South Carolina now has it’s very own version of the stem-cell debate — unfortunately.
The stem-cell fight, as we all know, isn’t about stem cells; it’s about abortion. Similarly, the virtual school fight has morphed into a surrogate for the "school choice" debate.
Consequently, the virtues, or lack thereof, of virtual pedagogy have been pushed to the back burner. But that’s what I’d like to talk about.
I have my suspicions about the efficacy of the whole idea. I think offering long-distance classes to kids who might not otherwise have access to such pedagogy sounds very good — after all, the greatest challenge in public education in this state is what to do about the kids who live in poor, rural, thinly populated districts that have trouble offering the quality found in the affluent suburbs.
At the same time, after about 25 years of witnessing the limits of electronic communication, I have my doubts. That’s about how long I’ve been dealing with e-mail in one way or another. I’ve also had some experience with teleconferencing, which is a tool of dubious value.
Yet I’m torn about it.
I know virtual schooling can’t be as good as being face-to-face with a teacher. At the same time, it sounds better than no access at all, which is the option many kids are stuck with. Question is, should finite resources be devoted to this approach, or would they be better spent on other priorities? I’m not sure.
We had a long discussion about it in yesterday’s editorial board meeting, and it was inconclusive. We’ll have to return to it to decide what to say. Of course, we discussed other aspects as well. We’re all over the place on the culture-war aspect (to what extent kids not in the public system should have access), but I’d like to address here the underlying question of whether this is a good approach to begin with.
We’ve all experienced the misunderstandings that can occur in what was once called Cyberspace; this blog serves often as a monument to that effect. Of course, some of the misunderstanding is willfully obtuse, but plenty of it is honest miscommunication between people who would be much more likely to have a meeting of the minds if they actually met.
You sit two people who’ve been speaking at cross-purposes down together — as when Randy Page and I had lunch recently — and you’re somewhat more likely to communicate effectively. Similarly, if the problem is that a given subject, or a given child, is hard to teach, do you do any good giving him or her a "virtual" teacher?
Of course, if you want to address the choice aspect, go ahead — but know that I’m not staking out a position on that myself, not yet. If you can get private school and home-school kids in without pushing some public school kids out, I’m for it. It depends on how limited the device is in terms of accessibility. I need to know more about the program, and one of my colleagues is looking into that.
I’m hopeful that we can have a debate here that we can all learn from each other. On this recent post, Randy and LexWolf gave indications of a willingness to carry on real dialogue about this and possibly other education issues. That sounds great to me. Let’s see how we do.
Related Posts
I think distance education can be remarkably effective but not by trying to replicate a traditional classroom/lecture etc.
Think of the History Channel or the Discovery Channel with limited interactivity. Kids are sophisticated consumers of video. Production values will have to be high. The subject will have to be taught with innovation and entertainment in mind.
Optimally, you’d have a supervising teacher with a teacher’s guide at the remote location, also. Sticking one (or 20) students in a room with a television or computers probably won’t be generally effective.
My method won’t be cheap– but, really, there’s little reason that the course couldn’t be sold to other states, also.
” — after all, the greatest challenge in public education in this state is what to do about the kids who live in poor, rural, thinly populated districts that have trouble offering the quality found in the affluent suburbs.”
With all due respect, Mr. Warthen, this is where and why we differ on the educratic mindset present in education today.
What “quality found in the affluent suburbs” do you speak of?
Is it in the quality of settings and structures? I imagine that if Abe and Martin became educated (President and Nobel winner) despite overwhelming physical adversity and disruption, then our Ipod kids can too. Cracks in the walls and poor plumbing can be remedied.
Are you speaking of books and supplies? Again, we spend tons of money to educate our children. Is this a funtion or a dis-function of a bureaucracy which seeks only to sustain itself, at the expense of generations of kids?
Is it in the teachers, many of whom are themselves under-educated and certainly underpaid for what they have to tolerate in a government (that’s what they are) school setting?
Could it not be related to children’s homes (and who’s in them, or, more often, not in them) that more greatly affect the quality of the “affluent suburbs'” educational opportunities?
Affluent suburbs have good schools because they generally have two parents in them, committed to education for their kids.
Every one has the same opportunity within the walls of a school.
Those opportunities, sadly, dissipate, if not disappear, after they get to the walls of their homes.
Homes, Mr. Warthen, are the only hope for our children today. Not government schools.
