Published: Friday, Dec. 14 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
I really enjoyed the article, and I agree. I think that if parents spent more
time being parents and helping their kids directly instead of relying on someone
else or the TV to do it, we'd be in better shape, spiritually, fiscally,
I don't generally agree with Mr. Liljenquist's politics, but this
letter was excellent.
In my sugarplum world, every parent would help their children love learning. In
reality, I would guesstimate that somewhere around 40-50% of learning practices
sent home get completed. I must commend the excellent parenting that Mrs.
Liljenquist is doing. I'll bet Dan now has a whole new appreciation for
her as the the mother of their children. Good moms rock!
Kind of shocking how out of touch Lijenquist was with his family's routine,
and how ignorant he was of his wife's deep involvement in their education.
This was sort of a wake-up call for him, and proved how unrealistic and out of
touch his campaign statements were. I assume this letter of his is preparation
for some other campaign, but I hope people see this as a demonstration of his
lack of fitness for public office. He has a lot more"homework" to do.
Nobody can disagree with this motherhood approach to education. Unfortunately it
doesn't fit in with our real world. For the last half century, the
government has been making war on families. Black families are almost extinct
with 74% being single parent homes. Other minorities are not far behind and
white families are at 40%.This government war on families has left
families without the time resources to be active participants in the education
of their children. The educational community has played an active role in this
attack on families. Now, that they're stuck with the results, they want to
take the disingenuous position of blaming families for their failure to educate
children.We need to stop putting more money into education and build
the foundation. Federal and state governments need to pass legislation that
builds and supports families. Their financial resources should be designed to
help families fulling their foundational role in our society. Then they can turn
to families to address issues such as education, criminal rehabilitation,
under-age pregnancy, illegal drug abuse, etc. The government has no solutions
without families yet they still insist on working at cross-purposes with
Surprised that Dan suddenly had to learn this lesson. This was the routine at my
house growing up.
Great article Dan. I'm kind of shocked at the transparency of some of the
commenters - obviously partisans. There is absolutely nothing in this article
that would justify maligning Mr. Liljenquist. Good parents split up the
workload, and step in when needed, as he described in this very good article.I just wanted to add that parents need to be this involved not just
because education funding is tight - even in states with twice our funding, if
parents are not involved at the level he described, children will not respect
education as important and it doesn't matter how much we spend at the
schools - the outcomes will be less than we desire.
It is too bad that Mr. Liljenquist single handedly destroyed teaching as a
profession when he led the bill to wipe out teacher retirement. Now instead of
having retired teachers going on missions, doing homework with their grandkids,
etc. we are going to have 80 year old teachers that can never retire. I'm
sure in his short sighted fiscal mind he thought he was doing the right thing
but it wasn't.He took what was once a noble profession and
turned it into an hourly job.
joe5It's not only the government that is waging war on
families. How about corporate America? They reufse to pay a decent living wage
to employees. They They claim to want an educated workforce, yet send jobs
overseas to make an even greater profit. How about religion? Is it really the
LDS church's or Catholic church's business if a family has two moms or
cavetroll: Nobody is owed a certain wage. Different jobs and different skills
come with different market value. Artificially raising salaries makes it worse,
not better.Companies that cannot compete in the open marketplace
have two primary options: 1) they can send their jobs overseas or 2) they can go
out of business and yield the marketplace to less expensive products. In either
case, the salary situation gets worse. With fewer jobs, it becomes an employers
market and salaries go down because more people are competing for the few jobs
that are left.Of course, there is a third option; apparently the one
you favor. Employers could offer salaries not merited by the work performed.
Then they can go out of business.You can't effectively argue
both sides of the coin. Either you want higher salaries or you want jobs to stay
in America. You have to decide because the two are mutually exclusive.As for the influence of religion, the path they propose has historically
proven to be the way of prosperity. Only the willfully blind can't see
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments