My children are very good readers because we would read to them and with them as
parents just about every day(including reading scriptures).
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln seemed to do all right without being
forced to go to public school!As a retired public school teacher, I highly
Doing away with compulsory education is not an appropriate answer. The need is
to get parents more involved in their children education. How about each parent
being required to provide 1 day per year as a classroom aide? A second day
should be required where the employer provides time, with pay, to assist in the
educational experience.If a child is below grade level then parent
and child should attend an evening class where they work together in improving
the students skills, separate from above requirements. The idea is that a
teacher that has 25-30 students for 6 hours of instruction per day can not
provide sufficient one on one instruction (12-15 minute available per student if
this is tried)time. Parents have to provide the additional support, insure that
their children perform homework, and return it on time. My wife is a teacher
and she spends 2-3 hours per day outside of contract hours preparing and grading
assignment for the classroom.The idea that student performance is
directly tied to teachers performance is absurd. It is more of a function of
the parents involvement, their encouragement to provide additional time to
The concept of public education itself is anathema to the right wing which sees
it as a liberal gadfly in their anti-government strategy for restoring American
greatness as they perceive it. But this is a step beyond voucher programs as a
Trojan horse approach for what they wish to undo.Public education
has done more than anything else to give the disadvantaged a leg up in a
competitive world. I think the general public understands that well enough.
As I retired teacher from here in Utah, I fully agree with this man. I would
have liked to have had parents, all of them, accountable for the children they
choose to bring into this world. Now that would mean that the parents would have
a more equal hand in the education of their children. It does not mean the
public schools would not be responsible for the educational plans. The schools
with parents would share the stewardship of education. Think about it. Who is
responsible for your children when it comes right down to it? Parents step up to
the plate! Take your Heaven given rights seriously.
I understand his sentiment about parents these days leaving the rearing of their
children to the state run school system, however he is misguided. the fault lies
not with the school system itself, but with the so called parents who neglect
Probably nowhere in America is the war on public education more evident than in
Utah. It seems that the business community is no longer satisfied to just
starve the school budgets and make the careers of teachers difficult, they now
are attacking the concept of public education itself. The business
community, including the churches and religion, do not need or even want an
educated public. Education makes consumers hard to please and less susceptible
to the indoctrination of advertisings. And when business needs educated
employees, they are readily available from foreign sources at much less cost
than American workers. Compulsory public education is a primary
source of freedom for parents. It not only gives them time to rest from the
obligations of children but frees them from the need to be expert in everything
in the world. If Utah can force people to take the full
responsibility for education of their children, can Utah also force people to
take responsibility to grow their own food and carry their own water.If a person must spend all his/her time fighting for survival, what good is
freedom if you don’t have any time to use it.
OK, we need to let some wingnut tell us about mandatory schooling.Next, he can tell us about voting, or anything else his Wild West attitude
@Worf"we likely spend more money on education, than all
countries combined, through out history." Likely? Great argument. We
spend more $'s as a whole, but are only slightly above average when it
comes to educational spending as % of GDP."many of our
engineers, chemists, medical people, etc, come from other countries" How
many? Why? Possibly because we have more positions to fill in these areas that
we have graduates for? We need more emphasis on STEM programs. Back up your
statement."a third of our college graduates are from other
countries" Because, despite its flaws, we still have one of the top
university systems in the world. Are our own students being turned away because
of this? No- we have record numbers of people attending college and with
degrees."more than half our people live in poverty" Census
Bureau in November 2012 said that 16.3% of people in the United States live in
poverty. Not even close to half (perhaps you needed to pay more attention to
math in school)I'm not sure what it says about compulsory
education, because your statements were either false, questionable, or had no
substance to back them up.
Senator Osmond: I am an educator of thirty eight years and sincerely applaud
and support your proposal, "Let’s let them choose it, let’s not
force them to do it," he said. I definitely believe a "shift" will
take place when parents qualify their children to participate in a free
education by showing up at their neighborhood schools and actually signing a
request for enrollment. It's called responsibility and really is a simple
yet powerful procedure. Parents will actually walk into their children's
schools and connect with teachers and administrators. Positive action is good.
Many have addressed the problems with giving those who, by definition lack
mature judgement, the ability to decide their long term fate (which will largely
be determined by their education).Here is another point. If
education is no longer compulsory, does the state then have an obligation to pay
for it? Does it become a choice on both sides (kids decide if they will go and
the state decides if they will pay)?
As a former teacher and staunch Republican, I think implementation of this idea
would be disastrous and put us in the class of third-world countries. Instead,
we need to find ways to get the kids wanting to learn and concentrate on their
strengths at an early age.
It seems the GOP wants to take the nation back to the good old days of the Stone
Age with non compulsory education in Utah and compulsory pregnancy in Texas,
what next: the good old times of the robber Barron's . The Tea Party is
just to much fun, and it would be funny if it didn't hurt so much.
