Several reasons prompted a no vote [UPDATED]Published 4:45am Monday, April 8, 2013 Updated 6:47am Monday, April 8, 2013
First, I would appreciate it if the Journal’s Editorial Author sign his or her name like all the other opinion originators must.
Why I voted “no” on the bond: 1. The term “Extra-curricular” means: “not included in the curriculum”. If the bond was for adding to or enhancing the curriculum, I most likely would have voted, yes. 2. Most students for many reasons do not participate outside the curriculum, related to school. 3. Bonds should be left to expire before new ones are proposed. 4. Many (not all) supporters “talked down” to the populace of FF by trying to hoodwink the majority by defining “need” with something that is a Field of Dreams (hope, wish, desire). 5. Extra Curricular activities will continue: Foot ball, cross country track, track, basketball, wrestling, soccer, baseball, softball, bowling, swimming golf, soon competitive shooting, chorus, band(s), orchestra, plays, cheer leading, etc., plus many have seperate boys and girls teams.
I probably forgot some. I’m not saying they are bad, but I believe too much focus is on those acitivities, a minority of students are involved, and not enough focus is on 21st century job requirements for all students. The “Three R’s” are now “reading,” “’riting,” “’rithmatic,” plus recreation, race relations, one sided rhetoric, and recess. More accurate history, real life education (like how to find a job, invest, plan, taxes) are needed.
I’m not saying they are absent, just saying too many classes are specialized towards dependency, rather than towards responsible independence. Just sayin’.