Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education

[auditor0007]

Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education

A Republican state senator in Utah is calling for the end of mandatory education in the state.

State Sen. Aaron Osmond (R-South Jordan) wrote on the state Senate blog Friday that mandatory education in the state has forced teachers and schools to take on parenting responsibilities. Prior to the mandate taking effect in 1890, he wrote, education was "an opportunity" and parents were more engaged. He also wrote that teachers were more respected. The Deseret News first reported Osmond's blog post on Tuesday.

Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education

So, How many cons are going to tell us how great an idea this is? Of course we know that it would only be children of the very poor who would no longer receive an education, but hey, that would be a good thing, right?

You idiot. He wrote an opinion, which was propably taken out of context. He did not acll for an end to manditory education. Unless you can show me the bill he introduced.

I'd call you an idiot and a liberal but I hate repeating myself.

I don't care if it was just something he blogged about; it's something that he believes, which is as dumb as it gets. And I was right, I found a number of people who wholeheartedly support this idea.

As for idiots, well, I've seen many of your posts. And BTW, you're so bright that you actually believe I'm a flaming left wing liberal. The problem with most of you on the far right is that you are so far to the right that you think everyone else is far left. There just is no answer for stupid.

 

[Oddball]

If kids don't want to be there, they shouldn't have to be there. The idea of mandatory education is ludicrous. It leads to the situation we have now -- our schools becoming warehouses instead of educational facilities. Teachers should not be babysitters. Teachers should be able to dismiss anyone who disrupts his or her classroom. You cannot force people to learn. It's a silly notion.

Okay, so when all the third graders decide they don't want to go to school anymore, we should just send them all home. Got it. You guys are cracking me up. Unfortunately your idiocy is a real thing that we must deal with.

Right...And the only thing that would keep the parent sending the child to school is compulsory attendance....That people are so stupid ("people" that is, except for the politicians, bureaucrats and their do-gooder enablers, who somehow get an exemption) that they wouldn't see to it that their children get an education...As though all that is good and righteous flows from blind obedience to compulsion.

I believe you were blabbering something about idiocy?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education



Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education

So, How many cons are going to tell us how great an idea this is? Of course we know that it would only be children of the very poor who would no longer receive an education, but hey, that would be a good thing, right?

You will never hear me saying that there should not be enough education for everybody to learn to read and write and perform simple tasks of arithmatics.

But it is nothing less than snobbish and unreasonable to think and publicly say that EVERY child must have a college education. That idiocy is equivalent to say that every child should and MUST be able to and be allowed to play in the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL.

Meanwhile jobs for carpenters, plumbers, tailors, painters, mechanics, locksmiths, pipe-fitters, tire-builders, steam-fitters, truck drivers, clerks, miners, lumberjacks, factory workers, etc., etc., go unfilled, because illiterate college graduates think (and I use the word quite liberally) that they are too good to get their hands dirty and do something useful, while they are waiting for the call to become Vice Presidents of companies, in their parents's basement.

The only thing that is more despicable than the soft racism of low expectations is the unrealistic projection of non-existent abilities and qualifications.

Nobody here is talking about college education, and nobody that I know of has suggested that a college education should be mandatory. Now you do bring up a very good point that our K through 12 program of education does a huge disservice to many kids, because not everyone is book smart or geared toward going to college. We need more vocational schools and programs for high school kids to take part in. This is where most European countries beat us hands down. In most European countries, kids graduate after ninth grade and then go on to either higher academic education or they go to a vocational school or begin working an apprenticeship in a given trade. The not so bright kids get an education in something they understand and where they can actually become successful.

Unfortunately instead of getting responses such as this and discussing ways of improving our educational system, we have nutters promoting the idea that if a fifth grader doesn't like school, we shouldn't make him/her go to school anymore. It's a simple solution, but of course it ignores the consequences of such solutions.

The problem here is your phrase "not so bright."

If you think machinists, carpenters, boilermakers, cabinet makers are "not so bright," you have no experience of the world or are an insufferable snob.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education

A Republican state senator in Utah is calling for the end of mandatory education in the state.

