NationStates Jolt Archive

Now I'm not generally a big fan of homeschooling but this is rediculous.

A family in Brussels is having charges brought up against them for not properly educating their children even though 4 out of 5 have gone to college and the 5th is taking their equivalency exams now.

Apparently Belgium, where homeschooling is legal, has passed a law requiring homeschoolers to follow vague undefined UN requirements for education and allow unrestricted inspectors to determine whether the children are meeting said requirements. If they "fail" the inspection, the children are put back into public schools.

Now assuming this is accurate, I wouldn't have a problem w/ it if there was some sort of age appropriate standards made for education but it seems the Belgium Gov't is just looking to regain control of a growing segment of the population.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1114

If the family's chidlren are so well educated, I guess it wont be a problem for them, I dont really see the harm in all this

If they dont meet the guidelines, they get sent to Public school

It makes sense

If the family's chidlren are so well educated, I guess it wont be a problem for them, I dont really see the harm in all this

If they dont meet the guidelines, they get sent to Public school

It makes sense

What are the guidelines though?

That's the point I have contention w/.

That's such bullshit. :upyours:

I hate this world.

If the family's chidlren are so well educated, I guess it wont be a problem for them, I dont really see the harm in all this

If they dont meet the guidelines, they get sent to Public school

It makes sense
The problem would be that the guidelines are not defined in a clear and consistent manner. Even if there are specific guidelines, they are not widely known and the parents have no way to comply with them.

That's such bullshit. :upyours:

I hate this world.

Oh.

This is just sad. Wow, Europe's sucumbed too! They want all their children to listen to the same bull shit that the government's giving them, so they force them all in public school.

That's such bullshit. :upyours:

I hate this world.

Someones taking this a little to seriously....:rolleyes:

Someones taking this a little to seriously....:rolleyes:
it's a serious issue, when parents are being denied the right to raise their children how they see fit, based on vague laws by the government.

I'd like to hear the other side of the issue as well but it does sound like a load of bull if their kids are able to pass the academic tests they need to get their diplomas or certificates.

Somethign she said about her husband writing racist stuff in the journal. makes me suspicios of the govt.'s motives for this.

Someones taking this a little to seriously....:rolleyes:No someone isn't.

I'd like to hear the other side of the issue as well but it does sound like a load of bull if their kids are able to pass the academic tests they need to get their diplomas or certificates.
not to throw the thred way off topic, but you know what the government does when public school kids don't live up to the standards they have? they give the schools more money.

I should start a campaign that says if homeschool kids don't live up to the standards set down that the parents should get some money

although, I don't think I could really get behind that for a number of reasons, mostly being I don't think that education should be government controlled, and you know I never would get any of the money since my kids are always going to be ahead, and then there is the fact that the government never really would define the standards for homeschool kids.......it would be too hard to shut down homeschooling that way


or....maybe I am in a bad mood today.....

In most cases, homeschooling should be banned anyway. Normal people are not capable of adequately teaching their children, especially when students start enterting the far more and increasingly complex subjects.

Some might be able to do it, but those are not the majority of people. Most cannot. It's too risky and the populations aren't intelligent and/or educated enough in a specific field or pedagogy to do everything that is needed. Education ought to be left to the professional educators and experts in their field.

In addition to the lack of expertise and pedagogical knowledge, parents also do use "homeschooling" initiatives to disguise the real motivation behind it: control. Often, the parents use "homeschool" as a means of molding the thought patters of the children so as to conform to their racist or religious ideological belief structures.

People must come to accept that Joe Blow isn't a qualified teacher. While they are at it, they ought to ban peer juries.

In most cases, homeschooling should be banned anyway. Normal people are not capable of adequately teaching their children, especially when students start enterting the far more and increasingly complex subjects.

Some might be able to do it, but those are not the majority of people. Most cannot. It's too risky and the populations aren't intelligent and/or educated enough in a specific field or pedagogy to do everything that is needed. Education ought to be left to the professional educators and experts in their field.

In addition to the lack of expertise and pedagogical knowledge, parents also do use "homeschooling" initiatives to disguise the real motivation behind it: control. Often, the parents use "homeschool" as a means of molding the thought patters of the children so as to conform to their racist or religious ideological belief structures.

People must come to accept that Joe Blow isn't a qualified teacher. While they are at it, they ought to ban peer juries.

I believe I'm qualified to teach my own children, but I don't do it because I have to work for a living. If I had the resources to stay home and do it, I would. If only for the fact that being taught by what amounts to a full-time one-on-one tutor is better overall than a classroom situation.

Here in Virginia the parents have to prove that they can do the teaching. So it's not being done by "unqualified" parents. And there are state tests the children have to take and pass - so the parents had better be teaching the right material.

Most people I know who homeschool do it because their child is of exceptional talent and intellect, who would otherwise be relegated to waiting for the average kids to catch up.

I believe I'm qualified to teach my own children, but I don't do it because I have to work for a living. If I had the resources to stay home and do it, I would. If only for the fact that being taught by what amounts to a full-time one-on-one tutor is better overall than a classroom situation.

Here in Virginia the parents have to prove that they can do the teaching. So it's not being done by "unqualified" parents. And there are state tests the children have to take and pass - so the parents had better be teaching the right material.

Most people I know who homeschool do it because their child is of exceptional talent and intellect, who would otherwise be relegated to waiting for the average kids to catch up.


You are right. I did say that some parents can do it. Some can, and it works for some children, but I don't believe the qualified examples are good examples of the whole (especially in the United States). I most fear the use of homeschooling by religious organizations such as the : Christian Homeschool Network of Washington. On the other hand, I don't believe it is a viable solution for most people because they don't all have the time and resources necessary to teach. You, for example, need to work.

I look at what the parents in PA and Kansas tried to do with evolution, and it's not too confidence-building. Do you want parents like that teaching?


PS: I have a bias, because in my Foundations class in college, we were inundated with cases in NJ in which the professor, who ran a school, had to deal with kids comming out of homeschooling programmes and returning to public ed. The returned students were so far behind because of the parents lack of time and knowledge that it was difficult to get them back on track.

They really just amount to brainwashing.

And what do you call state sponsored compulsory high school education?

Once again a government fails to resist the temptation of more power. What a surprise.

thats just retarded.

(\_/)*
(X.x)
(> <) <-- this bunny will save them! :)

And what do you call state sponsored compulsory high school education

Not religious indoctrination. Little is "indoctrinated" in school. Perhaps you think reality--like physics, biology, chemistry etc-- are "brainwashing." Public funded compuslory education is desirable. Having parents who have no credentials teaching their children "Jesus Mathematics" isn't.

A lot of the problem in modern educaiton in the US is the local yokels trying to push specific "community" agenda's into the secular system (E.g. Kansas).