Hmmm. “Stay home” doesn’t sound like good advice for kids who come from lousy homes — and those are the ones we’re mainly concerned with here (the lucky ones with two parents and a decent income will probably do fine wherever). So perhaps we should dig a little deeper for the answers.
Here’s a direction for inquiry: Some of our suburban districts — such as Richland 2 — do a good job with the poor kids as well as the affluent ones. And I’m talking about the district’s majority-free-lunch schools, not just ones with a smattering of the poor. What lessons does that hold? What does Richland 2 do that we can replicate elsewhere?
Put me in the skeptic column regarding virtual schools. I’ve been in the IT field for 25 years and have rarely found an online experience that is better than a face-to-face interaction when attempting to share information. I’ve got ten programmers working for my right now on a project. We’ve tried to hold conference calls with the engineering team but the results have been mixed (even disregarding all the technical glitches that cause delays). Last week, I put the whole team in cars and we drove to the engineers’ building for a two hour meeting. More was accomplished in that two hours than in the previous two weeks.
I suppose distance learning might be better for a small number of kids but I doubt it would prove cost effective. As RTH said, if it requires a human monitor to make sure the kids are paying attention, then I’d be even more concerned.
My idea of a virtual classroom would involve lessons on DVD (much cheaper
than pushing video over the network)
combined with extensive online content: drills / tests / help / further study.
Brad,
Does Richland 2 do well with lower income because of special programs or because those kids are surrounded by (typically) higher performing kids and better teachers (due to the tax base). I think it’s simply a matter of the rising tide lifting all boats…. because I personally observed a dramatic change in the overall performance at my kids elementary school over a ten year period as the demographics of the student population changed mainly due to the influx of lower cost homes and apartments surrounding the Spring Valley area.
Sorry… more thoughts come to me as soon as I click submit. I would definitely consider the virtual school option for my son and daughter if it seemed comprehensive enough and still allowed them to participate in extracurricular activities at the high school level. The stories I hear about what goes on in classrooms, cafeterias, and outside the school buildings really makes me question whether the “experience” of public schools is worth the “exposure” to other aspects of life. Not sure my kids benefit from the watching two girls making out in the lunchroom or from observing students be blatantly disrespectful to teachers on a daily basis.
Doug, note that I said Richland 2 does well at its “majority-free-lunch schools, not just ones with a smattering of the poor.” In other words, Richland 2 does something that majority-poor schools in other districts don’t do.
Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to the discussion.
Yes, I missed your point about majority-free-lunch schools, but I would still expect that the quality of the teachers, facilities, and parental involvement is higher than schools in less affluent districts. There has to be some measure of “community standards” entering into the equation as well. Social pressures to conform to a certain level of expectations would be stronger in Richland 2 than Allendale as would the notion that working hard in school could lead to economic success down the road. A lower income kid in a Richland 2 school is exposed to a different set of opportunities/outcomes than one in Allendale.
I lived out the country and took many courses over ETV with no classroom teacher, 40 years ago.
USC used to have ETV graduate classes for engineers from the late 1970s until Sorensen came along and shut down most of the continuing education and support for the high technology community.
That’s why his “research campus” is just hot air.
Lee’s on the right track… it comes down to the old cliche, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”. No matter what opportunities are provided via redistribution of tax dollars, success or failure will come down to an individual’s own self-motivation.
Most of what I learned to support my career path came via personal study on my own time.
Schools cannot teach personal responsibility and self-motivation.
The purpose of the SCVS is not to replace in-person education, but to supplement it. Here are some examples.
A student at Ridge View wants to take AP Art and AP statistics, but they are both taught at the same time. AP Stats can taken online while the student takes art in person.
A student in Calhoun county wants to take calculus, but there is not enough demand to warrant such a course. The school sets up time for the student to take the online course during the day in the computer lab.
In October a student transfers into a school which offers algebra 2 as a semester course. He came from a school in which this was a year long course. If he’s added to the semester course, he’s 2 chapters behind. Plug him into an online course and he is on track.
At Ridge View, we are considering scheduling an independent study course during which students and a math teacher are scheduled for the computer lab one period a day. The students would work on any of the high school math courses and have a in-person math teacher provide assistance.
Virtual Education is exploding. Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida already have virtual schools up and running. I received a masters from USC taking most classes online.
Read The World is Flat to understand how much of a virtual society we now have.
Debating this issue is like debating back in the 90s whether we should have online newspapers. Education is going virtual, with or without South Carolina.
So much of education is about the “light in the eyes” effect: a teacher responding to a flash of understanding in a student’s eyes, or a child responding to excitement in the teacher’s eyes. On-line education seems a poor substitute.
My wife, who is quite a conscientious student, is currently taking an on-line course to renew her nursing license. It’s certainly better than her having to commute from Marion to Greenville Tech (3.5 hours) for 3 months, but it has been a frustrating, pedestrian experience.
The lab portion, which requires her to drive 30 minutes to Florence once a week (and includes interaction with a flesh and blood teacher and fellow students) is the only part of the course she enjoys.
I think we should view on-line education as a last resort. It’s fine for highly motivated students who prefer it to commuting long distances, but it’s unlikely to teach much to students who need significant help and encouragement.
It appears we agree on the “last resort” benefits of virtual school. Beyond that, there are benefits (which, yes, have a cost).
Schools are often faced with running AP classes at low enrollments. The choice becomes either have low numbers in some classes and higher student to teacher ratio in others or cancel some AP courses.
My SC Virtual School students are learning skills to prepare them for a wired and integrated society. They are creating and posting WORD and EXCEL documents; using the internet for educational purposes (not just Myspace); learning how to communicate via onine conference calls and emails (without the chat room lingo); and they practice independent learning and self-discipline.
Look at what’s already happening in SC: Clemson’s laptop requirement down to laptops to all 8th graders in SC.
From the 8th graders getting laptops article, it says there will be 50,000 laptops distributed at a cost of $10 million. That’s $200 per laptop. Even if there is some private sector money being kicked in, this is going to be a disaster.
I bet 20% of the laptops are broken in the first month and 40% by the end of the first semester. A laptop is not a Gameboy… one fall from desk height and it’s over.
And what if little Johnny “loses” his laptop? Is the family on the hook for paying for it? Can a family refuse the laptop?
It’s always a great idea when you’re spending someone else’s money. This is
government at its finest.
Now, as for the statewide wireless network, that is a great idea as long as it is fast, free, and secure. Can’t see how Roadrunner, etc. won’t be fighting this through their lobbysists.
Not everything can be fixed. It would be nice to hear anyone at anytime on the pro-public school side of the table to acknowledge that kids who come from a really crappy home setting are probably lost causes by and large, and that no amount of money thrown into public schools is going to “fix it” for them. I know that’s tough to hear, and I expect a lot of angst and hand wringing and name calling on the other side, but what I’ve said is true nonetheless. I think society has a finite and even limited obligation to provide money for public education of kids. Once this limited obligation is fulfilled, we move to other priorities competing for public funds. Many kids excel under this schema. Some don’t get educated under it and wouldn’t if 10 times the money were being spent. These kids eventually get the McDonalds’ jobs or enlist in the Army. It’s survival of the fittest. I think Trajans’ first post was spot on. Ed
Why stop with Roadrunner and Bellsouth DSL transmitting the classes?
Why not let private education businesses provide the classes, especially since USC and Clemson are fixated on still making students drive to classrooms on campus.
Or we can just take our engineering graduate courses from Georgia Tech and MIT, and our MBA classes from Duke and UNC Chapel Hill.
I think society has a finite and even limited obligation to provide money for public education of kids. Once this limited obligation is fulfilled, we move to other priorities competing for public funds. – Ed
You mean public funds spent on welfare, subsidized housing, medicaid, rising health care costs because many can’t pay their medical bills, increased crime, increased incarceration rates, increased teen pregnancies…
I agree, let’s stop putting money into prevention.
We obviously don’t save all kids. Those from crappy homes (many middle and upper class kids come from crappy homes as well) are probably more likely to fail. Does this mean we give it the old college try then move on? We’ll pay for their failure one way or another – stitch in time.
It appears that this thread is once again, just as with school choice, veering off into demands for the Virtual School (VS) to be a panacea to fix all that ails public education and hasn’t been fixed for decades. Some seem to believe that if VS can’t fix everything it shouldn’t be tried at all, even in the situations where it would be very beneficial. We can’t allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Let’s please leave the school choice thing out of this thread. We’ve gone over that again and again and I’m sure we can just reread all the old threads instead of regurgitating all the old propaganda once again. (or Brad could start a separate thread for rehashing all that once again)
I’m sure VS isn’t perfect either but can there be any doubt that even mediocre VS would beat the abominable “education” currently inflicted on the kids in some of our worst districts?
Why should this be limited to public school students? Don’t parents of kids being homeschooled or in private schools pay taxes as well? Here even the perennial no-taxmoney-to-religious-schools trope doesn’t apply since the VS is part of the public school system. So why not? Is it just that big-government ideology again, mandating that parents should either knuckle under or be SOL? Why do some people demand that parents either go whole hog on public education or get nothing at all?
Unlike our big-government ideologue Brad, I don’t know virtual schooling can’t be as good as being face-to-face with a teacher. I do know that with most teachers I learned in spite of them, not because of them.
For most of us, there have been 3 types of teachers: a handful of wonderful teachers whom we still remember fondly after many years (even though we might have hated them back then for being tough on us and pushing us), a large group of mediocre teachers (some of them very populat at the time) just going through the motions to get their paychecks, and then we remember the absolutely awful ones who never had any business teaching and should have been fired years/decades before we had to endure them.
If done properly, VS would recruit the great teachers to do the online courses or record the DVDs while the other teachers would mostly supervise the kids, answer questions and do other housekeeping tasks. Of course, the great teachers would be paid at least two or three times as much as their current salary, if not more.
We know which teachers are truly great so why would we want to have each teacher reinvent the wheel over and over again? Of course, with that approach, a much higher student/teacher ratio would be possible and $billions could be saved or partially reinvested in improving the VS (and higher salaries fo rthe great teachers).
This would also be a great way to ameliorate any teacher shortages, especially in hard-to-fill fields like the hard sciences and math. Great math teachers could teach hundreds, even thousands of students. Most people don’t even realize how dependent the US is on importing scientists and mathematicians from all over the world. This could be a great way of once again home-growing our own.
One question came to mind about VS – Can a kid play hooky from VS? Or is that Virtual Hooky? Also, how would a classroom bully bully other virtual kids? Cyber bully? I like the idea of increased use of virtual school concepts, and actually with cameras on the student and on the teacher or board, you can simulate being there in a real classroom. I was in a grade school recently set up with the electronic boards in all rooms. Promethean.com if anyone wants to check it. But the boards were amazing, and brings all the web’s content instantly to the class.
In general, I still support the idea of public school (required) up to and including 9th grade. After that, it is all voluntary so the dropouts can dropout and work, votech go their way, and others go into college prep. With US unemployment flirting with 3 percent, there are jobs out there for the school malcontents. Imagine public schools where those who dont want to be there are gone. Then teachers could actually teach, what a novel concept.
We could have a more rational discussion about real costs and problems AFTER we evict all the illegal aliens from our public school system, and deal with the citizens.
In regard to “cyber school”. Yes, kids play “hooky” from cyber school. They just log on and they are ‘there.’. Usually a partner in crime clicks around once in a while to ‘fake out’ the system. Transportable lap tops are also good for playing hooky.
Lots of kids who are unable to cope either academically/socially try cyber school. Kids who unwittingly choose to accept full time employment at a burger slave shop while still in high school also like cyber school because it allows flexibility for employment scheduling. (convoluted if you ask me?). Kids who get tossed out of school- but still are entitled to FAPE (free appropriate education) often get transferred to cyber school. And, some kids who want advanced courses take advantage of cyber space via collegiate level course offerings.
So, cyber school offers lots of “alternatives” for those who need them. However, cyber school has ZERO accountability. There is little oversight regarding student academic progress. They are exempt from the long arms of NCLB.
As a public school teacher who specializes in intensive remediation K-12, I am doubtful that a computer can offer much for 20-30 percent of our most “at- risk” students. Keep in mind, “risk” is not always linked to economic status. Students who demonstrate risk for failure in reading- need intensive instruction by and expert teacher who can provide IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK- and use frequent student progress monitoring data to adjust instruction materials, methods and intensity often as needed. A computer CAN NOT provide this type of instruction. A computer can however provide some drill practice once skills are mastered.
So, perhaps cyber shool is one more advantage provided to and for and by the advantaged? It seems rather convenient that cyber school has been billed as increased “choice” for those who have no voice… when cyber school primarily those who are not now and in fact never really were “at risk” for academic failure.
