State Senator Aaron Osmond (R-UT) recently wrote on his blog that he thinks education shouldn’t be mandatory. He thinks that mandating education has made parents disengaged in their child’s education and has subsequently forced teachers to overtake their parental responsibilities.
Sen. Osmond (Donnie and Marie Osmond’s nephew) wrote:
“Some parents completely disengage themselves from their obligation to oversee and ensure the successful education of their children. Some parents act as if the responsibility to educate, and even care for their child, is primarily the responsibility of the public school system. As a result, our teachers and schools have been forced to become surrogate parents, expected to do everything from behavioral counseling, to providing adequate nutrition, to teaching sex education, as well as ensuring full college and career readiness.
Unfortunately, in this system, teachers rarely receive meaningful support or engagement from parents and occasionally face retaliation when they attempt to hold a child accountable for bad behavior or poor academic performance.”
Furthermore, the state senator believes parents should decide if their children attend school and how many hours they attend in a school year.
Reading comments like these from anyone, let alone a state senator,never ceases to dumbfound me. I have to take a moment and wonder how these people got elected. I think in this case his celebrity family certainly helped. Sen. Osmond thinks that disengaged parents will miraculously become engaged when their children no longer have to go to school. I’m trying to understand that logic.
Education should be a right ensured by our government. Altering education as not mandatory would only greater distort the income disparity in this country. I think it is feasible to think that children of wealthier families will continue to attend schools (with now potentially even better teachers). If there is less demand for teachers than many schools will close; thus making schools more scarce and unavailable for many communities.
If education isn’t mandatory, then what makes Osmond believe this disengaged parent will provide an alternative education. This disengaged parent he speaks of could very well ignore seeking any adequate alternative and this child may now spend the rest of their lives never ascending their family’s current status (financial, economic, etc.).
Another point ignored by the senator is the fact that parents can in fact home-school their children. So they don’t have to go to school. There should however be a requirement that every child in this country receive a basic education. Any alternative to that bare necessity is ill-advised.
What do you think of his opinion?
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate
