I think you are reading my posts just to criticize them and you aren't really getting the dorifto of what I'm saying. I agree with you that a program that gets teens out of the classroom and gives them real world experience is a good thing. In fact I provided a link to a study that discussed such programs and their rates of success. What I meant was that these programs cost money and our current political climate is all bout budget cuts.Gov. Perdue just passed an emergency 6% budget cut across the board a couple months ago in addition to the cuts passed in the current session. So while I support such programs, I recognize getting them implemented will be a challenge. And such programs should be an addition to a comprehansive curriculum program based on real science rather than a substitute for it.Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900
As for the rest of your arguments, I have said that I don't support the teaching of the full curricula to all grades and that there should be an age apporpriate progression to be determined by state local authorities (who are elected and answer to the parents). I also support the option of parents to opt their kids out of the programs without penalty. So in the first half of your latest post you just put a bunch of words in my mouth that aren't necessarily mine.
On any of your talking points from your last post you can defer to research and studies I have already posted.
This argument could continue but the horse is already glue.
![]()





Reply With Quote