Not religious indoctrination. Little is "indoctrinated" in school. Perhaps you think reality--like physics, biology, chemistry etc-- are "brainwashing." Public funded compuslory education is desirable. Having parents who have no credentials teaching their children "Jesus Mathematics" isn't.

A lot of the problem in modern educaiton in the US is the local yokels trying to push specific "community" agenda's into the secular system (E.g. Kansas).
wow. where did you get this bias again?

I happen to be a member of the local Christian homeschool network, and of the many homeschoolers I know NONE of them are indoctrinating their children with anything. (although I suppose it would depend on your definition of indoctrination and brainwashing)

H. L. Mencken, wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. ... Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim ... is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States... and that is its aim everywhere else.

In most cases, homeschooling should be banned anyway. Normal people are not capable of adequately teaching their children, especially when students start enterting the far more and increasingly complex subjects.

Some might be able to do it, but those are not the majority of people. Most cannot. It's too risky and the populations aren't intelligent and/or educated enough in a specific field or pedagogy to do everything that is needed. Education ought to be left to the professional educators and experts in their field.

People must come to accept that Joe Blow isn't a qualified teacher. While they are at it, they ought to ban peer juries.

If so, it's because THEY went to PUBLIC school. Or else dropped out of it.

In most cases, homeschooling should be banned anyway. Normal people are not capable of adequately teaching their children, especially when students start enterting the far more and increasingly complex subjects.

Some might be able to do it, but those are not the majority of people. Most cannot. It's too risky and the populations aren't intelligent and/or educated enough in a specific field or pedagogy to do everything that is needed. Education ought to be left to the professional educators and experts in their field.

In addition to the lack of expertise and pedagogical knowledge, parents also do use "homeschooling" initiatives to disguise the real motivation behind it: control. Often, the parents use "homeschool" as a means of molding the thought patters of the children so as to conform to their racist or religious ideological belief structures.

People must come to accept that Joe Blow isn't a qualified teacher. While they are at it, they ought to ban peer juries.

My parents did an adequate job of schooling me.

I'm in college right now. Did they do wrong? Apparently not.

If your idea of "Professional" educations is the NEA, you need to STFU and pipe down.

:headbang:

Another reason is paren'ts down want heather-has-two-mommies-PC-bullsh*t piped down their kid's throat.

If so, it's because THEY went to PUBLIC school. Or else dropped out of it.
Well of course. Because we all know that one needs no qualifications or training whatsoever to teach now, don't we?

Well of course. Because we all know that one needs no qualifications or training whatsoever to teach now, don't we?
you know I have a few friends who are teachers, they tell me most of what they actually learned in college was classroom management. I figure as long as I can manage my own children, then I can handle the rest of it.

What's the big "you must have a piece of paper to be able to teach" thing anyway?

what kind of parent leaves their child's entire education up to "professionals" anyway?

wow, this thred really did get off topic.

My parents did an adequate job of schooling me.
Well, they certainly produced a well-rounded, rational, tolerant, open-minded individual as everyone on this forum will readily agree.
Another reason is paren'ts down want heather-has-two-mommies-PC-bullsh*t piped down their kid's throat.
How dare they attempt to teach our children tolerance, empathy and understanding!! That's obscene!

Well of course. Because we all know that one needs no qualifications or training whatsoever to teach now, don't we?

Well, it depends on where you live/what state you live in.
You're right though, some states not only have no qualifying criteria for which parents can homeschool, but also have no testing of homeschooled children until the GED or SAT's.

Now, I don't know how it is in anyone else's school district, but since "No Child Left Behind" they don't "teach" so much as "drill" kids to pass tests. This incenses me no end. And for this reason, as well as some political nonsense, I shall be homeschooling my 7th grader next term and possibly even the next (8th grade). He is intellectually precocial and the current public education agenda frustrates and inhibits him.

Well, they certainly produced a well-rounded, rational, tolerant, open-minded individual as everyone on this forum will readily agree.

How dare they attempt to teach our children tolerance, empathy and understanding!! That's obscene!

I'm open to almost anything. Really, just not socialism or surrendering to the enemy..or a few others things. But I'm not so open minded my head falls out either.

Teaching children tolerance by making them think it's OK for heather to have two mommies? Ain't OK with me. Traditional families are my way...

And when I do have kids someday (should God let me have that privilege, and should I live that long) the wifey would homeschool them or private school them.

FYI, I was apart of a homeschooling group that had over 300 families in a 5 mile radius. Lots of us.

I'm open to almost anything. Really, just not socialism or surrendering to the enemy....

Teaching children tolerance by making them think it's OK for heather to have two mommies?

Ain't OK with me.

That's too bad. We hit something called the 21st century a while back and whether or not you're a homophobe has little to do with schooling standards.

That's too bad. We hit something called the 21st century a while back and whether or not you're a homophobe has little to do with schooling standards.
ah, yes, the 21st century where open mindedness and free thinking rule the day.... unless of course you think for yourself or actually have an opinion that doesn't go along with the "group mentality"

:rolleyes:

I swear all of you tote around the idea of tolerance, but are so intolerant of ideas other than your own.

which proves my point that the public school system isn't about education at all, but about trying to manage the people by teaching them all to think the same thing the same way.

ah, yes, the 21st century where open mindedness and free thinking rule the day.... unless of course you think for yourself or actually have an opinion that doesn't go along with the "group mentality"

Erm, no. The "unless" would be "you believe an entire segment of the population shouldn't be allowed to be parents just because you disagree with their sexual preferences." Then you can't hide under free thought, because what your intent is is to limit freedom.


:rolleyes:

I swear all of you tote around the idea of tolerance, but are so intolerant of ideas other than your own.


First, you're making a mistake with the "all of you." There's only one of me, and I haven't said word fucking one about "tolerance."

Second, I'm not trying to limit anyone else's rights based on my own sexual bias. That's why I am indeed being tolerant and why DM would not be.

which proves my point that the public school system isn't about education at all, but about trying to manage the people by teaching them all to think the same thing the same way.

Right. I'm sure it proves alllll your points, just like that. Thank god someone or something did, cuz you sure weren't eh?

Erm, no. The "unless" would be "you believe an entire segment of the population shouldn't be allowed to be parents just because you disagree with their sexual preferences." Then you can't hide under free thought, because what your intent is is to limit freedom.
:p that's funny.



First, you're making a mistake with the "all of you." There's only one of me, and I haven't said word fucking one about "tolerance."

first, just because I quote you, doesn't mean I am talking to you.

Second, I'm not trying to limit anyone else's rights based on my own sexual bias. That's why I am indeed being tolerant and why DM would not be.
second, I didn't see in DM's post anything about limiting anyone's rights, although he might have eluded to a parent's right to teach their own child. I ask you why aren't you tolerant of his opinion? and why would you try to limit an entire segment of people's rights based on your bias against homeschooling?