Children are not qualified to be the deciders of whether they should stay in
school and Mr Osmond isn't either, apparently.Children often
don't want to eat their vegetables or brush their teeth, go to bed at a
reasonable hour, clean their rooms or other tasks.Do we say - "Sure,
stay up all night playing video games, sleep till 2 in the afternoon, eat junk,
and don't worry about school?"Unfortunately, some parents do
exactly that, but is it in the best interest of the kids? Of course it
isn't.And neither is doing away with compulsory education. It's
foolish, short-sighted, silly.
Massachusetts instituted compulsory education in 1852. It wasn't a radical
idea then because many towns and cities had similar laws in place there from the
1690's. Utah instituted it in 1890 when we became a state. The last state,
Mississippi, instituted it in 1918. It was done in each of these places because
states had a compelling interest in education because with education crime was
lowered and economics and commerce was enhanced. Sen. Osmond's proposal is
irresponsible in spite of his best intentions and rhetoric about the
responsibilities of families. While I can agree the family should be a primary
place for education, sharing that responsibility helps not only families but
communities and even the state. Allowing families to opt out of education would
hurt our state immensely. If his argument is about choice in education, then
he's missed the mark again because Utah has the most open choice options
for parents in education. Besides the public schools, there are charter schools,
different public schools, private schools and home schooling options. Bottom
line, children need to attend school in the interests of our families,
communities and state.
Look at it folks:* we likely spend more money on education, than all
countries combined, through out history.* many of our engineers, chemists,
medical people, etc, come from other countries.* a third of our college
graduates are from other countries. Deseret News-2013* more than half our
people live in poverty.What does this say of compulsory
education?What kind of wreck would our country be if government
could no longer supply benefits? A debt equal to $186,000 for every second of
three years, tells us it's possible.
Perhaps we should go the other way: make the 20% of kids stay in public school
who either really want to go or are being raised by wolves (which is the group
everyone seems most concerned about) --and make the parents of the other 80%
find their own educational solution of some kind that doesn't involve a
As a former teacher, I agree that many parents are totally disengaged from their
children's learning. I thought that parents should be required to spend
one hour per month per child in volunteer work at the school. Of course
employers would need to allow the time off, but once a month doesn't seem
like that big of a requirement for what the children are receiving. Many other
issues would need to be straightened out, but this would be one tax-free way to
get parents more involved.
Atl134-I don't know how it is in all of Utah, but I can tell you
about Alpine SD. The children in elementary school are all tested (for reading)
before school starts each year. They are then purposefully put into classes
based on how they performed, but not in a logical way that most agree with. If,
for example, there are three first grade classes you would expect the highest
performing children in one class, the mid-level children in another and those
needing the most attention in the third. Not in Alpine SD. They put one third of
each of the groups into each classroom. The thought behind this is that the
overachieving and achieving students will drive those needing more attention.
Guess what? It doesn't work, yet no one is brave enough to stand up and
change it. They don't want the kids to think they are in the "dumb
class", so instead the children learn quickly to not ask questions or they
will be the "dumb one" in the class. So the overachievers are held back
and those needing more direction don't get enough of it. Who wins?
Mr. Osmond is right, and too many people are missing the point, not only about
education, but about life itself. The responsibility of raising children lies
on the parents, and government has continually tried to shift that
responsibility onto itself. This not only creates a huge tax burden, but it
empowers government over people, enslaving people to a bunch of unqualified
politicians. Drop property tax that supports education. Then, allow parents a
choice regarding how they want to spend their money on educating their kids.
Just because education is very important, doesn't mean it should be
compulsory. We as a people, have handed over parenting to the schools and
teachers, and frankly, that's irresponsible. It's an abrogation of
your parenting responsibilities. How about this? If you want your kid to have
an education, then you get involved, and ensure he has that education. Stop
blaming educators and the school system for your failures as parents.
There was a post that said they were against the concept but supported the
sentiment. I am actually the opposite. While the concept might actually be
good and positive in some ways for the educational system, especially in regards
to the students who want to go to school, I think the sentiment comes from
another Republican effort to continue down the path of destroying public
education in Utah. It comes from the sentiment that perhaps this could allow
for less funding. Let's say 20% of students chose not to attend school
next year. This doesn't necessarily mean class sizes will be smaller.
Instead, 20% of the teachers will be likely laid off and other sources will
cease to exist or be cut. Again, perhaps the students present might benefit
from being away from unmotivated students, but as asked in previous posts, where
are these students going to go? The job market isn't exactly hiring too
many people, let alone HS dropouts. And like it or not for many parents,
schools have become daycare centers or the morning/early afternoon version of
the Boy's/Girl's Club.
