Surprise! Abstinence-only programs fail miserably

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
65 pregnant teens = one canceled abstinence-only program

It became nearly impossible for the Canton, Ohio, school board to ignore the unintended byproducts of its abstinence-only program when 13 percent of Timken High School's female student population became pregnant last year. Thanks to Feministing for pointing us in the direction of this ridiculous-but-true story about a school board that has, to its credit, finally seen the light of sex education.

Of course it took 65 of the 490 female students becoming pregnant within a year to adequately deliver that message, but as Jessica of Feministing queried, "I guess better late than never?"

Sure, we can throw them that bone. The board decided Monday to include safe-sex education in the curriculum, while continuing to promote abstinence. It also plans to replace a few well-worn health textbooks that are "older than some students," according to WYFF 4 of South Carolina. Patty Rafailedes, a physical education teacher in the district, told the station, "If we had math books from 1988, reading books from 1988, as a parent, I would be furious."

Susan Ross, coordinator of health services for the Canton schools, admits the district was well behind the times. "Our sex education curriculum was really outdated," Ross told the Associated Press. "It was about 18 years since it was revised. With kids, having good and updated knowledge is critical." Sounds to me like the adults were the ones lacking "good and updated knowledge." Let's hope their recent enlightenment spreads to the rest of Ohio.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/

No wonder why you get Bush when you google "miserable failure".
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']65 pregnant teens = one canceled abstinence-only program

It became nearly impossible for the Canton, Ohio, school board to ignore the unintended byproducts of its abstinence-only program when 13 percent of Timken High School's female student population became pregnant last year. Thanks to Feministing for pointing us in the direction of this ridiculous-but-true story about a school board that has, to its credit, finally seen the light of sex education.

Of course it took 65 of the 490 female students becoming pregnant within a year to adequately deliver that message, but as Jessica of Feministing queried, "I guess better late than never?"

Sure, we can throw them that bone. The board decided Monday to include safe-sex education in the curriculum, while continuing to promote abstinence. It also plans to replace a few well-worn health textbooks that are "older than some students," according to WYFF 4 of South Carolina. Patty Rafailedes, a physical education teacher in the district, told the station, "If we had math books from 1988, reading books from 1988, as a parent, I would be furious."

Susan Ross, coordinator of health services for the Canton schools, admits the district was well behind the times. "Our sex education curriculum was really outdated," Ross told the Associated Press. "It was about 18 years since it was revised. With kids, having good and updated knowledge is critical." Sounds to me like the adults were the ones lacking "good and updated knowledge." Let's hope their recent enlightenment spreads to the rest of Ohio.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/[/quote]

=

[quote name='E-Z-B']No wonder why you get Bush when you google "miserable failure".[/QUOTE]
?
 
Maybe this article will help fill you in:

In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Maybe this article will help fill you in:

In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html[/QUOTE]
The administration dropped the ball on that one... but so did the ones prior-to.

It's everyone's fault.
 
[quote name='Brak']The administration dropped the ball on that one... but so did the ones prior-to.

It's everyone's fault.[/QUOTE]


While it's true that it's everyone's fault, this administration in particular has really pushed the abstinence only education thing hard. It was a big part of Bush's reign in Texas.

I never understood the rational behind it. "If we don't teach them the sterile facts about fuckin' they won't do it!" like no one ever fucked before sex ed classes. I mean, if anything I'd venture to bet that the pregnancy rate has declined severely since the introduction of sex ed classes in the US.
 
Its the parents fault, they should talk to their kids about sex. Not the school. Drugs too, like the commercials that say "do you know what ____ is? Your kids do." yeah they do cause the school teaches you. why the hell should the school teach us about drugs? they should say dont do them and leave it at that. same with "safe sex" give out condoms and say how to use them. not all the other bullshit. The more they talk the more the kids are gonna wanna do it. just like the whole "dont look down" thing.
 
[quote name='DeathDealer']Its the parents fault, they should talk to their kids about sex. Not the school. Drugs too, like the commercials that say "do you know what ____ is? Your kids do." yeah they do cause the school teaches you. why the hell should the school teach us about drugs? they should say dont do them and leave it at that. same with "safe sex" give out condoms and say how to use them. not all the other bullshit. The more they talk the more the kids are gonna wanna do it. just like the whole "dont look down" thing.[/QUOTE]


That's just not true, as this report tells us. They didn't talk about it at all and the kids ended up more pregnant then ever. Teenagers wanna screw. Welcome to reality. They will find a way to do it, no matter what you do. So accept reality and at least arm them with the knowledge to do it responsibly.

