Utah State Senator wants to end compulsory education

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.

I am curious on this statement though. Did you read through the whole statement made by the "dis"honorable Senator? Who is advocating putting the furture of an 8 year squarely in their hands; to me, that highlights the Senator's points.

The point is to move school from a "chore" or even a "necessity because it's the law" to "you should do it because education will open doors (well; maybe not an American one...)

The plan isn't really a plan. It was a philosophical musing as I read it. It questioned the path we have taken for a number of years as you have pointed out and hoping for a different outcome. Some would say that is the definition of insanity. I call it bureaucracy and stupidity.

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.

Agreed but just as much speculation as the good Senator.

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

What education system was that? One where more control was in the hands of local government? The Senator noted that. One where parents had the choice to decide what education their child would receive? The Senator; again; noted that. So I ask you, what education system do you speak of?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Let's be fair here. He's got a point. If this is supposed to be a FREE country, shouldn't people have a right to choose? Plus the way the system is these days, a lot of people pay into it and get nothing out. We pay property taxes, and I don't have my kids in public school. They ARE being educated (actually reading WELL above level, too...), but not in the school system. Many places, tons of kids can't even read, and some places, the teachers have been caught changing answers on standardized tests. At least one university has been caught altering the grades of some students. So, the system is broken. Yet parents mostly don't have a choice but to send their kids into it. What happened to freedom?

reply to post by neo96


Nicely stated (your page one comment)!

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by benrl

 

Home education is great....as long as the parents are capable.


No point leaving a kid to be home schooled if his parents are illitrate morons or religius nutz.

You will just get another idoit kid then.

Oh, the irony............nothing like labeling other people "morons" with multiple spelling errors.

Originally posted by buddha
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...

No one forced him to do so, or forced anyone to attend. Clearly, forcing people is NOT necessary.

Come on, people, what about freedom to choose?

We start on the education 'problem' with a very false presumption....and that is that all children are and will be equally intelligent and capable and even have the same potential. This is false.
What has happened because of that false premise is that we are attempting to 'equalise' education and by doing this we have dragged down education to an 'average' operation whereby 'no child gets left behind' means that every child will be dragged backwards to the lowest common denominator.

Add to that toxic mix the unfortunate fact that national curriculum tends to be set with a 'political / social engineering' agenda, you have a Failed System that needs scrapping.

That every child should be able to write, read and do basic every math is essential as a goal but this has meant that the true thinkers, of which there are probably only 5 % of the population EVER, will be disallowed a GOOD education that could make a real difference to everyone.

We have homeschooled for about 5 years but sent our youngest back to school for a few months for various reasons to a truly lovely state school. The teachers were wonderful, the children lovely (apart from the odd little 'character, which is normal) and our child excelled. Infact the school report our child received was all A's and A* with a couple of B's for attainment. Considering our child had been 'our of the loop' for so long that was reassuring. What we learned from this is that in that few months our child no longer felt the need to learn for themselves. Interest and voracious reading habit ended. 'You don't read books in school', was what our child told us. Also, the children are spoon fed information to memorise rather than work our for themselves using their own deductive powers and research.

So, is compulsory education, in this case by the state, a good thing?

I don't think so. But the Senator may be wrong only in that reading, writing and math should be mandated to a certain age. Other than that I believe that the 'dumbing down' theory is probably spot on.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I'm sorry; I should have been clearer.

Without the legal requirement to send their children to school, some parents simply wouldn't do it. Without parents forcing the children to attend school, the children would likely choose not to go. Do you realize how many times I have heard "I wish I hadn't quit school at 16"? Quite a few... because children are not just little adults; they lack the foresight of an adult until approximately age 25.

I personally saw one family who "gave" their 15 year old daughter to a guy when they moved out. That guy was soon arrested for pimping. I was called by the police because they couldn't calm her down and didn't know where her parents were... guess who got to take her back to them, after the cop told them on the phone that he would personally see them rot in jail if they didn't take care of the girl.

Yes, there are parents like that. Thankfully they are rare, but they do exist.

The Senator and I may agree on some things... getting the Feds out of the way and returning school control to the local community, giving parents more control over their children's education, but that one part of removing the requirement to educate one's children I can't swallow. What good is the greatest education system in the world if only a tiny percentage of people use it?

