Oh yeah, let's not do anything to lessen the influence and mandatory edicts
of government. After all, the great Obama and many others have taught us that
more government will surely solve all the problems of mankind and make us all
happy and content. Gotta have Super Nanny there to make sure all goes well and
everything's fair and equitable. Uh huh.
Knowing I am in the minority, I have not moved in my support of the bill to end
compulsory education. I believe we should limit testing, stop running after
kids whose parents do not support their attendance, and get on with seriously
educating kids who are at school.
There are countries all over the world where children are not forced to be
educated. And we see the results. There's almost a perfect correlation
between economic success and level of education among the populace. Abolishing
mandatory education for children would result in a dramatic decrease in the
quality of life for ALL citizens. I agree with reviews of education -- through
vouchers, home schooling options, charter schools, etc. -- but not in any way
diminishing mandatory education requirements and/or access to.
While I do believe it is important that compulsory education laws not be
changed, it is very important that the regulations for number of days in school
each year be eliminated. The number of hours spend in school is fine but
eliminate the number of days to allow for schools, districts and communities to
set their own timeline for school attendance. The 4 day school week would be
awesome... and save money.
If Osmond would like to create a motivational factor to get parents on the ball
and get their kids to school and achieving, the solution is simple. Connect the
child income tax credits to attendance and achievement. Insurance companies
give discounts to students who do well in school. The state should follow suit.
Parents who shirk their responsibility can pay the full tax rate because an
uneducated child is going to be a financial burden on the state and the state
might as well start collecting now to build those prisons and ramp up the
If compulsory education were eliminated within 12 years we would have a large
population of young adults without a basic education. We would doom those
ex-students to a life of low or no wage earners. It is now difficult for
someone with only a high school education to find a job that will comfortably
feed and clothe a family. Senator Osmond has serious rocks in his
head. A very dumb idea!!Maybe the Osmonds can afford private
schools, but the vast majority of citizens can not!!
Why don't we just end the compulsory funding by taxation of schools? That
would be self-governing, I believe.
I'm glad the Senator broached the issue for public discussion. As a long
time educator who knows from personal experience about student nonattendance and
it's impact on daily schooling practices I am amazed at why we let students
and their parents off the hook. Those who don't want to attend regularly
have a negative impact on how schools are judged, especially when it comes to
test scores. Those students scores, or the lack thereof, bring down a
school's test score average. Which brings down a school's rating.
Which lets people who have no clue about what takes place in that school think
that "school A is not very good!" This brings me back to "why do we
make people attend who do not want to attend?" I can be an excellent
teacher, and was considered one of the best before changing jobs in the
education sector, and there were still going to be students who didn't want
to attend, no matter what I did. But if that student doesn't show up I am
going to be judged for their low score? Fair?
@ EJMYes, you are going to need to be rated on your performance. Is
it "fair" to just include all the students who think you walk on water?
Almost every job has some drawbacks in one form or another so just put up with
it or find something else to do for a living. Teachers are legendary for
griping. I attended a taxation hearing where the percent of property for the
school district was proposed to rise by double digits and one teacher said
"I love to teach your children, just not so many of them." This was the
same hearing where the district financial officer apologized to teachers that
family health insurance coverage was going to cost $100 a month. (Mine was
$19,000 a year at the time.)I agree we need to do something with
problem students, but complaining about teacher evaluations doesn't get any
sympathy from me. Life is tough for all of us and teachers want to live in
la-la-land. Sorry, deal with the unique issues in your profession like others
do with their jobs.
@toosmartforyou: not griping at all. But explain to all please how you can judge
someone's performance when they are being graded, in part, by the
nonperformance of those who are not attending? In the business world a person
who does attend gets fired. In education we don't fire students. They get
advanced through the system because of their age. As to dealing with the unique
issues in my profession I have several proposals, one being to remove students
from school during any given semester if they miss more than 15% of any given
quarter. They can return the following semester. Another is that if we are going
to judge a teacher for the performance of their students on those end of year
tests then students must pass those tests at a minimum level to be able to
advance in grade level. Then based on the varying scores of those students you
can at least try to measure that teacher's effectiveness. I don't need
sympathy at all. Don't expect it. Just respect sir.
After spending thirty plus years in public elementary education, believe me,
most of the problems with getting kids to school regularly are parents. Kids
should not suffer because they have poor parents who are too lazy to get them to
school, exploit them for babysitting or put them to work in their businesses.
Without compulsory education, many more children would suffer more than now.
Many citizens would be amazed at the number of children who miss more than 20
days of school - an entire month.
Senator Osmond said his intent is not, and never was, to limit or block
educational access to the state's at-risk students, but rather to question
"the efficacy of compulsory education, which emphasizes attendance rather
than achievement." That says it all. Children are not serving jailtime. So
why the compulsion to attend, as if school were jail? Let the families decide
how to run families. School should be a privilege, not a mandate. Osmond's
idea makes sense.
Compulsory education with compulsory taxation necessary to fund government
schools only makes it that much harder for the population to unlearn statism.