Right. I'm sure it proves alllll your points, just like that. Thank god someone or something did, cuz you sure weren't eh?
you know, I have been kinda half assed tonight.... guess I should go to bed and come back tomorrow. see you then.

Hey, you know what? I think governments should completely butt out of families, especially in the way they have intruded these days. Its not up to the government to decide how parents should bring up their children. Get this: My parents homeschooled me and all 7 of my siblings. I'm a medical school student with a bachelors degree in BiomedSci. My brothers are: a lawyer (LLM, LLB, BMus), a vet (BVSc(Dist)) and a professional musician (BMus(Hons)). Now my parents are educating my younger 4 siblings (5-10 yo), and the New Zealand government is threatening to take them and put them in foster care if they're not taught according to a certain pattern dictated by Education Review Officers (Ministry of Education). If this is not a blind invasion into the family's dignity, I'm a deaf bat. The funny thing is, they only got all annoyed after they found out that a large part of the education would be Bible based and religious (my dad's a pastor of a church). But all of us boys have been educated this way. Do you guys think the government is wrong here?
Like someone said to me the other day: New Zealand has a democratically elected communistic/socialist government.

How dare they attempt to teach our children tolerance, empathy and understanding!! That's obscene!

They are not teaching tolerance.

Indoctrinating people into thinking homosexual parenting is thoroughly normal is not teaching tolerance. It is teaching intolerance of anyone who deviates from this line, you and Trostia have proven this yourselves. As soon as you were faced with someone who thinks differently, you immediately begin the personal attacks.

Teaching tolerance is simply teaching people to keep their hands to themselves, to allow others to go about their business as they see fit while they allow you to go about your business as you see fit.

You have no right to ask more of people.

Second, I'm not trying to limit anyone else's rights based on my own sexual bias. That's why I am indeed being tolerant and why DM would not be.

No, you are seeking to limit people's rights based on their personal opinions, you are therefore being intolerant.

I submit that unless you can prove that Designated Marksman is actively violating the rights of homosexuals, or advocating that others so do, you withdraw your accusation.

*********************************

The real point is this, government derives its power from a mandate from the people. If the people cannot educate their own children, neither can the state (if you cannot legitimately do something, you cannot ask someone to do it, its like paying someone to commit murder).

Of course, if you believe that the state is our master, and we its slaves, then public education and banning homeschooling makes sense.

wow. where did you get this bias again?

I happen to be a member of the local Christian homeschool network, and of the many homeschoolers I know NONE of them are indoctrinating their children with anything. (although I suppose it would depend on your definition of indoctrination and brainwashing)

H. L. Mencken, wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. ... Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim ... is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States... and that is its aim everywhere else.
This has literally been true of the US public school system since about the early-mid-19th century, when the system was deliberately modeled on the two-tiered Prussian school system that had one set of schools for the elite who were expected to become leaders and another for common folk who were expected to become soldiers for the Prussian army. The elite schools provided serious educations. The common schools taught only basic skills and put most of their emphasis on uniformity, obedience, and nationalism. The US system, following the requirements of the industrial interests, adapted the Prussian common schools to focus on uniformity, obedience, and work ethic specifically to train compliant workers (rather than obedient soldiers).

However, this was not the original concept of public education in America. The original concept was based on the puritan ideal of a well educated populace that could not be misled by kings or popes -- rather the opposite of the Prussian model. Rather supportive of free thinkers and individualists.

I am strongly in favor of public education because I believe it is the single greatest social equalizer we've got. But there is no denying the system the US has is completely dysfunctional. Something must be done about it. I am torn about homeschooling, however. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of education being dictated by the agenda of parents any more than the puritans wanted it dictated by kings and popes. On the other hand, if I had kids, I would hestitate to put them into most US cities' school systems now.

As for Europe, I had hoped their schools were better than ours. How popular is homeschooling there, and why, I wonder?

<snip>
second, I didn't see in DM's post anything about limiting anyone's rights, although he might have eluded to a parent's right to teach their own child. I ask you why aren't you tolerant of his opinion?
<snip>
They are probably familiar with his opinions as expressed in other threads. He seems to enjoy being a troll.

They are probably familiar with his opinions as expressed in other threads. He seems to enjoy being a troll.
it makes me wonder though if he is really a troll (haven't been around, so I don't know) or if they think he is a troll because his opinions differ from their own.

notice you don't see too many liberals (yeah, I know I am going to get slammed for using that word) labeled as trolls around here no matter how extreme or unfounded, or even crazy their opinions are.

I swear all of you tote around the idea of tolerance, but are so intolerant of ideas other than your own.

That's leftism for you.

Homeschooled kids get taught shit. Pure and simple. In countries like Britain, Belgium and (to a lesser extent) America, the education authorities provide perfectly reasonable, tolerant, accurate curriculae. So who gets homeschooled? The children of deviants: Religious Extremists, Science-deniers and Fascists, but of course, importantly, those who can afford to homeschool.

These children are abused by the disgusting lies of their parents, you hear shock stories about children being removed from schools to avoid black and asian children so their parents can indoctrinate them with racist views, or, in lesser cases, parents teach them such ridiculous hyper-religious views that the children are unable to react in wider society or understand basic science.

I say we should ban it, granted there may be some homeschooling regimes that are perfectly legitimate, but they are in the minority, and are expendable when it comes to protecting a generation of potential free-thinkers.

I recognise that people have legitimate concerns that the government may 'turn bad' and start teaching their children propaganda, that is why I think we should give more control to teachers to set curriculae instead of government ministers in the DfES (I'm talking UK now). We should have one curriculum for everyone to level the playing field, this includes abolishing Blair's ridiculous Foundation/City Academy schemes which is the blatant sale of education to the highest bidder - for example, there is a school down the road from me that is TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN! This is ridiculous and cannot be accepted in Britain.

Homeschooled kids get taught shit. Pure and simple. In countries like Britain, Belgium and (to a lesser extent) America, the education authorities provide perfectly reasonable, tolerant, accurate curriculae. So who gets homeschooled? The children of deviants: Religious Extremists, Science-deniers and Fascists, but of course, importantly, those who can afford to homeschool.

These children are abused by the disgusting lies of their parents, you hear shock stories about children being removed from schools to avoid black and asian children so their parents can indoctrinate them with racist views, or, in lesser cases, parents teach them such ridiculous hyper-religious views that the children are unable to react in wider society or understand basic science.

I say we should ban it, granted there may be some homeschooling regimes that are perfectly legitimate, but they are in the minority, and are expendable when it comes to protecting a generation of potential free-thinkers.

I recognise that people have legitimate concerns that the government may 'turn bad' and start teaching their children propaganda, that is why I think we should give more control to teachers to set curriculae instead of government ministers in the DfES (I'm talking UK now). We should have one curriculum for everyone to level the playing field, this includes abolishing Blair's ridiculous Foundation/City Academy schemes which is the blatant sale of education to the highest bidder - for example, there is a school down the road from me that is TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN! This is ridiculous and cannot be accepted in Britain.
you know I actually almost made the mistake of replying to that....

Not religious indoctrination. Little is "indoctrinated" in school. Perhaps you think reality--like physics, biology, chemistry etc-- are "brainwashing." Public funded compuslory education is desirable. Having parents who have no credentials teaching their children "Jesus Mathematics" isn't.

A lot of the problem in modern educaiton in the US is the local yokels trying to push specific "community" agenda's into the secular system (E.g. Kansas).

What do you call history class? Or government?

In Virginia, the homeschooler can't teach anything that isn't on the approved curriculum. How is that "Jesus Mathematics"?

Or are you making gross assumptions about the nature of homeschooling in the US?

it makes me wonder though if he is really a troll (haven't been around, so I don't know) or if they think he is a troll because his opinions differ from their own.

notice you don't see too many liberals (yeah, I know I am going to get slammed for using that word) labeled as trolls around here no matter how extreme or unfounded, or even crazy their opinions are.

Please point me out one so-called 'Liberal' who has 'Crazy' ideas. Then compare to other posters, such as DM, who would appear to believe that homosexuality is 'wrong' and that he believes in 'Traditional Families'.

Please point me out one so-called 'Liberal' who has 'Crazy' ideas. Then compare to other posters, such as DM, who would appear to believe that homosexuality is 'wrong' and that he believes in 'Traditional Families'.
you know, I could, but I don't want to. It wouldn't do anything, but get me labeled as intolerant.

The whole climate here is terrible for someone who thinks anything other than the PC "everyone is right, nobody is wrong, life is butterflies and flowers" group.

although, I think trying to take away a parent's free choice to educate their children outside of government run schools based on opinions, and personal ideas of "what goes on" seems to be along the same lines as someone trying to ban gay marriage based on what they "think about homosexuals"

however, it's all good and well to say that parents shouldn't be allowed to homeschool or that Christians shouldn't be allowed to run for office (which I have seen around here more times than I can remember) or even to say that religious people on the whole are mentally ill and shouldn't be allowed to have children (which I haven't seen around here lately but surely will resurface).

you know, I could, but I don't want to. It wouldn't do anything, but get me labeled as intolerant.

The whole climate here is terrible for someone who thinks anything other than the PC "everyone is right, nobody is wrong, life is butterflies and flowers" group.

Oh, poor person. So we should be tolerant of intolerance and bigotry? No thanks, I don't care for people like that. I have no tolerance for 'people' like that, because they are bigots, plain and simple.

Please, go ahead and label me a 'Liberal', or a 'Hypocrite', or whatever other labels you wish. But I'm neither of the two. I simply oppose stupidity and bigotry wherever it is.

Oh, poor person. So we should be tolerant of intolerance and bigotry? No thanks, I don't care for people like that. I have no tolerance for 'people' like that, because they are bigots, plain and simple.

Please, go ahead and label me a 'Liberal', or a 'Hypocrite', or whatever other labels you wish. But I'm neither of the two. I simply oppose stupidity and bigotry wherever it is.
Except bigotry against Christians who (by and large) are not the bigots you think they are.

I simply oppose stupidity and bigotry wherever it is.

Someone who expresses intolerance and bigotry towards anyone with a different world view has no place preaching about tolerance.

Except bigotry against Christians who (by and large) are not the bigots you think they are.

I'm sorry, where did I mention Christians. Answer? I didn't. I loathe Bigots irregardless of race, creed or religion. There are some Bigoted Christians, the majority are peaceful, tolerant folk. The same goes for every other group.

Someone who expresses intolerance and bigotry towards anyone with a different world view has no place preaching about tolerance.

A different world view? That homosexuality is wrong, or other such tripe? Well then, guess I'm intolerant. Never said I was perfect; in fact, I might as well be a hypocrite. But I still oppose views like that.

Fine, oppose what you will. Don't blither on about tolerance if you expect to be taken seriously.

Fine, oppose what you will. Don't blither on about tolerance if you expect to be taken seriously.

I never actually said anything about me being tolerant. I'm not tolerant of stupidity and bigotry, because I shouldn't have to be. Note that there is a difference between toleration and action. I may not tolerate such views, but unless anyone tries to act upon them, I won't do anything. Just mock them.

I never actually said anything about me being tolerant. I'm not tolerant of stupidity and bigotry, because I shouldn't have to be. Note that there is a difference between toleration and action. I may not tolerate such views, but unless anyone tries to act upon them, I won't do anything. Just mock them.

You must have awful self-esteem problems, being intolerant of your own traits.

You must have awful self-esteem problems, being intolerant of your own traits.

I know, I know, hypocritical for being intolerant. Like I said, I'm not perfect. However, bigotry is wrong. There's no other way around it really. And thus I oppose it. It isn't perfect by even a long shot, but to be honest I don't care.

No, you are seeking to limit people's rights based on their personal opinions, you are therefore being intolerant.

I submit that unless you can prove that Designated Marksman is actively violating the rights of homosexuals, or advocating that others so do, you withdraw your accusation.

Erm, no. Unless you can prove that I'm trying to limit anyone's rights for any reason, kindly pipe down mmk?

second, I didn't see in DM's post anything about limiting anyone's rights, although he might have eluded to a parent's right to teach their own child. I ask you why aren't you tolerant of his opinion? and why would you try to limit an entire segment of people's rights based on your bias against homeschooling?


He actually alluded to how the concept that lesbians can be mothers is wrong.

Anyway, just because I disagree with his opinion doesn't mean I'm not "tolerant" of it.

...and what bias do I have against homeschooling? What segment of people am I trying to limit rights for?

it makes me wonder though if he is really a troll (haven't been around, so I don't know) or if they think he is a troll because his opinions differ from their own.

notice you don't see too many liberals (yeah, I know I am going to get slammed for using that word) labeled as trolls around here no matter how extreme or unfounded, or even crazy their opinions are.
No, this one's a troll -- DM, I mean. You can safely ignore him. He posts all these threads which are just about him making fun of random picture of ugly people and vague jokes about homosexuals. And he likes to say outrageously offensive things about how much he wants to kill "ragheads" and so forth. He was the one who posted that thread about some video about US Marines using little Iraqi girls as human shields and shooting them in the head and what a wonderful joke that was -- that one got yanked pretty quickly.

He has opinions and I detest his opinions (and I've told him so), but he is also a troll. There's no need for you to get entangled with him.

No, this one's a troll -- DM, I mean. You can safely ignore him. He posts all these threads which are just about him making fun of random picture of ugly people and vague jokes about homosexuals. And he likes to say outrageously offensive things about how much he wants to kill "ragheads" and so forth. He was the one who posted that thread about some video about US Marines using little Iraqi girls as human shields and shooting them in the head and what a wonderful joke that was -- that one got yanked pretty quickly.

He has opinions and I detest his opinions (and I've told him so), but he is also a troll. There's no need for you to get entangled with him.
okay, I believe you. You and I seem to be able to get along even when we are on opposite sides, so if you say someone is a troll, I believe you.

If so, it's because THEY went to PUBLIC school. Or else dropped out of it.

Not quite. It's mostly because highschool educations are not comprehsive educations that teach you pedagogy; it doesn't give you specialized expertise. It's like the general education courses of uni.

Edit: I also accidentally pluralized a word with a '. Oops. Scratch that.



DesignatedMarksman Wrote:


My parents did an adequate job of schooling me.
I'm in college right now. Did they do wrong? Apparently not.
If your idea of "Professional" educations is the NEA, you need to STFU and pipe down.

Well, foremost, what you are doing is dishonest, since you are caricaturizing my post to make it sound as if I said universally that no people can be educated under a homeschool system. Since I never said that, your critisim and inane "stfu" statement is just that--inconsequential. I never said "all" parents are incapable of teaching their children.

Secondly, I never said the NEA is the only option, nor did I say I support everything that goes on in public education. It needs a technocratic reform. Teaching is a profession. You need both detailed content knowledge and expert pedagogical training in order to teach well. Your standard Joe Blow off of the street is not an expert in anything, except for perhaps his area of expertise, if he's an educated, skilled worker. Your average factory-line assemblyman is not trained for the task of teaching. Like any other profession, you need training and study to do it well.

For example, we wouldn't say that Joe Blow can become a physician or a lawyer and practice without detailed training, therefore we shouldn't do the same for teachers, since both require skill, knowlege and professionalism. One major problem in the United States is a lack of professionalism and proper education. Often, you will find gym teachers teaching subjects out of their field or teachers with only a minor teachign something. That's absurd. They should all be experts in the field.

Third, the fact that you are in college doesn't mean you are intelligent either or that your parents did well. You can be a C average, moderately intelligent student and go to college. It's not that difficult. In college, there are lots of places into which one can go; that is, there are a lot of bullshit degrees in college: sociology, psychology, and "communications," "ethnic studies" etc.

Demented Hamsters wrote"

Well of course. Because we all know that one needs no qualifications or training whatsoever to teach now, don't we?

This is an important observation; America is locked in a culture of anti-professional anti-intellectualism. To an extent, this is not new. It has existed largely since the foundation of the Populist movement of the 1880s and 90s which saw the blooming of the "common man." Now, everyone thinks that he's able to do anything just like any well-trained expert, regardless of lack of credentials or knowledge-base.

One can observe keenly the consequences of this "common-man" philsophy today. As a result of this, we have people who think that they are capable of creating valid critiques of science and specialized theories. This is why so many people feel no shame when they say "evolution?" Pfft bullshit! They think they know more than the scientists, and since everyone can do anything...you get it.

Smunkeeville wrote:

you know I have a few friends who are teachers, they tell me most of what they actually learned in college was classroom management. I figure as long as I can manage my own children, then I can handle the rest of it.

They learn a lot more than classroom management.



Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating all ideas. There's no reason to tolerate, for example, radical Islam or Christianity or any other wackaloon cult like Scientology (all of which are main reasons for many "homeschoolers). What you get is indoctrination by jesus-freaks for jesus freaks.

Not quite. It's mostly because highschool educations are not comprehsive educations that teach you pedagogy; it doesn't give you specialized expertise. It's like the general education courses of uni.

Edit: I also accidentally pluralized a word with a '. Oops. Scratch that.
I guess that having a degree in Computer Science, Education, and a degree in Law makes me remarkably unqualified to teach children anything.

Oh, as in "how I taught my children how to read beyond the elementary school level before they reached first grade..."

Not at all. One problem is that you are taking the statement as a universal. It's not. You MIGHT be qualified, but there's no way to tell, to organize, or to make sure.

It's all anecdotal. You might have a degree in education. You might have a degree in CompSci. Or, you might not. Even if you do, there would be no way to make an organized, orderly system from random people "just happening" to be qualified.

You also said you taught your children to read well before they went to school. Yes, so? I would hope you would be able to handle elementary education. Lots of people can teach their children how to add, subject, multiply and spell. That doesn't require expert knowledge. It's easy. Also, one boon of elementary education is parental cooperation with schools. That dropps of drastically in highschool, which is a problem. The best education is a comprehsive, involved education. Not either/or.

However, SOME children cannot learn that way anyway. They require a classroom setting.



Edit: people always blow issues way out of proportion by caricaturizing the positions of the opposing side. It's not valid to go "OMG SOCIALISM!" or absolute freedom, as some seem to imply.

It's also not "indoctrination" to go to school. A lot of the ideas pepole think are secular indoctrination are thought to be so simply because they go against their ancient book of faerie-tale's recomendations. Lots of parents would like their children to be insulated from the world and not learn things like biology or health because it goes against their subjective beliefs. That's a dangerous thing to allow.

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=5030264

This link gives keen insight into a large group of homeschool advocates, although not the entirety. They (the former) wish to destroy accredited education so they can teach our children religion; it's a genius angle homeschoolers seem to gravitate toward by hiding behind the guise of "promoting education." They want to rip kids out of school because they don't get taught enough creation science and bible study. Reality is indoctrination to these people. They want to make sure their kids are isolated from the real world, trained in superstition. Homeschooling is an easy breeding ground for Fundamentalism.


Hey, you know what? I think governments should completely butt out of families, especially in the way they have intruded these days.

Sorry. That's a good idea in the magic world of fantasy, but it doesn't work in reality. No. the government shouldn't "butt-out" when there's a significant social interest involved. There is a profound interest in making sure children are taught the major tenets of rationalism, science. A large portion of home "schoolers" want to destroy secular education and replace it with homegrown old-time religion. That's unacceptable.

Families that want to teach the above do not belong staying alone with their children; they require supervision as to prevent them from ruining their kids lies by filling their heads up with religious sophistry.


Its not up to the government to decide how parents should bring up their children. Get this: My parents homeschooled me and all 7 of my siblings. I'm a medical school student with a bachelors degree in BiomedSci.

Even though there's no way to prove these anecdotes of yours, so they don't count as evidence, the fact that you didn't have a problem doesn't transfer to the majority or other cases. Like I said: it might work for some people, but overwhelmingly, no. It might be ok for someone to stand up at the theatre to see better, but that doesn't mean you can go from part to whole then either. If universalized, homeschooling would be a shitty idea.


If this is not a blind invasion into the family's dignity, I'm a deaf bat. The funny thing is, they only got all annoyed after they found out that a large part of the education would be Bible based and religious (my dad's a pastor of a church). But all of us boys have been educated this way. Do you guys think the government is wrong here?

