Birds, Bees, and ABC's.

The facts of life in American schools.

Mr. Nadler is editor of K.C. Jones Monthly, a midwestern journal of opinion.

For sex educators, the '90s were a decade of unrequited love. Academic research discredited their nostrums, and abstinence programs started to receive a respectful hearing. Then came the most crushing blow of all: Sexual activity among teenagers started to decline.

For years, sex-ed advocates had deflected criticism by explaining that teenagers were born to rut. Sure, the number of teenagers having sex was rising every year, in tandem with the expansion of sex education; and yes, these teenagers were having more sex, with more partners, at ever younger ages. But this, they contended, was an inexorable force of nature, and it was wiser to deal with the inevitable consequences than the inscrutable causes. "To do anything less than be explicit about protection is to stand by and let kids literally risk their lives," wrote one sex-ed advocate in 1993. It was an effective argument, recruiting to the cause of sex education and school-based condom distribution not just advocates of youthful sexual freedom but adults who, while perhaps disapproving, accepted parental impotence as a fact of modern life.

Now, however, the sexual revolution is receding among teens. At the start of the decade, adolescents were already registering higher rates of disapproval about teen sex than their elder brothers and sisters had. The ratio of teens with multiple partners fell, suggesting casual sex was on the decline. Deeper behavioral changes soon followed. Major social-science surveys recorded significant reductions in the percentage of sexually experienced teens. One study showed an 11 percent decline between 1991 and 1997. By 1996, teen rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion had receded from their previous highs by 17 percent, 18 percent, and 37 percent respectively. The biggest improvements took place among younger teens. From 1988 to 1998, the National Survey of Adolescent Males recorded a 17 percent decrease in sexual experience among 15- to 17-year-old boys.

Confronted by what it once deemed impossible, the sex-ed establishment is taking a new tack. All this good news, they explain, proves they were right all along. Donna Shalala, the secretary of Health and Human Services, attributes the fall in teenage births to both increased abstinence and the "dramatic increase in contraceptive use at first intercourse." This is a bit like crediting both cigarettes and hoses for putting out a fire. Let's try to tease out cause and effect with more precision.

During the '70s and '80s, sex education became near-universal in the public schools. Most programs were based on a model developed by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Under this model, school-based sex education had to be comprehensive so that kids could reach sensible decisions on sexual conduct. "Limiting the adolescent's tendency to explore, question, and ultimately come to his or her own conclusions stifles autonomy and a sense of self," wrote sex educators Susan Wilson and Catherine Sanderson. Shorn of ignorance and fear, kids can learn to enjoy sex without guilt or danger. A SIECUS expert recommended "teaching teens about oral sex and mutual masturbation in order to help them delay the onset of sexual intercourse."

Yet, according to this school of thought, detailed information is not so crucial for parents. "While it is generally desirable for parents to be involved in their children's contraceptive decisions," states a SIECUS position paper, "the right of each person to confidentiality and privacy . . . is paramount."

The results of this approach are now obvious, seen in the number of unplanned pregnancies, aborted fetuses, and welfare dependents. One SIECUS prediction, however, did prove correct: Sex ed increased the rate of contraceptive use among teens. But as teen "autonomy" trumped teen precaution, rates of sexual precocity rose even faster. While sex educators and the media obsessed over increased access to contraception, unwed teenaged girls were conceiving at record rates. Worse, the most rapid growth in sexual activity took place among the youngest teens. These teens use contraception erratically. The Centers for Disease Control reported that girls aged 15 to 17 were more than twice as likely to "miss" two or more birth-control pills per cycle as 18- and 19-year-olds.

So, can increased teen sexual activity fairly be attributed to sex ed? Yes, it can. Researchers have found that instruction in sexual biology and birth control is associated with earlier ages of first intercourse. When adults teach kids how to have sex, how to use contraceptives, and where to get them, the kids simply have more sex. And this approach is the heart and soul of sex-ed ideology.

For Carol Everett, who ran a chain of abortion clinics in the Dallas area, school-based programs were an investment. "When I went to those schools," she says, "my agenda was very clear. The first thing was to get the students to laugh at their parents, because if they laughed at their parents with me, they would not go home and tell their parents what I told them. . . . I'd say, 'Would your parents help you get on a method of contraception if you decided to become sexually active? Don't worry about that, here's a card, come to me.' And the next day . . . the telephone would start to ring." Everett, now a pro-lifer, says, "I knew that anytime I went to a school, the pregnancy rate went up sharply. I knew that by my own statistics. I knew that by working with Planned Parenthood, and by reading their statistics." More pregnancies meant more abortions.

A 1993 study by Leighton Ku and others suggested that the most effective method in reducing teen sex activity is not comprehensive sex ed but the teaching of resistance (say-no-to-sex) skills. Another major study found that delayed sexual debuts are associated-surprise, surprise-with "high levels of parent-family connectedness [and] parental disapproval of their adolescent being sexually active." In perhaps the unkindest cut of all for the sex-ed establishment, the study noted that parents' "disapproval of their adolescent's using contraception" is "the strongest family variable counter indicative of teen pregnancy." Indeed, this disapproval is more protective against pregnancy than "effective contraceptive use [at] first/last sex." Other factors that have been found to delay intercourse include religious faith, an intact, two-parent household, a mother at home, and a "pledge of virginity."

This emerging portrait of effective sex education looks less like the SIECUS guidelines than like a Christian Coalition broadside: authoritative adults, buttressed by faith and moral absolutes, instilling in children pride in sexual purity and disapproval of promiscuity. Still another study found that the proportion of high- school girls learning resistance skills increased from 62 percent to 90 percent between the late '80s and 1995.

The final reason to doubt Shalala's contention that the decline in teen pregnancy can be attributed to a "dramatic increase in contraceptive use" is that, in fact, teen contraception has not become more effective in the '90s. Yes, condom use went up, but this was more than offset by the declining use of the birth-control pill. From 1988 to 1995, the percentage of currently sexually active 15- to 19-year-old females using the pill decreased from 59 to 45, while the percentage using male condoms increased from 33 to 37.

According to Contraceptive Technology, the authoritative source on contraceptive-failure rates, the typical user of birth-control pills has a 5 percent chance of getting pregnant over the course of a year; her chances rise to 14 percent if instead she relies on condoms. And condom awareness has done nothing to reduce the riskiest behaviors. The percentage of sexually active 15- to 19-year-olds using no contraception was 19 percent in 1988-and 19 percent in 1995.

In short, the big change among teens in the '90s has been not better contraception, but better morals. Fewer adolescents had intercourse, particularly those 17 years and younger. And those who did have intercourse had it less frequently, and with fewer partners. Less sex meant fewer pregnancies, births, and abortions.