State Sen. Aaron Osmond (R-South Jordan) wrote on the state Senate blog Friday that mandatory education in the state has forced teachers and schools to take on parenting responsibilities. Prior to the mandate taking effect in 1890, he wrote, education was "an opportunity" and parents were more engaged. He also wrote that teachers were more respected. The Deseret News first reported Osmond's blog post on Tuesday.

Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education

So, How many cons are going to tell us how great an idea this is? Of course we know that it would only be children of the very poor who would no longer receive an education, but hey, that would be a good thing, right?

were did you get that out of that?......

 

[auditor0007]

If kids don't want to be there, they shouldn't have to be there. The idea of mandatory education is ludicrous. It leads to the situation we have now -- our schools becoming warehouses instead of educational facilities. Teachers should not be babysitters. Teachers should be able to dismiss anyone who disrupts his or her classroom. You cannot force people to learn. It's a silly notion.

Okay, so when all the third graders decide they don't want to go to school anymore, we should just send them all home. Got it. You guys are cracking me up. Unfortunately your idiocy is a real thing that we must deal with.

Sure. And when they get home, their parents will most likely make sure it doesn't happen again.

The idea that you can force improvement on someone by using the power of law to make him sit in a classroom is what is laughable.

I know, why don't we make it illegal to have an IQ below 120 on the Stanford-Benet test?

Then we'd all have a bright future. I'd like to see rain outlawed on weekends, too.

When it is plain that something isn't working, and our public education system is a debacle, it's time to change it.

After all, isn't that what being a progressive is all about?

I have no problem changing it. In fact, I have a lot of great ideas how we could make it much better and cost effective. But telling kids they don't have to go to school is not at the top of my list of "great ideas".

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Okay, so when all the third graders decide they don't want to go to school anymore, we should just send them all home. Got it. You guys are cracking me up. Unfortunately your idiocy is a real thing that we must deal with.

Sure. And when they get home, their parents will most likely make sure it doesn't happen again.

The idea that you can force improvement on someone by using the power of law to make him sit in a classroom is what is laughable.

I know, why don't we make it illegal to have an IQ below 120 on the Stanford-Benet test?

Then we'd all have a bright future. I'd like to see rain outlawed on weekends, too.

When it is plain that something isn't working, and our public education system is a debacle, it's time to change it.

After all, isn't that what being a progressive is all about?

I have no problem changing it. In fact, I have a lot of great ideas how we could make it much better and cost effective. But telling kids they don't have to go to school is not at the top of my list of "great ideas".

Then tell your kids they have to go to school. Problem solved.

 

[auditor0007]

You will never hear me saying that there should not be enough education for everybody to learn to read and write and perform simple tasks of arithmatics.

But it is nothing less than snobbish and unreasonable to think and publicly say that EVERY child must have a college education. That idiocy is equivalent to say that every child should and MUST be able to and be allowed to play in the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL.

Meanwhile jobs for carpenters, plumbers, tailors, painters, mechanics, locksmiths, pipe-fitters, tire-builders, steam-fitters, truck drivers, clerks, miners, lumberjacks, factory workers, etc., etc., go unfilled, because illiterate college graduates think (and I use the word quite liberally) that they are too good to get their hands dirty and do something useful, while they are waiting for the call to become Vice Presidents of companies, in their parents's basement.

The only thing that is more despicable than the soft racism of low expectations is the unrealistic projection of non-existent abilities and qualifications.

Nobody here is talking about college education, and nobody that I know of has suggested that a college education should be mandatory. Now you do bring up a very good point that our K through 12 program of education does a huge disservice to many kids, because not everyone is book smart or geared toward going to college. We need more vocational schools and programs for high school kids to take part in. This is where most European countries beat us hands down. In most European countries, kids graduate after ninth grade and then go on to either higher academic education or they go to a vocational school or begin working an apprenticeship in a given trade. The not so bright kids get an education in something they understand and where they can actually become successful.

