Mike Huckabee's education platform is different from most of the other candidates in that he doesn't list what he'd do as president, he lists what he implemented in Arkansas as governor and how that worked. In debates and media reports, he cites a recent study produced and published by Education Week, that claims Arkansas is ranked eighth in the nation for overall quality of education, a significant jump after being near the bottom for many years. However, others dispute that claim and say the numbers don't add up and that education in Arkansas is still lacking.
So let me lay out the facts and you can decide for yourself. According to Huckabee's campaign web site, these are his foundational tenets for his education platform:
I believe that every child should have the opportunity for a quality education that teaches the fundamental skills needed to become skilled and professional workers.
Music and the arts are not extraneous, extra-curricular, or expendable. They create a competitive and creative work force. I proposed legislation to provide music and art instruction by certified teachers for all Arkansas children in grades one through six, forty minutes a week. These programs have a powerful effect in leveling the academic playing field for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The study of music improves math scores, spatial reasoning and abstract thinking.
I have been a strong, consistent supporter of the rights of parents to home school their children, of creating more charter schools, and of public school choice.
We need a clear distinction between federal and state roles in education. While there is value in the "No Child Left Behind" law's effort to set high standards, states must be allowed to develop their own benchmark.
I created intensive reading and math programs that went back to basics that resulted in our test scores rising dramatically. I then created one of the most demanding high school curricula in the country, and the number of students taking advanced placement classes grew by leaps and bounds.
I opposed the teachers' union and got the Fair Dismissal Law passed, which allowed us to terminate poorly performing teachers.
I raised teachers' salaries from among the lowest in the nation to among the most competitive.
I created systems to make our schools accountable to both parents and taxpayers by insisting on transparency in how money is spent, efficiency in putting money into classroom programs rather than administrative costs, and clear responsibility of all employees for the tasks assigned to them.
I fought hard for more charter schools, with their strong parental involvement and their unique ability to serve as laboratories for education reform, and for the rights of parents to home school their children. I am a strong supporter of public school choice.
We need to test teachers as well as students, replace teachers who aren't competent, and impose reasonable waiting periods for teachers to gain tenure.
We should provide bonuses and forgive student loans for high-performing teachers to work in low-performing schools.
Just as there are executives in the corporate world who specialize in turning around failing companies, we need teachers who are "turn-around specialists" for failing schools.
Educators and teachers should be involved in the design of compensation initiatives that encourage training and promote performance based on merit, so that our children can have the best education in the world.
As President, my education agenda will include working towards a clear distinction between the federal role in assisting and empowering states and in usurping the right of states to carry out the education programs for their students. While there is value in the "No Child Left Behind" law's effort to set high national standards, states must be allowed to develop their own benchmarks.
So let me lay out the facts and you can decide for yourself. According to Huckabee's campaign web site, these are his foundational tenets for his education platform:
As President, my education agenda will include working towards a clear distinction between the federal role in assisting and empowering states and in usurping the right of states to carry out the education programs for their students. While there is value in the "No Child Left Behind" law's effort to set high national standards, states must be allowed to develop their own benchmarks.
10 comments:
Thanks for directing me here Natalie.
I guess I'm a little confused how a distortion of one's personal record could be called "just the facts." Arkansas still scores below the national average on NAEP testing so I'm not sure how that earns them 8th place.
The reason he doesn't lay out his platform is because he denies evolution (scary in itself), is actively against church/state separation in schools, and wants to rewrite the constitution based on his own interpretation of of God's intent.
He also wants to devote tax money to abstinence programs with medically inaccurate info for kids, despite the fact that they're proven over and over again to be ineffective - in fact, they correlate with the states with the highest abortion rates.
I guess if he were to lay out his proposals, it would be like waving a big red flag to the American voters.
I'm all for more art and music programs. But not if it means my kids will be singing hymnals in school.
As someone who has seen the positive effects of the abstinence message, I think I have to wonder about Mom-101's aversion to it. She says it's because it offers "medically inaccurate info for kids (which I'd be interested to see some examples, since many pro-condom people neglect to tell teens that condoms don't always work)" and "that they're proven over and over again to be ineffective."
By "ineffective," I suppose she means that kids who hear about abstinence are still choosing to have sex. Is that the message's fault? (FYI: I'm a stronger proponent of cutting ALL government programs in schools since I believe the federal government make lousy surrogate parents, but that's another issue.)
I guess for me personally, I don't think we should teach abstinence JUST because it lowers the rate of abortions (Mom-101 seems to think we SHOULDN'T teach it because it DOESN'T lower the abortion rate.) "Lowering the abortion rate" is a pragmatic litmus test. Why not teach abstinence just because it's the morally right thing? Or, for the liberals who may not agree with my moral view, why not teach abstinence simply to offer our teens another CHOICE? If we're all about choices, why not offer them the choice of abstinence?
And speaking of tax dollars (Mom-101 didn't want Huckabee to give tax dollars to abstinence programs), how MANY programs have the democrats funded with my tax dollars without EVER asking my permission? Frankly, taxes have gotten out of hand in our country in every way. Jefferson said if the government ever taxed this nation above 3%, the people should revolt. Um, Dear Mr. Jefferson, 3% is a distant memory and yet taxation without representation continues. Yet another reason the Republicans have my vote.
I can't believe I'm even getting sucked into the abstinence program debate, because the failure is so notable and widely reported, it's like being challenged on the notion that the earth is round.
So here are the facts:
First I need to correct the assertion that there's an either/or platform in sex ed programs. Both abstinence AND birth control are equally important topics and I don't know one "liberal" in my circle who doesn't think that the choice to wait to have sex is an essential message.
What a proper reproductive health program aims to do is arm students with enough facts to make better decisions, including reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancies and STDs when they do in fact have sex. It's not a "surrogate parenting" issue, it's a public health issue.
I also need to take issue with the idea that "some people" don't tell teens that condoms have a small failure rate. Who are these people? The condom makers? There is no respected curriculum that leaves out the statistical risk factors for each form of birth control. In fact it flies in the face of the entire point of the curriculum which is to arm students with facts to be able to make more informed decisions.
Here is a 2007 story from the Washington Post about the major national study released last year which indicated that abstinence-only programs don't decrease sexual activity (whether or not you believe that's a moral issue), don't decrease number of partners, but do increase risky behaviors among teens.
You can also check the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy whose official statement based on the study, and I agree, is that while abstinence is an essential message, abstinence-only is not an appropriate or effective intervention.
My stats on these programs intentionally misleading teens with medically inaccurate info comes from a congressional study on this very thing.
Here's the entire report in pdf form. It details that 80% of abstinence programs intentionally mislead students by contradicting CDC and Journal of New England Medicine findings, or using information 35 years out of date in order to promote a religious agenda.
Here's the SIECUS press release on it.
Here's Advocates for Youth's own study and conclusions on programs by state.
$176 million of taxpayer dollars are spent each year on these programs, plus more in matching state and local funds.
It's outrageous.
The real question is, do advocates of these programs simply want to promote a religious agenda? Or do they REALLY want to address the legitimate problems of teen pregnancy and the rise in STDs? In which case, perhaps it's time to treat this like a public health issue and not a moral one.
PS Jefferson also owned slaves, then had sex with them. The founding fathers were brilliant in any number of ways, but let's not hold every action or statement of theirs up for scrutiny against the backdrop of today's world.
Good stuff. Is "One" advocating for abstinence-only health education or is she simply saying abstinence should be one element in an otherwise comprehensive curriculum?
Anon,
From what I know of her background and website, ONE is not in favor of promoting birth control.
But I'd be delighted to be wrong on that.
As I see it, the abstinence-only message is more about the morality behind the message than about health education. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with kids being encouraged to practice abstinence, but not at the expense of being fully informed about all birth control and reproductive and health issues. This seems to be one of those issues where common sense gets trampled by political agendas on both sides. People distort the issue to demonize those "heathen liberals" or those "religious zealots."
This is from the woman who posted a previous comment as "ONE"...that is a new blog of mine created for a specific purpose and not one that I intend to use much in the future. Therefore, if you wish to sincerely know more about my "background," feel free to visit the blog that I used to make this particular comment. It's a community blog run by myself and a few others, so please be nice should you choose to leave a comment (walkwisely.blogspot.com).
I don't have a lot of time to comment, but I'll try to at least respond to the questions.
First, I'm not sure what you all are calling "abstinence programs." I'm only familiar with the kind that I've been involved in...on the receiving end as a public high school student, as a young adult volunteer in a pregnancy center, and as an adult paid staff member that worked with kids in 6-12 grades.
The kind of program I am advocating is more than a "Don't have sex because God and I say so" type of message. The program informs teens of the consequences of being sexually active. From spending most of my life working with young people and broken-hearted women, I've seen that the consequences to having sex reach much farther than pregnancy. So to glibly say I am against promoting birth control is a disservice.
Some things I DON'T advocate:
1. Government programs that take the place of parents. Sure, there are many absent parents (both physically and otherwise), but those cases are few and far between. What has been the more common case, is parents who are too self-absorbed and immature to actually parent their children. So they rely on the government to do their job for them.
2. Educators who become suppliers. Again, I have given my life to educating young people and their parents. It's what I do in my free time and as a vocation. Educating a person (young or old) is one thing, becoming their dealer is another. For example, while I am in favor of telling teens about birth control (in the proper setting), I am NOT in favor of supplying teens with birth control. Not even condoms. That is something that should be done with parental consent or at least parental *awareness*...and if the teen insists on doing it without notifying his or her parent or a person of trust in his or her life, the grocery store sells condoms. I do not want to be responsible for making it easier for a teen to do something that I a) don't believe in and b) I will later have to deal with the resulting heart-broken aftermath in some way or another.
3) Bandaids that do nothing to actually heal (read: FIX) the problem. I am a proponent of PREVENTION rather than cleaning up messes. Sure, there will always be messes to clean up, but if we can prevent them, why not try? I believe the sex-ed only "education" does little to prevent root problems, and instead gives teens a false-sense of security which enboldens them to continue in a lifestyle that more often than not has reprocussions they are not able to handle at their age. (I've also dealt with adult women who aren't able to handle the fall-out.)
Can we all agree that abstaining from sex is the ONLY 100%-guaranteed way to prevent both pregnancy AND STDs? Since this is true, why not promote it?
The liberals will tell you it's because teens can't stop having sex, regardless of what we tell them.
This is an ignorant and callous assumption that actually demeans the maturity and autonomy of teens. Teens can say no. And the more knowledge they have, the more empowered they will be to do so. If this weren't the case, why do we spend millions of dollars in anti-drug education?
On the contrary (and quite ironically in my opinion), liberals believe that if we give teens information about how drugs can adversely impact every area of their life (their relationships, their families, their future, their education, their emotional and physical health, etc.) that teens will make the right choice to abstain.
Yet, when I and people like me propose that we do the same thing when it comes to sex (give teens information about how drugs can adversely impact every area of their life: their relationships, their families, their future, their education, their emotional and physical health, etc.), liberals angrily state that we are being naive and irresponsible since teens are going to have sex anyway.
I have more faith in teens than that. Sure, educate them, but not just with an unreliable media that promotes and glamorizes consequent-less sex at every turn, even teenage sex (Gossip Girl, The OC, One Tree Hill...). And don't just tell teens that condoms make it all better. (I use condoms as my example because the pill helps to prevent pregnancy but does nothing to prevent STDs.) No form of bith control is 100% reliable. And no form of birth control protects against or prevents the emotional damage done to a young person's heart, especially teen age girls.
I am not ashamed to admit that I am pro-life but this goes beyond abortion. While I have known women still suffering (physically AND emotionally) decades after their abortion, I have known and counseled an even greater number of women who never even got pregnant but who suffer from being involved in sexual relationships outside the vows of marriage. It's not pretty. If I can help prevent the problem, or if I can vote for someone who believes we can prevent the problem and will strive to do so, then I will do my utmost---on my own AND at the polls.
I am saddened by the misinformation we give our young people. Especially girls. One example: Not telling them the truth about HPV. Not telling them the astounding number of women on college campuses that have this incurable disease, and don't even know...yet. These women who are primarily infected by men who are asymptomatic carriers and who will never have to suffer cervical cancer, as will many of their sexual partners. And what do our medical providers, pharmacueticals, and Media do about this HPV? We promote a "oneLESS" campaign that offers a simple "vaccine" whereby teenage girls can hopefully become innoculated to the disease. What DON'T we do about it? We never tell them that it's a sexually transmitted disease that can be prevented by not having sex.
This both saddens and angers me, and is one example of why I am a strong proponent of abstinence education.
In the abstinence programs I've worked with, birth control methods are reviewed. Ample information on all the various STD's is given. (The most successful session was the one when a local MD came with real photos of real teens suffering with various STDs. The teens were able to see more than textbook diagrams and realize the gravity of these diseases.) In addition to this information, teens are told that most kinds of birth control don't protect against disease and those that do (condoms) don't always work. Condoms break. What intelligent, sexually-experienced person would argue with that???
