• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Summer semesters for grade school students?

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As anyone should know if they ever went to college, you can expedite your degree by taking summer semesters. If you get FAFSA, then you have to take two semesters a year, but the summer is optional. If you can afford it out of pocket, or get a private loan, it's a great way to expedite your degree, and your loans won't build as much interest. If you take summer courses, non stop, you can get a bachelor's degree in just 2.67 years, a master's degree in four years, and a Ph.D in just 5.33 years.

Well, imagine if children, or the parents of the children, had the option of taking summer semesters, not because they flunked a normal semester, but simply to expedite their high school education?

Think about it: If you take twelve summer semesters, optionally, that is the equivalent of six years chopped off your entire high school experience!

Imagine getting a high school diploma (not a GED, but a high school diploma) at the tender age of twelve? You can then have a master's degree as soon as you're legally eligible to work in the United States!

Imagine, James Smith, the sixteen-year-old accountant?! He is married to Mary Smith, the sixteen-year-old school counselor!

Now, no one would be forcing kids to do this, but, if you're like me, you'd probably OPT to do it, if you had the option!

What do you think?
 

amyk629

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
19
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
In my opinion, that is not a good idea, and here's why:

High school classes and the set up of the classes (quarters vs. semesters), along with the purpose of that level of education is much different than college or graduate school. One big part of high school is socializing, getting a feel for how much effort you need to put in to school in order to succeed, realizing what your dreams and goals are for the future, what you want to do after high school and what career path you need to take in order to make it to that path, and maturing. If high school was shortened, the students wouldn't reach a level of maturity that they would need to enter college. Also, you need a break in order to relax your brain and to allow it to recharge.

I don't exactly see how a student could graduate high school at the age of 12. Perhaps our school systems are set up differently, but in high school where I am from, there is 4 quarters every year and you spend 4 years (if everything is done correctly) in high school. I was 13 when I entered high school. So unless you are talking about changing the set up of every grade, then I can't see how someone could graduate at the age of 12.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If high school was shortened, the students wouldn't reach a level of maturity that they would need to enter college.
That is wrong on two different levels.

1. The last thing I think of when I think "mature" is college.
2. Kids can gain the maturity they need a lot easier if they are shoved into adulthood at an early age. For example, when Abraham Lincoln's mother died when he was nine years old, Abe had to step up to the plate and fulfill all her duties. When he was 18, he had been living as a man for nine years, and he was used to it.

I don't exactly see how a student could graduate high school at the age of 12
Ok, you're right. When I actually check my math, I find that I get age 13.

So unless you are talking about changing the set up of every grade,
I'm talking about taking summer courses to expedite the process.

Here, picture this.

Little Jonnny is born in February.
He goes into 1st Grade in August, at age 6. He finishes first grade in May, at age 7.
He begins second grade in June, at age 7, and finishes second grade in December, at age 7.
He begins third grade in January, at age 7, and finishes third grade in July, at age 8.

Are you starting to see where I'm going with this?
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I like the idea of year 'round school. Not so much for the purpose of speeding up getting a piece of paper, but for the purpose of enriching the overall educational experiance. Like at my son's high school, due to time limitations, one can either be in a college prep track or a vocational track - they can't learn to weld AND take physics. And a lot of times they currently have to make a choice between music class or computer class. With a longer school year students will have the opportunity to do more, to learn more, to better explore what it is that they may be good at. No tellings how many students have a great natural tallent at something, but never get to explore enough subjects to discover what that tallent is.

School also serves the purpose of ensuring that children get adequate supervision and allows parents a better opportunity to be economically productive. Few parents have the opportunity to find jobs where they are only needed during the school year.

The way I understand it, the purpose of not having school during the summer was twofold: the heat was not conducive to a learning enviroment, and families needed the kids at home to help in the fields. Today, neither is much of an issue.
 

amyk629

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
19
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
That is wrong on two different levels.