You talk as if sex and drugs wouldn't exist if they didn't teach about it. That's just false. Would you rather have your kids learn about ecstasy from a drug awareness class in school, or from the guy on the corner trying to sell it to them? Study after study after study has shown that educated kids make educated decisions. Be them about drugs, sex, whatever. Ignorant kids make ignorant ones.
 
Well, most reports of abstinence-only education that shows any positive effects at all show that it delays the first intercourse by 18 months. That's somewhat effective, but if you consider that those 18 months only bring up the average age at first intercourse from 16 years to 17.5 years, the effect it has is, in practical terms, minimal. It's done nothing to reduce them fucking in their high school years.

I've always been puzzled by attempts to get people to cease the behavior that's so commonplace and rampant (fucking) that our evidence on this planet proves the prevalence of.

At any rate, isn't the Canton example old news? It's one example, and one I'm not ready to generalize to all cases of abstinence-only education. Studies have repeatedly shown the delay of intercourse, to an insignificant degree (18 months), for those learning. This is the only case of it backfiring to this extent, so I call anomaly here.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Study after study after study has shown that educated kids make educated decisions. Be them about drugs, sex, whatever. Ignorant kids make ignorant ones.[/QUOTE]

It's a bit overbearing to say abstinence-educated kids are "ignorant." They are intentionally witheld information about safe-sex procedures, sure, but they do learn about abstinence, which can be a valuable lesson.

The problem I'm seeing here is that, at first, those on the right wouldn't make any concessions on providing contraceptives, or birth-control pills, or safe-sex education; abstinence-only education was the *only* thing they would support. In return, many on the left now view abstinence education as a draconion and puritanical attempt to bullshit ourselves, as a society, into thinking we've accomplished something positive, when in reality, the positive effects of abstinence-only education is a pyrrhic victory at best.

Now we have two reactionary factions - the attitudes of those who view abstinence-only education as banal can't seem to grasp that it should be perfectly suited as a complement to safe-sex education; in short, *both* have their place in the classroom. Only one or the other? Don't be surprised when nothing changes, or you give yourself a headache trying to defend pitiful-at-best effects of the one kind you choose.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's a bit overbearing to say abstinence-educated kids are "ignorant." They are intentionally witheld information about safe-sex procedures, sure, but they do learn about abstinence, which can be a valuable lesson.

The problem I'm seeing here is that, at first, those on the right wouldn't make any concessions on providing contraceptives, or birth-control pills, or safe-sex education; abstinence-only education was the *only* thing they would support. In return, many on the left now view abstinence education as a draconion and puritanical attempt to bullshit ourselves, as a society, into thinking we've accomplished something positive, when in reality, the positive effects of abstinence-only education is a pyrrhic victory at best.

Now we have two reactionary factions - the attitudes of those who view abstinence-only education as banal can't seem to grasp that it should be perfectly suited as a complement to safe-sex education; in short, *both* have their place in the classroom. Only one or the other? Don't be surprised when nothing changes, or you give yourself a headache trying to defend pitiful-at-best effects of the one kind you choose.[/quote]

yeah, I don't understand why abstinence wouldn't be lesson #1 in the classroom followed by lesson #2: "since you are horny and curious and aren't going to follow lesson #1 make sure you wrap that shit"

It doesn't have to be one or the other.
 
[quote name='Cheese']That's just not true, as this report tells us. They didn't talk about it at all and the kids ended up more pregnant then ever. Teenagers wanna screw. Welcome to reality. They will find a way to do it, no matter what you do. So accept reality and at least arm them with the knowledge to do it responsibly.

You talk as if sex and drugs wouldn't exist if they didn't teach about it. That's just false. Would you rather have your kids learn about ecstasy from a drug awareness class in school, or from the guy on the corner trying to sell it to them? Study after study after study has shown that educated kids make educated decisions. Be them about drugs, sex, whatever. Ignorant kids make ignorant ones.[/quote]

As I said in my post, its the parents responsibility to talk to their kids about that stuff. not the school. Im not saying dont talk about it. Im saying talk about it kids and parents 1 on 1, not with all your peers around and shit. damn man, you can qoute me, but can you please read my post first.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Now we have two reactionary factions - the attitudes of those who view abstinence-only education as banal can't seem to grasp that it should be perfectly suited as a complement to safe-sex education; in short, *both* have their place in the classroom. Only one or the other? Don't be surprised when nothing changes, or you give yourself a headache trying to defend pitiful-at-best effects of the one kind you choose.[/QUOTE]

Abstinece-ONLY cannot exist as a complement to safe-sex by definition. Abstinence can, but their goal is abstinence-only education.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Abstinece-ONLY cannot exist as a complement to safe-sex by definition. Abstinence can, but their goal is abstinence-only education.[/QUOTE]

Semantics, darling. I rarely hear the term "abstinence education," if ever. The framing of it as "abstinence-only" makes it, yes, logically impossible to couple with anything else (maybe alegbra?). But the framing of it as "abstinence-only" also helped turn away otherwise rational people from the idea of teaching kids abstinence and safe sex education.
 
[quote name='DeathDealer']Its the parents fault, they should talk to their kids about sex. Not the school. Drugs too, like the commercials that say "do you know what ____ is? Your kids do." yeah they do cause the school teaches you. why the hell should the school teach us about drugs? they should say dont do them and leave it at that. same with "safe sex" give out condoms and say how to use them. not all the other bullshit. The more they talk the more the kids are gonna wanna do it. just like the whole "dont look down" thing.[/quote]

That's just dumb. No sex ed class ever made me want to have sex more than I already naturally did (as if there's a way to make you want to have sex more at that age). They tell you about how sex works, STDs, etc. They don't show you fucking porn or something (unless those pictures of syphilis babies really turn you on). It's about biology and education. Same with drugs, they don't teach you where to get them and how to use them they tell you what they do to your body.

Parents can't explain things about drugs and sex that they don't know themselves. I'd rather kids be taught by professionals in the field just as I'd rather them be taught math and english by people trained in it not just some random guy.
 
[quote name='DeathDealer']As I said in my post, its the parents responsibility to talk to their kids about that stuff. not the school. Im not saying dont talk about it. Im saying talk about it kids and parents 1 on 1, not with all your peers around and shit. damn man, you can qoute me, but can you please read my post first.[/QUOTE]

I read your post, but I disagree with the idea that not teaching teens about sex or drugs means they wont do them, as evidenced by the linked report. Kids learn about the world around them one way or another, at least with drug and sex ed classes we have the opportunity to control the information. Sure parents have a place in the education of their own kids, but many are either too uncomfortable, uniformed, misinformed, embarrassed to do it with any competency. I'm not so sure what having your peers around has to do with it, it's not like schools are using pornos as teaching tools, unless of course you find genitalia diagrams steamy. But then again, I remember at 15 the mere mention of mons pubis would give me wood, as would wind, dirt, automobiles, vacuums, headphones, cardboard boxes, clock radios, etc.


It's a bit overbearing to say abstinence-educated kids are "ignorant." They are intentionally witheld information about safe-sex procedures, sure, but they do learn about abstinence, which can be a valuable lesson.
Click to expand...

I'll concede that. I have no problem with abstinence as a part of the class, even as it's chief tenet, but intentionally withholding the information simply because it's 'dirty' blows my mind.
 
[quote name='javeryh']yeah, I don't understand why abstinence wouldn't be lesson #1 in the classroom followed by lesson #2: "since you are horny and curious and aren't going to follow lesson #1 make sure you wrap that shit"

It doesn't have to be one or the other.[/quote]

Exactly. And I'm sure the other factor in this is that kids in high school arent apt to going out and purchasing condoms. So I'm sure it would help if they were perhaps made a little more available to them (although thats sure to have the PTA in an uproar).
 
Is there a chance that America benefits from these kids? I mean, are these the kids who are willing to goto Iraq or learn a trade - America needs those. Or are they the kids growing up to be criminals and entering dead-end jobs?

Anyway - if they illegalize abortion, anyone with enough cash can fly down to some South American country and buy into a premium private hospital to get the operation done discretely for a reasonable price.
 
When I took sex ed, they played an old-ass film reel regarding masturbation. It was from the late '50s.

In retrospect, and to my surprise, it actually made me feel better about masturbating, as it spoke about how there was nothing wrong with doing it, it being natural and having no side-effects.
 
[quote name='Brak']When I took sex ed, they played an old-ass film reel regarding masturbation. It was from the late '50s.