Yes, there is something wrong here, but it's not the government. The parents ought not be turning a proper secular, rationalist education into a large bible-study programme. The Bible is not an educational text in the slightest; it's a compendium of carefully cherry-picked, yet inaccurate documents about the world written by primitive bronze age nomads. I am not suprised you are arguing in favour of said education: as you said, your father was a man of God. Anything else is obviously eeeeeeeevil atheist secular communism.


Like someone said to me the other day: New Zealand has a democratically elected communistic/socialist government.]Christian Homeschooling

What an exaggeration. Do you people take classes in inaccurate hyperbole? They aren't communist, and it's frankly ignorant to label all socialism as communism. It's not.

The fact that you would make such an absurd claim speaks wonders. A common tactic people use to discredit something is call it communist or athiest. That's typical.

Not at all. One problem is that you are taking the statement as a universal. It's not. You MIGHT be qualified, but there's no way to tell, to organize, or to make sure.

It's all anecdotal. You might have a degree in education. You might have a degree in CompSci. Or, you might not. Even if you do, there would be no way to make an organized, orderly system from random people "just happening" to be qualified.


Oh, like "teachers".

You also said you taught your children to read well before they went to school. Yes, so? I would hope you would be able to handle elementary education. Lots of people can teach their children how to add, subject, multiply and spell. That doesn't require expert knowledge. It's easy. Also, one boon of elementary education is parental cooperation with schools. That dropps of drastically in highschool, which is a problem. The best education is a comprehsive, involved education. Not either/or.


I'm teaching my oldest daughter (age 13) the ins and outs of Daubechies D4 wavelet transforms.

We haven't gone over anything from the school she attends, because we did all of it a long time ago.

You're selling kids short.

I'm teaching my oldest daughter (age 13) the ins and outs of Daubechies D4 wavelet transforms.

We haven't gone over anything from the school she attends, because we did all of it a long time ago.

You're selling kids short.


I am sure you did. However, the negatives outweigh the few instances (even if it were true) where it works well. You must have a unique child.

Parents have some role in education, but not directing it. They shoudl be there to support the public education. That's one reason why Highschoolers do not do well. Poor at home discipline and little or no parental involvement.

Parents also usually have the "blame-the-teacher" attitude or they get pissy the kid doesn't recieve the grade they think their little johnny deserves.

Technokratishe Staaten, the fundamental question (which you have ignored) is the relationship between the individual and the state.

If you believe that the state is there to serve and protect the individual, then the state logically derives its powers from a mandate of the people. This means that if a family cannot educate its children, the government cannot educate them (i.e. if the parents have no legitimate power to educate, they cannot delegate this power to the state)

If you believe the individual is a slave to the state, then your position can make sense.

Parents have some role in education, but not directing it. They shoudl be there to support the public education.

The only legitimate role for a citizen is to support whatever the state does? Bollocks.

It's also not "indoctrination" to go to school. A lot of the ideas pepole think are secular indoctrination are thought to be so simply because they go against their ancient book of faerie-tale's recomendations.

If you don't think the state is in the business of indoctrination, you are clearly insane.

That you agree with it doesn't mean it isn't indoctrination.


Technokratishe Staaten, your entire argument is based on conceit, and ad-hominem.

a lot of u should understand, that (at leaste when you are older) most of homeschooling is just done by reading material yourself and teaching yourself the material, it really does not matter if the parent is qualified or not.

but yeh, all the homeschooled people I know are homeschooled because their parents are trying to shelter them from the world. it's very sad.

Technokratishe Staaten, the fundamental question (which you have ignored) is the relationship between the individual and the state.

I haven't ignored it; it was never asked. I can't ignore something that wasn't, to my awareness, asked.


If you believe that the state is there to serve and protect the individual, then the state logically derives its powers from a mandate of the people. This means that if a family cannot educate its children, the government cannot educate them (i.e. if the parents have no legitimate power to educate, they cannot delegate this power to the state)

What you are dong is creating a false dichotomy. Either the government is totally subservient to the people's random wishes or the government lords over them like a tyrant. Neither option is true.

The government is to provide for the welfare of the people, but that doesn't logically entail that the government must heed every whim and irrational desire of the population. That's absurd. It seems as if you are advocating that. Either the government is totally neutered and must follow every uneducated whim of the masses or it is a tyrant. Such flagrant exaggeration isn't cute.

You are not thinking about this rationally, but rather emotionally. If someone doesn't advocate home-schooling, he's obviously a tyrannical statist, which is nonsense to believe. You have to think of the objective utility of having professionals with full resources educate children over the half-assed abilities of most parents.

The second part doesn't make much sense. You need to reword it, because it seriously implies that you don't want any education. If the parents cannot do it, the state can't either. HOpefully you are not saying that, because that entails having a woefully uneducated population.

If you believe the individual is a slave to the state, then your position can make sense.


The only legitimate role for a citizen is to support whatever the state does? Bollocks.

I didn't think you could get any worse with the strawmanning and hyperbole-strew rhetoric, but you have. No one said the people must be slaves or that they have to do anything and everything the government wants. You again caricaturize what you you misunderstand.

There's a difference between acknowledging reality--that most parents have neither the training nor the resources--and "statism" although people who desire dishonest debate might try to conflate the two.



That you agree with it doesn't mean it isn't indoctrination.

That you say it is doesn't mean it is. It's not indoctrination, not because I say it's not, but because objective reality defies such a claim.



Technokratishe Staaten, your entire argument is based on conceit, and ad-hominem.

Actually no. Your entire argument is based on two huge errors: a strawman of my argument and a dichotomizing of the issue. You treat the situation, with judicious use of hyperbole, as a black/white all or nothing. That's simply irrational. I haven't "ad hominemed" anyone, so that accusation is absurd by itself. An ad hominem is a statement of attack against the arguer used to win the argument. I have yet to do this as a premise.

You haven't come up with a legitimate rebuttal. Go back and correct those errors first.

you know since parents are on the whole so "unqualified" to teach, it strikes me as funny how homeschooled children score higher on standardized tests than public and even private schooled children, surely the "professionals" should be ashamed.

It is readily apparent from Table 3.3 that the median scores for home school students are well above their public/private school counterparts in every subject and in every grade.
source. (http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/)

it's a serious issue, when parents are being denied the right to raise their children how they see fit, based on vague laws by the government.

I agree if I want to beat or rape my children then I should be allowed to. I am their parent so I should be able to raise them how I wish.

you know since parents are on the whole so "unqualified" to teach, it strikes me as funny how homeschooled children score higher on standardized tests than public and even private schooled children, surely the "professionals" should be ashamed.


Actually, it has little to do with the professional's fault or the teacher's fault and more to do with how one can manipulate statistics to say what they want them to say. It's also important to recognize the key differences among private, public, and homeschooling that act as confounding variables. A lot of the statistics your site uses also supports my argument that it's not for everyone.

First, it's important to note that some parents can do homeschooling because of their level of education as well as their ability to furnish time and resources on the kid. I never said all parents are incapable of doing it, but rather the majority of the population is not able to handle it. Some can handle it, and many that can handle it do it. That doesn't mean everyone's qualified to do it. Most people simply aren't that smart, have that kind of time, or have access to the resources necessary. Whether or not homeschoolers tend to have better results doesn't mean homeschooling is the cause.

For example, Homeschooling requires a lot more individual independence and work ethic, since you are alone or with your parents. Therefore, homeschooling works well, if not religious and actually following an accredited programme, for kids who are very intelligent already. A lot of parents who have successful homeschooling endeavours are also intelligent and have the necessary time and resources mentioned above. Homeschooling takes a lot of effort and time to make work. This is not the case for everyone or most average children, especially if one understand that during highschool, most parental involvement with the child drops off in public school. Look at the statistics, and you will find that a greate per centage of those who homeschool and do so successfully have at least college educations. It won't work for your average joe bopping out of highschool.

1. To that end, there are some major differences to content with. Those who have successful homeschooling are usually the parents who care as opposed to the many parents who do not care enough or have the time to get involved. Compare these parents who have successful schooling programmes at home to the vast majority of parents who don't get involved in public schooling past 6th grade, when involvement plummets according to educational psychologists (Santrock). Lack of parental involvement can easily hurt the child, as I mentioned previously, which is why it's very important for the parent to study with the child, help the child, and communicate with the teacher, participating in a teacher/parent dialoge.

2. Secondly, public schools usually score much lower than both private and homeschooling, not because the parents are better qualified, but rather because they have to accept a wide range of lower quality children from all socio-economic, disadvantaged backgrounds. By law, public schools must take everyone because it's illegal to discriminate based on whether or not the children are smart, economically self-sufficient, live in a good areas, have caring parents who are involved, are well-behaved, or are retarded. This is not the case with with the competition. Homeschooling is not education for the masses, so it won't necessarily have the same problems. This doesn't mean homeschooling is a viable alternative for the masses. Homeschoolers are likely cherry-picked, much like in the case of private schools.

For example, on standardized tests, the results for public schools are merged with those who come from all of the disadvantaged groups--even the retarded. These results are lumped together, regardless of the intelligence of the child or his parental involvement in academics. No professional can help any of this, but this doesn't mean we should abandon professionalism. That would be incorrect. Often, the professional cannot MAKE a child learn when that child comes with all that baggage to the classroom. People always place blame on the professor when he's not the problem.

3. Homeschooling can also be dangerous as it injects, quite often in cases, religion into the curriculum, as you have seen from above as someone admitted that. That's not sound. One of the statistics shows that almost a quater of all homeschoolers surveyed were "fundamentalist" christians. That's absurd to allow.

I agree if I want to beat or rape my children then I should be allowed to. I am their parent so I should be able to raise them how I wish.
nice. except that beating and raping are both illegal, while educating is not.

oh, but you know nice trollish exageration, very nice.

Actually, it has little to do with the professional's fault or the teacher's fault and more to do with how one can manipulate statistics to say what they want them to say. It's also important to recognize the key differences among private, public, and homeschooling that act as confounding variables.

First, it's important to note that some parents can do homeschooling because of their level of education as well as their ability to furnish time and resources on the kid. I never said all parents are incapable of doing it, but rather the majority of the population is not able to handle it. Some can handle it, and many that can handle it do it. That doesn't mean everyone's qualified to do it. Most people simply aren't that smart, have that kind of time, or have access to the resources necessary. Whether or not homeschoolers tend to have better results doesn't mean homeschooling is the cause.

For example, Homeschooling requires a lot more individual independence and work ethic, since you are alone or with your parents. Therefore, homeschooling works well, if not religious and actually following an accredited programme, for kids who are very intelligent already. A lot of parents who have successful homeschooling endeavours are also intelligent and have the necessary time and resources mentioned above. Homeschooling takes al ot of effort and time to make work. This is not the case for everyone or most average children, especially if one understand that during highschool, most parental involvement with the child drops off in public school.

1. To that end, there are some major differences to content with. Those who have successful homeschooling are usually the parents who care as opposed to the many parents who do not care enough or have the time to get involved. Compare these parents who have successful schooling programmes at home to the vast majority of parents who don't get involved in public schooling past 6th grade, when involvement plummets according to educational psychologists (Santrock). Lack of parental involvement can easily hurt the child, as I mentioned previously, which is why it's very important for the parent to study with the child, help the child, and communicate with the teacher, participating in a teacher/parent dialoge.

2. Secondly, public schools usually score much lower than both private and homeschooling, not because the parents are better qualified, but rather because they have to accept a wide range of lower quality children from all socio-economic, disadvantaged backgrounds. By law, public schools must take everyone because it's illegal to discriminate based on whether or not the children are smart, economically self-sufficient, live in a good areas, have caring parents who are involved, are well-behaved, or are retarded. This is not the case with with the competition. Homeschooling is not education for the masses, so it won't necessarily have the same problems. This doesn't mean homeschooling is a viable alternative for the masses. Homeschoolers are likely cherry-picked, much like in the case of private schools.

For example, on standardized tests, the results for public schools are merged with those who come from all of the disadvantaged groups--even the retarded. These results are lumped together, regardless of the intelligence of the child or his parental involvement in academics. No professional can help any of this, but this doesn't mean we should abandon professionalism. That would be incorrect. Often, the professional cannot MAKE a child learn when that child comes with all that baggage to the classroom. People always place blame on the professor when he's not the problem.
did you also read in the study this...

To determine whether there is a difference in achievement for students in households where at least one parent holds a state issued teaching certificate, we analyzed the data for the 7,607 students with at least one parent that has a college degree. As shown in Table 3.11, the achievement levels across groups are remarkably similar. Controlling for grade and parent education level, there is no significant difference in the achievement levels of home school students whose parents are certified and those that are not


3. Homeschooling can also be dangerous as it injects, quite often in cases, religion into the curriculum, as you have seen from above as someone admitted that. That's not sound.
In the US we have freedom to practice our religion, we are not barred by the government from sharing our beliefs with anyone, much less our own children.

As your on statistics page says: A very large percentage of home school parents are certified to teach

In the US we have freedom to practice our religion, we are not barred by the government from sharing our beliefs with anyone, much less our own children.

Freedom of Religion ends when it becomes a social detriment. Teaching your kids to be fundies is dangerous to the public welfare.



The natural advantages homeschooled children have are astronomical when you compare them, according to your own findings:

Home school parents have more formal education than parents in the general population; 88% continued their education beyond high school compared to 50% for the nation as a whole.

The median income for home school families ($52,000) is significantly higher than that of all families with children ($36,000) in the United States.

Almost all home school students (98%) are in married couple families. Most home school mothers (77%) do not participate in the labor force; almost all home school fathers (98%) do work.