Gordon, I agree with you. I think a lot of parents both work outside the home,
and thus the parenting is left where it falls. I work in law enforcement, and
we have calls out to the home because the kid isn't answering the phone,
isn't home when they're supposed to be, is being unruly, isn't
getting up to go to school, etc. Calls from mom saying she's at work and
can't get kid to answer phone, wants to do a welfare check to be sure kid
is home -- no friends. And on and on. I am asked continually what I am going to
do to "fix" their kid. I remind them it isn't my position to
"fix" what they should have been working on for years. I've talked
to teachers who express the sentiment that they feel like a parent, some have a
supply of clothing to let kids who are in dirty clothes change. They supply them
with school supplies so the kid can learn. Maybe we should do something
compulsory for parents to have to parent. A lot don't seem to care.
What a doofus. Let's see if the people of his district have enough sense to
vote him out for wasting your Legislature's time.
"Let’s let them choose it, let’s not force them to do it."
As an educator of 38 years, I can't think of more positive action by the
State of Utah. Parents would show up, register their children, more fully
recognize their part in educating their children because they will make the
choice to take advantage of a free education. I think this is a wonderful idea
and would turn parents thinking to, "I've made a decision on what is
best for my child," rather than "school is a place for my child to go to
each day and it is the school's fault if he/she doesn't try, distracts
from the learning of classmates, and refuses to see the opportunity and
importance of getting an education because that concept isn't taught in our
home." Many parents never show up at their schools, talk to teachers,
volunteer in classrooms. So much of the education dollar goes to tracking down
kids with low attendance, drop outs, and parents who don't care if their
children are home or at school.
I can see both sides, but at the end of the day, I believe in choice for all
people. Compulsory education is an attempt to force the schools to displace the
failures of the family and that bothers me. I'd much rather see us do away
with compulsory education and focus our efforts on strengthening families.
Let's take the pressure off the schools to be surrogate families.
Too many people are making the false assumption that if you take away the
compulsory aspect, students will choose to not attend school. It may be of
interest to note that in England in the first half of the 19th century, when the
state involvement in education was basically zero, the student population rose
from 675,000 to 2,500,000, with an annual increase in the number of pupils
attending school that was double the annual growth of population. (1965, E.G.
West, Education and the State). In our own country's infancy, without
compulsion, we had a literacy rate we have never since seen. It would take time
to shift our way of thinking, but it's a good direction to head. I applaud
Mr. Osmond's courage to make such a proposal. History proves that
compulsion has never achieved what freedom has. Are we or are we not the land of
the free anymore?
WOW the discussion surrounding this has missed the mark ... why fund unnecessary
programs, and the politicians are hiding behind having to debate programs they
dont want while that may have political repercussions with some of their
constituents. BOO HOO! A parent's right to parent ought never to be
truncated by the State or the Board of Ed. And unless I have missed something,
I can homeschool and it seems to me that the State has an interest to ensure
that all of the children receive a basic education. So how does removing
compulsory education further any of this?
I never asked my kids or grandkids if they wanted to go to school -- I told them
they were expected to go to 16 years of school (1st thru 4 years of college).
After that they could decide if they were through or if they wanted to go more.
I have two with Masters and a third working on Bachelors. With that
said, the schools need to look at their programs. A teacher in my g-kids school
once told us in confidence the schools don't teach anymore, they're in
it for the test scores which motivate the funding. Kids only learn what's
going to be tested.We make it a point to supplement their education.
We arrange a history vacation every year. We just came back from GoldRush
country and history of establishment of port cities on the west coast, pioneer
struggles over the Serra-Nevada's, etc. We've done D.C., Native
American Cultures, Black Struggles (they were the only ones in school who knew
what a Buffalo Soldier was). Education is lacking, and I don't know if
schools are turning out kids who ARE educated anymore.
Another brilliant comment from our wonderous legislators.
Utah Proud for this guy!
It's a fascinating idea and Senator Osmond is to be commended for putting
forward this proposal. It is good to have this discussion. Facts are
facts and there's no question public schools have become personal and
family counseling and welfare agencies. They are supposed to be educational
institutions. What an incredible idea to have families, even single
parent or guardian-led families, take personal responsibility for the school
decision. Public school offered to all, but not compulsory. By
forcing (and it is force) young people to be in school, you do not in the long
run help that individual. Look at the high dropout rates as it is under the
current rules! So schools become willing (and in some cases, for our
exhausted teachers and administrators, unwilling) enablers, attempting to help
some who simply will not be helped. Life itself is a great teacher
and so is consequence. Let's consider these points with our educational
system in general.
This is not important so much for the individual children that might or might
not be affected, but for society as a whole. The U.S. has moved away from an
industrial-based economy to an information-based. This economic model requires a
well educated workforce. My parents generation could go get a job at Geneva
Steel or in construction if they did not follow the path of education and it
worked well for them. That won't work today. Unless you are a
contractor (requiring education) you will be competing with people willing to
get paid minimally because it is still better than what they get back home.
Geneva Steel hasn't been around for over a decade. One of the reasons that
the economy of Utah has remained reasonably strong is because of a well-educated
workforce. It is not to our benefit to jeopardize that, as a wholesale change
would do. Yes, education should be a privilege and an opportunity and not an
obligation, but sometimes ideals don't hold up in the real world. On a personal level, those who suffer would be the innocents who don't
know any better.
The following is a quote from the Congressional Enabling Act for Utah
Statehood:" Enabling Act ENABLING ACT, Approved, July 16, 1894.
AN ACT to enable the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State
Government, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the
original States. Enabling Act ENABLING ACT, Approved, July 16, 1894.Sec. 3...Fourth. That provision shall be made for the
establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open
to all the children of said State and free from sectarian control."To my knowledge, Utah is the only state that was required by Congressional
By-law to provide public education for their children. This because of the
large number of children due to polygamy. Utah has traditionally provided
opportunity for a good education for their children, despite the lower financial
investment. Studies have shown that a teacher has often made the difference in
the life of a child -- despite the family situations.
Just another blatant example of shortsighted, self-centered, special-interest
In one family I know, 2 daughters and their husbands graduated from college
while another daughter got a 2 year "Associate" degree and her husband
did not graduate from high school.Is it an accident that the oldest
child of the man who did not graduate from high school also dropped out of high
school while the oldest child of the 2 college graduate husbands received
scholarships to help them attend college? The man who did not graduate from high
school has worked at low paying jobs his entire life while the 2 college
graduates have good, secure employment as professionals.How much
success will the high school drop out have?
I thought it was the liberals who were free thinkers. I guess not. Heaven
forbid that a legislator use the Senate blog site to toss out an idea to gauge
public response before actually attempting to craft legislation. How many of
you commenting here actually took the time to read the senator's blog
before angrily responding to the newspaper article? I appreciate Senator Osmond
for be willing to express his thoughts and put his name to them.
What this senator says is mostly true. I cannot comprehend how the selection of
who goes to school and who doesn't would be made. Does the child make the
choice or does the parent? Some parents would not be able to make that choice. A
young child would not be able to either. Would the jobs listed need to remove
"must have a High School diploma" requirement? Our education system is
not what is needed in today's times. Maybe we should look at what works and
move towards a better system. What a thought he has provoked, but I do not think
its the answer.
Steverb says "Forcing a student to be in school generally backfires".I am a bit mystified by this comment. Right now the State requires
parents to send their kids to school. According to Steverb this is likely to
backfire because students feel like the are forced to be in school. Yet, even according to Osmond, if the compulsory requirement were removed most
parents would sill send their kids to school. Or put another way, force their
kids to go to school. My question to Steverb is "should parents
sit down with their 6 year old explain the pros and cons of school and let them
decide if they are going to go or not? I mean that is just plain silly. Kids are
going to be forced to go to school one way or another. Whether by the state or
by the parent, or more often than not, both. I'll bet 90% of
kids have not even heard the term compulsory education. So the fact that the
state requires them to go has nothing to do with their attitudes toward their
"Engaged parents frustrated with public schooling also have several options
aside from their neighborhood school, she said, such as charter schools, private
schools or home schooling." --Leslie Csstle, State School BoardTrue, parents have other options, but even if they opt to send their kids to
better schools, they still end up paying taxes that don't go towards their
children's education on top of the additional money they pay to these other
schools. I don't agree 100% with every Sen.Osmond is saying,
but he raises some valid points. But I think that the deeper issue affecting
education in not so much funding, but allocation of those funds. There are
school administrators in this state earning close to 7 figures...
Osmond is incorrect that the challenges facing schools and teachers are a result
of compulsory education. There is a long tradition of compulsory education in
this country. In fact John Adams, one of the Founding Father giants, believed
the State had a vested interest in educating its populace. The
challenges facing schools has nothing to do with compulsory education. In fact,
education in Utah is only compulsory to the age of 14. After 14 parents choose
to send their children to school. Yet the challenges schools are facing
don't magically disappear between the 8th and 9th grade. According to
Osmonds logic they should. The challenges facing schools today are a
direct result of the erosion of the family. There are a lot of reasons for this
erosion. And it is going to be hard to reverse. If Osmond is serious
about improving education he needs to propose ideas on how to encourage
traditional family values. Research is very clear that children raised in a two
parent home are far more likely to succeed and stay out of trouble than a child
of a single parent home. We need to stop with band-aid ideas and address the
I think this proposal is ignorant of other social issues. I think if this
legislation passes we will see a huge dichotomy of kids who are either studious
or severely lacking any intellectual capacity. How will this help our
state's economy in the future? I'm not sure it's a good move to
make education a choice. How will those children function in society who opt
(or their parents opt) to not participate in education? I believe this is a set
up for more poverty, more criminal activity among the youth (extending to adults
over time), and an increase in negative and harmful social behaviors. Putting
the burden on parents who have limitations on their ability to support their
children in their education from work, illness, disability or something else, or
who simply don't care about their child's education is short-sighted.
Is "value" something we "value" in education?