What should be of primary concern is the exemption of cyber schools from the rigors of NCLB. NCLB – which is primarily a “special education law” has been instrumental in pushing/mandating public education to do a better job of closing academic gaps between haves and have nots. Quite frankly, public education needed and received a very loud wake up call.
However, it seems counter productive to develop a ‘new’ system of publicly funded schools – via voucher/cyber etc. and have no standardized accountability standards for ensuring student academic achievement. Without this accountability/ oversight, the new age of schools will be doomed to re-live the failures (both academic and financial) of the public education system.
Kelly
Since we already have a huge, expensive ETV system, why not improve that?
They are still stuck on having you drive to a TEC school and use the telephone there while you watch a remote class at USC and call in from a single phone in the TEC classroom to participate in the class. That was ridiculous in the early 1980s when I did it.
Back then, I was taking a satellite course at home from JPL and another from Georgia Tech and using my home telephone.
If this state wants to do more about “high tech” development, it had better utilize those of us who do it for living, instead of administrators at Clemson, USC, and TEC who are 20 years behind the curve.
Kelly,
in the Virtual School, we are looking to base grades on proctored tests. Students do most of their work independently then take a test in a school testing environment.
We are currently serving a large number of students from districts with limitations on resources.
Students who demonstrate risk for failure in reading- need intensive instruction by and expert teacher who can provide IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
DONE! The software we use for low level math students provides lessons, practice, and IMMEDIATE feedback.
You need to be able to read BEFORE anyone spends money on a computer for you.
No student needs a fancy new computer anyway, and the state certainly shouldn’t be buying these luxuries for anyone.
I can provide every student in the state who needs a computer with one for a lot less money than the state programs.
Sorry Lee,
But most current research indicates that technology (aka computer software) is not yet advanced enough to address the very specific needs of students who present with phonological deficits- Torgeson et. al, indicate that 20-30 percent of the population is afflicted with phonological impairments (some may recognize the term dyslexic- though I tend to avoid term as it is broad and generic.) These students can not process the sounds of letters – the phoneme level- and they need a highly skilled, living, breathing, face to face TEACHER to provide intensive, specific instruction and remediation. Computer is good for practice/drill and skill of skills learned from a TEACHER.
Also, proctored tests are fine I suppose, but a proctored test policy doesn’t address the fact that Cyber schools have no mandates for proficiency or grade level benchmarks to achieve and maintain, and don’t forget, teacher made tests aren’t standardized, so there can be no basis of comparison between kids in cyber and kids in public schools.
kp
Kelly, read your own statements carefully. If you have a cyber student who plays hooky from virtual school, do we as taxpayers truly want to waste all kinds of money and resources attempting to get the hookyplayer back into school? I would conclude that the hooky player just forfeited his/her right to the taxpayer paid free education that is a privelege, not a right. This babysitting mentality has gone on far too long and it is time to end it. Put the truant out of school and after the idiot spends a couple of years mopping floors, washing cars, etc. school may begin to seem like a good idea.
Kelly, with all due respect, what do you know of the curriculum on the SCVS?
Did you know the algebra 1 students are working through standards based curriculum, taking tests similar to what I would provide my students, and will take the state EOC exams?
As a math teacher, I see little difference between the “mandates for proficiency” for my courses I teach in person and those I teach online.
Kelly, what the hell do you think you are talking about?
If a computer is worthless to your “phonological impaired” student, then you must agree with me that it is a was of money to buy a computer for them.
I suggest that virtual education wouldn’t be appropriate for grades below 6-7. Maybe computers could be used for basic drills in lower grades but younger children most definitely need closer supervision and human contact.
Is there a link that someone can provide to what is being proposed for Virtual Schools in SC?
I would never propose that distance learning could replace an entire school experience from grades 1-12. I see it as a supplement to schools that lack the resources to provide, say, qualified science teachers.
Hello all, For starters, I never implied that I am pro-cyber school- pro school choice is okay with me- I’ve always liked to have a lot of choice in my life. All I said is “choice” does not necessarily mean better,especially when there are no mandated achievement goals. It is true that public school is not for everyone. The same for all other types of schools, including universities and cyber schools.
