hallo könnt ihr mir den text entweder auf deutsch oder auf englisch zusammenfassen.
hier ist der Link : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/person…regnancies.html
Like its pledge to focus on "education, education, education", and its vow to be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime", another promise the Government probably wishes it had never made was back in 1999: to halve teen pregnancies by 2010.
Better sex education, both in and out of schools, with improved access to contraception, was the means to this end. Sadly, the blind faith placed in money, latex and chemistry, with no questions asked, has let everyone down. Despite the hundreds of millions spent, the squads of co-ordinators put in place, the toe-curlingly explicit adverts for contraception plastered on the walls of waiting rooms and school hallways, there is no hope of meeting the 2010 target. The Government failed even to hit an interim aim of reducing the rate by 15 per cent by 2004 and we learnt yesterday that pregnancy figures are rising again.
Britain now has the highest birth-rate for under-16s in western Europe. In some areas, nearly one in every 50 schoolgirls aged 13 to 15 is getting pregnant. The Government's response is that it "knows what works" and that existing sex education programmes are going in the right direction. The problem, according to Beverley Hughes, Minister for Children, Young People and Families, is that they are just not being implemented properly.
As a result, the state and sex education industry has decided not to change tack, but to promote the existing agenda more aggressively by making lessons a statutory requirement for children from the age of five. This was the conclusion of the Government's Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) steering panel (packed with children's rights campaigners) which reported last October.
But where is the evidence that what they termed "high-quality sex education" was having a positive effect? I've combed the reports and found nothing to back up the "get them early" conclusion; nothing about the virtues of sex education from five; no evidence that burgeoning school clinics and condom handouts cut pregnancies.
No. If you want to cut the rates of births, pregnancies and STDs, you target and cut down the sex that is a necessary and sufficient cause. The abstinence-oriented approach has worked in America where effective programmes emphasise behavioural goals and send out messages about expected conduct. They have seen a 36 per cent drop in the teenage birthrate. But our Government is unable to sign up to this. Our sex education programmes are explicitly "non-judgmental". From its inception in 1999, the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy firmly ruled out any constraint on sexual conduct. The prospect of discouraging, let alone stigmatising, early sexual activity is viewed as abhorrent, and increasing tolerance is a strategic objective. Instead we are providing a "confidential and non-judgmental [contraceptive and abortion] service" to youngsters who are, effectively, choosing when they want to become sexually active. Because government has bought the line that sex is inevitable, children are being taught how to say "Yes".
The SRE concluded that young people must be given an opportunity to form relationships and express their feelings safely. To the end of child sexual empowerment, youngsters must now be involved in the design of schools' sex education programmes. At the same time, parents are not allowed to speak for themselves and any residual power they might have over the curriculum is to be swept away.
There is no magic bullet to change adolescent sexual behaviour. Lasting progress requires broader efforts to influence values and culture, to change the economic incentives that face teens, and to engage parents. If research indicates anything, then it is how influential parents are when it comes to their children's sexual behaviour. If step one is to cut down on the early sex, then those best placed to make the programme succeed are parents – the front-line troops.
Parental attitudes count a lot. Parental example counts a lot. Why has the state forgotten this? Not long ago parents were seen as the primary agents of socialisation. As collectivisation of child rearing has gained ground, parents are sidelined as public institutions monopolise the supervision of human development and emotional wellbeing, while retreating from their erstwhile function as transmitters of an objective body of knowledge.
The state is poisoning relationships between children and parents. This alone will ensure that any attempt to reduce teenage pregnancy will end in failure. Another £20.5 million just announced by the Department for Children for more condom machines will just fuel the tide of sexual incontinence and its unfortunate by-products – babies, disease and regret. Along with its promises, the Government continues to break our society.