Unfortunately instead of getting responses such as this and discussing ways of improving our educational system, we have nutters promoting the idea that if a fifth grader doesn't like school, we shouldn't make him/her go to school anymore. It's a simple solution, but of course it ignores the consequences of such solutions.

The problem here is your phrase "not so bright."

If you think machinists, carpenters, boilermakers, cabinet makers are "not so bright," you have no experience of the world or are an insufferable snob.

Not so bright as in "book smarts". That doesn't mean they lack intelligence or that they are stupid, although there are some who are limited, but much of the time it is due to their own choices.

 

[Oddball]

Okay, so when all the third graders decide they don't want to go to school anymore, we should just send them all home. Got it. You guys are cracking me up. Unfortunately your idiocy is a real thing that we must deal with.

Sure. And when they get home, their parents will most likely make sure it doesn't happen again.

The idea that you can force improvement on someone by using the power of law to make him sit in a classroom is what is laughable.

I know, why don't we make it illegal to have an IQ below 120 on the Stanford-Benet test?

Then we'd all have a bright future. I'd like to see rain outlawed on weekends, too.

When it is plain that something isn't working, and our public education system is a debacle, it's time to change it.

After all, isn't that what being a progressive is all about?

I have no problem changing it. In fact, I have a lot of great ideas how we could make it much better and cost effective. But telling kids they don't have to go to school is not at the top of my list of "great ideas".

Minor children don't make decisions like that.

 

[auditor0007]

Sure. And when they get home, their parents will most likely make sure it doesn't happen again.

The idea that you can force improvement on someone by using the power of law to make him sit in a classroom is what is laughable.

I know, why don't we make it illegal to have an IQ below 120 on the Stanford-Benet test?

Then we'd all have a bright future. I'd like to see rain outlawed on weekends, too.

When it is plain that something isn't working, and our public education system is a debacle, it's time to change it.

After all, isn't that what being a progressive is all about?

I have no problem changing it. In fact, I have a lot of great ideas how we could make it much better and cost effective. But telling kids they don't have to go to school is not at the top of my list of "great ideas".

Then tell your kids they have to go to school. Problem solved.

Yea, I'm not worried about my kids. They are doing fine.

 

[auditor0007]

Sure. And when they get home, their parents will most likely make sure it doesn't happen again.

The idea that you can force improvement on someone by using the power of law to make him sit in a classroom is what is laughable.

I know, why don't we make it illegal to have an IQ below 120 on the Stanford-Benet test?

Then we'd all have a bright future. I'd like to see rain outlawed on weekends, too.

When it is plain that something isn't working, and our public education system is a debacle, it's time to change it.

After all, isn't that what being a progressive is all about?

I have no problem changing it. In fact, I have a lot of great ideas how we could make it much better and cost effective. But telling kids they don't have to go to school is not at the top of my list of "great ideas".

Minor children don't make decisions like that.

But if they have idiots for parents who don't give a shit if they go to school or not, next thing we have third graders not going to school "because it is not mandatory".

 

[Oddball]

I have no problem changing it. In fact, I have a lot of great ideas how we could make it much better and cost effective. But telling kids they don't have to go to school is not at the top of my list of "great ideas".

Then tell your kids they have to go to school. Problem solved.

Yea, I'm not worried about my kids. They are doing fine.

Then the rest is none of your damned business.

And you wonder why people call you a lib?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have no problem changing it. In fact, I have a lot of great ideas how we could make it much better and cost effective. But telling kids they don't have to go to school is not at the top of my list of "great ideas".

Then tell your kids they have to go to school. Problem solved.

Yea, I'm not worried about my kids. They are doing fine.

And you can stop worrying about other people's kids because how they choose to raise them is not your concern.

 

[Oddball]

I have no problem changing it. In fact, I have a lot of great ideas how we could make it much better and cost effective. But telling kids they don't have to go to school is not at the top of my list of "great ideas".

Minor children don't make decisions like that.

But if they have idiots for parents who don't give a shit if they go to school or not, next thing we have third graders not going to school "because it is not mandatory".

We already have that right now....Have you seen the inner city dropout rates?

MYOB, busybody.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education



Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education

So, How many cons are going to tell us how great an idea this is? Of course we know that it would only be children of the very poor who would no longer receive an education, but hey, that would be a good thing, right?

I think it's an excellent idea and I've been saying so for several years and why is it exactly that children of the very poor would no longer receive an education?

Because these kids come from families that are not conducive to learning in the first place. There are many parents out there who don't really care about their kids. These kids would be left without an education or even the opportunity at an education. So we would be punishing kids who have stupid parents. Honestly, I'm shocked that you would support such an idiotic idea. I would expect this type of thinking from some others on here but did not expect it from you.

so maybe start getting on parents who have kids and dont pay attention to them....make their lives a little miserable......

 

[Katzndogz]

We already have plenty of uneducated non-productive people living in this country. Do you really want to add to that number? And this would be good for America how?

Is that is supposed to be some kind of evidence of the success of compulsory gubmint edumacation?

Really?

Just because not every single person comes out highly educated does not mean that we remove the opportunity from those who cannot afford it or for whatever reason believe education is unimportant. Our military has lost a number of wars or not prevailed in the way they anticipated. Should we get rid of the military because of this? Hospitals don't save every patient that they see, so should we get rid of hospitals and doctors because they are not 100% effective? Public roads fall apart over time causing damage to our vehicles when we drive on them, so should we get rid of roads?

While I'm sure it was most likely just a typo, you should brush up on your grammar, and I'm not referring to your sarcastic spelling.

If someone is forcibly taken to the hospital and tells the hospital personnel that they don't want to be treated no doctor will touch that person. They are turned away. If someone doesn't want to be a police officer we don't give them a badge and patrol car. If someone is on a baseball team and refuses to play we don't make them show up at the outfield. If someone doesn't want to fly a plane we don't give them a pilot's license.

Education is provided for those who want an education and cannot afford one. There is no point to forcing kids to go to school if all they are going to do is disrupt the process for other students who want to be there. For whatever reason, we have a group of students, and their parents who support them who refuse to be educated. You cannot educate them against their will. All you can do is give them an opportunity to punish the school and the other students for forcing them to be there.

 

[JoeNormal]

Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education

A Republican state senator in Utah is calling for the end of mandatory education in the state.

State Sen. Aaron Osmond (R-South Jordan) wrote on the state Senate blog Friday that mandatory education in the state has forced teachers and schools to take on parenting responsibilities. Prior to the mandate taking effect in 1890, he wrote, education was "an opportunity" and parents were more engaged. He also wrote that teachers were more respected. The Deseret News first reported Osmond's blog post on Tuesday.

Aaron Osmond, Utah State Senator, Calls For End To Mandatory Education

So, How many cons are going to tell us how great an idea this is? Of course we know that it would only be children of the very poor who would no longer receive an education, but hey, that would be a good thing, right?

You will never hear me saying that there should not be enough education for everybody to learn to read and write and perform simple tasks of arithmatics.

But it is nothing less than snobbish and unreasonable to think and publicly say that EVERY child must have a college education. That idiocy is equivalent to say that every child should and MUST be able to and be allowed to play in the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL.

Meanwhile jobs for carpenters, plumbers, tailors, painters, mechanics, locksmiths, pipe-fitters, tire-builders, steam-fitters, truck drivers, clerks, miners, lumberjacks, factory workers, etc., etc., go unfilled, because illiterate college graduates think (and I use the word quite liberally) that they are too good to get their hands dirty and do something useful, while they are waiting for the call to become Vice Presidents of companies, in their parents's basement.

The only thing that is more despicable than the soft racism of low expectations is the unrealistic projection of non-existent abilities and qualifications.

I agree that college is not for everybody. I like the system they have in Europe that sets up apprenticeships for those trades. Learn from the masters.

