Re: the requirement that the state *provide* an education

In article <LrOdnXIlEszICBrVnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Stephanie
says...
>
>I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing kids

>into school. I am also flummoxed with the number of children who come to 
>school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything* about
intellectually 
>ready. I mean things like having had an adequate breakfast with a
lunchbox 
>of snack and lunch provided. I mean having gotten an adequate night's
sleep 
>at least mostof the time. I mean coming to school free of stress from 
>monstorously disfunctional families.
>
>In this group, we are selected out to see it less than it may occur in
other 
>places. We are concnerned enough about kids to belong to a group that 
>discusses the subject. And we are in a somewhat educated group who would 
>seek out such conversation. But whether or not this is going on in *our* 
>schools (it sure is in our neighborhood rural school) it is a big part of

>the policy force.
>
>I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its being 
>offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to protect 
>children from their crappy parents? How about if the education was
offered 
>but not mandated? If a child is a discipline problem or a disruptive 
>influence, instead of going through this weird discipline system that has
no 
>teeth (if a student does not want to be there, then sticking them in 
>detention is no great deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the later

>grades. If the child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty,
exhausted... 
>send them home until they are in a state to learn.
>
>It reminds me an awful lot of the welfare reform that occured a few years

>back. I never thought it would happen since people would be in an uproad 
>about hte kids of these parents who were being dumped from the system. I
was 
>wrong.
>
>I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am trying
to 
>kick up some sort of different conversation around education in this 
>country. I *do* however feel that the schools have had to take on more
and 
>more and more of what used to be the place of the parent. And I am not
sure 
>that is a good thing.
>
>Interested in your thoughts. 
>
>

The thing is, one needs to eat and have a roof over one's head, so there
is
personal incentive to respond if welfare is reformed.

In the case of education, it's being done for *public* benefit, so the
parents
who would not prepare their kids for school, would have no personal
incentive to
do so if required to prepare them, or no school.

Banty