UPD. #Eugenics and Todays #Politics - Defined - Wikipedia

Is Wisconsin any different?

Florida Charter Schools Failing Disabled Students

From the story, one should listen to the link, unfortunately it was not embeddable ...

Tres Whitlock is stuck in a public school where he feels ignored. He wants out.
The 17-year-old would-be video game designer researched his options online and found his perfect match: Pivot Charter School.

"It's computer-based, and I think I will do better," he says.
But when Whitlock tried to enroll in the school, he found a series of barriers in his way. The reason? He has cerebral palsy, and school officials say they don't have anyone to take Whitlock to the bathroom.

Whitlock and his parents are convinced their story isn't unique — and enrollment data backs them.

A StateImpact Florida/Miami Herald investigation shows most charter schools in Florida are failing to serve students with severe disabilities.

Statewide, 86 percent of charter schools do not have any students classified as severely disabled. That's despite state and federal laws that require charter schools to give equal access to these students.

Which political party or political entity supports policies/laws, directly or indirectly, that foster EUGENICS?

• Do you think denying educational opportunity to physically challenged children is a good public policy or bad public policy?  
• Do you see a connection between using state laws to control how local school districts operate as a good idea or bad idea?  
• Do you see using state law as a way to shift tax dollars from public schools to private schools (aka, charter schools) without local control as good policy.  
• Do you see allowing private schools to avoid providing the same educational opportunities as public schools as a good idea, especially without community input or control.

Although these ideas are proposed in the guise of economy and efficiency, while increasing the quality of educational opportunity, they seek efficiency while denying some families and children the opportunity to fully participate in society.  In another era, while not as brutal today, this is not a great deal different than deciding who may have children, who will be sterilized,  who will be taken from their family, who will be institutionalized, who will be sent to camps.  The justification by prominent men at the time, and even state governments in the U.S. until recently was EUGENICS.

From theWikipedia lead in ...

Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to human populations.^[2] The origins of the concept of eugenics began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of August Weismann.^[3] Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwin and Social Darwinism.
Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century.^[4] The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons, including: its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone; among other prominent people.^[5] The National Socialists' (NSDAP) approach to genetics and eugenics became focused on Eugen Fischer's concept of phenogenetics^[6] and the Nazi twin study methods of Fischer and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer.