San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas

June 30th, 2010
San Marcos CISD could change sex ed program

063010trustees

San Marcos CISD Trustees Margie Villalpando, left, and David Castillo, right, during a discussion last week about sex education in the district’s middle schools and high schools. Photo by Sean Batura.

By SEAN BATURA
News Reporter

San Marcos CISD trustees may adopt a new sex education policy at their July 19 meeting.

The board may approve or reject “abstinence plus” curricula for the district’s middle school and high school students. The goal of the abstinence plus program is to reduce the number of students who have sexual intercourse and increase condom use among those who have sex.

The proposed curricula also teaches “refusal skills.” Advocates for the proposed curricula say students with strong refusal skills are less likely to engage in other risky behaviors, such as alcohol use and smoking, which the proposed curricula also discourage.

The district currently uses an “abstinence only” curriculum called “Worth the Wait” for grades 6-8 and high school. Although the district uses the program, San Marcos CISD Director of Curriculum and Instruction Pam Guettner said sex education “has probably not been taught very often.”

Guettner said sex education is not in the high school’s master schedule and teachers find it awkward to teach.

The abstinence plus program proposed for middle schools, called “Draw the Line/Respect the Line,” was suggested by Texas State, which offered to apply for a $3 million grant to fund the program. Funding would exist for five years and be used to train San Marcos CISD staff to maintain the program indefinitely. Each set of course materials would cost the district $56.

Texas State would use the federal grant money to hire two sex education instructors, who would be based at the university and be available at middle schools after normal class hours to answer student questions. If trustees approve Draw the Line/Respect the Line, it would be administered as a pilot program sometime in 2010-11 and the district would fully implement the curriculum in 2011.

The abstinence plus program proposed for high school students is called “Big Decisions.” On May 27, the district’s School Health Advisory Committee (SHAC) recommended switching to abstinence plus curricula, and a district ad hoc committee of about 20 parents, clergy, other community members and staff supported abstinence plus.

Whether trustees choose to stick with the abstinence only curriculum or adopt abstinence plus, the district will begin a new policy of offering sex education year-round. San Marcos High School will teach sex education throughout the year beginning in September, and the middle schools are developing master schedules to provide sex education throughout the year.

Guettner and other district officials said the district will not lose any federal funding if it adopts abstinence plus.

If the district were to adopt full disclosure sex education curricula, it would lose some full federal funding.

“I think that research nationwide supports the (conclusion that) there’s the need for abstinence plus,” said San Marcos High School Principal Michelle Darling.

Darling said enrollment at the high school has been constant for a few years.

“And likewise, the pregnancy rate has been pretty constant also,” Darling said. “It feels like it’s too high, and it’s stayed the same. It’s not going up, but it’s not going down, either.”

Guettner told trustees that data she read indicate that 52 percent of older students throughout Texas are sexually active.

Texas State Associate Professor of Family and Consumer Sciences Ani Yazedjian told the board that a recent survey by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) indicated that 43.6 percent of youth in Texas did not use a condom during their last sexual encounters.

Trustee Jesse Ponce expressed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of abstinence plus. Trustee David Castillo voiced strong opposition to abstinence plus.

“What we’re trying to accomplish is to save every soul — that’s what we’re trying to accomplish,” Castillo said. “A lot of us aren’t educated in this. A lot of us don’t have the same morals and values that you have. It’s time that we changed that and look at life as precious and everything else and stop maybe looking at statistics at times, and look at individuals, families, the community and everything else. But I’m sorry — here, as far as this is concerned, I think we have it all wrong. Whether I get out-voted or not doesn’t matter to me, but I do know this — when I get judged, I tried to do what was right and the betterment of our community.”

Trustees President Judy Allen and Trustee John Crowley, favored adopting abstinence plus as soon as possible. The board considered simply staying with its current abstinence only curriculum and finding better ways to teach it.

“The SHAC committee did have community members, and they approved moving from abstinence only to abstinence plus,” Allen said. “If we keep studying it, we’re going to keep having sexually active students and babies being produced and STDs. I think if we’re going to make a change, I’m advocating that we need to do it so that we can start getting some of this accurate information out there to students instead of waiting. Sometimes in education I’m amazed at how slow things move, and I think it’s time for us to begin to think about the health and the well-being of the students, so if we’re going to do it, we need to move so that it will be effective this year.”