1. The last thing I think of when I think "mature" is college.
2. Kids can gain the maturity they need a lot easier if they are shoved into adulthood at an early age. For example, when Abraham Lincoln's mother died when he was nine years old, Abe had to step up to the plate and fulfill all her duties. When he was 18, he had been living as a man for nine years, and he was used to it.
Do you agree that an 18 year old is more mature than a 13 year old? Of course there are cases where a 16 year old is more mature than a 30 year old, but generally speaking, the older you are the more mature you are and that is because you have time to adjust to new life experiences. High school isn't just about education, socializing is a huge aspect of it too. Think about how teenagers are between the ages 14 and 16, they are brutal...there is no way they would be mature enough to handle college level courses. Also, think of the mindset of high school students, not all are on a path to succeed at that age. I wasn't thinking clear in high school, I didn't care about getting great grades, but then once I went to college I had matured. If you stick a student in college who isn't mature enough to realize that they need to do good, then they will most likely fail miserably.


Are you starting to see where I'm going with this?
What about the extra funding for this? And how would this interfere with students who fall behind? What if student X moved ahead, but then he reached a level where he couldn't move forward, what would happen to him? There is no way funding would be able to accommodate this system. Also, who would want to teach year round for grade 2nd for example? Teachers put in a lot more work than people think. Teachers spend time during the summer preparing for the following year. I just don't see how this could realistically work. Besides, what's the rush?
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Do you agree that an 18 year old is more mature than a 13 year old?
No, I do not agree to that.

13 is the age where teenagers start to turn rebelious against society. Making them actually take responsibility for their actions, like they have to do at 18 years old, is a good way to make them mature.

Adulthood is a humbling experience. No matter what you say to your adolescent children, they are never prepared for the other side of their 18th birthday. When it finally comes, it hits them like a freight train and catches them completely off guard.

Of course there are cases where a 16 year old is more mature than a 30 year old, but generally speaking, the older you are the more mature you are and that is because you have time to adjust to new life experiences.
Yes, but that only works when you don't have Mommy and Daddy to bail you out of everything. That begins at eightte... no wait, it begins when you become of age, whether "of age" is 18, 13, or, in Harry Potter's case, when he was just a baby.

High school isn't just about education, socializing is a huge aspect of it too.
You can still do that.

Think about how teenagers are between the ages 14 and 16, they are brutal
Yeah, you can't tell them anything because they won't listen. Best get them out of your hair quickly, and let them know that you aren't bluffing.

there is no way they would be mature enough to handle college level courses.
They would if the humbling experience of adulthood had forced them to think in a mature manner.

Also, think of the mindset of high school students, not all are on a path to succeed at that age.
That's why I wanted to give them the OPTION of taking summer courses.

I wasn't thinking clear in high school, I didn't care about getting great grades, but then once I went to college I had matured. If you stick a student in college who isn't mature enough to realize that they need to do good, then they will most likely fail miserably.
There's something that happened in between.

Adulthood

Suddenly, you had to start taking care fo yourself. Mom and Dad's checkbook, which seemed endless at 17 years and 364 days, now your checkbook is just barely enough to cover the bare essentials. God, I need to do something about this! I know, Mom and Dad were right about everything else about adulthood (I just wouldn't listen), maybe they're right about how college graduates make more money!

What about the extra funding for this?
Schools are already doing summer semesters for flunked students.

And how would this interfere with students who fall behind?
It won't.

What if student X moved ahead, but then he reached a level where he couldn't move forward, what would happen to him?
I'm not sure I follow you.

There is no way funding would be able to accommodate this system.
Sure there is.

Also, who would want to teach year round for grade 2nd for example?
Many teachers already do.

