Monday, April 09, 2007

Why is it...

The best ideas only seem to come from rather sparsely populated states?

Check out Governing.com's 13th Floor. A Montana State Legislator is chairman of an education committee (as well as a member of a third party) and he's taking aim at the law of compulsory attendence in schools...
I've been working on a profile of Rick Jore, who chairs the Montana House's education committee despite being the only representative in the state from a third party. Jore home-schooled his own kids and has tried for years to end compulsory school attendance.

"There's a misconception that because we have a constitutionally established system of schooling in the state that the state has a compelling interest to require attendance," he told me. "My view is that is a usurpation of the authority of parents. Compulsory attendance necessarily presupposes that every child is a ward of the state. I disagree. Every child is a ward of the family or parents or guardians."

Jore also thinks the federal government has no role in funding education and its education department should be abolished.

Not surprisingly, the educational establishment in Montana can't stand Jore or the fact that he heads up the committee that oversees them. But that raises an interesting point. Should people on policy committees necessarily be fans of the policies and programs they're charged with overseeing?
There are a few other questions than compulsory school attendance or even whether the Federal government should have a role in education. Does more money make for a better public education? This is probably one thing we should talk about as a debate is to start brewing in Illinois about whether this GRT is a good idea or not to bring in more funds for education.

So I guess the question should be begged, should there be compulsory education in our schools?

1 comment:

Yosemite1967 said...

In answer to the title of your article...

I currently live in a relatively sparsely populated area of Montana, but I've lived in high-population cities before--ones with even more people than the most populated American cities. I've observed some contrasting tendencies in people who have been brought up in these two vastly different surroundings.

Those raised in high-population areas tend to be more judgmental and nosey about the doings of their neighbors. Therefore, they tend to oppress their neighbors directly (by neighborhood covenants, harassing their neighbors about yard messes, etc.) and indirectly (by supporting candidates and initiatives which will limit the freedom of the people).

Those raised in low-population areas (but not all) tend more to mind their own business, live and let live, be more genuinely friendly to their neighbors (even though they are more distant), and support less government control and intrusion into the people's lives.

It's not a hard and fast rule, just general average tendencies which I've noticed.

Perhaps this is why Isaiah 5:7,8,13 says, "...he looked for judgment, but behold oppression... Woe unto them that join house to house...til there be no place that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth... Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge..."

Post a Comment

Comments are now moderated because one random commenter chose to get comment happy. What doesn't get published is up to my discretion. Of course moderating policy is subject to change. Thanks!