Condoms for first graders?
A new policy at a Cape Cod school will allow school officials to counsel and distribute condoms to elementary students even as young as first grade.
“Starting in September, students shopping for a free condom must have a heart-to-heart with a counselor – including a talk on abstinence – in order to be given one.”
“The school will not honor parents’ requests that their children not receive the prophylactic, Singer said.”
“Starting early is the key, said school board Chairman Peter Grosso.”
“ ‘The thing is, sexual activity starts younger and younger,’ Grosso added. ‘We don’t know what age that is. So we just said, ‘We’ll make it available to all of them.’ We didn’t want to pick an age, and I really don’t believe we’re going to get first-graders asking for a condom, as a practical matter.”
My little guy just finished the first grade and he can barely aim his penis to pee without making a mess much less do anything else with it. I can’t imagine what would be going on in a first-graders household that they would even be aware that sex exists much less be something they would want to engage in.
I do think it’s appropriate to talk to the different grades in age-appropriate ways introducing their bodies and eventually the sex act. I think our school does a good job in the early grades talking about your private parts and then I assume in fourth and fifth getting a little more into it.
I can’t imagine our school nurse distributing condoms. That is just too shocking to even think about. She’s too busy taking care of kids throwing up and knocking teeth out on the playground.
So what do you think: Is this school heading sexual activity off at the pass and making sure they have info (and condoms!) before they could get into trouble or are they putting into kids’ minds things they weren’t even thinking about?
Would you want your school (or school nurse) counseling your elementary school child about sex? How do you feel about elementary schools passing out condoms? At what grade would that be appropriate, if ever?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
161 comments Add your comment
DanoRoo
June 24th, 2010
11:11 am
Kar, Using your logic then it should be OK for school administrators to issue bongs, and conduct classes on how to properly roll a joint. After all, kids are going to experiment. The fact of the matter is, if someone under the age of 18 is sexually active, then their partner is a criminal. For an administrator at a school to foster that sexual activity by issuing condoms is paramount to giving the student a pack of Zig Zags when he/she wants to get high. It’s a crime.
Chris
June 24th, 2010
11:13 am
@Bob – That’s an understandable point. Still, this is obviously a public safety issue, and the last time I checked children’s safety was a high priority for schools and their budgets. Not to sound cynical or anything but a) condoms are cheap, b) they won’t be in a big open tub, but distributed individually following a conversation [maybe a single condom, maybe a 3-pack or a box or whatever - up to the school] and c) schools waste a lot more money on less important things than medical supplies, which is what condoms are.
I’m not saying we can go all, “Spare no expense.” I know that’s not realistic. But I also maintain that budget is not an effective argument for ignoring very real safety concerns. If soldiers did not have body armor, and somebody rejected the idea because it was too expensive, there would be an outrage. Same thing.
Chris
June 24th, 2010
11:17 am
DanaRoos – That’s a funny analogy, but utterly useless because giving out ZigZags and bong lessons don’t protect pot-users, it just informs them. There is a critical line there. If kids are going to experiment with weed, I’d RATHER they use a water pipe than a mangled soda can, but there is not an epidemic of inhaled aluminum poisoning, while there is a serious public health and social economic threat posed by rampant unwanted pregnancy.
This is not about right and wrong anymore. It’s about keeping kids safe REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY DO. If a teenager, or a child, or whoever, decides to be sexually active, it may not be a good idea, and it may not be morally correct, but it is NOT a reason to deny that child all possible protections to their safety.
Kar
June 24th, 2010
11:18 am
DanoRoo, you have a different sense of logic than me. Human sexuality and the associated problems are not the same as learning drug behavior.
Sex, for the most part, is not illegal for consenting adults who are capable of making decisions. Children will need to make decisions through their lives and it’s understandable that this can start young from things like “bad touches” and what is/isn’t acceptable.
Doing/not doing illegal drugs will be a choice for them but it’s not an inherent part of human nature.
Donna
June 24th, 2010
11:20 am
Free condoms from the nurse??? Are you kidding? There have been no school nurses for years. That went with the budget cuts in the 80s.
The best thing to do would be to convince the girls that sex is one half hour of fun for a guy and possibly 18 years of responsibility for you. Responsibility you are not ready for.
TT
June 24th, 2010
11:21 am
Kar – just be honest and give some facts here. What % of all 6 year olds in US are sexually active?
Diva
June 24th, 2010
11:26 am
The issue I have with this is that “The school will not honor parents’ requests that their children not receive the prophylactic.” What right does the school have to override the parents’ choice in this matter (or any other matter)? These are teachers, not government officials or HIPAA-protected medical personnel. I find this ludicrous in the extreme and it’s simply one more reason why my children will NEVER attend public school so long as I can possibly prevent it.
Chris
June 24th, 2010
11:34 am
@Diva
That’s exactly the reason that schools won’t honor parents’ requests. I don’t know thing one about your own parenting, which may be wonderful, but the fact is that not all parents truly know what’s best for their kids. That’s why schools are prepared to deal with issues like neglect, abuse, and inadequate health and food for kids – these are things necessary to keep children safe, and school is the one place where society can GUARANTEE that kids will get those things. Therefore, if (as I have argued above) providing contraception is a mater of protecting children, then the school should not have to listen to parents’ demands to essentially endanger those children.
And FYI, public schools are great. They’re inconsistent, and some are downright s**tholes, but as long as there are good public schools out there (which there are – how do you think I got this articulate and awesome at debating? :-p ), then it is the responsibility of every caring citizen to try to use the public school system and make it better RATHER than simply withdrawing. Withdrawing leaves nobody in public schools about the poorest, highest-risk kids, and when that happens the schools will cease to be beneficial institutions at all, because nobody on the large scale cares about poor children, and the were consequently be cmpletely educationally abandoned.
Don’t be educationally selfish. it would be our downfall. Think of the bigger picture.
Chris
June 24th, 2010
11:36 am
To clarify – I’m not suggesting above that kids need abuse, neglect, and inadequate care, but rather that kids need protection from those things. Oops misspeech.
JATL
June 24th, 2010
11:39 am
@TWG -I just sent a second one that’s not showing either. Guess it doesn’t like me today! There aren’t any questionable words in them.
Kar
June 24th, 2010
11:45 am
TT, in 1998 there were roughly 300k REPORTED cases of sexual abuse and the median age is supposedly 9. So that’s possibly 120k six or younger? Also, that’s the cases that were reported. I’ve heard stats as high as reported cases are only a third of the actual number If possibly for what, a third of those, sex or sexual became a learned behavior that’s potentially 150k in that year.
Then in terms of non-abuse while it’s normal for kids to experiment, what percentage cross the line to be consistantly “sexually active” or do it sporadically? I’m not going to do a long search at work but I wouldn’t be surprised if at least 15% at some point had some penetration or penetrated another child or had direct genital contact. Pediatricians or social workers probably have better anedocal evidence but that would be my personal guess.
DanoRoo
June 24th, 2010
11:50 am
Chris posted: “This is not about right and wrong anymore. It’s about keeping kids safe REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY DO. If a teenager, or a child, or whoever, decides to be sexually active, it may not be a good idea, and it may not be morally correct, but it is NOT a reason to deny that child all possible protections to their safety.”
I see this as a matter of what’s legal and what’s illegal. Since the days of social stigmatization are long gone, and moral restraints have been dismissed, maybe the best way to combat rampant teen pregnancy and out of control spread of STDs is to start attaching criminal charges to an activity that is already a crime. HAVING SEX WITH A MINOR IS A CRIME. Therefore I suggest that anything that a school administrator does that facilitates that criminal act (issuing condoms to minors) is also a crime.
fer
June 24th, 2010
11:53 am
The fact is that some elementary school children ARE sexually active. Yours may not be, and mine may not be, but some are. So they, the ones that are sexually active, need to learn that they should use condoms. And the girls should learn that their partners, often older boys or even men, should use them.
TT
June 24th, 2010
11:54 am
Chris – i agree with protecting children. This is why any doctor or nurse who discover or have evidence that a 6 year old is sexually active would have responsibility to call social services and not vice versa, e.g hand out condoms for protection.
