WAIT Training 80/20 Manual Summary

SUMMARY: SIECUS REVIEW OF THE WAIT Training 80/20 Manual

The WAIT Training 80/20 Manual is a fear- and shame-based abstinence-only-until-marriage program for middle and high school students produced by WAIT (Why Am I Tempted) Training.  SIECUS reviewed the first edition which was published in 2009.

The manual was created to supplement existing abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in areas where legislation or grant requirements specify that sexuality education programs should include information about contraceptives and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).  According to the organization, the “80/20” refers to 80 percent of the curriculum focusing on “healthy relationships, building personal power and self-regulation,” while 20 percent is set aside for “healthy family formation and healthy family planning” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 2).  In its inclusion of accurate information on STDs and contraception the WAIT Training 80/20 Manual differs from many abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula we have reviewed in past years and SIECUS applauds the author for taking these important steps.

Nonetheless, the curriculum still relies on fear, shame, and judgment to make its point.  Moreover, despite the fact that the authors describe the curriculum as “positive youth development” and “relationship education,” very little effort is made to help young people clarify their own values or make decisions for themselves about relationships.  Instead, the authors are intent on convincing students that marriage is the only morally and socially acceptable relationship goal for young people.

Discouraging Decision Making and Scaring Students: “The Teen Brain”

Brain Development—Not Trusting Teens to Make Their Own Decisions

• “Based on the research about brain development, we should not be surprised by the unhealthy choices teens sometimes make” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 3). 
• The curriculum refutes the idea that “the teen brain is ready to make mature decisions in high school” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 3). 
• “Since the teen pre-frontal cortex does not fully develop in the teen years, judgment, ability to see into the future, moral intelligence, abstract thinking and discernment skills, planning abilities, rational behavior, decision making, and comprehension of social conduct rules are also not fully developed” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 3). 

While SIECUS believes young people should be encouraged to communicate with the trusted adults in their lives, the condescension present in the WAIT Training 80/20 Manual seems more likely to teach them to avoid conversations with adults who don’t believe in their decision making capabilities.  Moreover, teaching young people that they are incapable of making responsible decisions is an inappropriate and dangerous message. 

Sex and the Brain—Scaring Students into Abstinence

• “A key point to think about is that if you are doing these activities [drugs, alcohol, and early sexual debut] while your brain is developing, the decision might not only affect the here and now, but also the next 80 years of your life” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 12). 
• “Some studies have shown that intimate sexual activity in teens resembles addictive behavior” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 17). 
• Students are shown a slide titled “How to Maximize Adolescent Brain Growth in a Healthy Manner” and listed below are the directives “Avoid pornography—it’s highly addictive” and “Delay the onset of sexual activity” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 18).

This suggestion that sexual activity and healthy brain development are mutually exclusive is inaccurate and stigmatizing.  Almost two-thirds of seniors in high school report having had sexual intercourse, and that number increases in college.[1]  It is illogical to suggest that this majority of individuals are plagued by mental health problems and/or sexual addiction.

Mandating Future Relationships: “The Benefits of Marriage”

Promoting Marriage—Unrealistic Expectations

• “Brainstorm and write down the benefits of marriage” “to a man,” “woman,” “child,” “family,” “community,” “society,” “one’s health and well-being,” and “to your economic status” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 23). 
• “Healthy marriage is associated with better health and lower rates of injury and disability for both men and women” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 25).
• “Healthy marriages appear to reduce the risk that adults will either be the perpetrator or the victim of a crime” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 25).
• “Healthy marriages reduce poverty and material hardships for disadvantaged women and children” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 25).
• “Minorities benefit economically from healthy marriages, and safe and stable families” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 25).

There is no proof that marriage directly causes financial stability or better health.  What the curriculum fails to include is a discussion of how these benefits may be linked to other variables besides marriage and how other relationships may generate some of the same benefits. Many of these statements also specifically target minorities and students from poor and working class backgrounds with messages that hold up marriage as a panacea for poverty.  Unfortunately the assertions do not match up with the facts; as many as 49 percent of all low-income children live with married parents.[2]  In addition, it is simply inaccurate to suggest that married couples won’t experience poverty, crime, depression, injury, or disability.

Messages of Fear and Judgment—Portraying Non-Traditional Families as Troubled

• “Years ago, many married without the skills to know how to select a partner.  These marriages worked because people were determined to make them work.  Now, having little or no social supports for marriage, many individuals give up, leaving a trail of broken relationships, drama and baggage behind” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 21).
• “Teens in both one-parent and remarried homes typically display more deviant behavior and commit more delinquent acts than do teens whose parents stayed married.  Studies show that two married, biological parents have the means and the motivation to appropriately monitor and discipline boys in ways that reduce the likelihood that they will pose a threat to the social order” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 44).
• Under the heading of “Marital Failure” the curriculum lists a number of consequences: “Greater Overall Violence; Higher Stepparent/Other Sexual Abuse; Higher Rates of Suicide; Lower Reading, Spelling, and Math Scores; Higher Risk of Being a Crime Victim; More Teens Carrying Weapons; Higher Risk of Poverty” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 26). 

The curriculum’s exaggerated claims are saturated with judgment of families that don’t meet the standard of heterosexual, monogamous marriage.  Many of the students will likely see the implications toward their own family structures. There are many reasons that a student may live in a family that does not match the ideal model espoused by WAIT Training. It is unfair and potentially harmful to suggest to young people—who as children have no control over their current familial situation—that their families are any less valuable than others. The emphasis on the consequences for unmarried couples also serves to alienate lesbian, gay, and bisexual students who cannot marry in most states.[3]

Discouraging Use Among the Unmarried: “Contraception”

Promoting One View—Abstinence-Until-Marriage

• “To maintain fidelity to the message of optimal health practices and outcomes this contraception unit can be approached within the context of marriage.  Teachers can frame this unit as information that is best applied to married couples who want to achieve certain goals before having children” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 77).
• “We strongly urge you to not demonstrate the use of any contraceptives.  Quite often, demonstrations that take place in the classroom across the country are offensive and unnecessary to the student’s ability to understand the message….Remember, sexual harassment issues apply as much to the classroom as the workplace” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 78).
• Instructors are told that sexually active students “should be instructed in the use of contraceptives as a form of risk reduction and not protection in a one-on-one setting with a health professional.  Please note that WAIT Training promotes a strategy to empower and enable these sexually active adolescents to move towards a healthy risk avoidance behavioral choice” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 78).

SIECUS believes in providing young people with information about sexual health even if they may not use it until later in their adult years, however, providing that information with the proscription that young people should not use it until they are married adults is irresponsible.  Moreover, it may provide students with an excuse to not fully absorb this information or practice the use of contraception if and when they are sexually active before marriage. It also seems unlikely that sexually active students would disclose this information to receive one-on-one counseling after being told that they are more likely to end up in failed relationships with delinquent children.  In the end, it’s clear that despite the inclusion of information on contraception instructors are supposed to emphasize abstinence-until-marriage as the only life choice for students.

Reverting to Negative Messages: “Reality Check”

Messages of Fear and Shame—Trying To Scare and Instill Guilt in Students

• In one activity, students line up, each wearing a card representing a different STD and spit in a cup. When the cup reaches the last student, wearing a “virgin” sign, and that student refuses to drink it, the teacher is supposed to say “Now isn’t he smart?  This is like what you put into your body when you have sex with someone whose sexual history is unknown to you” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 86).
• In a similar activity the teacher is supposed to open a bottle of water, take a long drink and then offer the bottle to a student.  The student is expected to reject the bottle and the teacher then leads a discussion about why they would want a new bottle.  The students answers are supposed to include “terms like ‘gross,’ ‘germs,’ ‘backwash,’ etc” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 111).
• Another lesson instructs a teacher to stomp on, pour soda on, and pretend to sneeze on a $20 bill, asking each time if students still want it. The curriculum then tells the teacher to “discuss how just because it has been treated poorly, abused and worked over, it hasn’t lost its value.  Twenty dollars is still $20, even though it’s ‘been around’” (WAIT Training 80/20 Manual, p. 109).

Young people who have sex are not the equivalent of spit, backwash, or a sneezed on, twenty dollar bill. It is inappropriate to suggest that these adolescents are less worthy of our love and respect than their abstinent peers.  Although experiential exercises can be beneficial to students, rather than building critical thinking and negotiation skills, exercises such as these simply serve to reinforce negative message about sexuality.