Focus on the Family

Bad Sex Ed in Your School? What Parents Can Do.

Are you frustrated with your public school’s sex-education policies and teachings? We can help.

by Chad Hills
  1. PRAY for wisdom and strength before you act.
  2. YOU are the primary teacher of — and greatest influence on — your own children regarding sex, not the school. Nobody else can impart your family's sexual values, beliefs and expectations. Your communication about sex is essential to the health of your child. Schools should promote — not discourage — parent-child communication.
  3. TEACH your children about God's design for sex and why it's best kept within the context of marriage ( and
  4. INVESTIGATE what kind of sex education is offered by your public school. Review it, and get involved. Who promotes it? Is Planned Parenthood in support of it? If it's not upholding the highest expected standard — abstinence — what is the curriculum expecting from your children? The Center for Relationship Education has worked with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to develop nine points by which to evaluate risk-avoidance (abstinence-centered) curriculum. Visit ask for the SMARTool. This has been approved by the CDC and can be used by parents and schools to approve or disapprove risk-avoidance curriculum.
  5. NETWORK with like-minded parents and family organizations (Email, call, host parent meetings, Facebook, Yahoo Groups, etc.). Form a core group of parents, businesses, churches and other organizations that care and are concerned.
  6. FAMILIARIZE yourself with the facts surrounding the grassroots political process and your rights, and vote in every election.
  7. MOBILIZE your community to take action. If your school is handing out condoms and teaching "anything-goes" sex ed, the people who care in your community need to act. Always remain civil, but don't compromise your values or your stance. Start by writing a community sign-on letter (give a copy of the letter to all the local media groups after you give it to the school, and ask them to print or post it). Several days later, call the school board and ask for a public meeting (inform the media). If the school board refuses to meet and discuss with parents, then organize a protest march and public forum in front of the school and definitely alert the media. Contact your U.S. representatives and senators and ask for their help. If all else fails, collect a pool of funds and consult with a reputable, professional pro-family organization in the legal field, such as the Alliance Defense Fund (
  8. TEAMWORK is essential, or you will burn out. Keep focused, keep pushing for what's right. Never give up.

Casual Sex: Treat the Symptom or Get to the Root?

by Chad Hills

Question: Should we keep pouring taxpayer money into treating the symptoms of casual sex (like the current healthcare bill), or should we cut to the root of the problem, addressing behavior modification? 

If we continue to promoteand treat symptoms ofcasual sex, groups like Planned Parenthood and other "free-sex" advocates will remain self-perpetuating storms.

Their "business," if you will, is promoting casual sex. They work to make risky behavior acceptable and then they get paid to "fix" the problems. Sex is the goal in their agenda, and pushing condoms is their method. Symptom treatment is a vacuous black hole for healthcare funding that never ends.

Conversely, if we cut to the root of the problem by modifying culture and changing sexual behavior, taxpayers and government stand to save money. Character-based abstinence education seeks to achieve this objective. 

But there’s another twist: couples are getting married later26 for women, 28 for men. Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project, describes how the courtship narrative in former generations was set: dating, engagement, marriage and then children. Now the narrative is disrupted by a tenuous time gap, leaving 20-somethings in a "relational wasteland." Some recommend earlier marriage as a solution.

Casual sex and cohabitation have not proven to be effective substitutes for the long-term stability and contentment of lifelong marriage. But they have successfully spread sexual diseases and created unplanned pregnancies.

So, do we keep promoting casual sex, treating and repeating the symptoms? Or, do we cut to the heart of the issue and address behavior, possibly encouraging earlier marriage?

Citizen Action Prompts HHS to Release Abstinence Survey

Thanks to a flurry of citizen action, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was prompted to release the National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents: Attitudes and Opinions about Sex and Abstinence–Final Report to the public.

by Chad Hills

Thanks to a flurry of citizen action, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was prompted to release the National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents: Attitudes and Opinions about Sex and Abstinence–Final Report to the public late yesterday (8-23-2010).

HHS had previously withheld the survey data, even after a doctor and researcher submitted a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request that the survey be released. It took hundreds of citizens, submitting hundreds of FOIAs before HHS finally relented. This further emphasizes the impact that you, as a citizen, can make! Thank you!

What did this survey find?

Among other important discoveries, about 70 percent of parents agreed that it is "against [their] values for [their] adolescents to have sexual intercourse before marriage" and that "having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do." Adolescents had similar responses.

How interesting, as this is the fundamental message in most abstinence-centered programs. Are you becoming as concerned as I am?

Important Questions

You, the citizens of this nation, deserve answers to these questions. But it's likely you'll have to demand answers from this Administration.

National Survey-Parents Attitudes on Abstience Ed


Colorado Statement on Biblical Sexual Morality

According to God’s plan, sexual intimacy is the exclusive prerogative of husband and wife within the context of marriage. Sexual morality, on the other hand, is everyone’s concern. It matters to single individuals, to families and to society. Most of all, it matters to God.

by Focus on the Family Issue Analysts

God intends sex to be a source of satisfaction, honor, and delight to those who enjoy it within the parameters of the moral standards He has established. Biblically speaking, human sexuality is both a gift and a responsibility.

At creation, the gift of sex was among those things God declared to be "very good" (Gen. 1:31). What's more, the sexual relationship is invested with a profound significance in that it brings together a man and a woman within the context of the shared image of God (Gen. 1:27). Because sex is God's idea, and because it touches the image of God in human life, it is very important that the holiness of sexual behavior be diligently preserved. In fact, sexual behavior is moral only when it is holy (Eph. 1:4; 5:3; 1 Thess. 4:3-7; 1 Pet. 1:14-16).

Not only is sex good in itself; it is also given to serve good purposes. At creation God made it very clear that sex functions in two ways: it generates "fruit" (Gen. 1:28); and it enables relational "union" (Gen. 2:24). In other words, sexuality does not exist merely for its own sake. Rather, sex fosters human nurturing, both through the union of husband and wife and also through the enrichment of society through the building of families and communities. God also made sex to reflect the mysterious spiritual relationship He will one day enjoy with all redeemed humanity following the wedding supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7, 9).

According to God's plan, sexual intimacy is the exclusive prerogative of husband and wife within the context of marriage. Sexual morality, on the other hand, is everyone's concern. It matters to single individuals, to families, and to society. Most of all, it matters to God.

Sex that honors God's guidelines and standards is pleasurable. He designed sexual activity to be physically enjoyable, emotionally satisfying, psychologically fulfilling, and spiritually meaningful because He delights in the joys and pleasures of His creatures (Song of Sol. 4:1-16). Men and women who honor God's standards for sexual behavior please Him as well as themselves (1 Cor. 6:20; also note analogy in Isa. 62:5).

But while sex is designed to be pleasing, not all sexual pleasure is ethical. Feelings are extremely unreliable as guides to the morality of sex. As a matter of fact, it is possible for sinful men and women to experience a form of physical enjoyment and degrees of emotional, psychological, and spiritual fulfillment even in sexual conduct that God considers abhorrent. For this reason, the Bible gives many solemn warnings against appealing to human passion or lust as the basis for our definition of moral sex (Rom. 1:24, 26; 13:13-14; 1 Thess. 4:5; 2 Tim. 2:22; 2 Pet. 3:3; 1 John 2:15-17; Jude 18). Our sex lives are moral only when conducted according to God's standards. When engaged in according to these guidelines, sexual activity is enriching, fulfilling, and eminently blessed.

We want to warn against deceptions that hinder or forestall this blessing of God upon our enjoyment of the wonderful gift of sex. We also want to help men and women understand God's good plan for sexual conduct, and thereby to realize all the joy, satisfaction and honor God offers to sexual creatures made in His image.