Chris
June 24th, 2010
11:57 am
Dano-
You’re still not speaking to the point. Kids are going to have sex no matter what the law says.If you prosecute school officials who give kids condoms, then you’ve going to have pregnant kids AND well-meaning school officials in jail.
The only alternative, besides reasonable education and provision, is actually criminalizing sex FOR minors – that is, prosecuting and incarcerating children who have sex. In the current world, that would mean sending to jail or a juvenile facility, where they will continue to have sex with increasingly higher risks.
Remember, we’re not talking by and large about adults who have sex with kids and teens; the vast majority of sexual encounters involving one 15 year old involves another 15 year old as well. You’re trying to fight hormones with legislation and it just won’t work. You could always lock every post-pubescent child in an isolated cage the moment they’re out of adult sight, but I was hoping to avoid rampant human rights violations.
TT
June 24th, 2010
11:59 am
Kar – you are talking about sexual abuse. Are you saying that because 300K kids were sexually abused, schools should educate and hand out condoms to 6-9 year olds because these kids are sexually active?
the reaper
June 24th, 2010
12:01 pm
Take the Bd of Ed members out and hang all of themin the public square! Start spreading the news the citizens will no longer take the government socialization of our children and the destruction of morality in our nation
Chris
June 24th, 2010
12:10 pm
And TT – You’re missing the point, too. This story is about first-graders having the potential to get condoms, but NOT really about first-graders having sex. As I explained above, we can’t just set a lower limit of 18 or 16 or even 13 for teaching kids about sex and making sure they’re safe, because we don’t know when they’re going to start. Therefore, if the same education and protections are available to everybody – even the ones who are too young to need them – then that’s the only way we can be sure that they’re available to everybody who does need them. If we don’t reach a little too far, then somebody is going to slip through the cracks, and it is our responsibility to ensure that every child has every opportunity possible.
Try to think not about who’s doing right and wrong, but about what’s best for everybody. If a 6 year old gets condoms because they’re having sex, then yes, I think social services should be called. If a 14 year old asks for condoms for this reason, then you could call social services, but what would that accomplish? Not all sexually active teenagers live in unfit homes. That’s an unfair and inaccurate characterization. PAST A CERTAIN AGE, you would essentially be punishing parents for their teen’s actions, which is sometimes okay, but not when the parent is doing everything reasonable and responsible and the kids are still having sex. Don’t be fooled – that is the single most common scenario: good parents who treat their kids and teens well and responsibly cannot keep them under constant lock and key. Such kids will get sex if they want sex.
Keeping It Real
June 24th, 2010
12:10 pm
This idea sounds better suited for Clayton or South DeKalb.
Flamer
June 24th, 2010
12:11 pm
Yes Cape Cod where all the fag’s go to express their “freedom”, I’m sure they are an enlightened school board watching the queers at play on the beach.
S
June 24th, 2010
12:12 pm
So because we can’t control our kids, let em have the condoms anyway. I know how I felt when I was 6 yrs old and sex was the furthest thing from my mind-but then I wasn’t exposed to it on a daily basis as are some children are today. My nephews are 9 and 10 and I know sex isn’t on their mind. They’re too busy playing little league sports and studying and doing the kinds of activities their parents prepare for them. They don’t watch a lot of TV, their music is monitored and controlled,etc. When they hit 12 and 13 sure it’ll be on their minds-puberty will do that to you- but,with their involved parent’s it’ll be manageable. I know they’d have a cow if their school did instituted that policy and most likely would yank them out…
Kar
June 24th, 2010
12:15 pm
TT, I think that you should read more than the first line of an arguement.
Nick
June 24th, 2010
12:19 pm
Darn. And the abstinence campaign was working so well at curtailing teenage pregnancies…
Nowhere in the article does it say first graders are being handed condoms unprovoked. No elementary school kid is going to go in and have a sex talk to get a condom.
It’s pretty evident that this is designed to get kids to talk about their options and then give them something to prevent them from a mistake that could change their lives immensely.
Teenagers have sex. Abstinence campaigns don’t work. Only a fool does something over and over again and expects the result to be different.
Fran C
June 24th, 2010
12:20 pm
For parent’s who are concerned about this obviously “shocking” “Policy”…..to distribute condoms to elementary students even as young as first grade……fight it!! Also read “Your’re Teaching My Child What?” by Miriam Grossman, M.D. Very Important info!!
