Comments about ‘Utah lawmaker calls for end of compulsory education’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 16 2013 10:45 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

How in the world is eliminating compulsory education supposed to help with that?

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

Yes, what we need is less educashun!

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

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?

Murray, UT

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.

Mark l

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.

Vancouver, WA

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.

Reasonable Person
Layton, UT

Welfare good for beetdiggingcougar.
Education bad for the kids who need it the most.

Ed Firmage, Jr.
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Bakersfield, CA

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 years.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT


"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.

Sandy, UT

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.


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----

Kearns, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, UT

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...

Ogden, UT

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?

Mesa, AZ

Thank you, Utah State Legislature, for making sure Arizona is not on the very bottom of the Public Embarrassment Scale.

Taylorsville, UT

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 services.

Bluffdale, UT

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.

morristown, NJ

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.

Ya Buddy
Spanish Fork, Utah

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments