Utah State Senator wants to end compulsory education

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by benrl

 

And you think that no education at all would be better for you somehow??

Where did I say that? Aloysius are you too a victim of the poor education system?

Reading comprehension fail? I don't blame you but the system you are supporting, AS I SAID we need to start this debate on how to fix the problem.

wher did I say you said anything?

I did not say you thought no education would be better - I asked you if you thought it would be better.

And it seems that yes, you are a victim.

Which could include these types of discussion involving parental responsibility in the child's education as part of it.

All those "options" we have in America, still require my taxes to being dumped into a broken wasteful system.
IT needs to be overhauled from the ground up, and that includes the laws surrounding it.

You are confused about what this guy is proposing - you have confused state education with compulsory education.

Currently you CAN have education outside the state system - you can go private or homeschool - but whichever you choose you must have SOME education.

this guy is proposing hat education should not be COMPULSORY - so parents would be free to choose to give their kids NO EDUCATION AT ALL.

As I have asked before - do you think this would make anything better?

Originally posted by alfa1

After reading the blog posting and two news articles, its clear that the headline is misleading.

He doesnt wish to "end compulsory education" completely.

Sure looks like it to me - the final words on his blog post:

I believe it is time to change how we approach public education in Utah. In my view, we should take a close look at repealing compulsory education.

Compulsory is a very specific word.

In his blog post he mentions various things such as letting school boards decide how many hours should be required, and if kids are kept out of school by their parents then perhaps they should still have to complete assignments, etc.

None of those would stop education being compulsory - but his conclusion to the blog is specific and inescapable - regardless of how me hay try to disguise it!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by benrl

 

And you think that no education at all would be better for you somehow??

Where did I say that? Aloysius are you too a victim of the poor education system?

Reading comprehension fail? I don't blame you but the system you are supporting, AS I SAID we need to start this debate on how to fix the problem.

wher did I say you said anything?

I did not say you thought no education would be better - I asked you if you thought it would be better.

And it seems that yes, you are a victim.

Which could include these types of discussion involving parental responsibility in the child's education as part of it.

All those "options" we have in America, still require my taxes to being dumped into a broken wasteful system.
IT needs to be overhauled from the ground up, and that includes the laws surrounding it.

You are confused about what this guy is proposing - you have confused state education with compulsory education.

Currently you CAN have education outside the state system - you can go private or homeschool - but whichever you choose you must have SOME education.

this guy is proposing hat education should not be COMPULSORY - so parents would be free to choose to give their kids NO EDUCATION AT ALL.

As I have asked before - do you think this would make anything better?

edit on 18-7-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

First The reason we tax for education is based partially on its compulsory nature. Even when people chose to go outside the system they are taxed for the compulsory system in addition to paying for the extra education.

Okay Ill explain this simply, DISCOURSE is good.

A senator, who is bring this issue no mater how controversial it is, IS good.

The system we have is supposed to be about open debate on important issues, because of this senator we are now discussing the system right here in this very thread.

And do I think this would be good? it might.

Let me ask you, Do you honestly think that a parent that wont educate their kid if given the option not to, is doing a bang up job with this kid now?

Ill go a step further, DO you think the current compulsory system where your imaginary Straw Man who wont educate his kid, is getting the proper funds and education? Taking into account where such attitudes about education tend to stem from (poorer areas)

The system we have is broken and has a tendency to result in institutionalized segregation along socioeconomic lines.

reply to post by benrl


Whether a parent who might withdraw their child from school entirely under a non-compulsory system is doing a good job of parenting now would be speculation that I have no basis for making.

the mere fact that parents would be allowed to do so under a non compulsory system is bad enough.

You seem to be arguing that the education system should be better - which is not what this thread is about - it is about the complete stupidity of allowing children to go without any education at all - regardless of the state of the current system.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by benrl

 

Whether a parent who might withdraw their child from school entirely under a non-compulsory system is doing a good job of parenting now would be speculation that I have no basis for making.

the mere fact that parents would be allowed to do so under a non compulsory system is bad enough.

You seem to be arguing that the education system should be better - which is not what this thread is about - it is about the complete stupidity of allowing children to go without any education at all - regardless of the state of the current system.

You understand that the first paragraph is exactly what you are doing in the first place right? Assuming that children with dismissive parents NOW are better than they would be in the proposed senators blog idea.

Next point, The argument the senator brings up is about making Education better in that blog post and that this might be away to do that.

here is a link to the original just in case you missed it.

Accountability of Parents

ETA, The fundamental difference here between our views is what we both perceive as the duty of government vs. the duty of parents and with this Ill shall depart this thread.

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by benrl

 

Whether a parent who might withdraw their child from school entirely under a non-compulsory system is doing a good job of parenting now would be speculation that I have no basis for making.

the mere fact that parents would be allowed to do so under a non compulsory system is bad enough.

You seem to be arguing that the education system should be better - which is not what this thread is about - it is about the complete stupidity of allowing children to go without any education at all - regardless of the state of the current system.

You understand that the first paragraph is exactly what you are doing in the first place right? Assuming that children with dismissive parents NOW are better than they would be in the proposed senators blog idea.

no - it is not.

there is no way that NO EDUCATION is better than anything that is done now - the best it could be is the same.

Next point, The argument the senator brings up is about making Education better in that blog post and that this might be away to do that.

here is a link to the original just in case you missed it.

Accountability of Parents

ETA, The fundamental difference here between our views is what we both perceive as the duty of government vs. the duty of parents and with this Ill shall depart this thread.

no - the fundamental difference in our positions is that you are confusing compulsory education with state education.

Ok, the parents in Utah should probably look into this imo.

Oh please, this isn't about government intervention in the lives of the people, it's all about creating a caste system in America where only the privileged and well off have any opportunity and the poorer castes get nothing in the way of opportunity to advance themselves.

That's the entire idea behind the "libertarian" agenda. It's not about less government, It's all about making sure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Take away the poor people's hope of education just leaves them with fewer opportunities in life.

nothing in this post worth reading

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Actually, I support this idea. Education is used for indoctrination by the state. It's better to be home schooled and in many cases has better results.

reply to post by amfirst1


This is not about homeschooling - you can do that already.

Or you an go to a private or charter school - you are not obligated to go to a state school.

this is about NO REQUIREMENT TO SCHOOL AT ALL.

Originally posted by amfirst1
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Actually, I support this idea. Education is used for indoctrination by the state. It's better to be home schooled and in many cases has better results.

I actually agree with some of the posters here on both sides. If there is anything to be gained on what actually is wrong with the education system. Its probably a good time for people to speak up and focus on whats broken.

In England long ago.
a man use'd his own money to start a free school.

with out Him and people like him
we would still be living like slaves.
and have work houses.

um! ok we are not far from that now...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I'd say look into it. Look at this senators voting record, those with opposing views voting records. look at the opinions of parents who have children there on the quality of the education offerred. Look at current/future construction projects that may be going on that might affect the education system. O.o Look into it based on this comment alone.

"Right now, every single day, somebody is checking on these children in the state of Utah," she said. "Somebody is seeing them, somebody is a watchful eye."

Thats so creepy and I got that based off of what they themselves are saying there. Then this here.

Castle said ending compulsory education would affect far more than just culture. She also worried the tone of Osmond's article was indicative of the general sentiment in Utah's Legislature, which she said has continued to place responsibility for student success on teachers and schools while failing to provide adequate support or funding.

Utah's public education system is currently the lowest-funded in the nation in terms of per-pupil spending.

What a buttload of useful info!

Here is what the article derived its reporting from. It is written by the aforementioned Utah State Senator, Aaron Osmond.

Utah State Sen. Osmand's Blog Post

Before 1890, public education in America was viewed as an opportunity—not a legal obligation. Prior to that time, the parent was primarily responsible for the education of their children. The state provided access to a free education for those that wanted to pursue it. The local teacher was viewed with respect and admiration as a professional to assist a parent in the education of their child.

