Published: Saturday, July 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
As usual, Mr. Florez is right on.Mr. Osmond is so out in left
field... He's nothing more than a spokesperson for the Sutherland
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure
reliance for the preservation of our liberty." - Thomas
JeffersonGet that, Sen. Osmond? "The whole mass of the
I agree with Mr. Florez.Anyone familiar with the movie/book Matilda?
Obviously it is fantasy. But the concept of a child who wants to learn hitched
to parents who are not invested in education is a reality.Also, so
many kids go through a period where they do no want to be in school. If the
parents are not fully committed, might they just give in?I
don't dismiss the idea that there are difficulties in the current
classroom. Letting some kids out of the system would glean out some problems
and make it easier for those who remain. But, as Mr. Florez points out, there
will be a heavy price to pay later.
Mr. Florez forgets some important steps, most notably the funding to make this
happens. Instead secondary high school teachers often face classes with 40 or
more students with many unmotivated students. In fact, some of these
unmotivated students can be extremely destructive to the learning of the whole.
I agree we should not give up on these students but smaller classes and classes
to help these unmotivated students are needed. Many of these students would
thrive in service-based, hands-on learning environments but little attention or
funding is given for these concepts. Just reducing class size would give
teachers a fighting chance to help these students (and all students). I
don't think schools are struggling, if we accept this premise, because
teachers are failing, it is because of the structure we expect our teachers,
especially in Utah, to deal with makes our schools struggle. Schools need the
mechanisms to help these students and give them a reason to come to school. Ultimately, Osmond is right unless we can change what we are doing and
do it better. Schools need to be more than day care centers and teachers need
to be more than babysitters.
Has Osmond ever mentioned if any of this famous clad attended anything but
This article tells one side of the story and was a waste of time to read. Why
doesn't Florez share any of Osmonds own words about why he wants to pursue
this legislation? Instead, this article just emotionally manipulates throughout.
I don't like to be emotionally manipulated.
Without compulsory education some children will never get any education and
never be able to support themselves, which just leads to society supporting
them. We need to require that all students graduate from high school and require
parental involvement. Parents, especially those receiving assistance through
free/reduced lunch and all its perks, should be required to attend
parent-teacher conferences, volunteer in the school, etc... And parents whose
children are continually in trouble, don't turn in assignments, fight in
school, etc... should be fined for the extra work their child creates, as well
as the disruption other students. Once parents start losing some dollars
they'll get engaged in making sure their children behave and act
responsibly.Further, let's stop bringing children into the
world whose parents can not or will not support them financially and
educationally by requiring tubal ligation after the first child born to a
welfare mother, and the same or a vasectomy for felons, drug dealers, and other
criminals. In a generation or two, most children would have parents who want
them, and are willingly to support them and ensure that they get an education.
God sent children to a family, not to the government. God charged the parents
to teach, nurture and care for those children, not the government. God expects
accountability from the parents for those children, not from government.Regardless of how Mr. Florez twists things, surely he does not believe
that God has charged the State with the welfare of God's children. Surely
he knows that there is no one better able to help a child than that child's
parent. Social workers come and go. They return home to their own families
every night. Teachers come and go. They don't sleep in the classroom. A
family is different. The parents must never, under any circumstances, deny
their obligation to their children and they must never ever allow government to
dictate to them how to raise those children or how to train them.We
are not Russia or East Germany. We do not believe that the State "owns"
children and that parents are just the means to produce those children - for the
Vouchers would meet the objectives of both sides. Motivated parents
could afford to send their kids to a school they could be involved in.The monetary difference between the actual cost of public education and the
value of the voucher would give public schools enough funding-per-student to
reduce class sizes.
I think Mr. Flores slipped up here, "[p]arents have always had a choice in
the education of their children, but without the resources, what's the
choice?". I think vouchers would solve a lot of problems. And give the
parents the choice that Mr. Flores advocates.Private schools funded
by parents and partially by, say 50% of the WPU funding would permit parents to
have a choice in sending their children to a private company that would educate
the child as the parents choose, Mr. Flores' words not mine. The balance
could be enrolled in a public funded education system that could focus on the
needs of the recalcitrant child or for the the children whose parents really
don't care. The WPU funding could be increased per child enrolled.A modest proposal in my not so humble opinion.To further
increase academic funding, atheletic could be curtailed or private donors
solicited to support the extracurricular sports events. Or, better yet, make
all sports extra curricular entirely and avoid the recent dog and pony show that
the UHSAA goes through every so often over eligibility of students.