MamaS
June 24th, 2010
12:20 pm
“Elementary age” is K thru 5th. A 5th grader can is at least 11, possibly 12 or 13. The average age for girls to begin menstruation is 9. So these little girls can physically become mothers. Many of them have “boyfriends” who are 15-16-17 years old — and these guys are NOT interested in their minds. So, maybe the condoms will protect some too young, unsupervised child-woman from a pregnancy. That would be a good thing, right?
toughenup
June 24th, 2010
12:22 pm
Time to take back our public schools. I’m a liberal and I’m all for sex ed, but these flakes are going too far. Fight back parents!! Take away their sense of self-entitlement to our children.
Theresa Walsh Giarrusso
June 24th, 2010
12:28 pm
I don’t want to change the topic because the discussion is really great but I just wanted to quickly mention that today is the ONE YEAR anniversary of my brother’s HEART TRANSPLANT. He’s doing really well and was able this year to take his kids to Disney World. They couldn’t go last year because he physically couldn’t walk around or stand the heat at all. He’s had three monthly biopsies with zero rejection and the heart is pumping beautifully. He still has ancillary problems from the surgery — nerve damage to his legs from the time he was unconscious after the surgery but overall is doing soo well. I wanted to thank all of our regular for their support last year! You guys were so awesome and so supportive. i really appreciated it then and still do now. Just wanted to throw that out there. He spent all of last summer in the hospital and this summer his family is having a wonderful time (his wife is a teacher so she’s off) We are so happy for them.
Rachel
June 24th, 2010
12:28 pm
Why would you want to ENCOURAGE elementary students to engage in sex? They SAY that they are preventing unsafe sex, but no, they’re only encouraging students who don’t know to experiment. And why the hell do the parents not get a say in it? It is THEIR children; the schools shouldn’t rule over them and tell them what they can and can’t do with their child. I hope a lot of those parents pull their children out of that school.
This is completely absurd. The stupidity of our leaders amazes me more and more every day.
catlady
June 24th, 2010
12:33 pm
Many of you would be quite surprised and horrified about what children “know” and talk about. I sure have been! Not saying I think it is a good idea, but I know there are situations where this may be appropriate given what the kids are experiencing. The things I have overheard being discussed would probably make you faint!
Get outside your comfort zone. Mentor a kid in a school NOT near your house. Eat lunch with the kid and his friends. Your eyes will be opened.
Rachel
June 24th, 2010
12:33 pm
MamaS = Where do you get the stats that the average age for menstruation is 9? You want them handing condoms out to kindergarteners? Why don’t they start handing out tampons when they’re in kindergarten, and sex toys in high school? You don’t think it would be better for them to speak of the risks of sex rather than giving those little kids condoms? It would be enticing to children. Those who see their friend with one will want one too because they”ll be “cool” and then they’ll learn how one is used, and will want to try it. Boom. More younger children will be having sex than before.
Chris
June 24th, 2010
12:35 pm
Without a doubt, the worst thing any parent can ever do is assume that the children they bore are their property. Think what people mean when they say, “They’re MY kids and the school can’t tell me what to do with them!” That does not mean, “These children, whom it is my responsibility and sacred duty to protect and love, are not being best served by this school.” It means, “They’re my property and you don’t have the authority to exercise control over my assets.”
catlady
June 24th, 2010
12:35 pm
Teresa, may God continue to bless your brother and his family! I hope your parents are doing well also!
Chris
June 24th, 2010
12:37 pm
If a 5 year old thinks that it would be cool to use the little rubber thingy the nurse gave him, that will not get his penis erect or attract him to a girl. Hormones cause sex, condoms stop pregnancy.
BlondeHoney
June 24th, 2010
12:38 pm
I seriously doubt any 1st grader is marching into the school nurse to ask for a condom; let’s use a little common sense, folks. I think Chris is making lots of thoughtful, valid points and I agree wholeheartedly with his support of the public school system in general; there are crummy public schools and great ones, just like there are crummy home schoolers and great ones too. We always need to keep the big picture in mind, and although all of us who post on this blog are perfect parents (or at least we think we are), there are 10 times as many kids in horrible home situations and school is their only safe harbor. It was for me.
Denise
June 24th, 2010
12:39 pm
They’re not saying they’re passing them out in class for heaven’s sake! Get real. No one is encouraging first graders to have sex. All they’re saying is that the school nurse has them. Please read the whole thing before running amuck and reading waaaay too much into this. Looking at it another way, if your child was being abused without your knowledge, going to the school nurse could help to discover it.
uconn
June 24th, 2010
12:42 pm
@Theresa That is WONDERFUL news :D So happy to hear that.
Ellen
June 24th, 2010
12:43 pm
I taught in a high poverty school and was shocked at the early ages that children engage sexual behavior. There were children as young as nine years old that we were aware of.
What should be done about those kids? Should we just leave them to their own devices and hope for the best?
Julie
June 24th, 2010
12:44 pm
DanaRoo is misstating the law. One, age of consent in Georgia is not 18. Two, while is may be illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor, sexual activity between two minors may or may not illegal.
David S
June 24th, 2010
12:48 pm
No, I certainly don’t think that it is the school’s business to be doing anything other than teaching (frankly they can’t even do that well – but that can be covered in the Get Schooled blog).
Nonetheless, the reality is that children as young as 8 and 9 are routinely going through puberty these days as a result of the hormones that are fed to beef, the hormones being injected into dairy cattle, the horrible chemical bis-phenol A that is used in plastics and to line cans for food, and the other hormones that end up in other meat products.
All of these, including the plastic additive, alter the hormone production and effects in everyone. Boys are being made more feminine, and girls are entering puberty nearly 3 years earlier than they were just 50 years ago. Add to that the effect of obesity (which speeds up girls’ puberty), and you have a generation of children who are old enough to now be parents.
So those who are both ignoring the issue and living in denial of both the reality of what is happening to their children and the role they are playing in the food choices they are making for them are just not being the right kind of parents that our highly toxic environment demands.
Chris
June 24th, 2010
12:53 pm
I’ve largely become obsolete in this argument with the appearance of several intelligent commentators in my camp, but I had to share one more thing.
DavidS, I’m glad that we can agree on something. I kinda think that you’re subscribing to alarmist malarky, given that kids ages 9-12 have been having kids for the entirety of human history, but I get it, I don’t judge you for that, and I’m glad we can divert our respective madnesses towards the same common moral good vis a vis children. Hey, it turns out that debate can bring opposing people together!
Rachel
June 24th, 2010
12:59 pm
It’s not right for parents to treat children as property, but the government is trying to control how parents raise their children. The government is corrupt, and some parents still have enough sense to raise their children with love and guidance, and they have morals that they stand by. Most parents don’t want 1st graders having access to condoms. I don’t understand how the finger can be pointed towards the parent for not allowing their child to let the government raise the child for them.
But while you’re on the topic of safety at a young age, I propose that if they’re going to allow 1st graders to have condoms to promote safe sex, they should also teach weapon safety at a very young age. You know, to keep violence out of school and away from kids. Teaching them the proper way to shoot a gun, and how to use a knife properly would be a great self defense skill, and the students will learn how to be SAFE about it when they’re older. Even though ultimately, it’s their choice what they do with it.
What they teach you when you’re younger, you’re more likely to USE when you are. Handing out condoms to younger children is telling them “it’s ok.”
Uh, Julie...
June 24th, 2010
1:01 pm
…ask that kid from up in Rome, GA, who spent 1-2 years in prison for having consensual sex with a 15 year old when he was 17, whether sexual activity between minors is illegal….
Jamie
June 24th, 2010
1:06 pm
I think the school board chairman makes an interesting point here: “Sexual activity starts younger and younger.” Everybody’s immediate reaction is, understandably, “Not as young as first grade!” Horrifyingly, I know there are elementary age children who experience sexual abuse, and don’t yet have the knowledge or words to understand how wrong that is. Most first graders would not know what a condom is, or even what sex is. They would not know to ask for them. No harm done. It’s those who DO know that we should be most worried about. It wasn’t presented this way, but it may be a program that helps young children know and understand their bodies and if they’re being violated. Because it requires a talk with a counselor, it may creates a clear way for a child to reach out to an adult. (In those cases, I’m sure the response would not be to hand a child a condom.) This may turn out to be more a vehicle to open discussion and identify a problem, rather than a condom distribution program or generic, not-so-helpful “If someone is hurting you, talk to an adult you trust” line of advice.
JJ
June 24th, 2010
1:13 pm
What’s the point of giving condoms to a boy who hasn’t even gone through puberty? A 6 year old boy CANNOT get a girl pregnant. A 6 year old girl CANNOT get pregnant…..
How are the Catholics gonna take this? They don’t believe in birth control. And the christians think sex is for procreating…….this is totally insane!!!!!!
JJ
June 24th, 2010
1:15 pm
THERESA THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!! Thankyou for letting us know!!!!
Luc
June 24th, 2010
1:18 pm
First, they are not “passing them out.” or forcing them on anyone. The kids have to go and ask for them. Second, don’t assume that all communities have middle schools. I don’t know what the case is here in Cape Cod, but it could well be that elementary goes up to 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th grade. Third, if they’re having sex, they should have condoms to protect from disease or pregnancy, and if they don’t feel comfortable or able to for whatever reason go to their parent or parents, I’m glad they have somewhere to go and get one.
That someone judges this at all, thinks the kids are too young to be having sex in their opinion and that that should be enough to stop this, finds this personally, morally wrong or objectionable for any selfish reasons, simply indicates ignorance and denial of reality. They’re YOUR opinions, and you have every right to express them, but know that doing so simply broadcasts your lack of unemotional, clear, and logical thinking.
And of course YOU’RE better. Of course YOU would do it differently. Fine. Then do it. Then this doesn’t concern you.
It’s false outrage that I’m seeing here for the most part. An attempt to propagate fear and politicize yet another thing. None of these are reasons to deny protection to kids who, whether you agree with it, believe it, condone or condemn it, are going to have sex..
As a personal observation, and not necessarily based on anything posted here, why is it that, in general, it’s usually the same people yelling so loudly about too many teen pregnancies and abortion rates that are through the roof and also the right to life who are so opposed to education and availability of protection at an early age? How do you justify that in your mind?
Luc
June 24th, 2010
1:20 pm
“What’s the point of giving condoms to a boy who hasn’t even gone through puberty? A 6 year old boy CANNOT get a girl pregnant. A 6 year old girl CANNOT get pregnant…”
Ignorance is rife here. To first of all leap to the conclusion and oh-so dramatically use the younger ages is disingenuous. And by the way, condoms are also used to prevent the spreading of disease.
EC
June 24th, 2010
1:36 pm
The author’s talking about her first grader. I knew people in 6th grade having sex, so why not 5th? Not that I’m condoning it.
catlady
June 24th, 2010
1:39 pm
JATL, I walked in the anteroom of a restroom once and found a five year old boy copulating with a hole in the wall.
DB@10:37: I laughed so hard at your scenario, I think I pulled something.
MJG, while I don’t think we have to worry about 6 year olds getting pregnant, they can contract STDs.
One of our school nurses, who serves middle school, told me of talking to a sixth grader about “things” and as the girl was leaving, the nurse told her, “If you find yourself thinking about having sex, please come and talk to me.” The girl went back to class, but reappeared a half hour later, to tell the nurse, “I am thinking about having sex now.”
Chris
June 24th, 2010
1:40 pm
In response to the “Uh, Julie…” response to Julie above (and above, respectively) –
That case involved a 17-year old. The age on consent in Georgia is 16 (since 1999, it’s been 17, but he still counts). That means the boy in this case was not a minor and therefore statutory rape applies.
Or, if that doesn’t float your boat, try this on for size:
http://ageofconsent.com/georgia.htm
This age has links to and copies of Georgia statutes verifying those ages of consent, but more importantly, discusses a “fornication law” that Georgia, like several other states, has in effect. Ostensibly, this law is never used, but since it criminalizes all sex not between husband and wife, it discriminates both against homosexuals and against those who are still too young to marry – ie, what would have applied in the case we’re discussing even if the kid was under the age of consent.