Castillo and Ponce said board members should have more information about the success and failure rates of abstinence only versus abstinence plus. Castillo said he doubted whether any clergy representing his religious views were included in the ad hoc committee.

“I’ve read a lot of (literature), hear a lot, listen to certain radio stations and things like that, and they’re totally anti-this (abstinence plus),” Castillo said.

Crowley expressed respect for Castillo’s comments, but said, “the reality is, is kids don’t always make the best decisions.” Crowley said he is not in favor of dispensing condoms and telling kids where they can get contraceptives, but said the district should be providing information about such matters, and should be telling kids where to get professional help from health care providers.

“Many studies have found that abstinence only sex education is not effective in changing students’ behaviors, particularly in terms of increasing contraceptive use or the use of condoms,” Yazedjian said. “So there is a relationship, in that sense, that if kids aren’t protecting themselves, they’re more likely to get pregnancy and contract (STDs). The State of Texas has one of the highest teen pregnancy and teen birthrates in the country — they are number three. And most of the State of Texas is abstinence only, so you can draw your own conclusions. And they also have high rates of STDs, as well.”

Email Email | Print Print

--

24 thoughts on “San Marcos CISD could change sex ed program

  1. Pingback: ADF Alliance Alert » TX: San Marcos CISD could change sex ed program

  2. My input: Adopt the “plus”.

    1. Abstinence only doesn’t work. Pregnancy rates aren’t going down w/ that approach.

    2. Refusal skills taught- Best idea during these teen years for ALL peer pressure behaviors.

    3.Castillo’s “doubted whether any clergy representing his religious views were included in the ad hoc committee.”
    This is a medical issue; don’t drag your religious doctrine into this. Condoms save lives and as you said “Life is precious..”

    4. TSU is funding it for us…

    Castillo’s “stop looking at statistics..” You’re kidding right?

    Thank you Cowley and Allen and others who have the sense to make a change when they see things aren’t working….

  3. Here’s another vote for adopting abstinence PLUS.

    ALL people, regardless of their age, have the RIGHT to factually correct information about their bodies.

    In my opinion, this is the responsibility of the school system. No students should be allowed to “opt out” for religious reasons. Parents and clergy then have the responsibility to discuss these FACTS with their children within the guidelines of the moral and ethical framework of their family and church.

    Mr. Castillo, I agree – life IS precious. That is why this town and state need to wake up and look at those pregnancy statistics and find a better way. What we’re doing now obviously isn’t working to protect lives…..

  4. It won’t be long before SMHS teaches kids they have to wait to have sex until they pass the TAKS to drive up passage rates. In all seriousness, why is the school teaching sex education in the first place? Can parents opt out? As a parent, I don’t particularly care what Allen, Crowley, Sam D., Mr. Yajedjian, Ponce, Castillo, Batura or Darling thinks is best for my child to hear on a non-curriculum matter. Let’s just stick to reading, writing and math, and leave this debate out of the school board meetings.

  5. Mr. McG,

    With all due respect – given the teen pregnancy and STD rates in this state – I have to wonder just who IS teaching sex education? Can you show me statistics that say San Marcos is doing all that much better than the rest of Texas?

    If it is, that is great. But that’s not what I’m gathering from living in this town. Human health (which includes reproduction and sexuality) SHOULD be in the curriculum…..

    A lack of sex education – teen pregnancy, health risks, drop outs – impacts our schools and communities in awful ways. AS A PARENT, I hope that my child will learn factual information about human health, including sex , in his school. The moral guidance is then up to me.

    This topic absolutely belongs in school board meetings.

  6. John McG- Sex education is included in the schools ..it falls under science and health.

    I would argue that Abstinence ONLY is a non- curriculum matter that doesn’t need to be in the schools, better left to church or parents.

    Abstinence PLUS- well the PLUS addresses health and science TEKS.

  7. Teach abstinence. Forbid abortion. Don’t support either the young, puzzled mothers or the unwanted children. Ignore both statistics (reality) and science (reality). Defer to the Church. Why, it’s the new American way! That and the surrounding culture of hedonism, fear, anger, and violent, promiscuous diversions (sports). Fabric of the nation torn? Let ‘er rip.

    We might also consider giving the vote to those wise fifteen year-olds. Except their parents give them the example of not worrying much about it, except where money is concerned.