Based on our understanding of biblical teaching, we make the following declarations. We do not claim that these declarations cover everything the Bible says on sexual morality. But we do believe they highlight standards that are critical for our time.

1. Desire and experience cannot be trusted as guidelines to the morality of sex (Rom. 8:5-8; 13:14; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 Thess. 4:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:22; James 1:14; 1 John 2:15-16; Jude 19). Instead, the morality of sex is defined by God's holiness (Lev. 20:7-21, 26; 1 Cor. 6:18-19; Eph. 1:4; 5:3; 1 Thess. 4:3-7; Heb. 13:4; 1 Pet. 1:15-16).

Thus we affirm that men and women are free to enjoy sex in any way that honors God's holiness. We affirm that God made sex to be physically enjoyable, emotionally satisfying, psychologically fulfilling and spiritually meaningful, and that only sex that honors God's holiness can fully realize the complexity of His design at every level. We affirm that concepts of sexual morality founded upon anything other than God's holiness always pervert God's standards of sexual moral purity.

2. God's standard is moral purity in every thought about sex, as well as in every act of sex. Sexual purity can be violated even in thoughts that never proceed to outward acts (Job 31:1; Matt. 5:28; Phil. 4:8; James 1:14-15). Sex must never be used to oppress, wrong or take advantage of anyone (1 Thess. 4:6). Rape, incest, sexual abuse, pedophilia, voyeurism, prostitution and pornography always exploit and corrupt and must be condemned (Lev. 18:7-10; 19:29; 2 Sam. 13:1-22; Prov. 6:26; 23:27; Matt. 5:28; 1 Thess. 4:3-7; 1 Pet. 4:3; 2 Pet. 2:13-14).

Thus we affirm that God requires sexual moral purity in thought as well as in deed. We affirm that sexual desire must be disciplined to be moral. We affirm that thoughts of indulging sexual desire by outward acts of sexual sin are inward sins of lust. We deny that stimulating lust by images of sexual sin can be moral at any age or under any circumstances. We believe that no sexual act can be moral if driven by desires that run contrary to the best interests of another human being. We believe no sexual act can be moral that treats persons as impersonal objects of sexual lust. We reject the idea that thoughts about engaging in sexual sin are not immoral if not expressed in outward acts. We reject the idea that pedophilia, voyeurism, prostitution or pornography can ever be justified.

3. God's standards for sexual moral purity are meant to protect human happiness (Prov. 5:18-19; 6:32-33; John 15:10-11), but sex is not an entitlement, nor is it needed for personal wholeness or emotional maturity.

Thus we affirm that unmarried singles who abstain from sex can be whole, mature persons, as pleasing to God as persons who are faithful in marriage. We affirm that sexual celibacy is a worthy state for mature men and women (Matt. 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:1, 8; Rev. 14:4), and that lifelong celibacy can be a gift from God (1 Cor. 7:7). We affirm that freedom for service without obligations to spouse and children is a worthy advantage of the unmarried life (1 Cor. 7:32-35). We reject the idea that persons are not "whole" without sexual intercourse. We affirm that all persons, even unmarried teenagers, can rely on God for strength to resist sexual temptation (1 Cor. 10:13). We deny that unmarried teenagers must have sex and cannot abstain from sex before marriage.

4. God calls some to a life of marriage, others to lifelong celibacy, but His calling to either state is a divine gift worthy of honor and respect (1 Cor. 7:36-38). No one is morally compromised by following God's call to either state, and no one can justify opposing a divine call to either state by denying the moral goodness of that state.

Thus we affirm that God is pleased with those He calls to serve Him through the loving expression of sexual intimacy in marriage. We also affirm God is pleased with those He calls to special witness and service through a life of celibacy apart from marriage. We reject the idea that God's Word ever represents the loving expression of sexual intimacy in marriage as morally compromised.