In retrospect, and to my surprise, it actually made me feel better about masturbating, as it spoke about how there was nothing wrong with doing it, it being natural and having no side-effects.[/QUOTE]

Whoa whoa whoa. Are you telling me that your '50s film failed to warn you against the possibility of blindness or harry palms? What if God strikes you down? I think that film needs to be updated to an abstinence-only 21st century film. /sarcasm

I do find that funny though that a '50s film would speak so openly about masturbation when just in the 90s the attorney general got blasted for suggesting masturbation as an alternative to sex. (the female attorney general....her name is escaping me now)
 
[quote name='gwill']
I do find that funny though that a '50s film would speak so openly about masturbation when just in the 90s the attorney general got blasted for suggesting masturbation as an alternative to sex. (the female attorney general....her name is escaping me now)[/QUOTE]

Joycelyn Elders, she got fired IIRC and it's surgeon general not attorney general. Back then the AG was Janet Reno, who's probably one of the last people you'd ever want to envision talking about sex to you... :puke:
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Joycelyn Elders, she got fired IIRC and it's surgeon general not attorney general. Back then the AG was Janet Reno, who's probably one of the last people you'd ever want to envision talking about sex to you... :puke:[/QUOTE]


lol...thanks for setting me straight. And yes janet reno :puke: Whenever I think of her I think of will ferrel's skits on SNL....makes me laugh and puke at the same time (not a good combination)
 
And here I thought the fact that our schools fail miserably in science, math, english, and reading was the problem.

Seems the real problem is the dumbsh**s the school is churning out are procreating.
 
Abstinence works. If you abstain from risky sexual activity, you won't get pregnant. Education is important [for instance, many kids may not know you can get pregnant without having actual intercourse], and more important is having different sources [schools, parents] project the same message.
Arguing that because 65 kids got pregnant means the program itself is inherently a failure, is like arguing that if an alcoholic keeps drinking even after meetings, AA has failed. A program has to be followed in order to work.

I do agree that there needs to be more parental involvement with the education of their kids; of course, over the past few decades the teachers unions and the education lobby has done whatever they could to distance parents from the education process, and to retain as much power over what the kids are learning [see: the bitter hatred from "professional" educators toward home-schooling parents/kids]. So now that this program's efficacy without parental involvement is woefully lacking, it's somehow an indictment of the program as a whole, rather than an indictment of the 'parents keep away!' nature of the current public school system.

If it is the parent's job to teach them this, then the schools need to stop teaching it, and handing out condoms, and telling first graders about homosexuality, etc.

I could support this:
"abstinence wouldn't be lesson #1 in the classroom followed by lesson #2: "since you are horny and curious and aren't going to follow lesson #1 make sure you wrap that shit"
Abstinence, from the point of view of health, pregnancy, and 'keeping it special' [because to some of us throwbacks, sex is still a special thing to be shared with a special person]; followed by "Given that, *should* you decide to indulge, here are possible impacts: 30 minutes of 'wow that feels good' [of course, that depends on how 'good' a 16 year old kid is], and the possibility of diseases that will last you a lifetime, or pregnancy that could f* up your life as it exists now, whether you keep it, give it away, or abort it." If we're going to be honest about it, let's be fully honest.

We don't need kids to learn math, science, geography. What's important is that they feel good about themselves, and that they learn to become in touch with their feelings, both sexual and otherwise. [/sarcasm]
 
On a serious note, the schools should not be teaching kids about sex. It's none of the school's business.

It is the role of parents to educate their children about sex and the connected moral issues regarding sex.

If the parents are derelict in that responsibility, so what? It's not the school's business.
 
[quote name='penmyst']On a serious note, the schools should not be teaching kids about sex. It's none of the school's business.

It is the role of parents to educate their children about sex and the connected moral issues regarding sex.

If the parents are derelict in that responsibility, so what? It's not the school's business.[/QUOTE]

Well, let's find out what happens when my sexually irresponsible teenager boy meets your sexually moral teenage girl.

You get to pay the bills, no matter what the outcome is.
 
[quote name='penmyst']On a serious note, the schools should not be teaching kids about sex. It's none of the school's business.

It is the role of parents to educate their children about sex and the connected moral issues regarding sex.