  8. On second thought, maybe we could “split the baby,” so to speak, by teaching them ALL about Chlamydia, syphillis, herpes, clap, maternal cancers,potential deformities and chronic conditions, low birth weight, AIDS, possible infertility, risks of “dirty” abortions, etc. as science topics. I think and hope most over 14 have a good idea “where babies come from,” and what happens when one carelessly does “it.” Those issues can’t help but be out there, with the education they get from siblings, peers, TV, movies, newspapers, magazines, as major information defaults, can they? I imagine most know somewhat about prophylactics and other devices to prevent conception–from commercials, if nowhere else.

    Do we teach them either the practical or technical information about the cost of babies, hazards to them, the items and equipment and nourishment and care to maintain them? Of course, they have known clients of all our social programs, from W.I.C. on and on, even if they lack a perspective on human growth and development, inoculations, programs that can provide resources like Food Stamps, nursing support, etc. Neither “God’s Preferences” nor abstinence need be talked about at all to teach these things–just biological science and practicalities about the community, which can be richly supplemented with information and available data from health care professionals and agencies. Exposed to the unavoidable risks and the potential tragedies out there, they can complete the rest of the analysis on their own..

    A gigantic “bear in the room,” however, is the fact that MANY students headed for the “parent wing” or out of school actually set having babies young as a goal, often accruing peer status by successfully havng a child. At one point some time ago, one young man boasted and seemed to have been widely respected for having THREE (3) GIRLS in the “mommy wing” at once. The girls shared in this dubious distinction. Peer groups and parents, forfeit again.

    Sounds silly, but how about requiring a near-final paper predicting the outcome of a teen birth one, two, or five years out: What will be the state of myself, my partner(s) and our bab(ies): solidity of relationship, monetary support, sacrifices, effect on education and hiring, etc., housing, transportation, health, social connections, and general well-being? The romantic fantasies of youth are hard to substantiate against plain, unvarnished information about the real world.

    No need to POUND any student with all this; merely to help them think it over in real terms, alongside all the teen fantasies about staying together forever, no poverty, stress, illness, syndrome or deformity (such as those born of chemical use).. God and the State might take a rest during such a curriculum, except for the latter providing case records and statistics: up to 54% teens sexually active between 16 and 20, more boys than girls; over 70% by 22; MARRIED people’s rates of divorce (about 50% and gaining), AND infidelity well over half for men, slightly less but gaining for women. Related facts, to be critically examined so as to make a sound choice, which is hardly ever to have 2 babies before leaving public school, with perhaps weak family support (just the quality many get to help them stay and get an education, sad as that is to say.

    Finally, how must a teacher become embarrassed to ask the class if they know how many diapers an infant needs, and how much they cost? Or day care? Or job scarcity? Low wages? How to qualify for food and other assistance?
    Or the risk of having a medically-compromised (Down Syndrome, retarded, autistic or cerebral-palsied baby?

    Such a curriculum could be honest, exciting, powerful, highly discursive, not over-demanding, and relate to students in their actual lives, unlike much of the prescribed TAKS baloney which, as pure rote is by general consensus BOOORRRRIIINNG.!.

  9. great ideas Billygmoore! (All potential parents, not just teens, could benefit from a class like this.)

  10. The problem is that no one – from the schools to society to the parents – seems to be willing to sit teens down and tell them in no uncertain terms that any sort of behavior is WRONG. We are so obsessed with preserving the feelings of these children that we make excuses for poor behavior rather than expend the effort to teach (or heaven forbid,model) good behavior.

    I remain a firm believer that sex ed is the responsibity of the parents. The fact that some parents have abdicated that duty does NOT mean that it falls to the schools…..it means that we need to return to actually holding people to standards instead of worrying only about political correctness.

  11. I’m with John McG. SMISD is suffering from mission creep. Parents should take responsibility for their children in this regard. The focus of education should be math, science and the history/foundations of our Republic.

    BTW How come the word “adoption” hasn’t entered the conversation.

  12. We continue to hear “what parents SHOULD do” with regard to their children, and find it hard to disagree. But since the vast majority of parents DON’T, where are the community and the poor ignorant tweens and teens to turn? Or should we leave alone the problems of birth complications, poverty, ignorance, domestic abuse, criminal activity, govt.-dependency, etc. and just let the devil (or the community) take the hindmost? Please don’t tell me the Church should stand in. It is less a matter of morality specifically and in general than of plain common sense, caring and decency on everybody’s part, it seems to me. First the TV babysits; but then it runs out of corrective sources and leans in the very direction of mindless irresponsibility.

    We ask FAR too much of schools, then don’t equip them to meet our expectations. It’s hard enough to teach them simple math, for Pete’s sake, and no amount of imaginary social pressure will do a whit of good. In case nobody has noticed, they live in their own, separate and imaginary world, where authoritative encouragement is ignored or worse.

  13. I agree that, sadly, many parents aren’t living up to their responsibilities. However, the answer is not – is NEVER – to have the government take over where individuals are failing.

    Using “the public welfare” to justify government intrusion into our personal lives is a slippery slope, and it’s one that our country has already slid too far down……the further our nation and our city stray from the concept of personal responsibility and toward a “big brother” mentality, the more our government trains its citizens to depend on it for the answers.

    We don’t need more government programs – we need fewer. A sudden and dramatic withdrawal of government from thinking for us little people just might shock some into remembering the principles that this country was based upon. Too bad that’ll never happen, because those “on the take” from the government are very close to outnumbering those of us who actually pay taxes.

  14. Unfortunately, since so many of those teen moms end up “on the take,” and for many other reasons, it really behooves a community to address the issue. While the government may not be the answer, cracking open a beer and wagging our fingers at the “bad” parents, isn’t the answer either.

  15. Pingback: QUOTE CORNER - San Marcos Local News

  16. Right now Texas is FAILING our youth on the topic of their health. Teaching abstinence-only when we KNOW it’s not working and when the LATEST CDC reports show that Texas teen birth rates are going up (Texas has the 3rd highest teen pregnancy rate in the US and our county has the highest teen birth rate in the industrialized world).

    Last session, Rep. Castro offered a bill that would require sex ed., if taught, to be medically accurate and it was blocked!

    @ John McG- there is always a way to opt-out if you do not want your children to be taught about their body and their health.

    To argue that sex ed should be taught at home is a RIDICULOUS argument! Parents should teach their kids their values (when to have sex, who they should have sex with) but we need those who are educated in sexual health to teach our children the basics. School is about giving our children the best information so that they can go and be successful in their adult life. This means having information to make decisions to be based off of.

    Our youth IS having sex (not a new phenomenon) and they SHOULD information about STDs and pregnancy. If we want our youth to turn into health adults then we must provide them with information about how to stay healthy.

  17. As one lonely and insignificant taxpayer, I have just about worn out on the community’s having to foot the often many and complicated bills for people’s “individual right to choose” in ways that throw the CONSEQUENCES on others. I love my freedom and everybody else’s, but I still believe in the ancient dictum that “your rights end at the tip of my nose, and mine at yours.” To cite other, perhaps relevant, applications of such a rule, I offer: the right of financial entities to remake and sell useless investments to relatively “poor” people until the whole economy collapses around them; the right of energy companies to destroy Nigeria, several Latin American countries, and finally our own once sacrosanct country via corruption, violence and deceit; the right of ostensible taxpaying bodies to offshore their money ($700B/yr), their jobs ( a comparable amount), and infrastructure, then whine for protection and tax subsidies (tobacco farmers, corn farmers); and, more local and simple and close to my heart, people who refuse to use helmets or safety gear in driving, then expect to have medical expenses and subsequent living expenses borne by those who do try to keep themselves safe.

    Each of the many issues revolve around the mysterious term, “responsibility,” which is holy to Libertarians and many others. I was taught, both formally and informally, that “responsibility” means choosing with clear regard for the possible consequences. Or in language anyone could understand, I could state one of my personal pet beliefs: IN THE WORLD WE INHABIT, YOU SHOULD ALWAYS EAT WHATEVER YOU SHOOT. IF IT HAPPENS TO BE A SKUNK, BON APPETIT. We should not, however, apply such a strict standard too forceably to the young, who are trying to learn how to make good choices.

    JMcG, we both know quite well that morality cannot be legislated, any more than taste. But sometimes each of us needs a guard rail along the path, both for our own sakes and for others’. We need governmental–large-scale– structures for a great many of our common concerns. Otherwise, some people are “left to freeze in the dark,” where they often become both burdens and threats to the community. Desperation is an awesome motivator.

    How many generations can we afford to nourish INTO dependency or aggression before we collapse of our own weight? My own answer is, “none.” We are already a couple down the road. How can we fill the Social Contract and/or honor traditional religious injunctions to follow the Golden Rule if we have a huge slice of the populace that senses, correctly, that they are not part of the Important Group?

    Or, I ask in my foolish way, is that pert of the deal: Only GOD’S ELECT deserve or get to enjoy living in this ostensible democracy? Damn! That’s a big question rising out of the small issue of why over 40% of this year’s new babies have been born to boys who don’t yet shave and girls who have no means of support and only Mama’s muffled suggestions about “IT.”

    People often surprise by making good choices, if they are aware of issues and the responsibility they have for themselves and the civic body, That’s part of what “free public education” was started for–our own preservation and our own collective future. If there is no belief in that, it’s time to pee on the dogs and put out the fire (Did I get that right?)

  18. Mayor Moore, I usually agree with you on all matters touching education, but here your argument seems to fall on itself. If you agree that a government or school board cannot legislate morality, why do you disagree with my idea that schools shouldn’t teach sex education? They cannot win — if they choose to promote abstinence they are reinforcing one side of a moral argument, but if they choose to pay lip service to abstinence and distribute condoms, they are reinforcing the other side of the moral argument. And note, the schools will do a poor job of teaching either. Our schools should just stay out of the culture wars.

    What information do you really believe the schools need to dispense in order to liberate the great unwashed — that sex makes babies or that the wrong partner can bring disease? 100 out of 100 fifteen year olds know both of those things. You can shout both facts with a megaphone, and you will not reduce the teenage birth rate. It is not about knowledge, it is about decisions and the exercise of free will. However, if we just want to make everyone feel like they are doing something by forcing teachers to distill information the recipients already know, you will drive away children from the school district who might be able to model the confidence, choice architecture and maturity required to make the most responsible decisions.

    Public schools are failing because they are trying to do too much. They have turned into some great social experiment. The focus needs to return to the teacher-student relationship and educating young people with a core curriculum that will allow them to succeed. Otherwise, the schools will get worse along with the demographics.

  19. Setting aside the sex ed part of the discussion for a moment, I would be curious to see how many of the teen pregnancies are within the same groups that have the poor graduation rates and poor college-ready graduation rates. Given how much teen behavior is driven by peer pressure and role models from within ones peer group, one would have to speculate that the life after high school for these kids could be a significant factor.

    If their destiny, whether they have children early or not, is to work an hourly wage job and squeak by with the help of various assistance programs, then what is at risk? At the end of the day, they end up in the same place. If more of their non-pregnant peers were going on to college and 6-figure careers, perhaps those choices would be significant enough to change behavior.

    Just something to think about.

  20. Amanda: “@ John McG- there is always a way to opt-out if you do not want your children to be taught about their body and their health.”

    No one has said they don’t want their children taught about such things. What people ARE saying is that it’s the parent’s job to do this, not the school district’s. Which leads me to…..

    Amanda: “To argue that sex ed should be taught at home is a RIDICULOUS argument! Parents should teach their kids their values but we need those who are educated in sexual health to teach our children the basics. School is about giving our children the best information so that they can go and be successful in their adult life. This means having information to make decisions to be based off of.”

    First, your argument is based on two key points, neither of which is particularly valid. You assume first that parents are not capable of teaching their children properly. In this day and age of internet access and the free-flowing exchange of information, it’s easier than ever for parents to find and share proper learning with their children – if they’re willing to make the effort.

    Your second assumption is that health teachers in public schools are properly qualified to educate on these matters. When I was in HS, the health teacher was a football coach who needed to teach *something*. Many students from surrounding towns reported similar experiences. Maybe in larger school districts, proper attention is paid to health education, but in smaller districts, “Health class” is a joke and a waste of time.

    The mechanics of sex education aren’t the issue here anyway. There aren’t many parents who object to the concept of their child being taught about the menstrual cycle, the reproductive system, or the like. The opposition to “abstinence plus” education is based in the idea that the school district has no right to teach our children that there are other safe options than abstinence if that isn’t what they are being taught at home.

    Like it or not, the ONLY 100% safe and effective way to prevent both the transmission of STDs and teen pregnancy is to abstain. Teaching anything else is simply irresponsible.

  21. @ Dano … I agree that it should be up to parents to teach their kids responsible sexual behavior. Would you advocate passing a law requiring parents to teach their children responsible sexual behavior? If not, then how do you propose that we address the problem of teen-aged parenting in this town?

  22. John McG is getting near the nub of the whole “education problem,” in and beyond our commUNITY. Instead of a ton of rote memory (Boooorrrring, if you are 16 and stone ignorant), and cloaked religious dogma (Yes, schools should shy away from anybody’s like the Plague it is), and concentrate on teaching students how to find and verify facts, analyze them, and make real-world decisions appropriately. It is one of the main reasons for “free public schools,” but at this point to do it seems almost RADICAL (shiver). The kids might come to conclusions their parents didn’t condone, for whatever reason. A person who believes in democracy should be able to have the faith that good decision-making is part and parcel of it. There is too damned much of people (SBOE? Slicky Ricky Perry?) trying to keep their thumbs on the scale, not enough of people believing in their children as they mature and participating in their education–or learning from the kids, if that is appropriate

    Too much is invested in political indoctrination, moralization, avoiding responsibility for REAL, (as apart from multiple choice), thinking, and camouflage rhetoric. Life is too complicated and full of real pitfalls and tragedy for us to rely on names, slogans, formulas and symbolic actions–might be why the adults themselves keep stepping in it over and over. Many, maybe most of us in 2010, set what we used to call in West Texas a “piss-poor” example to bring forward an orderly, moral, strong, argumentative, effective and sustainable future. The kids themselves should be able–and some do now–to probe the curriculum and, if appropriate, call “bullshit.” And they should be listened to now and then.

    As I have suggested before, teach them not the horse-manure coach-taught “health” courses, but the science of genetics and disease. (Might even work in anatomy and physiology, at some level, creating a run on the proposed Health Sciences Academy Believe me, there are sufficient information loads (Basic Skills) there to give choice a chance, to excite young minds, to awaken self-interest as a choice basis, and to help nurture productive citizens.

    NO, we don’t need to pass out condoms (Did anyone REALLY suggest that?) or to demonstrate them for the class. If our offspring are THAT dumb, to need a show-and-tell, then sell the schools and run ’em to the Church or home, where things are so hunky-dory. I am beginning to believe the guy who announced that “plain ol’ common sense” really ain’t very common” actually made a profound discovery.

    But nobody ever suggested parents could not have whatever conversations they wish, without breaking the intellectual fabric, like when they teach hatefulness, any means good for any end that gets one “ahead,” or such utter fantasy as that Jefferson was a side player in the formation of the Nation, and McCarthy and George Wallace true American Warriors.

    Next I expect to hear that Beck and Limbaugh are modern prophets sent from God to save us from those infidel intellectuals and creative thinkers–after all, between them they make about $100M a year for their appeals to fear, aggression, and ignorance. (Hint: Their drivel is intended to raise blood pressures and attract $followers$, nobody knows where to. Neither might pass the TAKS, as neither cares much for verifiable facts, or needs to. They are to government policy and education what Spielberg is to fantasy and childish delusion. Both these and other folks are turbo-charging our schools’ plunge to the bottom of the world heap. And we harbor many more, close to home.

    The present approach leads more in the direction of on old friend of mine who says, “Give me my God, my Guns and my Gold, and to hell with all the rest.” Never left that unique West Texas slant on religion, economic development, and absolute liberty to get his piece of the pie first and largest. Make ’em do this… make ’em do that…. HE didn’t.

    Once in a while, I sadly revisit Pink Floyd’s brief cinema, “The Wall.” It is starkly true. Read last week a big Chinese educator saying, “we just have ceased to do our education like factory work, producing interchangeable parts. I am amused to see you (US) moving your schools in that direction, just as we are adopting the best parts of your system.”

    We can no longer let the students grow faster than the schools can keep up, hog-tied as they are, and form their own avenues along tribal lines. Even a vaguely curious mind, nurtured, can become a community bulwark/good person.

  23. Some parents simply refuse to discuss sex with their children, can you believe it? in this day and age? True. so if children are getting educated from friends or CABLE television, and we all know how that is….? Education has to come from somewhere….right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:)