CBS 5 Investigates With Anna Werner

Web Extra: Dr. Angela Griffiths On Calif. Sex Ed.

(CBS 5) Although Dr. Angela Griffiths declined to be interviewed on camera for a CBS 5 Investigates story on abstinence-only-until marriage sex education, she did send us this response to a critical review by the Public Health Institute of Await and Find's curriculum titled "Health & Relationships in the New Millennium."

From Dr. Griffiths:
Please see and use the following talking points if you choose to move forward with using AWAIT & FIND as part of your story:
• The December 2006 Review of Health & Relationships in the New Millennium can be called nothing more than personal opinions from a biased source.
• This is a one-year old review and a 4-year old law (California State Education Code).
• Each assertion made in the review as to inaccuracy or non-compliance of Health & Relationships in the New Millennium with the California Education Code is untrue and fails to have merit.
• The review authors provide no previous experience for their objective review of a curriculum, nor do they offer criteria by which they mischaracterize this curriculum and label it as anything other than what is stated in the printed publication.
• Printed in Health & Relationships in the New Millennium teachers' manual, to maintain compliance with the California State Education Code regarding discussion of the effectives and failure rate of contraceptives: "When introducing and discussing contraceptive effectiveness and failure rates, it would be prudent to mention that the success rate of the same methods are the inverse of the failure rate listed (remainder of 100% minus the failure rate)."
• The review authors make harmful assumptions that certain populations (teen parents, teens who became pregnant but chose abortion or adoption, non-heterosexual teens, students who were born to teen parents, and teens who were raised with different values) do not benefit from curriculum that encourages healthy choices.

This critique can be called nothing more than personal opinions from a biased source. It also appears that they did not have an actual copy of the curriculum or teaching manual (past or present), since they were unable to provide a copyright date (contained in all published materials).

Each assertion as to inaccuracy or non-compliance with the California Education Code made in the summary is untrue and fails to have merit.

Health & Relationships in the New Millennium is not and has never been an "abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum." An Objectives page is included in the manual and states the objectives of the curriculum are to "Increase the proportion of adolescents who:
• Receive medically accurate health information relating to risk-taking (drugs, tobacco, alcohol and sex outside of marriage)
• Acquire the refusal or assertiveness skills necessary to resist negative peer pressure, sexual urges and advances
• Intend to avoid situations and risk behaviors, such as drug-use and alcohol consumption, which make them more vulnerable to sexual advances and urges
• Remain in school
• Understand that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases
• Indicate an understanding of the social, psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sex outside of one committed lifetime relationship
• Make a personal commitment to avoid high-risk behaviors and abstain from sexual activity until a committed lifetime sexual relationship."

The authors fail to state or disclose any credibility or expertise on their part for attempting to make any type of review of this or any curricula as to its validity, qualifications as "comprehensive" or "abstinence-only-until-marriage" or its compliance with the California Education Code. Nor do they disclose any potential biases, which are done by professionals holding themselves out to be "objective." While the stated objectives of the curriculum may be questioned by an individual or group unconcerned with the entirety of the health and well-being of young people, they are more comprehensive and inclusive than most sex education curricula can boast to achieve. Medical accuracy refers not just to condom and contraceptive efficacy, it also relates to the emotional well-being of young people and the series of events that predict and lend to behaviors that put the health of young people in question. These contributive behaviors (drug and alcohol use, numbers of partners and frequency of sexual exposure) as well as known potential emotional consequences in young people (regret, decreased personal efficacy and self-esteem, higher rates of depression and suicide) are often neglected in typical sex education curricula.

The authors expose their bias in the following assertion, "In an attempt to teach students that heterosexual activity should occur only within a marriage…the curriculum fails to maintain [a] positive approach in all of its lessons." Nowhere in the summary nor accuracy sections of the review do the authors defend or provide actual examples to expand upon this bias. The curriculum asserts that there are many sexual behaviors and orientations, however it continues to provide the theme that one partner, regardless of sexual orientation, is the healthiest choice for any individual. The curriculum does utilize the term "marriage," because typically young people are familiar with this term, but it also uses the term "lifetime committed relationship." In a health class, one can disclose that there are numerous sexual behaviors, but if being medically accurate, one cannot ever assume or state equal health (or risk) in each of those behaviors. Therefore, the curriculum sticks with what is medically accurate and does not venture down the "equality of health in all sexual behaviors" route.

