Home-schooling is not always the best situation. I know of many negative
experiences with students who were home-schooled. They don't learn social
skills as well as in public schools.
Is home schooling really the answer? Do students really learn social skills
there? I wonder what studies would show, because a friend and I recently had to
work with a child who was horribly unskilled socially. He was arrogant and
discourteous and none of the other children liked him. When asked to speak in
front of everyone he didn't stand for about a minute. Then he blew into the
microphone before finally doing as asked.Years ago a family member, on
finding she would teach a child who'd been home-schooled, would make
specific preparation for the child.
OakIn Kentucky it is the parents who will be held responsible if
kids are not attending school. I think it is the same in Utah (but I am no
attorney). BTW - it can be public school, private school, home school - just
school.Davidmpark,Educational subject matter that was
once “advanced” is now taught in the earlier grades. But only
professions that do not advance get taken over by the amateurs.Your
earlier points are quite correct - the central issues involved are money and who
gets left out.MGB,I do not believe this is a federal
issue but a state issue.
Mark 1:I would say some parents know best. We all know many people
that are "parents" but aren't fit to be parenting a gold fish let
alone a child. Let's be real.
I am not going to promote or attack Jefferson's opinions on compulsory
education. If you do your research one will find that he believed in education
and the concept of public education. However, he only wanted to include those
with the aptitude (not even interest was good enough) in this public education.
I do believe that Jefferson, seeing what our world is today, might have a
different viewpoints on the matter but this only my supposition.
The kids that aren't educated can start a singing career.
Here's the *real* Jefferson."It is better to tolerate the
rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock
the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the
infant against the will of the father." -Thomas Jefferson: Note to
Elementary School Act, 1817, ME 17:423Why do we as a society
tolerate making children criminals by state law if they don't attend public
schools? Finland has a near 0% dropout rate. Why? Watch Ken Robinson's 2013
TED talk on "how to escape education's death valley."
@Blue:"'Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They
are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.' - Thomas
Jefferson"If this be true we need compulsory education for our
political leaders including Obama, and most of the US Senate and House. These
people are systematically tearing this country apart with Obamacare,
unrestrained immigration, taxation gone amok, an obscene national debt, personal
surveillance, and much more. I'd give us about another decade before our
liberties are gone and we are finished as a sovereign nation when the vultures
will descend to pick the bones clean.
Compulsory or not; I've got another question: the old wisdom of what
progress is, is that "what was once the work of Nobel scientists then is the
work of tinkerers and tinsmiths today." Why hasn't that happened in the
education industry?Shouldn't the work of professional educators
of yesterday be the tasks of amateurs today? Has there been any discoveries and
progress to allow a premium education in your spare time? If not, then what
I think both Sen. Osmond and Mr. Florez aren't getting to heart of this
issue with education. Their viewpoints are valid: parents need to be involved,
and there could be repercussions on the communities. Neither of them are hitting
the bigger problem on head - there is no money for schools anymore. Using a
majority of our State Taxes on education is a major drain when there is little
industry allowed and many new businesses are being stifled right now to pay for
it. We're looking at spending priorities for prosperous times in a time of
uncertainty.As I see it, this idea of making education
non-compulsory to only teach those children that will be there is a sign of
financial hardship. The marketing is being done to keep it as a social issue
rather than a financial one because it's easier to get re-elected on
failing a social issue rather than on fiscal failures.And Mr. Florez
does ask a good question, "Who will be left out." To expand his
question; will the severely disabled be left out?
Education happens in spite of government, not because of it.Parents
are the key to teaching children. We should do all that we can to support
parents. They know what is best.
If anyone thinks that our schools represent 'education' in the manner
Thomas Jefferson had in mind must be living in another universe. Thomas
Jefferson would be appalled at 'compulsory' education today. If the
'only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty' is what is
being taught today, heaven help us. Yet, to truly educate the public requires a
defense of not only the Constitution, but an expectation that the student to
come prepared to learn. Anyone been in a public school lately? To demand that
students come prepared is not only met with contempt, but a passivity that would
make Thomas Jefferson walk out the door and never return.
In another article on the same topic, it was postulated that this is all about
Utah's far right trying to save a buck or 2 by not having to fund
education.Osmond's attempt is nothing more IMO then eugenics.
Ironically, it puts Darwins theory into play and we know how much right wingers
love evolution.p.s. As always, I'm 'impressed' at
Mike R's ability to filter an issue into his subjective views so he can
Re "ThomasJefferson" at 10:37 AM:Lets look again at the
_real_ Jefferson, OK?Thomas Jefferson, 1786 August 13, letter to
George Wythe: "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is
that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation
can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear
Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating
the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us
against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be
paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid
to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in
ignorance."The idea that the genuine, historical Jefferson
would in any way endorse your rightwing homeschooling fantasies is beyond
Senator Osmond is not against education. Just against federal CUMPOLSARY
education controlled by the federal government. Federal controlled education no
long educates and informs on how to think and reason. Only what to think and
how to become little human resources for the state. Read the Communist
Manifesto. Cumpolsary government controlled schools is one of the 10 tenets of
Marxist communism. Wake up people and stop drinking the communist (in
sheep's clothing) kool-aide.
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.
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
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?
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
God might hold parents responsible, but in the meantime, society has to deal
with problems as they exist right here.
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.
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.
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.
Two words: Gonzo journalism.
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*.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Has Osmond ever mentioned if any of this famous clad attended anything but
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.
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.
"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
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