To bring even further context, the beginnings of the Federal Government's "experiment" regarding education started out as an office so gather statistics. Since then, the Department has become a behemoth of a bureaucracy that arguably seeks to create a "one size fits all" top-down plan that has, for the most part, failed; regardless of the amount of monies the American citizens have tossed at it. To further note, some statistics from the original bureau place enrollment at approximately 60-70%. That isn't bad for voluntary in my opinion.

Sen. Osmand continues with:

Some parents completely disengage themselves from their obligation to oversee and ensure the successful education of their children. Some parents act as if the responsibility to educate, and even care for their child, is primarily the responsibility of the public school system.

I do not argue with his premise here. It is spot on but might be too wide of a brush. I however do not wholly agree with his logic to support that premise, in which he states, "As a result, our teachers and schools have been forced to become surrogate parents, expected to do everything from behavioral counseling, to providing adequate nutrition, to teaching sex education, as well as ensuring full college and career readiness."

In a way, what he states above is true in some instances, but for the most part, parents send off their children to school to learn. Herein lies the problem. American school systems are failing and failing hard (ever while we are increasing the budget more and more from the Federal Government and decreasing from the local governments where it can have the biggest benefit.

Here is a question for those that haven't actually thought about what the Senator stated and only engaged in hyperbole such as "sending us back to the 1500s..." or other asinine statements. Do you agree with this statement:

Unfortunately, in this system, teachers rarely receive meaningful support or engagement from parents and occasionally face retaliation when they attempt to hold a child accountable for bad behavior or poor academic performance.

While it isn't the root of the problem, it does identify a cause that contributes, a disengaged populace. Who can blame them? Overall, you should read his whole statement rather than rely on the tidbit about removing the State's compulsion to force parents into what the State feels you need to provide for your child.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by amfirst1

 

This is not about homeschooling - you can do that already.

Or you an go to a private or charter school - you are not obligated to go to a state school.

this is about NO REQUIREMENT TO SCHOOL AT ALL.

No it isn't. He outlines some points:

First, we need to restore the expectation that parents are primarily responsible for the educational success of their own children. That begins with restoring the parental right to decide if and when a child will go to public school. In a country founded on the principles of personal freedom and unalienable rights, no parent should be forced by the government to send their child to school under threat of fines and jail time.

Agreed no? Does that sound too bad?

Second, we need to shift the public mindset to recognize that education is a not an obligation, but an opportunity to be treasured and respected. Utah’s constitution requires that we provide the opportunity for a free public education to every child. But public education is not free—it costs taxpayers billions each year. When a parent decides to enroll a child in public school, both the parent and child should agree to meet minimum standards of behavior and academic commitment or face real-life consequences such as repeating a class, a grade, or even expulsion.

His first statement is excellent. It isn't an obligation, it is a goal and should be instilled into our children at our own choice. His statement, in which I emphasized above, is spot on. Even with the State's compulsion, nothing is held accountable except counting heads daily in class and meeting NCLB standards.

Third, we need to stop dictating the number of hours a child must be present in a classroom. Instead of requiring that teachers and students must be in class for 990 hours a year, lets enable our local school boards to determine the best use of a teacher’s time and focus student and parent expectations on educational outcomes such as completing assignments and passage of exams as the measurement of success for the opportunity to progress in public school.

"Lets enable our school boards...." is a great statement. Instead we are funneling more and more power to a Central authority and it is failing miserably.

Finally, if a parent decides to keep their child home or to go on a family vacation, it’s the responsibility of that parent to ensure their child completes the assignments and stays current with their class. Similarly, if a child consistently misbehaves, it’s the teacher’s right to send that child home to their parent until he or she is ready to respect and appreciate their opportunity to be educated.

That seems pretty reasonable no?

Ironic.
It seems like every thread that talks about public versus home schooling is the same.
There's always someone talking about how stupid home schooled kids would be.
Usually the one talking the most can't spell or use proper grammar.

Originally posted by badgerprints
Ironic.
It seems like every thread that talks about public versus home schooling is the same.
There's always someone talking about how stupid home schooled kids would be.
Usually the one talking the most can't spell or use proper grammar.

Were you home-schooled badger?

reply to post by Nephalim

I wasn't home schooled.
I was old schooled.
My folks sent us to school with a directive to learn or die trying.
Corporal punishment was meted out liberally at home and at school.
Being less than exemplary was not accepted from my parents or teachers.
My high school classes were mostly college level or prep and I didn't get to play sports or do easy credit classes. I do wish I'd played football though.
Of course, when I got to college I was on the deans list every semester while being in the National Guard, working as a dishwasher in a diner and doing several other jobs at the same time. I pretty much paid it all on my own except a little bit of help from Uncle Sam. It was a tiny fraction of the huge amounts of cash they fork out now for GI bill and Army college funds.
My high school teachers called me "gifted" and several tests said I was smarter than the average basset hound but I don't think all of that was a big deal. I knew smarter students who got worse grades and slower students who got better grades. I did well because I just never gave up until I figured things out.

Several of my friends home school their children and they are all bright kids. Any parent who is motivated enough to home school isn't going to settle for stupid kids. Stupidity is really just an easy excuse for laziness on the part of the parents and the student (sometimes the teachers but not always). Home schooled kids may be different but they are not lazy or stupid.

One of the families I know has a 10 and 13 year old who both speak English, German and Spanish. They are both educated well in advance of their age and both healthy, happy kids.

Interesting... very interesting....

In the 1950s, the US was #1 in the world in literacy. mathematics, problem solving, and comprehension. Even as late as the 1970s we were in the top 5. Today we're around the middle of the pack, from #15 to #27 depending on what study one looks at.

What went wrong?

A while back, I noticed that one of my computers was suddenly running slow, and that it was doing things seemingly on its own. I suspected a virus and went looking to see if there was one. Sure enough, I found a virus, removed it, rebooted the computer, made sure the virus was gone, and everything was fine again.

I suppose I could have just turned it off and decided that I didn't need to try and use any more computers... but I thought it was more rational to just fix it instead. Silly me.

We need to find and remove the virus from our educational system. We do not need to decide to stop making sure youth in the country have the opportunity to learn. The system worked just fine once before; what has changed?

• The adoption of "tenure" in schools, allowing teachers to do as poor a job as they want without any fear of reprisal.
  
• The removal of corporal punishment in schools.
  
• The increase in power of the Federal government in establishing standards and restrictions on school curriculum.
  
• The increased role of the NEA.
  
• The militarization of the schools, out of fear that someone somewhere might get hurt. Someone has; violence in schools has escalated under this fear.
  
• The implementation of sex education and morality classes.
  
• The standardization of tests and the sole use of such tests to determine school funding.
  
• Anti-bullying campaigns that forbid those being bullied from fighting back.

And I'm sure I missed a few...

So we have a system that was working very well and which has now stopped working as well during the same time the above changes were made. Each change is a potential virus. The only way to fix the system is to remove the viruses. It is tempting, I know, to install a new virus instead, but so far this has just made things worse each time it was tried.

We could of course just throw our hands up like the dishonorable Senator from Utah, but would that really fix anything? Putting a 8 year old child's future in their own hands? Does anyone here really believe an 8 year old has the same forethought and wisdom as, say, a 20 year old? (Yeah, I know, some will say they do... and I will ignore them. That is a ludicrous conclusion.) To the mind of an 8 year old, school is just a chore that they don't want to participate in. So this plan is, indeed, a removal of public education by virtue of the fact that the response to the plan should be apparent to any reasonable person.

If this is a removal of public education, then the ranking of the United States cannot be reasonably expected to rise; it should fall to the bottom as we would be moving back to a point in history where illiteracy was still high, where an education past the sixth grade was rare, and when science and technology were still in their infancy. I cannot believe that any reasonable person would choose to take the entire country back to that era.

I believe it is more prudent to revert the education system to an era when it worked and we were one of the best educated nations in the world as well as one of the top industrial nations and had one of the highest standards of living. And there is a side benefit to reverting back in time... this Senator would not be in office.

Oh, if it were only that easy...

TheRedneck