Following the footsteps of other Republicans for an award for the most
outrageous comment, is he?Is this suppose to make Utahns quit thinking
about such things as the ACA, immigration reform, taxes, Jobs, genetically
engineered food, NSA, pipelines, abortion, pornography, racism, gun control,
world conflicts, poverty, judicial decisions, global warming, space exploration,
gerrymandered districts, obstruction in Washington, DC?Why can't this
Senator and his cohorts just get down to business and try to pass legislation
that really means something Utah and our country?
Just as I am now glad that my parents made me take piano lessons beyond the
point when I wanted to quit, I am also very glad that there are rules requiring
our children to remain in school up to a certain age. Many children and even
some parents are not smart enough to know what wiser minds with greater
experience know. - education is vital not only for individual growth but also
for society as a whole, even for those who will be reluctant to learn.
And once these children who aren't "forced" to be there drop out,
what does the good senator think will happen to them? Does he think
they're going to just die? Or move out of state? No, they become drains
on society - panhandlers, welfare recipients, drug abusers, criminals, and
prisoners. If you think it costs a lot of money to keep an unwilling kid in
school, wait until you see how much it costs to keep him in jail.Sometimes kids (and parents) don't have the mental strength to make it
through those tough times. Sometimes it's good to "force" a kid to
stick it out through 6th grade algebra - in my case I'm glad I had to go
back the next day. Now I have two math degrees.This proposal is a
special kind of stupid.
I sometimes think that public education as we have known it reflects a societal
consensus that no longer exists, but I'm not sure I's be ready to go
Some of you are missing the whole point. Osmond is right on with this and I
agree 100% that compulsory education should be eliminated. When education is not
compulsory, teachers and administrators are no longer to force kids to attend
school who are discipline problems, who don't want to be there, who abuse
teachers, other students, and the system itself. Remove the compulsory aspect
and students will soon realize they either get an education, better themselves,
or they decline into poverty, drugs, incarceration, or death--but it is their
choice. It is likely that the dropout rate would probably tick up for a few
years until those who drop out realize they have been very stupid, and the
younger kids see the consequences, and again, they will choose school, but gone
will be the discipline problems.And just because some kids need
help, need the school lunch, need counseling, doesn't mean the schools have
to deliver it, there are always options. The other thing this does is
de-politicize education. Hallelujah, it's about time.
Nobody is really courageous enough to allow the consequences of no education to
come into play. However accountability is a great idea. The State
should worry about education and the welfare of its citizens, but education and
welfare should not be the same program or administered by the same people (i.e.
educators). Public schools should be independent and separated from the extra
programs that have become intertwined with education.In all fairness
non-compulsory education is as detrimental as nanny-state education. Both are
expensive and non-productive.
I assume the provocative statement is hyperbole and I hope it stirs enough
debate to address some of the issues. Somethings needs to move us off dead
center. More money? Certainly, but only if it is linked to performance and
better outcomes. NYC has lots of money and much of it is wasted on
non-productive union demands.
You already have this with home school, which is allowed...
So, what does Mr. Osmond propose we do with all of the drug addicted parents,
illiterate parents, non-English speaking parents, and others with various issues
that do not value an education? There are a lot of parents who only send their
kids to school because they have to. Is it better to let them keep their kids
home and become the next generation of welfare recipients?Mr. Osmond
does not understand that responsible parents will make sure their children are
educated regardless of what the law says. It is the irresponsible and/or
ignorant ones that need compulsory education laws to make sure their kids have a
decent chance in life.
Proposing to end compulsory education in Utah makes the Salem witch trials seem
like cosmopolitan thinking by comparison. I can’t think of a surer way to
create a permanent underclass with social problems mounting and multiplying by
leaps and bounds. If this cow bell lawmaker thinks the present system has its
defects, wait till he sees the situations that follow if he gets his way.
This would in no way remove the "rights" that any child has to
education. The state would still be dedicated to educating all comers for free.
Forcing a student to be in school generally backfires. They simply learn to
hate education more and more, and most schools and teachers with their unbending
"no child left behind" attitudes do not help. If you think that a state
bureaucracy has any charms to convince a child to get an education, I believe
that you have misjudged what education is. Some students will say they hate
school, but the expectation of parents and their community, plus the looming
realities of adulthood, keep them there. The only thing that would change is
the illusion that state force helps anything, and that would be a good move in
the right direction.
This is an interesting topic and the proposal by the senator prompts some
thoughtful discussion (by some)It is clear that we are failing to
equate education with success. This failure exists on many levels but most
obviously at the personal level. I grew up in a family that felt
like education was a waste of time and not a pathway to success in life. It
took a couple of years on the end of a shovel and flipping burgers for me to
seek a better way. I was fortunate to have a mentor in my church that was
willing to confront my ignorance and show me a better way. I remember well the
time I asked him what he did to be successful and the first thing he mentioned
was education. The timing was right for me to hear that and a GED, 2 Bachelor
degrees, and a MBA later I was able to find my path. The point is -
I needed the experience of struggling before I could value the opportunities I
was being given.I think the senator is speaking to this point.That said, I disagree with his proposal but appreciate the sentiment.
Well, if UT becomes the first state to do away with compulsory education
my guess is, it will no longer be rated positively as a good state for setting
up businesses. Good grief!
Anybody who thinks that this is a bizarre proposal hasn't thought much
about education the last 30 years. Education happens when people want to learn;
School is what we have. The federal control of Education has been an unmitigated
disaster, especially for the those who are 'compelled' to be there,
mostly the poor. The rich, the educated, the believers, use education to their
advantage, whereas the poor don't even understand why they are there,
except they know that its a place they 'should' be. The most
important principle to teach kids in America today is that you not only have a
choice, but you must make the right one, including a real choice about being
'educated'. The only thing that should be compulsory about education
is a parent telling their kids to get their rear ends out of bed and off
somewhere to work and learn.
All I can say is don't get rid of the prison - and build a few more.We are going to need them if we have an uneducated population in the
"Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition
that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be,
at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will
be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much
dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a
good education." Thomas Jefferson, January 14, 1818
Ending compulsory eduction would make the job market less competitive for kids
with who do get a diploma. They are the main ones such a system change will
benefit. Is that the intent of this lawmaker?
@LiveNLetLive"Just how successfully are you educating the kids who do
not want to be there?"Probably better than them not showing up
at all would educate them...@OlderGreg"where the teacher
has to teach to the slowest in the class"At the schools I went
to in Maryland we had tiers of classes starting in middle school: honors, merit,
and directed (there was some level of this in elementary school as well). The
ones who were the slowest for one reason or another went in directed classes and
ones who were the fastest were in honors or AP classes. It took care of things
rather easily. Is that not something that's done here?
Compulsory property tax to pay for schools that my kids are not required to
attend? Doesn't sound like fiscal conservatism to me.The
parents who are engaged (be it as parents of public/private/ or home schooled)
will continue to be engaged and those who are not will have truants on their
hands. Our pioneer forefathers were wise in requiring education. Let's
not reinvent the wheel.
Why in a free country, are our children forced into compulsory education?Let's be creative, and positive. Believe these words:We can educate our children. We can figure out what to teach. We can find
knowledgeable teachers.Words like mandate, and compulsory, are not
Public schools are failing to educate our children. Yet the educators ask for
more money every year, while complaining about all forms of accountability.
Education happens in spite of public schools not because of it. Most home
schooled children perform far better than their public school counterparts.
Parents have a greater incentive to do whats best for their children because
they love them and want them to succeed.
This is the best idea I've heard in a long time. Some people have come to
the idea of compulsory education as being the only way. Not true!!The educational level of our people is pathetic, and a tremendous waste of tax
money.Thomas Edison, Ben Franklin, Mark Twain, the Wright Brothers,
etc,-would never have accomplished what they did, if educated in today's
This is a political stunt to keep the state voting red. If the next generation
isn't educated, they'll be more likely to vote for Republicans. Once
a person learns basic critical thinking skills, they no longer consider
libertarian philosophies and any form of supernaturalism as reasonable.
I think many of you are forgetting the children of abuse. I don't
personally know of any abused children, but I could imagine an abusive parent
would love to keep their victims at home all day. That way they wouldn't be
interrupted by state officials, while beating their kids, or worse, raping them.
Often times, schools are keeping some kids safe. Try to think of the children
and their safety, before advocating something as asinine as keeping them away
from school, where they may gain some semblance of safety.
Look, folks. Senator Osmond did not come up with this harebrained idea on his
own. Go to the original post on the Senate blog and note the "Further
Reading" link below the post.It's an article written by Oak
Norton who has a lot of opinions (and blogs) on topics ranging from politics and
government to education and religion. On a YouTube video he calls compulsory
education, "unconstitutional and immoral."Norton, who is a
staunch supporter of 10th Amendment rights, doesn't seem to understand that
it was the states themselves that created compulsory education laws, beginning
with Massachusetts in 1852. If the Federal Government is not allowed to
regulate anything outside of what is explicitly stated in the Constitution, and
states created compulsory education laws, his "unconstitutional"
argument falls flat.What is "immoral" is allowing CHILDREN
to decide if they want to go to school or not, or allowing parents to harm the
future of their children by not sending them to school (public, private, home,
etc.). It's immoral to force the consequences of this poorly thought out
argument on society- higher crime, more welfare, further class division, etc.
It is impossible for me to believe that this individual does not have some
hidden agenda. Removing the obligation for children to go to school would mean
that the less affluent children would tend to drop out so to bring more income
into their families. It would also lead to more free reign of private schools to
teach religious based doctrine instead of science based. Mr. Osmond should be
removed from office for his odious proposal. Another thought: Since education is
the foundation of democracy, perhaps Mr. Osmond is a "Manchurian
Candidate?" He intends to undermine our democracy by increasing the numbers
of uneducated citizens.
Good way to create more Republicans.