Teachers put in a lot more work than people think.
Have I ever denied that?
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
...generally speaking, the older you are the more mature you are and that is because you have time to adjust to new life experiences. High school isn't just about education, socializing is a huge aspect of it too. Think about how teenagers are between the ages 14 and 16, they are brutal...there is no way they would be mature enough to handle college level courses. Also, think of the mindset of high school students, not all are on a path to succeed at that age. I wasn't thinking clear in high school, I didn't care about getting great grades, but then once I went to college I had matured. If you stick a student in college who isn't mature enough to realize that they need to do good, then they will most likely fail miserably.
That is part of the reason that I suggested that year round school should not be used for the purpose of accelerating getting that diploma.

who would want to teach year round for grade 2nd for example? Teachers put in a lot more work than people think. Teachers spend time during the summer preparing for the following year. I just don't see how this could realistically work. Besides, what's the rush?
Most people work year round. Who would want to be a garbage collector year round? Who would want to be a truck driver year round? Who would want to be a stock trader year round? Who would want to do anything year round? Being a second grade teacher is no tougher than being anything else. Teachers work very short hours compared to a lot of occupations, including mine. Both my parents were teachers, they worked far fewer hours than I do, they get far better benefits, and a heck of a lot more paid days off.

Anyhow, year round school does not neccesarally mean that teachers can never take a term off.
 

amyk629

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
19
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
13 is the age where teenagers start to turn rebelious against society. Making them actually take responsibility for their actions, like they have to do at 18 years old, is a good way to make them mature.

Adulthood is a humbling experience. No matter what you say to your adolescent children, they are never prepared for the other side of their 18th birthday. When it finally comes, it hits them like a freight train and catches them completely off guard.
The reason why teenagers between 13 and 16 are so chaotic and rebellious, is because of the increase in hormones they suddenly get.

I was fine when I turned 18, along with my sister, and other friends. Why do you think so many people from high school move on to college? They were prepared for it.

(there is no way they would be mature enough to handle college level courses.)
They would if the humbling experience of adulthood had forced them to think in a mature manner.
How will taking courses at a quicker pace force this upon them?
Schools are already doing summer semesters for flunked students.
Summer semesters? Where I'm from it's summer classes, as in if you fail 2 you take 2, but not a full quarters worth which amounts to 6 or 7 classes.


So lets say "Kevin" went with the path of going ahead and taking the quarters year-round starting at the age of 14 (freshman in hs) ...he gets to his sophomore year at an earlier age than other students who are not in that program, but he falls behind, when would "summer" courses to catch him up take place? How would that work, if someone were to fall behind? You would have to have the same set of courses being taught every quarter in order for the students who fell behind to keep up. Confusing, but do you understand where the problem lies?
 

amyk629

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
19
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Who would want to do anything year round? Being a second grade teacher is no tougher than being anything else. Teachers work very short hours compared to a lot of occupations, including mine.
My mom's a preschool teacher and she works during the summer preparing for the following year. She also spends the summer taking the courses that are required by teachers in order to keep your certification. They would need to get paid more in the year, funding is tight already for schools so how exactly will they cough up the money to increase their salaries? There's no way teachers would be on board with this without an increase in salary, and there's no way teachers would be on board with this period.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My mom's a preschool teacher and she works during the summer preparing for the following year. She also spends the summer taking the courses that are required by teachers in order to keep your certification. They would need to get paid more in the year, funding is tight already for schools so how exactly will they cough up the money to increase their salaries? There's no way teachers would be on board with this without an increase in salary, and there's no way teachers would be on board with this period.
Ya, there's no way that garbage collectors would be on board with picking up our garbage during the summer either. No way.

Most of the time when someone says "they want stand for that", someone is wrong. I am involved with a charity that sells annoucements (like "shout outs") at certain events. We used to charge $1 each and we would typically sell about 300 per event. Two years ago we raised the price to $2, other charity volunteers said "the crowd won't stand for that", we sold the same 300. Last year we raised the price to $3, I was told that "the crowd want stand for that" we sold 300 again. Our admission price used to be $6, I suggested going up to $8 but I was told that "people wont stand for that", we comprised at $7 and had about the same number of people complaining as normal (about 10 people out of 6,000). I only regret we didn' go to $8 or more, you can bet we will this year.

Air travelers used to not have to pay for checked luggage. Customers said that they wouldn't stand for that, but they have.

People will stand for anything that is reasonable, whether it is their first choice or not. Working 40+ hrs a week 50 or so weeks a year is very reasonable. Teachers will stand for it.

Hey, if they want to work less I don't have any problem with that and if they want to work more I wouldn't have a problem with that either. They can be paid according to what they do. It's pretty much like that anyway, in our school district teachers who teach summer school get paid to do that, just like coaches, band directors, and other teachers who supervise after school programs get paid extra. Some district employees are 9 mth employees, some are 10 mth employees, some are year round employees, and they get paid accordingly. I am sure that there are a lot of teachers who would love the opportunity to work year round and be paid for it.

I have no suggestions as to how to pay for this - except for the possibility that it may actually pay for itself. If more parents are freed up to work full time jobs, they will make more money, our economy would be larger with more products being produced. The government would collect more tax revenue without having to increase taxes, and maybe this extra revenue can be used to pay for year round teachers.
 

amyk629

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
19
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ya, there's no way that garbage collectors would be on board with picking up our garbage during the summer either. No way.

Most of the time when someone says "they want stand for that", someone is wrong. I am involved with a charity that sells annoucements (like "shout outs") at certain events. We used to charge $1 each and we would typically sell about 300 per event. Two years ago we raised the price to $2, other charity volunteers said "the crowd won't stand for that", we sold the same 300. Last year we raised the price to $3, I was told that "the crowd want stand for that" we sold 300 again. Our admission price used to be $6, I suggested going up to $8 but I was told that "people wont stand for that", we comprised at $7 and had about the same number of people complaining as normal (about 10 people out of 6,000). I only regret we didn' go to $8 or more, you can bet we will this year.

Air travelers used to not have to pay for checked luggage. Customers said that they wouldn't stand for that, but they have.

People will stand for anything that is reasonable, whether it is their first choice or not. Working 40+ hrs a week 50 or so weeks a year is very reasonable. Teachers will stand for it.

Hey, if they want to work less I don't have any problem with that and if they want to work more I wouldn't have a problem with that either. They can be paid according to what they do. It's pretty much like that anyway, in our school district teachers who teach summer school get paid to do that, just like coaches, band directors, and other teachers who supervise after school programs get paid extra. Some district employees are 9 mth employees, some are 10 mth employees, some are year round employees, and they get paid accordingly. I am sure that there are a lot of teachers who would love the opportunity to work year round and be paid for it.