As for Doug’s “Not everything can be fixed. It would be nice to hear anyone at anytime on the pro-public school side of the table to acknowledge that kids who come from a really crappy home setting are probably lost causes by and large, and that no amount of money thrown into public schools is going to “fix it” for them. ” post:
Well I am a public school teacher who thinks school choice is pure American exceptionalism- “If you don’t like it here- just move West little Doggie.” But hey, we all know that many discovered Kansas can be a bit of a dust bowl too. I agree that too much in terms of tax dollars has been spent on too little results in the classroom and the truth is a lot of great teaching/learning can be accomplished with less spending.
However, it is important to recognize that very strong prejudice against the poor is alive and well in the United States. It is a rare instance when a student can’t learn and become literate. It is however, finding educators who are not prejudiced against the poor, is however becoming rare. I am looking forward to compiling a document which itemizes the number of times negative comments related to the “socio-economic status” of student populations within school districts has been mentioned in state and federal documents. I make it a personal rule to assess the students academic strengths and weaknesses, NOT the parents. I am less interested in where a student is from and far more concerned with where he and she is going. I have had enormous succes with the remediation of large numbers students who had in the past been written off as “undesirable” “unteachable” and uncountable other labels of hopelessness.
At our middle school we have worked as a team- with no individualized student computers, no extra staff (including classroom aides)-no extra curricula- including specialized text books, software, computers. We did develop some plain paper curricula in house, using using research based ideas/strategies). What we DID use was careful assessment, tough administrative and teacher accountability for the implementation of remediation plans, careful and ongoing student assessment and progress monitoring which was used to evaluate and measure student academic growth. When growth is/was not sufficient to close achievement gaps quickly enough, re-assessment occurred, followed immediately by remediation plan adjustments, including the increase in the level of intensity.
Sorry Doug, poor kids can learn just like other kids. I know. I was a really poor kid with all the risk factors except race, and I have lots of graduate degrees and certifications. Why is that? Because I had a teacher or two who insisted that I WAS JUST AS CAPABLE AND WORTHY OF THE BENEFITS OF EDUCATION- despite all the ‘evidence” to the contrary. And they were right. Now I have the responsibility of carrying that torch.
It will not be long in the future when the ‘crutch” of socio-economic status will no longer be an ‘appropriate’ excuse when teachers and kids fail to teach kids. I expect that a few decades? from now, when we will look back at widely publicized documentation of state and federally approved prejudice against the poor, reasonable persons will be as embarrased as when we look back at slavery, Jim Crow laws,and women’s suffrage.
Schools have students 8 hours a day, there is no excuse creative enough (including money, student population)to sanctify not doing our jobs properly and getting the results that we need to get. Research from the ’60s (Perry Preschool Project) shows that much of the disparity of low-SES can be overcome with education. My own student data clearly illustrates the same.
My terrific students will tell you that I am a believer, and a doer, and I expect them to be the same, for it is only through believing and doing, and requiring and pushing that we can achieve- especially when the societal odds are stacked against us.
So, there you have it. A teacher who is not against cyber school, is pro school choice, believes that schools spend too much money on stupid stuff, who believes that kids CAN AND SHOULD LEARN and teachers SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for student progress- that alot of great teaching/learning can occur without fancy technology expenditures and hey- she’s even a registered Republican? Imagine that.
Kelly
Wow. A registered Republican? Somehow you must not have noticed that most Republicans regard poverty as a personal failing– if not a sin.
Poverty is usually the RESULT of personal failings and sin.
One exception is those kept in poverty by Social Security taxes, minimum wage laws, and public schools which serve to start them on the road to helpless dependency on whatever their political leaders decide to give them.
Not being a student of the “original sin” theory as postulated by many orthodox ‘Christians” I don’t see how a child can be blamed for circumstances beyond their control. If memory serves me correctly, “he who is without sin, should cast the first stone” comes to mind.
Having grown up in,poverty, the child of a veteran father, who died at 45 as a result of a 100 percent SERVICE connected disability, I can’t say as I agree with the “sin” theory. Perhaps serving his country was an indication of my father’s “personal failings?”
Having been self employed for many years prior to teaching school, I must agree that ‘Social Security taxes, minimum wage laws’ can be burdensome. But,it is rather simplistic to identify the root of societies ills as “public schools which serve to start them on the road to helpless dependency on whatever their political leaders decide to give them” Realizing that legislators rarely hail from the poorer side of society. Perhaps it should concern us more that the majority (over 80 percent) of this country’s wealth is controlled by a tiny power minority.