Once people were not required to attend school, and parents would pull their kids out of school to help on the farm. People would also have as many as 16 kids to help them out as opposed to the 1.5 or so people have today. That is the era I see no reason to return to.

TheRedneck

ETA: after reading a couple responses above, I think I should state that I have absolutely no issue with homeschooling... my only issue is with no schooling.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Without the legal requirement to send their children to school, some parents simply wouldn't do it. Without parents forcing the children to attend school, the children would likely choose not to go. Do you realize how many times I have heard "I wish I hadn't quit school at 16"? Quite a few... because children are not just little adults; they lack the foresight of an adult until approximately age 25.

Some people didnt have much choice but to quit school at 16-17 due to hardships. That's still a reality, a really sucky one. Happened to me and my younger brother. I agree with the foresight comment but that in turn begs the question. Why are people sending kids to prison before 21? and the following thought, why are "youngins" turning to criminal behavior? :/

The Senator and I may agree on some things... getting the Feds out of the way and returning school control to the local community, giving parents more control over their children's education, but that one part of removing the requirement to educate one's children I can't swallow. What good is the greatest education system in the world if only a tiny percentage of people use it?

More power of choice to the individual. And thats coming from a guy who appreciates the very simplest of things in life, like a clean glass of water. Thank god we have an education system and I do feel that all should get an education. But at what point is our society too strict in education? At what point does society give up on the needs of the individual? Here's what I think; an informed public will make informed decisions. At the same time, if we have the greatest education system in the world, why do people fail? and then when they do, why arent they recovered?

Once people were not required to attend school, and parents would pull their kids out of school to help on the farm. People would also have as many as 16 kids to help them out as opposed to the 1.5 or so people have today. That is the era I see no reason to return to.

I agree, but you know, kids learned some valuable life lessons from hard work. As the saying goes, hard work builds character. That's not an "ok" for people to jerk their kids out of school to work on a farm, but maybe that farms were good for learning in terms of experience, and just as valuable as whats learned in school. I'll bet you though, in terms of higher ed, trade credits and life experience wont transfer let alone count for much of anything. Thats what younger kids are going to face soon. They're going to hit that reality where they see their work isnt paying off due to a transfer or dropping out due to hardships or a lack of quality in instruction, and then not be able to come back from that sort of shortfall.

reply to post by Nephalim

You raise some great questions... but I am running out of time to reply.

I will reply back l;later when I can give this topic the attention it deserves.

TheRedneck

The system is broken and not only in the US. The days of getting a factory job and making a fairly decent living are gone. Many teens dropped out and applied to factories, no resume required and did just fine. Now even McDonald's and Walmart require higher education over those that do not, can not or never could even if they tried to get one and are rejected over someone who has one. This is wrong. Not all people are going to be educated no matter how much you push it on them, they can't do it. So these are the ones that fall between the cracks and are lost to society.

The whole system needs an overhaul and jobs that are available to those without education should be available to them and not someone who went to post secondary school and racked up a ton of debt only to make minimum wage. The uneducated may not be able to ever get that diploma but more than some are quite capable of working their way up through experience and this should count for something and give them a reason to go to work each day.

They only become dumb after the education. At that point they're basically zombies. Before the edu they're still free thinking, creative, have imagination, and could do the near impossible. But after edu gets threw with them they're braindead morons, turned into biological androids, prepped to become debt slave sheep for the system

Let's follow the money shall we?
All that money going to something as ridiculous as learning ?
What we need learn'n fer ?

I know, I call it individual freedom,
(people love that crap)
and we'll pocket the cash!

This is a forward thinking proposal.

The third world is outpacing america in development of child labour and sweat shops. Courageous american corporations are forced to employ expensive adults as the children are in school.

This cannot be allowed to continue. We must close the 'child labour gap' to remain competitive with the third world.

reply to post by Nephalim

Some people didnt have much choice but to quit school at 16-17 due to hardships. That's still a reality, a really sucky one. Happened to me and my younger brother. I agree with the foresight comment but that in turn begs the question. Why are people sending kids to prison before 21? and the following thought, why are "youngins" turning to criminal behavior? :/

Excellent questions.