I have no suggestions as to how to pay for this - except for the possibility that it may actually pay for itself. If more parents are freed up to work full time jobs, they will make more money, our economy would be larger with more products being produced. The government would collect more tax revenue without having to increase taxes, and maybe this extra revenue can be used to pay for year round teachers.
You're not taking into consideration everything a teacher is required to do. For example, with this new system they would be teaching year round, when would they prepare for the material each year, when now it is done over the summer? Secondly, students are out of focus by the time summer comes around, my mom said by the end of May almost everything is useless to teach because her kids are too unfocused due to summer. Thirdly, when would teachers be able to take the courses they need in order to keep their certifications? My mom has taken an online class before, but once you reach a certain age the classes that you haven't already taken become limited, so you pretty much get stuck with whatever is available, which may not be online. Fourthly, in order for this to work you would need every teacher in every school district across the country to be on board...that seems pretty impossible. One of the reasons people want to become teachers is the time off they have in the summer. Lastly, the funding is the big issue. Schools are already cutting teachers left and right, there is no way funding would be available to implement this.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're not taking into consideration everything a teacher is required to do. For example, with this new system they would be teaching year round, when would they prepare for the material each year, when now it is done over the summer? Secondly, students are out of focus by the time summer comes around, my mom said by the end of May almost everything is useless to teach because her kids are too unfocused due to summer. Thirdly, when would teachers be able to take the courses they need in order to keep their certifications? My mom has taken an online class before, but once you reach a certain age the classes that you haven't already taken become limited, so you pretty much get stuck with whatever is available, which may not be online. Fourthly, in order for this to work you would need every teacher in every school district across the country to be on board...that seems pretty impossible. One of the reasons people want to become teachers is the time off they have in the summer. Lastly, the funding is the big issue. Schools are already cutting teachers left and right, there is no way funding would be available to implement this.
I am sure that teachers could manage to find time to prepare. Most of them use the same materials over and over again. I do agree that it is piss poor that materials arn't provided to them by the school. Could it be that students are out of focus because they know that they are going to be getting a 10 week break from school? Could it be that with year round school our students would remain focused year round? Just how many 2 day seminars are required each year to remain certified. My mother always took classes during the summer, but not to remain certified, she did it to earn her Masters so that she could make more money. Maybe should could have made more money by getting paid to teach during the summer instead of having to pay to take classes. Not every teacher would have to be on board, I already suggested an option for them to not have to work year round, regardless, if they were told that they have to work year round just like almost every other profession, I am quite sure that they would come aboard. The workplace is not a democracy, and it shouldn't be. Like you, I think the value of taking classes every year is somewhat dubious. Just how many classes does a 9th grade algebra teacher have to take? Did the teacher not learn 9th grade algebra in the ninth grade? One of the reasons that people want to become teachers is to teach, if you let them decide how much they would teach each year, some of them would decide to teach year round, others would only want to teach one day a year - between 10am and 10:15am. It's not up to them. If they want a part time job they can try their luck in another career field. Maybe instead of cutting teachers they should save cost by eleminating the insain benefits that they get, that should save a fortune.

You seem to be putting the preferance of the teacher (to work as little as possible) above the importance of the job that they are hired to do (educate our brats, um I mean children). Hey, what if we were talking about farmers here, you you be all for farmers taking the summer off, after all, it is really hot during the summer and they do have to work outside. We wouldn't want to inconvieniance the farmers just because we want to eat!
 

amyk629

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
19
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am sure that teachers could manage to find time to prepare. Most of them use the same materials over and over again. I do agree that it is piss poor that materials arn't provided to them by the school. Could it be that students are out of focus because they know that they are going to be getting a 10 week break from school? Could it be that with year round school our students would remain focused year round? Just how many 2 day seminars are required each year to remain certified. My mother always took classes during the summer, but not to remain certified, she did it to earn her Masters so that she could make more money. Maybe should could have made more money by getting paid to teach during the summer instead of having to pay to take classes. Not every teacher would have to be on board, I already suggested an option for them to not have to work year round, regardless, if they were told that they have to work year round just like almost every other profession, I am quite sure that they would come aboard. The workplace is not a democracy, and it shouldn't be. Like you, I think the value of taking classes every year is somewhat dubious. Just how many classes does a 9th grade algebra teacher have to take? Did the teacher not learn 9th grade algebra in the ninth grade? One of the reasons that people want to become teachers is to teach, if you let them decide how much they would teach each year, some of them would decide to teach year round, others would only want to teach one day a year - between 10am and 10:15am. It's not up to them. If they want a part time job they can try their luck in another career field. Maybe instead of cutting teachers they should save cost by eleminating the insain benefits that they get, that should save a fortune.

You seem to be putting the preferance of the teacher (to work as little as possible) above the importance of the job that they are hired to do (educate our brats, um I mean children). Hey, what if we were talking about farmers here, you you be all for farmers taking the summer off, after all, it is really hot during the summer and they do have to work outside. We wouldn't want to inconvieniance the farmers just because we want to eat!
I was only replying to what you had wrote before. I think what I had mentioned about the teachers is one reason it wouldn't work, but it's not the only reason if you read what I had wrote on my other posts below. If all teachers were on board, I still don't think it would be the ideal system and I dont think that it would even work. Each profession is different, lets keep that in mind. If you read the requirements of being a teacher and the courses they have to take, then you'll get a better idea of what I am talking about.

