregnant. In fact, unplanned pregnancy rates among teens are at an all-time low and are much lower than the unplanned pregnancy rates for women in the 30s and 40s.

The courts refreshingly brought a level of sanity back to the discourse, with Judge Simon saying that the photographs were not obscene under Indiana law and were intended to be humorous. He also ruled that the district's discipline policy was ‘so vague and overbroad as to violate the Constitution.

Irresponsible Teen Moms or Middle Age Moms?

Adults never grow tired of attacking and blaming youth. According to Mike Males’ recent book, Teenage Sex and Pregnancy (2010) Peter the Hermit complained back in 1247 that “young people of today are forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behavior and dress.” Today we have liberals and conservatives alike (though for sometimes different reasons) attacking youth, especially teen girls. In Reviving Ophelia (1998), psychologist Mary Pipher panicked over an epidemic of eating disorders, phobias and depression. Rosalind Wiseman’s Queen Bees and Wannabes (2002) claimed that girls were confused, insecure, obnoxious, cruel and catty.

One of the most popular screeds against teen girls is that they are irresponsible, impulsive and take dangerous risks, resulting in high rates of pregnancy, abortions and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). This also happens to be patently false, not just historically, but also compared with adult women. Pregnancy rates, rape, STDs, drug use and crime have all been plummeting for teens over the past decade, while they have been soaring for middle aged women. For example, the birth rate declined by 57% between 1995 and 2007 for girls under the age of 15 and 29% for 15-19 year-old girls. Even young women in their early 20s are having fewer babies. However, women over 40 have seen a 70% increase in births, while those in the 35-39 range saw a 50% increase. (Source: CDC WONDER—2009; cited in Males, 2010)

Another example is rape victimization. Between 1973 and 2007 there was a 37% drop in rapes of females between the ages of 12 and 24, and a 68% decline in other sexual assaults (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics; cited in Males, 2010). Likewise, HIV infection for 13-19 year-olds dropped 28% between 1993 and 2007, and 49% for 20-24 year-olds. However, for 40-44 year olds it increased 19% and for 45-49 year-olds, it went up 67%.This runs counter to the claim that teens are having more dangerous or pathological sex. Many, no doubt, are being more careful and learning how to fend off the unwanted attention of family members and neighbors.

In a seeming paradox today’s youth reports having more sex, and at a younger age, than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations. In 1970, only 5% of 15 year-old girls reported having had sex at least once and only 29% of all girls age 15-19 reported having had sex at least once. Today, the numbers are 25% for 15 year-olds and 50% for 15-19 year-olds (See Males, 2010, p99). If these self-reporting numbers are true, girls are indeed more promiscuous, but also far more responsible, too. They are having safer sex and they are having fewer pregnancies and STDS, despite having more sex.

It is interesting to consider that while teen birth rates have declined, contrary to the claims of the protectors of youth, overall infant and maternal health have not improved accordingly. Males notes that from 1995 to 2006, the number of low birth weight babies being born to U.S. women jumped by 23%, while the total percentage of all babies that are born with low birth weights increased from 7.3% to 8.3%. However, this increase is due primarily to the increasing age of mothers. The teens have done much of what the pundits and culture warriors have demanded: they are having fewer babies, doing less drugs, and committing fewer crimes. Women who delay child bearing until they are in their late 30s or early 40s, in contrast, are seeing increasing rates of autism, low birth weights, and negative health outcomes for themselves and their babies.