[Jenn]

In article .com,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 25 Oct, 21:51, Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
Clyde Slick wrote:



On 25 Oct, 21:08, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 25 Oct, 19:38, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

Now that you mention it, the USA needs a lot more socialism
than it
has
now. If we had a proper nanny state overseeing education, no
way a
dork
like Scottie would have escaped elementary school with such a
terrible
grasp of our language.
and just who believes in 'social promotion'?
the libs!!!!!

Those individuals aren't "libs", Simpy. They're mush-brained
conservatives just like you.

no, you are wrong, it was the libs, it is a 'self-estem' issue
for the non-learning kids, thi libs think that positive self
esteem trumps competency.

Nonsense. Where did you hear this crapola?

From liberal 'nurturers' protecting
the delicate psyches of the young.

Yeah, right. Specifics?

this was a policy prevalent in the 80's and 90's

Yes it was, and still largely is.

it was widely discussed back then, it became controversial
the professionals in the education establishment
were, and are, very strongly tilted to the liberaql bent.

Depends on what you mean by the "establishment". K-12? Higher ed?
Faculty? Administrators? Boards?

the idea behind it was to not
damage the self esteem of children.
this has been widely known as a 'liberal' position,

Incorrect. The reasons are money and gutless administrators bowing to
parental pressure.

Can you produce ONE document supporting your belief? A policy? A
position paper? A statement from an administrator?