Teens are told that many people in the heat of the moment choose to not use condoms. (And don't even get me started on the number of adult women who do this too...and
talk about it on their BLOG!!!!!)
Teens are told that you can get STDs from oral sex and anal sex, which thanks to insufficient sex-ed and the media, have become commonplace sexual activities even among kids as young as 5th grade.
I want kids to be informed, but I also want them to be informed about the benefits of waiting until marriage to have sex. It can be done. It is being done. And regardless of your religious beliefs, in this sexually-promiscuous, disease-rampant culture, waiting to have sex is really not a bad idea. It can be done. People just don't want to hear that or admit it, because then they'd be responsible when they choose to go ahead and have sex anyway.
Lastly (this is already longer than I intended), why aren't teens being told that they can get pregnant even when their partner "pulls out"? Why aren't they being told that they can get pregnant even with a condom if they male puts the condom on the wrong way first and then corrects it, leaving his pre-ejaculation all over the tip?? These things happen and teens aren't being told the truth.
When it comes to sex-ed and teens, instead of giving them a loaded gun, so to speak, and telling them to be careful when they use it in order to hopefully not get hurt, why not tell them not to play with guns at all?
Oh, that's right, you don't think they will listen to you, or have the power to stop.
("Natalie," or bloghost, I just posted a similar comment that is awaiting moderation, but noticed that I made some grievous typos! If you could delete that comment and post this one instead, I'd appreciate it.)
This is from the woman who posted a previous comment as "ONE"...that is a new blog of mine created for a specific purpose and not one that I intend to use much in the future. Therefore, if you wish to sincerely know more about my "background," feel free to visit the blog that I used to make this particular comment. It's a community blog run by myself and a few others, so please be nice should you choose to leave a comment (walkwisely.blogspot.com).
I don't have a lot of time to comment, but I'll try to at least respond to the questions.
First, I'm not sure what you all are calling "abstinence programs." I'm only familiar with the kind that I've been involved in...on the receiving end as a public high school student, as a young adult volunteer in a pregnancy center, and as an adult paid staff member that worked with kids in 6-12 grades.
The kind of program I am advocating is more than a "Don't have sex because God and I say so" type of message. The program informs teens of the consequences of being sexually active. From spending most of my life working with young people and broken-hearted women, I've seen that the consequences to having sex reach much farther than pregnancy. So to glibly say I am against promoting birth control is a disservice.
Some things I DON'T advocate:
1. Government programs that take the place of parents. Sure, there are many absent parents (both physically and otherwise), but those cases are few and far between. What has been the more common case, is parents who are too self-absorbed and immature to actually parent their children. So they rely on the government to do their job for them.
2. Educators who become suppliers. Again, I have given my life to educating young people and their parents. It's what I do in my free time and as a vocation. Educating a person (young or old) is one thing, becoming their dealer is another. For example, while I am in favor of telling teens about birth control (in the proper setting), I am NOT in favor of supplying teens with birth control. Not even condoms. That is something that should be done with parental consent or at least parental *awareness*...and if the teen insists on doing it without notifying his or her parent or a person of trust in his or her life, the grocery store sells condoms. I do not want to be responsible for making it easier for a teen to do something that I a) don't believe in and b) I will later have to deal with the resulting heart-broken aftermath in some way or another.
3) Bandaids that do nothing to actually heal (read: FIX) the problem. I am a proponent of PREVENTION rather than cleaning up messes. Sure, there will always be messes to clean up, but if we can prevent them, why not try? I believe the sex-ed only "education" does little to prevent root problems, and instead gives teens a false-sense of security which enboldens them to continue in a lifestyle that more often than not has reprocussions they are not able to handle at their age. (I've also dealt with adult women who aren't able to handle the fall-out.)
Can we all agree that abstaining from sex is the ONLY 100%-guaranteed way to prevent both pregnancy AND STDs? Since this is true, why not promote it?
The liberals will tell you it's because teens can't stop having sex, regardless of what we tell them.
This is an ignorant and callous assumption that actually demeans the maturity and autonomy of teens. Teens can say no. And the more knowledge they have, the more empowered they will be to do so. If this weren't the case, why do we spend millions of dollars in anti-drug education?
On the contrary (and quite ironically in my opinion), liberals believe that if we give teens information about how drugs can adversely impact every area of their life (their relationships, their families, their future, their education, their emotional and physical health, etc.) that teens will make the right choice to abstain.
Yet, when I and people like me propose that we do the same thing when it comes to sex (give teens information about how SEX can adversely impact every area of their life: their relationships, their families, their future, their education, their emotional and physical health, etc.), liberals angrily state that we are being naive and irresponsible since teens are going to have sex anyway.
I have more faith in teens than that. Sure, educate them, but not just with an unreliable media that promotes and glamorizes consequence-free sex at every turn, even teenage sex (Gossip Girl, The OC, One Tree Hill...). And don't just tell teens that condoms make it all better. (I am choosing to use "condoms" as my example because the pill helps to prevent pregnancy but does nothing to prevent STDs.) No form of birth control is 100% reliable. And no form of birth control protects against or prevents the emotional damage done to a young person's heart, especially teen age girls.
I am not ashamed to admit that I am pro-life but this goes beyond abortion. While I have known women still suffering (physically AND emotionally) decades after their abortion, I have known and counseled an even greater number of women who never even got pregnant but who suffer from being involved in sexual relationships outside the vows of marriage. It's not pretty. If I can help prevent the problem, or if I can vote for someone who believes we can prevent the problem and will strive to do so, then I will do my utmost---on my own AND at the polls.
I am saddened by the misinformation we give our young people. Especially girls. One example: Not telling them the truth about HPV. Not telling them the astounding number of women on college campuses that have this incurable disease, and don't even know...yet. These women are primarily infected by men who are asymptomatic carriers, men who will never have to suffer cervical cancer, as will many of their sexual partners. And what do our medical providers, pharmacueticals, and Media do about this HPV? We promote a "oneLESS" campaign that offers a simple "vaccine" whereby teenage girls can hopefully become innoculated to the disease. What DON'T we do about it? We never tell them that it's a sexually transmitted disease that can be prevented by not having sex.
This both saddens and angers me, and is one example of why I am a strong proponent of abstinence education.
In the abstinence programs I've worked with, birth control methods are reviewed. Ample information on all the various STD's is given. (The most successful session was the one when a local MD came with real photos of real teens suffering with various STDs. The teens were able to see more than textbook diagrams and realize the gravity of these diseases.) In addition to this information, teens are told that most kinds of birth control don't protect against disease and those that do (condoms) don't always work. Condoms break. What intelligent, sexually-experienced person would argue with that???
Teens are told that many people in the heat of the moment choose to not use condoms. (And don't even get me started on the number of adult women who do this too...and talk about it on their BLOG!!!!!)
Teens are told that you can get STDs from oral sex and anal sex, which thanks to insufficient sex-ed and the media, have become commonplace sexual activities even among kids as young as 5th grade. Thinking they can't get pregnant, countless girls are performing these acts only to contract diseases no one told them they could get. Why not tell them about the disease but ALSO tell them that they don't have to "service" the young men who are pressuring them. Build their self-esteem and self-power along with building their knowledge, and they'll have a better chance to say "no" to something they really don't want to be doing anyway.
I want kids to be informed, but I also want them to be informed about the benefits of waiting until marriage to have sex. It can be done. It is being done. And regardless of your religious beliefs, in this sexually-promiscuous, disease-rampant culture, waiting to have sex is really not a bad idea. It can be done. People just don't want to hear that or admit it, because then they'd be responsible when they choose to go ahead and have sex anyway.
Lastly (this is already longer than I intended), why aren't teens being told that they can get pregnant even when their partner "pulls out"? Why aren't they being told that they can get pregnant even with a condom if they male puts the condom on the wrong way first and then corrects it, leaving his pre-ejaculation all over the tip?? These things happen and teens aren't being told the truth.
When it comes to sex-ed and teens, instead of giving them a loaded gun, so to speak, and telling them to be careful when they use it in order to hopefully not get hurt, why not tell them not to play with guns at all and then give them the power to put the gun down?
Oh, that's right, you don't think they will listen to you, or have the power to stop.
When you can show some statistics derived from objective studies, as I have, that point to the number of comprehensive sexual education programs that don't tell kids the failure rates of birth control, as you suggest, that don't explain that HPV can be sexually transmitted, that don't describe that risky sexual behaviors go beyond intercourse -- only then will be discussion worth continuing.
Until then, these are just unfounded talking points intended to justify an outmoded point of view, and to promote the types of programs that are proven time and again to be ineffective at best, detrimental at worst.
Therefore, and back to the original point of this post, I refuse to support a candidate who would allot federal funds to programs that compromise the health and well-being of our nation's youth for the sake of religious dogma.
They. Don't. Work.
(Also? Safe sex is safe sex. There is no safe heroin use. Can't buy that analogy.)
Mom-101, it is painfully obvious that nothing I say will change your point of view, so I will agree to disagree. However, I feel that you have misinterpreted MUCH of my lengthy comment.
For example, I don't believe I ever said that "sexual education programs don't tell kids the failure rates of birth control." What I DID say is that the abstinence programs I am referring to DO tell the kids. My point was not to contrast them with sex-ed programs (at least not in that regard) but to DEFEND them since it seems that you and others are convinced the abstinence programs don't cover health education at all, only relgious "dogma." I was trying to point out what IS covered in abstinence programs not what ISN'T covered in sex-ed.
Second, when I commented about HPV
I never mentioned sex-ed. I mentioned media, pharmaceuticals, and providers and a very specific ad campaign. I stand by my original statment.
Third, when you refer to "an outmoded point of view," I'm not sure what you're referring to: not having sex before marriage or telling kids that they have the power and choice to abstain. Further, when you chide me (and politicians) for wanting to "promote the types of programs that are proven time and again to be ineffective at best,detrimental at worst" I am really at a loss, since the programs I am referring to and just spent too much of my day detailing include EVERYTHING you've mentioned (as being good in sex-ed) AND ALSO promote abstinence as an alternate and BEST (100%-guaranteed) choice. So other than actually supplying teens with birth control (which the programs I've defended don't do), I don't see what your problem is. You haven't been specific as to what irks you so much with offering teens another choice and encouraging them to choose it.
Your next statement: "Therefore, and back to the original point of this post, I refuse to support a candidate who would allot federal funds to programs that compromise the health and well-being of our nation's youth for the sake of religious dogma." again proves that you didn't really read my comment with the intent to understand. I'll say it again, as clearly as I can, that the abstinence programs I am talking about are not "religious dogma" at all. It's not a "Thou shalt not" approach. It's a "Here are the facts. Here are your choices. And here's the power to feel strong enough, loved enough, and beautiful enough to make the choice your heart guides you to make." I really don't see your problem with this.
I understand that you feel a certain type of program doesn't work. You cite statistics. Perhaps you've been a victim of one of these programs. But I can cite statistics and I can give you names of women they've worked for. So we're just going to keep going round this mountain. Sorry.
Your last statement is also baffling to me. You wrote: (Also? Safe sex is safe sex. There is no safe heroin use. Can't buy that analogy.)"
I did not attempt to equate sex to drug use. I DID attempt to equate abstinence education to anti-drug education. While I don't believe there is such thing as "safe sex," I do believe there is such thing as "saf-ER" sex. (Again, only abstinence is fool-proof. Do you just think no woman has the power to abstain? Or should be given abstinence as a viable CHOICE?) Likewise, I DO believe there is such a thing as saf-ER drug use. Doctors and druggies concur. So, in our anti-drug campaigns and health education classes, should we inform our students on proper ways to shoot up, how to find the right vein, to never share needles, etc.? If we think they're going to do it anyway, or even MIGHT make that choice, why not give them all the tools they need to make a better decision? Do you see how ludicrous that sounds? Yet that's what we do when it comes to sex. (As a sidenote, drugs take a toll on the body and the mind. Sex affects the body, mind, and soul. Which do you think it's easier to recover from?)
Finally, I don't think you and I see eye-to-eye on this issue, and the great thing about our country is that we're free to not only disagree but to openly say so. I don't get my "talking points" (as you called them) from any source. I am an educated, well-studied grown woman who has given years to this particular issue: teens, sex & relationships, and counseling teens and families in need.
I'm not talking from book knowledge or some campaign speech I read or something I heard in Sunday school. This is my life's work. I will visit the links you provided and will assimilate the information that is helpful. But I'm firm in my convictions, just as you seem to be. I wish you all the best--in life and in mothering. I have a two-year-old toddler myself. At the rate of our cultural decline, I shudder at the thought of what he will face when he is a teen. If you ever want to chat more in depth about anything, you can visit my blog any time.
Post a Comment