If the parents are derelict in that responsibility, so what? It's not the school's business.[/QUOTE]


a school's job besides education is making well rounded members of society. That includes having people not turn into baby ovens and learn about preventable stds. Some parents have no clue, why should their kids be at a disadvantage. Parents have a hard enough time knowing how to buy video games for kids and you want them to try to talk to them about sex? Lets get realistic, parents havent been doing their job, and the schools are the place that fills in.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Joycelyn Elders, she got fired IIRC and it's surgeon general not attorney general. Back then the AG was Janet Reno, who's probably one of the last people you'd ever want to envision talking about sex to you... :puke:[/QUOTE]

I think there can be bipartisan agreement on that issue...old In Living Color episodes with Jim Carrey as Reno, anybody?
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']a school's job besides education is making well rounded members of society. That includes having people not turn into baby ovens and learn about preventable stds. Some parents have no clue, why should their kids be at a disadvantage. Parents have a hard enough time knowing how to buy video games for kids and you want them to try to talk to them about sex? Lets get realistic, parents havent been doing their job, and the schools are the place that fills in.[/QUOTE]


Wow.

These are their children we are talking about. You mean to tell me it's okay to make excuses about why you can't teach your own children how to be proper adults?

That is the reason we have the mess on our hands today of the public schools being used as surrogate parents. Too many people are flat out, unadulterated, selfish, lazy bums when it comes to raising their children.

It should not be acceptable that people don't do their jobs and handle their responsibilities as parents.

And to then compound the problem by having gov't house step in to do what the parents should be doing is creating an even bigger problem. Bureaucrats are raging morons and shouldn't be allowed near yours or anyone else's childrens.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Wow.

These are their children we are talking about. You mean to tell me it's okay to make excuses about why you can't teach your own children how to be proper adults?

That is the reason we have the mess on our hands today of the public schools being used as surrogate parents. Too many people are flat out, unadulterated, selfish, lazy bums when it comes to raising their children.

It should not be acceptable that people don't do their jobs and handle their responsibilities as parents.

And to then compound the problem by having gov't house step in to do what the parents should be doing is creating an even bigger problem. Bureaucrats are raging morons and shouldn't be allowed near yours or anyone else's childrens.[/QUOTE]

and what if the parents dont? what if they dont talk to them about stds, protection, or birth control, or anything like that. What happens if they enter puberty without this info? Its like sending a blind man through a mine field.
 
What they don't say is that I impregnanted all 65 women. What can I say besides that I'm a sexy bitch all the women want. :)
 
[quote name='penmyst']Wow.

These are their children we are talking about. You mean to tell me it's okay to make excuses about why you can't teach your own children how to be proper adults?[/quote]

Schools teach teenagers the cold facts about their own biology, there's nothing 'dirty' or erotic about it. That makes it the parents job to put that education into a context; emotional, moral, spiritual, etc.

That is the reason we have the mess on our hands today of the public schools being used as surrogate parents. Too many people are flat out, unadulterated, selfish, lazy bums when it comes to raising their children.
Click to expand...

So your answer to that is to give them MORE opportunities to ignore/screw up their kids lives? People have been saying that since the institution of public education in the mid 1800's, and it's been wholly false since then too. Look at the state of the country before the education system and after, the results have been, across the board, overwhelmingly positive.

It should not be acceptable that people don't do their jobs and handle their responsibilities as parents.

And to then compound the problem by having gov't house step in to do what the parents should be doing is creating an even bigger problem. Bureaucrats are raging morons and shouldn't be allowed near yours or anyone else's childrens.
Click to expand...

So you're belief is home schooling is the way to go? Because that didn't work out to well in the 18th century. Is your beef only with sex ed, or do you want to do away with the entire Dept. of Education? If Bureaucrats are such morons, what are you doing to change that, besides belly aching on a video game message board? We get the Gov't we elect/deserve.

David85
What they don't say is that I impregnanted all 65 women. What can I say besides that I'm a sexy bitch all the women want.
Click to expand...

Dude, they were high school girls, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Wow.

These are their children we are talking about. You mean to tell me it's okay to make excuses about why you can't teach your own children how to be proper adults?

That is the reason we have the mess on our hands today of the public schools being used as surrogate parents. Too many people are flat out, unadulterated, selfish, lazy bums when it comes to raising their children.

It should not be acceptable that people don't do their jobs and handle their responsibilities as parents.

And to then compound the problem by having gov't house step in to do what the parents should be doing is creating an even bigger problem. Bureaucrats are raging morons and shouldn't be allowed near yours or anyone else's childrens.[/QUOTE]

Taken to the illogical extreme, why must you be such a lazy bastard and expect someone else, an awful no-good-very-bad bureaucratic organization funded by the big bad government (lest you have the ducats for private education, in which it's only partially funded by the same big bad government), to teach your kids math, biology, phys ed, music, reading, literature, etc.?