The ability to quit school at age 16 is a leftover from the days when kids were not required to attend school at all. Some people opposed the requirement, so as a compromise kids were allowed to leave at 16. I tend to agree with that, not because kids today need to leave at age 16 to work around the farm, but because if they can't see the value of an education by then, being a mere two years away from graduation, they probably will simply be a disruption to those who want to finish.

As a general rule, children under the age of majority are tried as juveniles, unless the crime is heinous and indicates they are beyond rehabilitation. As for why they are turning to criminal behavior... that's a whole other thread (although I touch on it a little later).

More power of choice to the individual. And thats coming from a guy who appreciates the very simplest of things in life, like a clean glass of water. Thank god we have an education system and I do feel that all should get an education. But at what point is our society too strict in education? At what point does society give up on the needs of the individual? Here's what I think; an informed public will make informed decisions. At the same time, if we have the greatest education system in the world, why do people fail? and then when they do, why arent they recovered?

That power of choice is still there, and is unfortunately being exercised every day. Every child has a choice when they enter those school doors: learn or don't learn. Nothing we do can take that choice away from them, but at least by requiring them to attend until age 16, we make sure they have every opportunity to make that choice.

Not to mention the fact that those who do drop out after 16 are typically those who wind up being criminals. By allowing them to decide whether or not they attend before they reach 16, we empower criminal activity at an even earlier age.

I agree, but you know, kids learned some valuable life lessons from hard work.

Oh, absolutely! When I was young, there was plenty of work to be had.... hauling hay for local farmers, mowing yards, babysitting... now we instead have machinery, lawn care services operated by adults, and daycare centers. Where is a kid going to be able to get work to learn how to work? Anything more than those few jobs is covered under Child Labor Laws. So I can't blame the children for getting into trouble outside of school or for getting obese and lazy... we have taken away their outlet for energy and their ability to do something constructive with their time.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'm sorry; I should have been clearer.

No need to be sorry. Was only looking for what you were saying and you supplied that. Thank you.

Without the legal requirement to send their children to school, some parents simply wouldn't do it. Without parents forcing the children to attend school, the children would likely choose not to go. Do you realize how many times I have heard "I wish I hadn't quit school at 16"? Quite a few... because children are not just little adults; they lack the foresight of an adult until approximately age 25.

While that is true, is it the States' responsibilities to enforce parents to force them into something they may or may not agree with? This is the crux of many of our issues we are facing today (the Patient Protection Act comes to mind; though that is Federal). I believe the senator's point was that it should be the responsibility of the citizen to raise their child because they want their child to have a better future; not because they were forced by the State to do so. Admirable but I do agree, maybe naive.

The Senator and I may agree on some things... getting the Feds out of the way and returning school control to the local community, giving parents more control over their children's education, but that one part of removing the requirement to educate one's children I can't swallow. What good is the greatest education system in the world if only a tiny percentage of people use it?

I love my country but I cannot tow the line in saying we have the "greatest education system" in the world. It stinks and is falling more and more behind. The more we continue to focus on sex-education and how to love trees while disregarding student progress, their abilities, math and science, we won't have the moniker for a long time.

I am glad you expounded on your original point. It is healthy for debate.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

is it the States' responsibilities to enforce parents to force them into something they may or may not agree with?

In some cases yes; in some cases no. For instance, we force people into many things, such as purchasing auto insurance, purchasing garbage service, or wearing seat belts. We enact legislation against loud music, driving too fast, and public indecency. I do not agree with all of the above; I would prefer to handle my garbage the same way my family has done for generations... reuse as much as possible, burn as much of the remainder as possible, and dump the remainder in the mountain. I would really like to not have to wear that blooming harness when I drive (and would like to drive barefoot as well... used to do that a lot when I was driving a truck; could feel the road better). But whenever one lives among others, some concession must be made to those others. The question is how much?