Million; "Since all of income tax goes to pay for education in Utah then
there should be a limit on dependent deductions to four or three or two. It is
almost a no-brainer." what about the current ponzi scheme that the
government call "social security". If there are not sufficent wage
earners to support this system in the future, then who will pay your social
security, or if you don't depend on the government, then who will buy the
products that will keep the economy afloat and your retirement solvent? I have
more than 2 kids, all of them grown, and all of them employed, all of them pay
taxes and all of them 'consume' I'm grateful for them.
While the rest of the world is working harder to improve their education systems
and expand education into more of the population,the good Senator believes we
should take the opposite approach.We must compete with the rest of
the world to remain on top economically. That takes hard work. It is too easy
to say lets discard problem and challenging students. Throwing children to the
side is a horrible waste of resources and talent. These discarded
children are not going away. They would become a drain on social services and
increase crime rates. It taught they will be an asset for communities and the
nation.Hard work not throwing away children is the choice we need to
I don't understand what the representative point is. Children need to be
educated, if they want it or not. Some children are born into bad families. Some
have fled their homes to live on the street. Not every family values education.
As a society, we need to ensure our citizens are educated and productive to
compete with the brightest and the smartest kids from all over the world. That
is something we can't forget: we are in a global competition.There
are some students who are bored at school and I think we need to change the way
schools function. My mother sent me to the community college when high school
became too easy for me. Other parents steered their children towards vocational
education because they weren't interested in the classes offered at school.
It would be much better to address how we can teach these "problem"
children than to shut the entire system down. Real educators would try to find
out how they can improve the system. It helps to remind everybody that the
competition is biting at our heels.
I'm a former public school teacher, so I speak from first-hand experience.
Compulsory education has some very detrimental results:1. The students are
spending twelve of their most formative years in a rigid top-down hierarchy
where they sit powerless at the bottom - they are compelled what, where, and how
to learn. They get zero practice exercising or defending the rights they are
expected to responsibly wield when they turn 18. And this is supposed to help
them be good citizens of a free society?! Right.2. I've seen with my
own eyes how students respond to compulsion. They either play along (become
yes-men), subvert the system by disrupting the learning of others, rebel, or
withdraw. None of these responses are truly beneficial to a free society! 3. Compulsion Destroys Incentive to learn. Google it yourself and see the
horrific stats about the total lack of interest the vast majority of Americans
have in even reading books after they graduate! And it gets WORSE if they go to
college! Compulsion turns learning into a drudge and a bore - why would anyone
want to do that on their own after they graduate?
It is definitely an obligation on the part of society to educate its children.
This is not specifically a benefit or favor to the child, but to society as a
whole to have an educated workforce and electorate. If the schools are failing
in this, then fix the schools. If there are kids who don't want to be in
school, then educate the parents who allow this, rather than indulge them and
This proposal would solve the any graduation rate concerns. Only students that
wanted to be at school would count, so presto, 100% graduation rate.Just
make sure we invest in more prisons. . . There is no question that
parents should be engaged in their student's learning. This is not the way
to get parents engaged. Negligence by the parent is quite complicated, with no
easy fix. I would hate to have a neighbor who did not send their kids to school
and there would be no consequence. For the sake of the poor
neglected child, protect their right to an education.
Those of you objecting to "removing" kids from schools fail to
understand the Senator's point. Whether or not the child is in school would
be left up to the parents and the child. In other words, families would need to
make an active choice. This is about being responsible for your choices and
actions instead of passively accepting what authority tells you. Being
responsible for your own choices? Frightening, isn't it? But, so many
people would rather have a big brother tell what they must do, and so many folks
have a financial interest in maintain the status quo that it seems likely little
will change until we descend further into crisis.
The main reason Utah expenditures for education are so low is because the large
families don't pay for the cost because the larger the family the more
deductions they have. Since all of income tax goes to pay for education in Utah
then there should be a limit on dependent deductions to four or three or two. It
is almost a no-brainer.
At first I felt an outrage but on 2nd thought I am more outraged at how
government is exploiting eduction for its own propaganda agenda. We
Americans want our history and culture with unregulated free thought education
where no subject is banned.I am inclined to agree with this concept
as the only way to shut down corruption in education by governemnt mandates and
propaganda. Let the parents teach their own home education programs and drop
educaiton taxes for sales tax and property tax and let parents take care of and
provide for their families.Its the only way to shut down the
governemnt socialist machine and eduction is a privilege and not a right or
mandate of governemnt policies. Education is free and parents are better able to
teach children about the land they own. Board of education was created to
provided materials and books for education, not be empowered as a governemnt
agency.I am for starting over, shut down the system, hit reset and
hard reboot, and give educaiton in the home a priority without any other
Thank you, Utah State Legislature, for making sure Arizona is not on the very
bottom of the Public Embarrassment Scale.
Since parents can already choose to "home school" when they don't
really (and I'm not talking about the dedicated parents who appear to at
least try) why would it be necessary to change the compulsory education laws?
