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

Stephanie wrote:
> Banty wrote:
>> 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
> 
> 
> Except for the lack of free child care. 
> 
> 

IME the parents like you describe aren't particularly mindful of how 
well their children are cared for.  Most have a parent home - or have no 
problem leaving older children in charge of younger children.