Though racism and prejudice is bipartisan, it is obviously alive and well in this REPUBLICAN forum. I believe I will continue to err on the side of optimism and concern for my students, who are learning day by day how education and literacy will enable them to beat the odds. That same source cited above tells us that “A little child shall lead them.” I smile every day, knowing that my students are deserving of a teacher who believes they are capable of EARNING all that America has to offer.
Kelly
I am tired of liberals using “the children” as an excuse to hand out money to lousy parents, most of whom are unmarried and unemployed.
We could reduce those excuses by sterilizing any man and woman who conceives a child they cannot support financially.
If you liberals no longer support that former eugenics plank of your political philosophy, I am sure you would favor taking the children away from these deadbeat parents and putting them in government institutions, where you could indoctrinate them 24/7.
During my lifetime, liberals have never endorsed eugenics.
I’ve given up on Lee ever substantiating his wild-eyed rantings. Unfortunately, first-time readers will mistake his posts as coming from a rational source.
Recently, though, the posts have become so bizarre– so untethered to reality– that even first-time readers will disregard them.
Eugenics began before your lifetime, with the organization which became Planned Parenthood, which began to decrease the birth rate among blacks and Asians in the Western world.
Liberals continue eugenics in your lifetime with the forced sterilizations of the mentally handicapped in Sweden, and the involuntary killing of patients under socialist medicine in England and Holland.
Oh, now I see your “point.”
Since varied people and organizations (many of whom couldn’t be labeled “liberal” by any stretch) favored “eugenics” (which, in turn, ranged from birth control to euthanasia) then, today, several generations later, only “liberals” ultra-secretly favor eugenics.
I hope that I’ve illustrated exactly how ridiculous your allegations are.
Well, at least the non-delusional among us can comprehend their idiocy.
Those organizations all called themselves “liberal” and were accepted by the liberal media of their day as being liberal.
There is no end to the embarassing toothless liberal cousins you people have to claim are not your kin.
So you claim Planned Parenthood espouses eugenics, today, Lee?
Please prove it.
BTW, do you think that Hitler, Lindbergh and Preston Bush were liberal, also?
The fact is that Planned Parenthood is the new name of the older parent organization which was founded by liberals and progressives to reduce the birth rates of blacks and Asians in America.
The fact is that the Eugenics Movement in America spread to Europe, where it was picked up by the Swedes, Dutch, English and Germans in the 1930s. Hitler is one example.
Sweden just recently stopped forced sterilizations of people which began in the 1930s. The Swedes consider themselves to be liberal. The also are proud to be socialists.
The Dutch kill thousands of hospital patients a year in order to reduce costs for their socialist medical system. That is not a eugenics policy, because it does not seek to improve the gene pool through sterilization and abortion, but is is part of the dehumanization under socialism.
Back to the question you liberal socialists avoid answering”
How would you reduce the rapid breeding of more poor and illiterates who fill your government schools and welfare programs? Or do you want them to keep filling your government schools and programs?
I salute you, Lee. Your last post may be the most disjointed, illogical and detached from reality so far. That’s saying a lot, given your record. (My personal favorite was when you blamed a powerless Iraqi pol for forcing Dear Leader to adopt losing tactics for years. Classic denial.)
So, Hitler was a “liberal” in LeeSpeak. I guess when you have your own “reality” then you have to have your own word definitions, too.
When are you going to produce evidence that Planned Parenthood advocates eugenics, today?
Can you make up your mind? Are “liberals” secretly conspiring to eradicate the “poor and illiterates” or are “liberals” attempting to enslave them permanently with welfare entitlements?
I can’t keep your wacko wingnut conspiracy theories straight. Sorry.
I laughed heartily when you suggested in another thread that I improve the clarity of my writing and thinking. That’s like Bush criticizing someone else’s public speaking skills. Too funny.
Anyway, here’s a free tip from the reality-based community: “liberal” is not synonymous with “socialist.”
No Hitler was not a liberal. Hitler was a socialist, who despised liberals as useful idiots.
Liberals became impatient with trying educate the masses to accept their visions of society, so they teamed up with some socialists to force their “reforms” on the ignorant masses. That political movement was known as Fascism.
Liberals of the day crowed about the successes of Mussolini and Hitler. The New York Times and liberal magazines praised them on their covers.
Search for in all major search engines simultaneously on the site http://www.iknowall.com.
Simultaneous search on Google, Yahoo and MSN Live Search.
Try http://www.iknowall.com