Senator Osmond: You are naive, misguided and will not be re-elected... For those
who are calling for the children who are not interested in learning to be
removed from school: these children do not simply disappear once removed from
elementary school, they become uneducated adults and cost the tax payer much
more in the end. True, there are problems with our education system. Making
learning optional is not the answer. Don't like the public education? Send
your kid to private school or home school them, as the law currently allows.
Reading Osmond proposal on his own website, gives me the indication that he has
not given this much thought and has no real plan. It's scatterbrained and
offers no clear argument. Read it for yourself...
I went to the Senate blog and read the entire post from Senator Osmond. While I
understand what he is trying to achieve, I think that there are better ways of
going about it.The world (and the state) were a much different place
in the 1890's than they are today. In 1890, 35.1% of the population of the
United States was urban- most people lived and worked on farms (large or
subsistence) and ranches (of varying size). By 1990, we were 75.2% urban. Jobs
have changed, challenges are different, and education is much more important for
countries competing on the world stage.While the premise of giving
more time, attention and resources to students who "want" to be in
school may sound appealing, think for a moment about those children and parents
who opt out of education. What's that going to do to society in 20, 40, 80
or 100 years? What kind of new class division is that going to create? What
will happen to the welfare system? The longer term prospects are
frightening.Frankly, I see this as just another backdoor attempt to
force the voucher issue by throwing out something much scarier.
In today's "enlightened" educational world, where we do not put
kids on a track, where inclusion is paramount, where the teacher has to teach to
the slowest in the class, where there are kids who (for a multitude of reasons)
just don't give a hoot, you are *not* going to be able to teach those who
are able and wanting to learn. Removing those who just don't
want to be there is a darned good start----
One of the biggest problems we have in this country is Super Nanny making sure
everyone does what someone else thinks is vital and appropriate. We have more
than proven that public school fails to educate the unmotivated, but costs
astronomical amounts of money in the process. The people who want the
government to "ensure" everything conveniently ignore little things like
the nearly $17,000,000,000,000 official Federal deficit we have now. They
somehow forget the children and grandchildren when it comes to things like that.
@LiveNLetLive"I am not sure the Senator's detractors are on
solid ground. Just how successfully are you educating the kids who do not want
to be there?"Successfully enough that many will graduate, get
jobs, go to college, the military, etc. Believe me, many children who graduate
do so kicking screaming as their parents and the law force them to do so. Their
diplomas as just as valuable as the valedictorian. Not everyone
comes from a family that is highly educated, highly supportive, or even highly
successful. Those children, above all others, need the leg up that
"forcing" them to be there will give them.
I am not sure the Senator's detractors are on solid ground. Just how
successfully are you educating the kids who do not want to be there?If the only kids in school were the one's whose parents wanted them
there, school performance might sky rocket. At least the schools would be able
to concentrate on teaching rather than just warehousing bodies for 8 to 12
Just when you think you've seen Utah at its silliest, Utah surprises you
once again. The inanity of the state's leadership is infinite.
Welfare good for beetdiggingcougar.Education bad for the kids who need it
I'm guessing most people haven't been inside a public school lately,
you might be amazed at the amount of resources are spent (both money and
teachers' emotions) on students who don't want to learn and are there
only because they are legally required to be there. You can't force anyone
to learn or have motivation to be better. I think this is what Sen. Osmond is
going for. When I was in such a public school I thought that
perhaps 1/3rd of the students actually wanted to learn, 1/3rd were there for the
social aspect, and 1/3rd were there because they had to be. I might be
incorrect in my ratios, but the fact is that if people don't want to be
there, why waste money that could be put to better use?By the way,
before I get destroyed by other readers, I was raised by a single mom (on
welfare) who eventually put himself through university (BS & Masters).
I'm all about helping the poor rise up, but if someone doesn't want
it, let's move on to someone who does care.
It is not the primary job of the government to educate people. It is primarily
the job of parents to educate their children. Teachers like to complain that
one of the problems they face is that they have to teach everyone. This would
free up a teachers time dealing with students who don't want to learn.It is a waste of time to force students to attend school if they
don't want to learn.
I am not sure what Sen. Osmond is trying to accomplish here. It is clear that
education is vital. Everyone should know how to read, write and have basic math
skills. If not a school, where? Home education is already allowed, as long as
it meets certain criteria. Section 10 of the State Constitution
requires that public education be offered for free. Is he trying to change the
State Constitution? If so, I am a no vote. If the issue is an
overload of responsibilities for schools(superintendents and teachers), then the
Legislature, along with the various Boards of Education, need to find a better
path.From my perspective, the path Sen. Osmond is trying to lay out
is unclear, with no clear goal, but if it is to allow kids to op out of any form
of education, then it is a dead end path, for both the child and society.
I thought Osmond was starting to change the Republican view of education. Not
any more. What a bizarre proposal--by all means, let's make even more sure
that we have a permanent underclass of uneducated poor. Why are Republicans
always coming up with these catastrophic notions?
Yes, what we need is less educashun!
How in the world is eliminating compulsory education supposed to help with that?