The focus decrease could also be that they had a full year of school and they need a break.

Without proper funding, this whole system wouldn't work anyways, and you don't have an idea on how to get that funding.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,182
Reaction score
20,556
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If you can afford it out of pocket, or get a private loan, it's a great way to expedite your degree, and your loans won't build as much interest.
No such thing as a private school loan anymore.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No such thing as a private school loan anymore.
Bullsh*t.

The Health Care and Education Reconcilation Act doesn't even TOUCH private loans!

Now, it stops subsidies of banks who give out Stafford Loans, and now, all loans are administered directly by the federal government, but it doesn't do a damned thing to 100% private loans, like Sallie Mae.

Besides, what little it DOES do won't even take effect until 2014!
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,122
Reaction score
19,577
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
No, I do not agree to that.

13 is the age where teenagers start to turn rebelious against society. Making them actually take responsibility for their actions, like they have to do at 18 years old, is a good way to make them mature.
You don't agree that an 18 year-old is more mature than a 13 year-old? Woah! Seriously?

They are on one fact alone. An 18 year-old has is more mature physically due to growing up and intellectually since the brain is more fully developed. This might be the first time that I have ever heard a person make the claim that you did. Seriously... whoa.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You don't agree that an 18 year-old is more mature than a 13 year-old? Woah! Seriously?
The REASON that they are more mature is because they are less sheltered.

They are on one fact alone. An 18 year-old has is more mature physically due to growing up and intellectually since the brain is more fully developed.
He has more education.

This might be the first time that I have ever heard a person make the claim that you did. Seriously... whoa.
It is not unheard of for kids to have to grow up fast.

In fact, Abe Lincoln's mother died when he was nine years old, and he had to spend the other half of what was supposed to be his childhood acting as an adult. He grew up to be one of the best presidents this country has ever had.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,122
Reaction score
19,577
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The REASON that they are more mature is because they are less sheltered.
In part. But an 18 year-old is more likely to survive due to being more mature as well... the real reason is not really about sheltered or not, it is about just being a more mature human that has grown and developed longer, that's all.

He has more education.
That deals with knowledge, not maturity...

It is not unheard of for kids to have to grow up fast.

In fact, Abe Lincoln's mother died when he was nine years old, and he had to spend the other half of what was supposed to be his childhood acting as an adult. He grew up to be one of the best presidents this country has ever had.
Right... and Abe Lincoln was such an average person too. And Mozart wrote a symphony at 6 years, Doogie Howser was a surgeon at ten old and Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world at 22 years old. In most cases, people develop in a more structured fashion. Piaget talks about it as do others...
 
Last edited:

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,182
Reaction score
20,556
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In fact, Abe Lincoln's mother died when he was nine years old, and he had to spend the other half of what was supposed to be his childhood acting as an adult. He grew up to be one of the best presidents this country has ever had.
He wasn't an orphan. He had a father who remarried. He had a pretty normal childhood.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,122
Reaction score
19,577
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
He wasn't an orphan. He had a father who remarried. He had a pretty normal childhood.
When Lincoln was nine, his mother, then 34 years old, died of milk sickness. Soon afterwards, his father remarried, to Sarah Bush Johnston. Lincoln and his stepmother were close; he called her "Mother" for the rest of his life,

Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,182
Reaction score
20,556
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
He and his father didn't really get along well. They were very different people. He and his stepmother were close.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
91,122
Reaction score
19,577
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
He and his father didn't really get along well. They were very different people. He and his stepmother were close.
That is what I love about these debates... I didn't really know anything of Lincoln's childhood. I just read up on what you are stating there. Interesting stuff. Thanks.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,182
Reaction score
20,556
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That is what I love about these debates... I didn't really know anything of Lincoln's childhood. I just read up on what you are stating there. Interesting stuff. Thanks.
You're welcome. He had a fascinating life.
 
Top Bottom