Buy your own fucking copy of "To Kill a Mockingbird" and teach it to your own kids. I don't see why we need any schools at all, given your argument above.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

At any rate, isn't the Canton example old news? It's one example, and one I'm not ready to generalize to all cases of abstinence-only education. Studies have repeatedly shown the delay of intercourse, to an insignificant degree (18 months), for those learning. This is the only case of it backfiring to this extent, so I call anomaly here.[/QUOTE]

Even though there is a delay, studies show that abstinence-only kids are more likely to not use birth control. I think that is more of what we are seeing here.
 
Schools should be teaching about math, english, spelling, sciences, etc. Your basics.

Programs like sex ed, while being intended only as "how it works", machine-like dryness, are more often slanted towards indoctrination. Whether that is the defeatist "they are going to have sex before marriage so lets just not have any standards and let them run amok" or the "it's morally wrong to have sex before you are married", or anywhere in between.

When you hand the reigns over to a bureaucrat, it's the inevitable conclusion. Good intentions don't matter.


What bothers me more is that while immigrants (or 2nd generation kids) are kicking our collective childrens' asses in education where it matters such as maths and sciences-- we have to bother with nonsense like this.

Our kids might not be able to form a complete sentence, spell properly, do math without a calculator, or understand a chemical reaction-- but they know how to stick their **** in a *****. Even an animal knows how to do that. I didn't know we needed anyone to teach us such a thing.

That is what our education system should be doing?

And, Cheese- I don't post on a message board about it only. I do my part by voting for my politicians that understand and share my views. You can vote too, so lose the "why are you just posting on a message board about a problem" attitude, seein as this is a message board for discussion.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Programs like sex ed, while being intended only as "how it works", machine-like dryness, are more often slanted towards indoctrination.[/quote]

Indoctrination into what?

When you hand the reigns over to a bureaucrat, it's the inevitable conclusion. Good intentions don't matter.
Click to expand...

But you're willing to hand them the reigns when it comes to Math, English, Science, etc. So if they are so amazingly inept, why do you trust them to do those things?

What bothers me more is that while immigrants (or 2nd generation kids) are kicking our collective childrens' asses in education where it matters such as maths and sciences-- we have to bother with nonsense like this.
Click to expand...

Those kids have to go to health class too. They're parents have instilled them with a work ethic. The topics are not related. Math and science aren't the only things that matter, Art and Music classes enrich kids conceptual thinking and make them better students across the board, gym and athletics instill both personal achievement and teamwork, and health classes give them an understanding of the complex changes going on inside them, as well as promote healthy living (diet, exercise, drug education, sex education).

Our kids might not be able to form a complete sentence, spell properly, do math without a calculator, or understand a chemical reaction-- but they know how to stick their **** in a *****. Even an animal knows how to do that. I didn't know we needed anyone to teach us such a thing.

That is what our education system should be doing?
Click to expand...

Have you ever taken a sex ed class? You talk as if you have no frame of reference whatsoever. As I remember it, it's a week on the anatomy, a day on the hows and whats, a week or two on child development from conception to adulthood and two months on DON'T DO IT and STD prevention. It's not like they are graded on their cunnilingus technique.

And, Cheese- I don't post on a message board about it only. I do my part by voting for my politicians that understand and share my views. You can vote too, so lose the "why are you just posting on a message board about a problem" attitude, seein as this is a message board for discussion.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that 99% of politicians aren't bureaucrats?
 
[quote name='Cheese']It's not like they are graded on their cunnilingus technique.[/QUOTE]

But the homework was tremendous.










Really, I'm sorry. I had to do it, you understand.
 
Homeschooled kids currently outperform public-schooled kids in almost every legitimate criteria.

I think public schools, at least at the early grades, should focus on teaching facts [a lot of math, science, etc, are based in facts that can be proven], and 'how' to study/think [critical thinking, problem solving, lateral thinking, etc.] I don't think they should be in the business of 'raising' children and teaching morals, other than those required to coexist in a public place with other people [pay attention in class, ask questions, be respectful of other studets, etc], although that's certainly a lot of what they are doing now.
And by teaching fact-based subjects, kids can go back to discovering that yes, sometimes you're just *wrong* and that's all there is to it. I'm all for self-esteem, I want my son to grow up and be positive and try to do things and reach beyond his grasp, but I'm not going to tell him he's right when he's wrong in something factual.
 
