There has been little scientific evidence to suggest that abstinence-only-until-marriage education programs are effective in preventing or reducing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. There is also little scientific evidence to suggest that comprehensive sex education programs are as or more effective in preventing or reducing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease than their abstinence-only counterpart. The following study compares the teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease rates among minors in Virginia that participate in abstinence-only programs with rates among minors participating in comprehensive sex education programs. I hypothesize that counties implementing comprehensive sex education programs in schools will typically have lower pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease rates among minors than counties implementing abstinence-only education programs. I test these hypotheses with data on the 16 Virginia counties and county equivalents which could be verified as having either comprehensive or abstinence-only sex education programs in public schools during 1998-2003. The data confirm the hypotheses. On average, comprehensive program counties showed greater declines in pregnancy rates among females aged 15-17 than abstinence-only program counties. Comprehensive counties experienced declines in Chlamydia and Gonorrhea rates among males and females aged 15-17, whereas abstinence-only counties' Gonorrhea and Chlamydia rates increased. These findings underscore the need for statewide -- indeed, nationwide -- public reporting of school systems' sex education program types to permit a more thorough comparison and evaluation of program outcomes. In the meantime, these results challenge Virginia advocates of abstinence-only education programs to empirically defend their claims. / Master of Science

Sexuality education in public schools in the United States excludes a large population of students. These exclusions are due to a long history of legal and economic battles, as well as the politicized nature of adolescent sexuality. This critical interpretive inquiry explored the long history of sexuality education through the lens of economics, law, and psychological paradigms and examined the way in which each of these lenses furthered the exclusion of nonheterosexual males in curricula. Using a framework comprised of critical feminist theory, critical pedagogy, and queer theory, this manuscript provides an understanding of the social structures of sexuality education and how they continue to marginalize students labeled as “other.” Using critical discourse analysis, this study reviewed legal and political documents, state and private curricula, and works in the sociology and psychology fields. The outcomes of interpretive research do not lend themselves to specific answers, but to a greater understanding of the experience of marginalized individuals and the structures in place that keep this experience intact. Through a critical review of current programming initiatives, recommendations are made to continue moving toward a more gender- and identity-inclusive sexuality education curriculum. These recommendations, which are grounded in current legal and economic requirements, include teacher certification requirements, implementation of the Advocates for Youth 3Rs curriculum, utilization of a rights-based approach to program design, and adoption of national sexuality education by the Department of Health and Human Services, rather than by the Department of Education.