I say the real question is how detrimental that freedom of choice is to society overall. Speeding is very detrimental, as it leads to more and worse accidents and loss of life. Loud music is less detrimental, but can definitely be annoying to those around it. Thus we have to ask ourselves every time legislation is proposed, are we willing to sacrifice that part of our freedom for the result? In the case of requiring education, I say yes, we should be, because the detriment to society is increased crime, loss of potentially brilliant engineers, doctors, and teachers, and increased welfare.

The Federal government is generally in a poor position to enact the majority of such legislation. They are a centralized power center that is over a multitude of different cultures which will not always (actually fairly rarely) agree with each other on that question. The individual states are in a better position to handle such legislation, as they are closer to the people. Counties and municipalities are even more capable of responding to societal needs. Thus, I always question why the Federal government is even involved in education, when the proper venue for such legislation is via the states or local governments. But in this one case, with the potential hazards to society, a Federal mandate for children to be schooled until age 16, enforced and enacted by the states, seems appropriate to me.

I love my country but I cannot tow the line in saying we have the "greatest education system" in the world. It stinks and is falling more and more behind. The more we continue to focus on sex-education and how to love trees while disregarding student progress, their abilities, math and science, we won't have the moniker for a long time.

No comment on that; I am in such full agreement I thought it needed to be repeated.

TheRedneck

Without education kids don't have a chance to compete.And we all know there is a glut of dead non parented kids out there who would be simply wasted lives .And they are too young to guide themselves ,so what would they become?
Little programmable pawns for what ever society forces them to become based on circumstance?

Bad idea.

we need to restore the expectation that parents are primarily responsible for the educational success of their own children.

This is stupid- most parents have to work and don't have time to be professional educators for their kids.

Either he wants all the voters of Utah to be stupid, or, more likely, like a typical republican he doesn't want to pay any taxes.

In school, apart from English language, Math and basic science, are the children learning anything 'useful'?
The time spent in relation to learning in school, is it productive?
School is an 'artificial reality' that does not exist out in the REAL world. it is a strange construct almost akin to prison....so other than learning to be obedient prisoners......where are we going with school?

The world is a completely different place to what it was even twenty or thirty years ago.
I have quite highly educated children.....they work in supermarkets in menial jobs....there are NO jobs.

Even with highly marketable skills such medical secretary, Human Resources administrator, degree in maths, practical skill from vocational colleges also.......NO JOBS for them that would equate to 15 years in the education system.

Western economies are wrecked. Education, even in the most practical skills can get you nowhere.

We need another type of learning......but just not sure what that can be for everyone.

Originally posted by CB328

we need to restore the expectation that parents are primarily responsible for the educational success of their own children.

This is stupid- most parents have to work and don't have time to be professional educators for their kids.

Either he wants all the voters of Utah to be stupid, or, more likely, like a typical republican he doesn't want to pay any taxes.

So you agree that parents have off loaded a portion of their responsibility in a self-governing society to have the State be the educator of their children? You don't see any possible harm in that?

For an instance, and disregarding your obviously biased hyperbole, think about what is being said. First, the Senator, while his idea goes to the far extreme, is bringing dialogue to the table regarding how education is applied in the nation. That is a good thing and that is meant to open up the discussion; not point out party lines and make some wild claim of "doesn't want to pay any taxes" (stop being so dramatic in your statements in my opinion).

Removing the mandate to achieve the State's guidelines of mandatory school enrollment doesn't instantly equal "stupid". That would be a logically fallacy.

As to your quoted statement above, I more agree with the Senator. Far too long have we hidden behind this "parents are just too busy" nonsense. You are too busy to teach your children? Too busy to ensure their lives are better than yours? Too busy to actually raise your child?

How about this hyperbole for you: Since we are all too busy, why do we even claim children are our own? I say give them to the State until they are mentally able to determine if they want their birth parents to be their caregivers. The State can obviously provide much better instruction on an individual basis to each of the children than say....a family.

Maybe that crazy lady was right: the State should claim ownership of children because given your statement, parents are not into raising a child, they are into the tax-benefits and social status it brings.

reply to post by Elliot


Wow, if ever there was a testimony to support continued home schooling, you gave it! So, did you start home schooling again after that?

I know mine LOVE reading, even things like history books, and science books, and I would never want that to change. I am all for kids learning the basics, and even having more available for those capable, that want it, but there should be some parental choice.