Do kids now a days still say ‘knockin boots’?
For the first time in 15 years, teen birth rates are up. Politics as usual. Abstence advocates screaming that comprehensive is a failure. Comprehensice advocates screaming that abstence is a failure. But what realy is going on has more to do with ebonics.
Remember ebonics? Black english? Oakland started teaching it in schools and it set off an absoulte firestorm of arguments and debates over the issue of race. But I have heard from people that I consider to be ‘in the know’ that what the Oakland schoolboard did had next to nothing to do with race.
Ya see, schools who teach bilingual education get extra government funding. Oakland schoolls were straped for cash with a big jucy grant just outsdide their reach. If only they could teach a forgin language. So one day someone gets the brightidea of claiming “Oh sure we teach a forgin language. We teach, em, that is to say, teach, ah, we teach ebonics! Yeah, yeah! Thats it! Ebonics! See? We teach bilingual education here. Now give us money.”
Its the one undeniable truth of government. Want to find out the truth, just follow the money. The public, however, is wise to this trick so if a government buricate wants it to work they need to frame things in a debate that is outside of money. Ebonics did this perfectly. Anyone debating the issue would scream about racism and opresion and diversity and tolerance. Mondy didnt even enter into the debate at all.
Now maybee this theory is all just a bunch of hogwash. But its imposible to find out one way or another. Any research into ebonics legeslation and policy just turns up a moutian of articles about race. Maybee its about the money, maybee its not abotu the money. But there is no way to sift through the every increasing about of arguing about race.
Now think for just a moment about school vouchers. The purpose is to get government money to private schools just like it is currently dished out to public schools. The problem, however, is that private schools mostly tend to be religiosu schools and that brings up the issue of seperation of church and state. So how does a politician give money to a catholic school?
Simple. Dont call it a school voucher. Call it public health. Though there are regulations about what has to be taught in order to recive government funding as an abstance education program, there are no regulations on how much time has to be devoted to it. So it is enterily posible that a teacher c oudl stand up and give a short 90 second lecture and suddenly have their school eligible to recive a nice fat check from the government.
Does that happen? Is that what is realy going on? Is abstince education funding just a sneeky backdoor way of sliping in school vouchers? Well to find out if thats the truth behind it, it should be a simple matter of justy looking up how much money goes to private schools as compared to how much money goes to public schools. But if that data exists, I cant find it.
I can find plenty of angry rants about how the ‘christain adgenda’ are trying to force their views of sex onto others as early as posible. I can find plenty of angry rants about how the ‘gay adgenda’ is trying to force their views of sex onto others as early as posible. I see fearmongering againt abstence education, claiming that since kids are going to have sex anyway they will be at higher risk if they dont have the facts. I see fearmongering againt comprehensive education, claiming that it ’sends a message’ that sex is ok and thus encourages kids to have sex that will put them at higher risk.
The most outlandish is when both sids pull out the medical research. Abstence advocates point to a study that shows that comprehensive education has next to no effect on behavior and theirfore abstance education is the only option. Comprehensice advocates point to a study that shows that abstence education has next to no efect on behavior and theirfore comprehesive education is the only option.
Both sides simply dont notice that they are each quoting from the same study. To quote >> “No significant effect was associated to the type of intervention: whether the program was abstinence-oriented or comprehensive—the source of a major controversy in sex education—was not found to be associated to abstinent behavior.” The only program that does seem to have an impact is when the parents are included (duh!) but this is totaly lost on each side of the abstence / comprehensive debate. They both are absoutly convinced that SOME kind of sex education in schools is the answer, and if they can only discredit the other side then that would somehow prove their side is the only option.
Somewhere in the corse of these two groups pointing at each other and each yelling “That group over their is pushing their views of sex off onto eveyone else” the information abotu funding has got lost. A few marginal hints I have found here and there actualy indicate to me that the money is not even going to schools at all. Neither public schools nor private schools. But is instead going to ‘comunity groups’. However, I cant say this for sure because its all burried down under layers of arguing abotu sexual morality.
Ebonics is not about race. It is about funding and race arguments are just the circus that kept folks distracted. Sex education is not about sex. It is about school vouchers and sex arguments are just the circus that keeps folks distrascted.