I agree with Mr. Florez. I think it's pretty obvious that for every parent
that takes a greater interest in their student's education (as a result of
this initiative) there will be five students that skip their education and cause
trouble and expense for all of us.Many of the comments posted here
are *completely* out of line. The senator's proposal is *not* to return to
parents the right to educate their children. You already have that right,
remember? If you think you are competent to teach them calculus, physics,
history, art, etc., then go right ahead. The senator's proposal is to give
you the right to *prevent* your children from being educated by *anyone*.
Two words: Gonzo journalism.
Florez makes some excellent points. I, too have difficulty figuring out why
Osmond would say what he did when up until fairly recently he's been an
advocate of reform in the way education, K-12, is funded in Utah. His about
face came at about the time he abandoned a fairly public stance regarding K-12
in favor of one advocating pre-school. Then the pre-school advocacy came to a
screeching halt when Eagle Forum and Sutherland Institute (at least ostensibly)
came out opposed. Now, Osmond has proposed non-mandatory public education. If you haven't seen Osmond's blog, it's still up at
the state senate site, www.utahsenate.org under Majority Site. It and the 130+
comments it has generated are well worth your time. I've said elsewhere
that his proposal should generate statewide discussion and debate, and I keep
hoping that's why he wrote the blog piece. Otherwise all the shifty
flip-flopping makes little sense and reflects poorly on Senator Osmond.
I'm not at all surprised that Florez (and other radical leftists) are
wringing their hands over this issue. He and his comrades have been successful
in the indoctrination (and dumbing down) of our children. Of course they want
this indoctrination to be forced upon all children and they fear that even just
one child might become wise. Education should be a matter of choice.
It looks like the other posters here have beaten me to most of what I was going
to say. Democracy requires we educate the masses. If you think that is
expensive, see what ignorance costs.
God might hold parents responsible, but in the meantime, society has to deal
with problems as they exist right here.
Parent already have the right to opt out of public Ed. I home school my child
and all I had to do was sign a form at the district office. It was a peice of
cake. Osmonds ammendment doesn't make sense and all of his shiftyness
seems so odd. He talks to Educators and says one thing and listens, then he
goes to other stakeholders and he listens. Then he grabs the worst ideas from
both sides and tries to implement them. Osmond is the last person
on the planet making education reform in the state. He should go and be a
teacher for a couple of years and then come back and tell what he has learned.
Then and only then would I trust him to actually make proposals for education
I personally cannot figure out what the up side of not requiring children to be
at school somewhere is. As an educator, I can see that it is difficult to try
to teach children who do not have parental support and are not well socialized.
No doubt it is difficult to have such children or teenagers in the classroom.
However, is the solution to say that these kids, who already have a strike
against them in life, ought to be opted out of the one thing that might help
them succeed in life. Are we really saying that we want to cut off the very
means that can get them to be productive members of society by not requiring
them to attend school? I have a hard time believing that Utah is in such dire
straits that it needs to cast off the less fortunate. What will be the cost
down the road? More welfare, less employment, more teenage pregnancy, more drug
use? That is just the economic cost. How about the social and emotional cost?
How can we be so ignorant? Do we really think that the haves are more worthy of
education than the have nots? Really?
Also, my experience in the school system is that I really do have an opportunity
to impact my children's learning for good if I am involved. I also get the
opportunity to impact another child's learning opportunity by letting him
or her get away from a difficult home situation and be able to be with other
adults and children that do care about education. The real solution is to have
better interventions in the elementary grades so that we don't have
discouraged learners in the high school. We also need intervention in the
higher grades if we still have problems. "Give a man a fish and he eats for
a day. Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself." Are we really so
selfish and self centered that we want to remove an opportunity for many
children and teenagers to succeed because it might be more work? PS- I'm a
counselor. I don't believe in giving up on the kids just because their
parents don't care. In fact, I believe that is the time to get more
involved, rather than less. Can you really imagine a society being full of the
Thomas Jefferson from Wellsville: You are wrong in your assumption about Home
Schoolers being better educated than Public School Students. A few home
schooled students may do exceptionally well, but the majority are behind
traditional school students. Plus, the Public School Students learn to interact
and deal with social issues.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments