John Florez suggestions on how to “fix” education ("Parents have solutions if lawmakers just ask," Nov. 16) misses the mark. There are several flaws in his analysis, among them “parents as consumers” and demanding changes to a system based on the difficulties of economically poor parents. The consumer argument is worthless: Parents don’t pay for education in our public system; all taxpayers do. If parents want to be consumers, the private system is available. Public schools are required to take any child who arrives. Utah compounds the problem by overcrowding the classroom.
Last year, I had over 200 students in a junior high school every day — twice the national average. In public schools we hire teachers — not individual tutors — who have to try to provide an opportunity for success to mass numbers. You get what you pay for, and good teachers are in education for the reward of seeing their students succeed.
Lastly, Florez does a disservice to economically poor parents. If he spent time in the classroom, he would know good and bad parenting comes in equal measures from across the economic spectrum. I have met poor parents with superb parenting skills, and seen the reverse. Having limited money does not limit a parents' pride in their child.
- Join the discussion: Is feminism misunderstood?
- Dan Liljenquist: The economic impact of...
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the...
- In our opinion: Federal contracting executive...
- My view: Utah's Constitution requires state...
- Perceptions of Obama and his policies at home...
- Capitalism and the common good: Fairness,...
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'?
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 114
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act... 79
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 51
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'? 47
- Join the discussion: Is feminism... 38
- Capitalism and the common good:... 37
- My view: A global warming solution to... 36
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the... 36