 

[auditor0007]

I think it's an excellent idea and I've been saying so for several years and why is it exactly that children of the very poor would no longer receive an education?

Because these kids come from families that are not conducive to learning in the first place. There are many parents out there who don't really care about their kids. These kids would be left without an education or even the opportunity at an education. So we would be punishing kids who have stupid parents. Honestly, I'm shocked that you would support such an idiotic idea. I would expect this type of thinking from some others on here but did not expect it from you.

Why wouldn't you expect it? I'm very consistent in supporting ideas that make sense. The idea that every child deserves an education, while a noble goal, is inherently flawed, for some of the reasons you just mentioned. There are kids out there who come from families that don't give a shit about their education and hence, more times than not, the kids don't give a shit about their education. Since we force them to attend, however, they show up and cause trouble, get into fights, bully other kids, and are a constant distraction and disciplinary problem. You want to fix the public education system? Take out the trash. Remove the problem kids permanently and you'll see the standard of learning increase across the board, especially in the inner cities. Those kids causing problems aren't making anything of their lives right now in our compulsory system, so it makes no sense to force them to be there.

I'm thinking this through logically. You seem to be thinking strictly from emotion.

I would imagine everyone with such a view would also be pro-abortion. We know kids who are not wanted to begin with don't do as well as those who are wanted, so a pregnancy isn't wanted, we should promote aborting that fetus as quickly as possible. Why would we want a potential drain on society to ever be born? Just saying....

 

[Harry Dresden]

You're going to have the same number of useless drains on society. At least letting them drop out of school frees up money and resources for the kids who truly want to be there and learn.

there is a point here.....if you have a kid in HS and is nothing but a disruption to the kids who want to learn they should be somewhere else besides HS.....maybe send then to a trade school or the Military.....HS sure as hell aint doing them no good.....

 

[DiamondDave]

We already have plenty of uneducated non-productive people living in this country. Do you really want to add to that number? And this would be good for America how?

Is that is supposed to be some kind of evidence of the success of compulsory gubmint edumacation?

Really?

Just because not every single person comes out highly educated does not mean that we remove the opportunity from those who cannot afford it or for whatever reason believe education is unimportant. Our military has lost a number of wars or not prevailed in the way they anticipated. Should we get rid of the military because of this? Hospitals don't save every patient that they see, so should we get rid of hospitals and doctors because they are not 100% effective? Public roads fall apart over time causing damage to our vehicles when we drive on them, so should we get rid of roads?

While I'm sure it was most likely just a typo, you should brush up on your grammar, and I'm not referring to your sarcastic spelling.

Idiot.. it would not remove the opportunity... it would remove the compulsory aspect

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Because these kids come from families that are not conducive to learning in the first place. There are many parents out there who don't really care about their kids. These kids would be left without an education or even the opportunity at an education. So we would be punishing kids who have stupid parents. Honestly, I'm shocked that you would support such an idiotic idea. I would expect this type of thinking from some others on here but did not expect it from you.

Why wouldn't you expect it? I'm very consistent in supporting ideas that make sense. The idea that every child deserves an education, while a noble goal, is inherently flawed, for some of the reasons you just mentioned. There are kids out there who come from families that don't give a shit about their education and hence, more times than not, the kids don't give a shit about their education. Since we force them to attend, however, they show up and cause trouble, get into fights, bully other kids, and are a constant distraction and disciplinary problem. You want to fix the public education system? Take out the trash. Remove the problem kids permanently and you'll see the standard of learning increase across the board, especially in the inner cities. Those kids causing problems aren't making anything of their lives right now in our compulsory system, so it makes no sense to force them to be there.

I'm thinking this through logically. You seem to be thinking strictly from emotion.

I would imagine everyone with such a view would also be pro-abortion. We know kids who are not wanted to begin with don't do as well as those who are wanted, so a pregnancy isn't wanted, we should promote aborting that fetus as quickly as possible. Why would we want a potential drain on society to ever be born? Just saying....

I am pro-choice, but that has no relevancy in this discussion. Don't dodge the points I made.