Other options for education I Letter
November 22, 2011 · 4:27 PM
I learned something from your article by Kristin Okinaka (Nov. 4, page A3,) about the fact that biology is being required by federal law. Why by federal law?
I believe “Life Studies” are more important. Why? I was fortunate to attend a new “progressive”, (experimental) school, and school finally made sense.
The “Life Studies” classes were made up of a male class and a female class. This class taught how to cook, clean, sew, shop, child care and budget. The male students sewed western shirts and were confused until they learned how not to cut off the arrows on the patterns. When finished, they proudly had a fashion show.
A live baby was brought in with a “stinky” diaper, each male had to change diapers, and the females also in their class.
There were male subject classes for girls too if they chose, consisting of wood shop and auto mechanics. I didn’t take this class however. (My mistake).
Birth control was taught separately but was part of “Life Studies” (before the pill).
However, a woman in labor in the next bed when I had my first child, made a point when her husband made a remark. He said “This is number five, and I want a dozen!” She said, “No!” and he repeated, “12!” Upon her next contraction and all others after that she squeezed really hard on his small round male parts with each pain. After she delivered their baby, he agreed, no more kids!
Let’s see you print the above part!
With the population rising, living expenses rising and families being torn apart over money and etc., shouldn’t the schools teach more “Life Studies”? Especially budgeting?
Marjorie Mae King Harris Duffy