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

Stephanie wrote:
> I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing
> kids into school.

 I believe providing good, free education for its children is a primary 
responsibility of The State, wherever your particular state happens to be,

and the costs for that should come out of the public purse via taxes
leveled 
at the highest level. (That is, state and federal, not neighbourhood.) I 
also believe parents should have the right to choose to homeschool or pay 
for private schooling but that state funding should only be applied to 
private schools that meet or exceed the standards of education provided by

the state.


> 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.

That is something that varies considerably from community to community, 
unfortunately.

>
> 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.


Punish him twice, you mean? Once with the bad luck of being born into a 
dysfunctional home and the second time by deciding that he doesn't deserve

to be given any extra and compensatory help to mitigate the first bad roll

of the dice? Leaving aside simple human compassion it still doesn't make 
sound economic dense for a State to abandon children who are already in 
difficult situations.

>
> 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.

It would certainly be better if the parents were fulfilling their roles
but 
schools, public and private, are next next line of defence where the
welfare 
of children are concerned and that is how it should be, in my opinion.


>
> Interested in your thoughts.