5. Sexual behavior is moral only within the institution of heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Marriage is secure only when established by an unconditional, covenantal commitment to lifelong fidelity (Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2:14-15; Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-8; 1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:2; Eph. 5:31), and we should not separate what God has joined (Mal 2:14-15; Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9). Christians continue to debate whether there are a limited number of situations in which divorce is justifiable (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:15), but all agree that divorce is never God's ideal; lifelong commitment should always be the Christian's goal.

Thus we affirm that God established the moral definition of marriage, and that it should not be changed according to the dictates of culture, tradition, or personal preference. We deny that the morality of marriage is a matter of mere custom, or that it should be allowed to shift with the tide of cultural opinion or social practice. Furthermore, we affirm that God views marriage as an unconditional, covenantal relationship that joins sexual partners for life. We oppose the reduction of the moral obligations of marriage to a business contract. We do not believe that divorce for reasons of dissatisfaction, difficulty, or disappointment is morally justified.

6. Marriage protects the transcendent significance of personal sexual intimacy. Heterosexual union in marriage expresses the same sort of holy, exclusive, permanent, complex, selfless and complementary intimacy that will some day characterize the union of Christ with the redeemed and glorified Church (Eph. 5:28-33; 1 Cor. 6:12-20).

Thus we affirm that intimate sexual union in marriage is a reflection of the intimate moral and spiritual union Christ will some day enjoy with the redeemed and glorified Church. We do not agree that the meaning and purpose of human sexuality can be defined on the basis of personal preference or opinion. We oppose the idea that sexual morality is simply a matter of culture, tradition, or individual aspiration.

7. Sex in marriage should be an act of love and grace that transcends the petty sins of human selfishness, and should be set aside only when both partners agree to do so, and then only for a limited time of concentrated prayer (1 Cor. 7:3-5).

Thus we affirm that sex in marriage should be enjoyed without selfishness. We do not believe that sex should be withheld as a way of controlling, punishing, or manipulating the behavior of a spouse. We reject the morality of any sexual act, even in marriage, that does not express love seasoned by grace. We believe no sexual act can be moral if it is driven by selfishness or ambition for power.

8. Sex outside of marriage is never moral (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:7-17, 20; Deut. 5:18; Matt. 19:9,18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 13:9; -1 Cor. 6:13,18; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; 1 Thess. 4:3; Heb. 13:4). This includes all forms of intimate sexual stimulation (such as foreplay and oral sex) that stir up sexual passion between unmarried partners (Matt. 5:27-28; 2 Tim. 2:22). Such behavior offends God (Rom. 1:24; 1 Thess. 4:8) and often causes physical and emotional pain and loss in this life (Prov. 5:3-14). Refusal to repent of sexual sin may indicate that a person has never entered into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Eph. 5:3-5; Jude 13; Rev. 22:15).

Thus we affirm that God's blessing rests on sexual intimacy only when it occurs within the boundaries of marriage. We deny that sex outside of marriage is justified for any reason. We reject the idea that sexual intimacy outside of marriage can be moral if partners are honest, consenting, or sufficiently committed. We oppose the portrayal of sexual sin as a way of enhancing the popular appeal of entertainment. We reject the idea that sex between unmarried teenagers is acceptable if it is "safe." And we do not believe that churches should welcome into fellowship any person who willfully refuses to turn away from the sin of living in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

9. The Old and New Testaments uniformly condemn sexual contact between persons of the same sex (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10); and God has decreed that no one can ever excuse homosexual behavior by blaming his or her Creator (Gen. 2:24; Rom. 1:24-25).

Thus we affirm that moral sex is always heterosexual in nature. We affirm that God gives strength to His people when they ask Him for help in resisting immoral sexual desires, including desires for homosexual sex. We affirm that God has perfect knowledge concerning human sexual biology and made no mistake in prohibiting homosexual sex without qualification or exception. We deny the claim that science can justify the morality of homosexual behavior. We reject the idea that homosexual attraction is a gift from God (James 1:13). We deny the idea that homosexual relationships are as valid as heterosexual relationships. We do not agree with those who claim that it is sinful to make moral judgments that favor heterosexual behavior over homosexual behavior.

10. The moral corruption of sexual sin can be fully forgiven through repentance and faith in Christ's atoning work (1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 John 1:9), but physical and psychological scars caused by sexual sin cannot always be erased in this life.

Thus we affirm that God fully forgives all who repent of sexual sin. We believe that relationships broken by sexual sin can be restored through genuine repentance and faith. We deny that there is any sort of sexual sin God cannot forgive. We oppose the idea that victims of sexual infidelity or abuse should never forgive those who have sinned against them.

11. Christians must grieve with and help those who suffer hard-ship caused by sexual immorality, even when it is caused by their own acts of sin (Rom. 12:15; Luke 19:10). But we must give aid in ways that do not deny moral responsibility for sexual behavior (John 8:11).

Thus we affirm that God calls Christians to love all who suffer social isolation, poverty, illness, or the burdens of unplanned pregnancy and single parenting, whether or not it was caused by their own sexual sin. We believe Christ set an example of loving ministry to those who suffer from the results of their own acts of sin. We reject the idea that our obligation to alleviate human suffering is valid only if such help is "deserved."

This statement was authored by the Council on Biblical Sexual Ethics.


Council on Biblical Sexual Ethics

Nine diverse and distinguished Bible scholars developed the Colorado Statement on Biblical Sexual Morality.

In early 2000 Focus on the Family recruited a team made up of diverse Bible scholars, all of whom are deeply concerned about God's call for a sexually pure Church, and all of whom are well qualified to address biblical doctrine on the issue. The Council members are listed here.

Failed Policy? Contraceptive-based Sex Ed, "Morning After" Pill

UK study confirms contraceptive-based school sex education has been largely ineffective.

by Chad Hills

Contraceptive-based school sex education has been largely ineffective. That's what Dr. David Paton, Professor and Chair of Industrial Economics at Nottingham University, concluded after analyzing teen sexual activity from the past four decades in the United Kingdom (UK).

His findings and conclusions are published in the British journal, Education and Health (Vol. 30 No. 2, 2012, pp. 22-24). Paton's research parallels what the United States is discovering, as well: Comprehensive-sex education is a failed policy.

He notes UK government policies have focused on contraceptive-based sex education with access to family planning clinics (like Planned Parenthood, providing birth control and abortion services).

"The conventional wisdom is that school-based sex education (SRE) [termed Comprehensive-sex education or CSE in the U.S.] and access to family planning [Planned Parenthood, et al.] for young people are essential to such efforts many of the policy initiatives over the past 40 years have centred around these measures.

"Implicit (and sometimes explicit) in these approaches has been an assumption that access to family planning will reduce pregnancy rates amongst those teenagers who were already having sex but will not cause an increase in the proportion of all. Standard economic models, however, suggest that the two factors are irretrievably interlinked. Easier access to family planning reduces the effective cost of sexual activity and will make it more likely (at least for some teenagers) that they will engage in underage sexual activity."

A study published last year found that parts of the UK promoting the so-called "morning after" pill did not experience greater reductions in underage conceptions than other, similar areas. But they did have more young teens with sexually transmitted diseases (STIs), says Paton:

"Indeed, not a single peer-reviewed study to date has found that access to EBC  [emergency birth control] has led to a statistically significant reduction in unwanted pregnancy or abortion rates…"

What does seem to work is parental involvement in the sexual health decisions of minors, especially abortion.

"US states that have introduced mandatory parental involvement laws have not only seen relative decreases in abortions to minors … but also a reduction in teenage STIs … and improvements in teenage mental health …"

Paton's Conclusion:

"Looking forward, the time appears ripe for a shift in focus from policies aimed at reducing the risks associated with underage sexual activity to those which are aimed more directly at reducing the level of underage sexual activity."

A U.S. Congressional sub-committee came to the same conclusion after reading the evidence contained in the NAEA Report Part 2 – Efficacy of Sexual Risk Avoidance.

As a nation, I believe, we're beginning to realize that more money will never help a poor strategy become a good strategy. Contraceptive-based sex ed appears to be a poor strategy for reducing or preventing teen sexual activity; subsequently, it's a poor strategy for reducing unintended teen conception, pregnancy and transmission of STIs, because sex is never safe outside a faithful, committed marriage.

Unfortunately, not all public schools are listening.

National Survey: Parents Support Sexual-Risk Avoidance

A national survey shows that most parents want their children to remain abstinent until they are married. Are schools and government listening?

by Chad Hills

A newly released national survey of parents shows nearly 8 of 10 Democrats and 9 of 10 Republicans support abstinence education.

"If sex education were on the November ballot, abstinence education would win by a landslide, and not just among Republicans," said Valerie Huber, president of the National Abstinence Education Foundation (NAEF), which commissioned the survey.

Conservative perspectives toward teen sexual behavior have been falsely portrayed as strictly Republican views. But this new survey, the "Parents Speak Out Report," conducted by Pulse Opinion Research and the NAEF, shows this as a consistent value among the majority of parents. Whether parents are Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal, parents support the highest standard of sexual risk avoidance for their children.

The fallacy of comprehensive, contraceptive-based sex education as an effective strategy is being challenged. Conversely, sexual risk avoidanceor orienting the behavior of teens toward the healthiest sexual standardsis becoming the new, most efficacious strategy.

This new survey reflects parents' concern for their children, and their children's future, in the area of sexual behavior. Instead of continuing to pour millions of dollars into the failed policy of treating the symptoms of high-risk teen sexual behavior, parents are looking toward the root of the problem, which is preventing teen sexual activity. This survey indicates that Democrats and Republicans can agree: Preserving the sexual health of their children is a policy priority. Members of Congress are beginning to embrace sexual risk avoidance as a superior strategy, as well.

Furthermore, a previous study, released in 2011, also found that parents want to be the primary educators of their children when it comes to sexuality. This was preceded by findings from another study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which was finally released to the public after prolonged pressure from CitizenLink, citizen activists and other groups.

Decades of failed policy to address teen sexual activity effectively requires the attention of parents, educators and policymakers. It's time for a new strategy. Instead of government and schools undermining the role of parents as primary sex educators, isn't it time that we work togetherto avoid sexual risks and help our future generations succeed?

Parents' Rights and Homosexual Activism in Schools

How can parents tell if homosexuality promotion is something to be concerned about in their child’s school?

by Candi Cushman

This brief, yet helpful video offers easy tips on how to research what is being taught in the school — and how to respond if you find something that concerns you.

The good news is that parents are not alone. Learn more from our Education Analyst, Candi Cushman. 

Candi Cushman, Education Analyst

Sex Education: Parents Want to be Primary Educators

by Chad Hills

Most parents (regardless of individual and household characteristics) want parents of young people to be the primary communicators of sex-related information. This is what more research confirmed among almost all parents interviewed in a Minnesota study. Such findings remain consistent throughout the past two decadesparents want to be the primary educators of their children on the topic of sex.

The article, "Parental Perspectives on Sources of Sex Information for Young People," is available in the January 2011, Journal of Adolescent Health (K.A. Lagus, et al.) online.

The results from more than 1,600 parents in Minnesota found that nearly all parents (97.9%) believe they should be the primary communicators and teachers of sex and sexuality to young people. But less than a quarter of all parents (24.2%) believed kids received information from parents. They also believed that friends and classmates were the primary sources of information (77.7%), along with media sources (60.3%).

"The study underscores discrepancies between where parents think youth should and actually do receive information regarding sex and sexuality," according to the article discussion, which goes on to note, "In a recent study, youth reported actually obtaining most of their sex-related information from friends, teachers, mothers, and media. However, our study indicates that parents think that youth obtain most of their information from friends, classmates, and the media."

The article goes on to emphasize previous research showing that parents actually have the most influence on young people's decisions with respect to sex and delaying the onset of sexual activity. Surprisingly, youth also want parents to be the primary sex educators.

Parents, are you listening?

Regardless of the avoidance techniques often practiced by your teens or children when the topic of sex comes up, you remain the single most important influence in your child's life regarding sexual decisions. Open those doors of communication, and speak up on this issue.

If you don't, something or someone else will, and they probably won't be offering the same sound advice you can provide.What Parents Think vs. Reality

Access School Superintendent Information in All 50 States

by Chad Hills

Official State Departments of Education  (school districts, contacts, graduation statistics and other useful information)

Public Schools K12 online  (student-teacher ratios, county/district schools and other information)

Below is a list of all 50 states and D.C., which are hyper-linked to a website that provides direct contact emails for District Superintendents or a phone number to ask for your District Superintendent’s email and/or other contact information. 


Call for Info: This notation references states where it will be necessaryor easier – to  call and ask for your District Superintendent’s email address and/or other contact information because online information is not available or not easily accessible.


School District Superintendents by State

  1. Alabama
  2. Alaska
  3. Arizona
  4. Arkansas [ Find Your District Superintendent ] [ Contact Information ]
  5. California  (Call for info)
  6. Colorado  
  7. Connecticut  
  8. District of Columbia
  9. Delaware
  10. Florida
  11. Georgia  (Call for info)
  12. Hawaii  (Call for info)
  13. Idaho
  14. Illinois  (Call for info)
  15. Indiana
  16. Iowa
  17. Kansas  (Call for info)
  18. Kentucky
  19. Louisiana  (Call for info)
  20. Maine  (Call for info)
  21. Maryland
  22. Massachusetts
  23. Michigan
  24. Minnesota
  25. Mississippi
  26. Missouri  (Call for info)
  27. Montana
  28. Nebraska  (Call for info)
  29. Nevada
  30. New Hampshire
  31. New Jersey
  32. New Mexico
  33. New York City  ( NY State, Call for info)
  34. North Carolina (Call for info)
  35. North Dakota  (Call for info)
  36. Ohio
  37. Oklahoma  (Call for info)
  38. Oregon
  39. Pennsylvania  (Call for info)
  40. Rhode Island  (Call for info)
  41. South Carolina  
  42. South Dakota  (Call for info)
  43. Tennessee  (Call for info)
  44. Texas  
  45. Utah  
  46. Vermont  (Call for info)
  47. Virginia  
  48. Washington
  49. West Virginia
  50. Wisconsin
  51. Wyoming  (Call for info)

Sex Education: Find Out What's Being Taught in Your Child's Classroom

Do you ever wonder what is being taught to your children during sex education in the classroom? Let Focus on the Family help you find out.

by Chad Hills

Have your children been introduced to explicit "sex education" in a public-school classroom?

More often than not, parents learn of their child's exposure to objectionable sexual content in the classroom after the fact. This is a troubling circumstance parents should attempt to address before it happens.

Unfortunately, groups such as Planned Parenthood zealously offer to come into public schools and teach "comprehensive- sex education," which surveys find is contrary to what most families want their children to learn about sex.  Planned Parenthood and like-minded groups teach children an "anything goes" approach to human sexuality, which is most often devoid of values, morals and context. These groups categorize most sexual activities – including outside of marriage – as "acceptable," as long as it’s pleasurable to all people involved.

These teachings go directly against the desires of the majority of parents who want – and who likely teach – their children to abstain from sexual activity until marriage. What’s more, such classes often exclude parents who remain one of the greatest influences in adolescent decision-making.  A sex-education curriculum that leaves parents in the dark—and violates God’s context for sex—puts children at risk: physically, emotionally and spiritually.

These days, you cannot simply assume public school sex-education classes will be appropriate for your children or teens and their well-being. Knowing this, Focus on the Family seeks to equip parents to protect their children within the public school system. For more information, look for the next articles in this series.

This article is a 2013 extension of the article originally posted on in 2012.