The review authors question the accuracy of and state "omissions" in the curriculum, claiming sources to be outdated. However, our agency has always held a high standard, in keeping with requirements of school districts served, in the types and validity of sources used. For example, the first source offered by the review authors is the Sexuality, Information and Education Council of the United States, not a medical, nor a scientific source, but a policy and lobbying agent for a limited, contraceptive-only type of sex education. The second source is a single journal article. While medical journals are frequently reviewed by our organization and the descriptive terms (possible, could, may) and ranges of statistics are adapted to reflect the new research, by no means is it sound science to base a conclusion or change a theory due to a solitary article, especially if there is other research that contradicts its findings.

"The curriculum discusses sexual abstinence as the only method for reducing the risk of HIV infection." This could not be farther from the truth. In Chapter 10, HIV and STD Education, there are numerous behaviors and prevention methods discussed: "According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), adolescents (10- to 19-year olds) and young adults (20- to 24- year olds) are at higher risk for acquiring STDs (compared to older adults) for a number of reasons:
• They may be more likely to have multiple (sequential or concurrent) sexual partners rather than a single, long-term relationship.
• They may be more likely to engage in unprotected intercourse.
• They may select partners at higher risk.
• In addition, for some STDs, e.g. Chlamydia and HPV, adolescent women may have an increased physiologic susceptibility to infection due to changes occurring within their bodies as well as a lack of immunity."

The curriculum goes on to break down these very scientific terms into more understandable language for the target audience. Several paragraphs later, under "modes of transmission" the curriculum discusses the danger of HIV and Hepatitis spread through the sharing of needles.

The comment about references to contraceptive effectiveness versus contraceptive failure rates is not only ridiculous, it also is unfounded. Any intelligent individual can say that if something fails 20% of the time, it works 80% of the time. It also allows cross-over in teaching as teachers can help students to use their elementary math skills in health class. However, in the training manual, a special note is written to teachers, to help assure that they comply with California Education Code standards: "When introducing and discussing contraceptive effectiveness and failure rates, it would be prudent to mention that the success rate of the same methods are the inverse of the failure rate listed (remainder of 100% minus the failure rate)." The curriculum in no way shape or form over-estimates failure rates. In fact we went so far as to use ranges, since there were numerous studies, often having broad ranges, relating to this point. Those used were also recognized by the National Institutes of Health, which is an institution recognized as a valid and reliable source by school districts our agency serves.

In no way is our curriculum fear-based. In fact, the claim made by the review authors is completely inverted. A program with a goal of increasing condom and contraceptive use must use fear methods to get people to utilize the methodology more often (fear of unintended pregnancy or disease). Our program is much broader in its design and intent. Our goal is to help young people develop dreams and goals and then to develop decision-making processes that will help them achieve those goals. Understanding that sexually transmitted diseases exist and that unintended pregnancies are possible is a valid part of the full-disclosure necessary to help young people make wise decisions. This argument made by the review authors was not fact-based and is in keeping with their reporting of personal opinions in an attempt to "name call" and malign a program, which just might possibly fall outside of their understanding.

Again the authors make personal opinions such that "The needs of certain students who might be participating in the course are not considered, including teen parents, teens who became pregnant but chose abortion or adoption, non-heterosexual teens, students who were born to teen parents, and teens who were raised with different values." Are the authors suggesting that these particular populations do not deserve an equal opportunity to dream, make goals, or make different decisions than they have previously made? Do the authors fail to acknowledge the research that a majority of girls regret their first sexual experience and a majority of sexually experienced teens wished that they had waited longer (National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy)? Or do they fail to recognize that girls of teen mothers are at high risk for a teen pregnancy themselves? In any classroom, a discussion involving sex education, sexual behavior and sexual decision-making is difficult. At any one point in time, the majority of students in any class are not sexually active. However, any number of them could have been sexually molested, abused or willingly participated in a sexual act. That does not mean that they want to continue in that line. However, studies have shown that they are more likely to do so…unless they receive help otherwise. Even if they continue to do so, should we fail to inform them of the high-risk nature of their behavior? What is provided is hope, help and referrals for testing.

It surprises us that a station of your caliber would consider a year-old review and a 4- year old law "new news." Regardless, we thank Chanel [sic] 5 for giving AWAIT & FIND at least a few hours to consider the numerous biases and inaccuracies provided in the Public Health Institute review of Health & Relationships in the New Millennium prior to using them on air. While the time provided was not sufficient to respond in entirety, we hope that the answers provided can help you see that there is little merit, other than personal opinion, provided by said authors.

Editor's Note: CBS 5 first contacted Dr. Griffiths in August 2007 and gave her an additional six weeks to respond to our request for an interview before airing our story. She declined to speak on camera or make further comment.

(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)