You can force a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. What makes
so many of you think that just because we demand every student puts in his time
at school, that he's getting an education? I can't think of a single
instance in history where 'compulsion' has ended well. Can you? It
starts with mandating that everyone goes to school, and then we start tightening
the noose by requiring common core standards. And then we start worrying that
maybe the homeschool kids aren't complying, so we demand they come to
school, too. We adopted German educational philosophies long ago. Will we
follow suit and also outlaw homeschooling next because we just can't trust
the parents? Freedom has always been risky business. I believe there are better
ways than force to make education attractive to all our kids and I'm glad
someone has been brave enough to open up the conversation.
We are confusing the issue. This is not about taxation, this is not about school
evaluation, this is not about parental choice. This is about making
opportunities available for kids. The model I see being proposed in the
comments--@Kings Court excepted--would destroy educational access for the kids
who need it most. Educated families will find a way to have their children
educated, no matter what it costs. Uneducated families will not be as likely to
do so--and that will create a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and
ignorance.It's long past time the educational debate in this state
(in this country) shifts past what's most cost-effective, what will improve
test scores, and who is in control and gets back to what the question should
always have been: what's best for kids.
To "utahprincipal801" if the problem is that we have bad parents who
don't care much about educating their kids, why not have the state just
take away those kids? Isn't that what all liberals want anyway?What is the difference in outcomes for a child that drops out of school at age
12 vs. a child who's parents don't care about education and let their
child fail every course?If the issue is getting kids prepared for
advanced education, the best thing you could do would be to let the kids that
don't want to learn go out into the world and begin a career early. You
eliminate the kids who don't want to learn from the classroom and you add
to the taxbase all at once.
This is so ridiculous. The government should be able to tell minors to go to
school. That's why they are minors. Any parent who would opt NOT to send
their child to school, shouldn't be a parent in the first place.
Maybe we should have a discussion about whether it's the state's place
to tell parents whether or not they can force their kids to sell drugs...
The words mandatory, or compulsory, are un-American:* four of five
people in America at the poverty line--DH July 30, 2013* if each food
stamp feeds three, our government is feeding over half our people--USA Today
2/24/13* a third of our college graduates from other countries? DH May
2013* seventy percent of our engineers, chemist, medical people, etc from
other countries-DH 2013* our country spends more money on education than
all countries combined--Washington Post* America had a higher literacy
rate in 1790 than it does today with no compulsory education. Williamsburg
Virginia museumDoes compulsory education really work?
So worf, back in the good old days when our schools "worked", did they
have compulsory education? I'm sure you were born after the time period
set by newsies when the luckier children got to sell newspapers while the
unluckier ones could go work in the factory.
What would help to have parents become more involved in their childrens
education is to give all parents the same power that parents whose kids go to
charter schools have. I tried working with the Davis school board and
administrators to undo the damage done to math education since I went to school.
I was powerless. They feigned listening to me but they did nothing. Power
should be taken from boards and administrators and given directly to parents of
children. This will grease the forces of improvement.
@Howard Beal:So, are you saying our schools are a big success, and
we're getting the most out of each dollar we put in to it?I've shown evidence of failure. I'd love to be wrong.Display some evidence of mandatory schooling being successful, and helpful.
What's worse?--kids working in factories, or kids sitting forty
to fifty hours a week learning how to take a test?IMO--compulsory
doesn't belong in America. Choice does.
@The Reader and @Mike HandyWhat is obvious, however, is that the
situation you are describing is already a reality and alive in millions of
Americans. Millions of Americans whose parents don't care and do not help
them to attend already drop out, earn minimum or no wage, and are in prison!
Millions already have no opportunity and are not helped by "compulsory
education" This is not something that "will happen" it already
occurs on a daily basis and is quite common, sadly.What we need to
do goes beyond removing compulsion. We need to engineer a system that more
personally focuses on Students needs and REAL EDUCATION as opposed to
attendance.Now, as to how you would go about helping some of these
people understand the value of education and applying themselves in the face of
their impoverished and under educated history is a topic for another time. It
may not be possible from the simple school-student-family triangle relationship
and certainly requires more than a few teachers making phone calls and
scheduling conferences. I'm for abolishing mandatory
attendance everywhere, and reducing the school week to 3 days!
If minors are not in school or being home schooled where are they? On the
streets, causing crime, in a gang. Since most parents both work whose is gong
to supervise children not in school? Wouldn't it be wonderful if all
parents were responsible and involved in their children's education.
Unfortunately that is not reality. If school were not mandatory what would stop
a student from leaving whenever they felt like it? One last thought. Would you
re-locate your business to a state with sub par public education. Everyone
wants economic growth. Business's are attracted to states with excellent
schools, infrastructure, and public transit. All functions of government.
@ NeilT:* what's made it so two parents have to work?*
why have children if you can't raise them, and rely on a school to do
it?* Pathetic! Parents can't even feed their own children? We're
dependent, and in need of someone to feed our kids at school.* can't
our law enforcement stop children from being on the streets, causing crimes, or
being in a gang?Are we a nation in need of the word
"mandatory".If yes. We are no longer a free society.