[quote name='Cheese']But you're willing to hand them the reigns when it comes to Math, English, Science, etc. So if they are so amazingly inept, why do you trust them to do those things?[/quote]

*trying very hard not to hijack this thread into a privatize-schools-now argument*

[quote name='Cheese']It's not like they are graded on their cunnilingus technique.[/quote]

You just didn't have the right teacher!
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Homeschooled kids currently outperform public-schooled kids in almost every legitimate criteria.[/QUOTE]

That may very well be true, but one thing I can tell you from my own personal experience, which is by no means a scientific survey, but every homeschooled kid I ever met has been a tremendous dick. Not just your run of the mill regular dick, but a controlling, manipulative, supervillain type dick. I dunno, maybe it's the lack of social integration.

[quote name='elprincipe']*trying very hard not to hijack this thread into a privatize-schools-now argument*[/quote]

Y'know, I used to be against it, but recently I've taken a different attitude. As I understand it (and I'm sure I'm wrong), if we did away with the Dept. of Ed. the tax revenues would go back to the tax payers and they'd be responsible to pay for their own local private education. If that's the case, fine. The money that New Jersey pays into the Dept. of Ed. fund currently pays for it's own schools and a huge remainder goes to the less fortunate 'welfare' states (I'm looking at you West Virginia). Man, NJ's already got the 5th best schools in the US, imagine the palaces we'd have if we didn't have to support everyone else. Screw you southern states, midwest, western, north west, y'know, the red states, f*ck'em! All the best schools and teachers would be in the Northeast where the money's at, and the rest of the country would be chomping at the bit to hire the bottom of the barrel.*

You just didn't have the right teacher!
Click to expand...

You can say that again, Mr. Blatchford, ewwww.

[size=-2]*(not everything in this post is true)[/size]
 
I remember in high school health class I saw this video called "Heroin Kills". It had a cool theme song and made me want to do heroin... Anyway, the first time I tried heroin I was disappointed... it wasn't as good as the video made it seem :(
 
[quote name='PhrostByte']I remember in high school health class I saw this video called "Heroin Kills". It had a cool theme song and made me want to do heroin... Anyway, the first time I tried heroin I was disappointed... it wasn't as good as the video made it seem :([/QUOTE] :lol:
 
[quote name='penmyst']Schools should be teaching about math, english, spelling, sciences, etc. Your basics.

Programs like sex ed, while being intended only as "how it works", machine-like dryness, are more often slanted towards indoctrination. Whether that is the defeatist "they are going to have sex before marriage so lets just not have any standards and let them run amok" or the "it's morally wrong to have sex before you are married", or anywhere in between.

When you hand the reigns over to a bureaucrat, it's the inevitable conclusion. Good intentions don't matter.[/quote]

I dunno what sex-ed class you took, but mine was pretty much just fact. I was taught by nurses, not congressmen.

The problem is when they start this abstinence-only bullshit and get people that aren't nurses or professionals in any way to teach this stuff. It's not that the class is bad it's the teachers, just like somebody that has no education in math teaching math.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I dunno what sex-ed class you took, but mine was pretty much just fact. I was taught by nurses, not congressmen.

The problem is when they start this abstinence-only bullshit and get people that aren't nurses or professionals in any way to teach this stuff. It's not that the class is bad it's the teachers, just like somebody that has no education in math teaching math.[/QUOTE]

I mostly agree with you but in most states on-site school 'nurses" aren't liscensed nurses anyhow. Even if it was or wasn't a liscensed nurse, being an RN for example doesn't mean they really have the know-how or evne the actual knowledge to properly educate kids about sex, simply being a nurse doesn't guarentee that, whatever the actual subject matter is.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I mostly agree with you but in most states on-site school 'nurses" aren't liscensed nurses anyhow. Even if it was or wasn't a liscensed nurse, being an RN for example doesn't mean they really have the know-how or evne the actual knowledge to properly educate kids about sex, simply being a nurse doesn't guarentee that, whatever the actual subject matter is.[/quote]

They weren't school nurses, they were from some local facility, I don't exactly remember where. It's not exactly important that they are nurses really, but the point is that they must have some education in the subject (could be med students for all it matters really).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top