Home school students watch much less television than students nationwide; 65% of home school students watch one hour or less per day compared to 25% nationally.

There are significant achievement differences among home school students when classified by amount of money spent on education, family income, parent education, and television viewing.
So, they are largely more intellient and educated, and they are, on average, far wealthier. Therefore, they have more to give on many levels; to say it doesn't matter is sheer nonsense.

As your on statistics page says: A very large percentage of home school parents are certified to teach
so, that kinda disproves your point that homeschooling parents aren't qualified to teach, since you say that only teachers can teach and you admit that the study I referenced says that a large percentage are.

I can't say that all homeschooled kids are getting a super great education, but it irks me to no end that there are people out there with the "homeschooled kids are stupid, they are going to fail in life" when study after study shows that on the whole homeschooled kids do better on tests, and better in life than their public school counterparts.

Freedom of Religion ends when it becomes a social detriment. Teaching your kids to be fundies is dangerous to the public welfare.
In your opinion. I see no public detriment. However I would like to know your definition of "fundies".

*for the record I am going to assume that when you talk about "teaching your kids to be fundies" you are talking about the general "you" and not me personally...am I right in my assumption?

so, that kinda disproves your point that homeschooling parents aren't qualified to teach, since you say that only teachers can teach and you admit that the study I referenced says that a large percentage are.

I can't say that all homeschooled kids are getting a super great education, but it irks me to no end that there are people out there with the "homeschooled kids are stupid, they are going to fail in life" when study after study shows that on the whole homeschooled kids do better on tests, and better in life than their public school counterparts.


No, it doesn't, since my argument wasn't that everyone is unable to homeschool. I had stated, a while ago, that some might be able to do it, but many are not. The statistics you provided are valuable, since they show the reasons WHY they work better. It's not the homeschooling, it's the quality of parenthood and the dedication. This is something a lot of Public school kids lack. It takes education and effort to homeschool in you are going to do it honestly and not go the religious route.

The fact that homeschool parents tend to be well-educated doesn't mean it's a good policy for everyone, which is my point. Statistics show that those who DO homeschooling well are highly educated, wealtheir, spend more time on their children in various ways compared to public school children. All of this doe smake a huge difference. There are even differences in achievement when you group homeschoolers by those characteristics.

I haven't ignored it; it was never asked. I can't ignore something that wasn't, to my awareness, asked.

Then you aren't reading the thread. I asked it several pages ago.

What you are dong is creating a false dichotomy. Either the government is totally subservient to the people's random wishes or the government lords over them like a tyrant. Neither option is true.

No, that governments derive their powers from a mandate of the people doesn't make them "totally subservient to the people's random wishes".

The government is to provide for the welfare of the people

No it isn't. Its job is to protect their rights.

You are not thinking about this rationally, but rather emotionally.

More ad-hominem.

If someone doesn't advocate home-schooling, he's obviously a tyrannical statist, which is nonsense to believe. You have to think of the objective utility of having professionals with full resources educate children over the half-assed abilities of most parents.

You are not, in fact advocating public education here, you're advocating private schooling, and/or home tutoring, if you accept that a parent has the right to direct his child's education.

Public schools do not have the resources necessary, no matter what government spends, they simply don't get the results. Teachers are becoming less and less educated.

The second part doesn't make much sense. You need to reword it, because it seriously implies that you don't want any education. If the parents cannot do it, the state can't either. HOpefully you are not saying that, because that entails having a woefully uneducated population.

If the parents don't have the power to direct the education of their children (performing it themselves if they see fit, or hiring others so to do), then the government cannot direct the education of their children.

I didn't think you could get any worse with the strawmanning and hyperbole-strew rhetoric, but you have. No one said the people must be slaves or that they have to do anything and everything the government wants. You again caricaturize what you you misunderstand.

You said the only role parents should play in education is supporting the state. That is exactly what you said.

There's a difference between acknowledging reality--that most parents have neither the training nor the resources--and "statism" although people who desire dishonest debate might try to conflate the two.

Firstly it is up to the parents to determine whether or not they have the resources. Secondly, part of the reason they don't is they are forced to pay for state education. Thirdly, more ad-hominem doesn't advance your argument. Fourthly, home-schooled children achieve higher average results than state-schooled children.

It's not indoctrination, not because I say it's not, but because objective reality defies such a claim.

Since you've produced no evidence, the only thing backing your argument is "it is thus because I say it is thus".

State schools push very specific moral, social, and political positions, and they are harsh with any deviation from these.

You should read this blog regularly: Education Watch (http://edwatch.blogspot.com/). It is updated daily.

I haven't "ad hominemed" anyone, so that accusation is absurd by itself.

You should be reading your own posts.

Your argument is, however, based on conceit, namely that the state knows a child's best interests better than the child's parents do generally.

a lot of u should understand, that (at leaste when you are older) most of homeschooling is just done by reading material yourself and teaching yourself the material, it really does not matter if the parent is qualified or not.

That's a good point. A lot of what a teacher's job is revolves around the fact that they've up to 30 kids at a time to teach.

The fact that homeschool parents tend to be well-educated doesn't mean it's a good policy for everyone, which is my point.
I never said everyone should be homeschooled. I also don't think that homeschooling should be outlawed because of a few idiots. That would be like making cars illegal because a few idiots can't drive well.

Just because you believe that religion should be segregated into it's own little box and never discussed when talking about real life issues doesn't make it so. You seem to have a strong bias against religious people in general. Don't you think that colors your opinions to the point that you can't look at homeschooling objectively?

In your opinion. I see no public detriment. However I would like to know your definition of "fundies".

*for the record I am going to assume that when you talk about "teaching your kids to be fundies" you are talking about the general "you" and not me personally...am I right in my assumption?


Yes, you are right. I shouldn't use "you" since it is confusing. I should have used "one." I can't say you, as in you, because I don't know you.

When I talk about fundies, I am refering to religious fundamentalists. Almost 25% of homeschool parents (obviously not the intelligent ones) are religious fundamentalists, which means they take the word of the Bible literally. That is intelligence-defying.

I see a detriment in teaching the children to believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is wrong, because that entails purpousefully teaching children incorrect information. That breeds ignorance and retards the intellectual development of children, and by association, the quality of the public. That's not what we need in the 21st century.

Stupid stupid stupid.

And I thought Europe was progressive and groovy. Even in the dumbshit U.S. we don't have too many restrictions on homeschooling. I think government standardized education is not a good thing, generally.

I see a detriment in teaching the children to believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is wrong, because that entails purpousefully teaching children incorrect information. That breeds ignorance and retards the intellectual development of children, and by association, the quality of the public. That's not what we need in the 21st century.

What you are calling "a deteriment" "to the public welfare" (whatever that is) is simply a difference of opinion on a topic which has no real relevance to the everyday lives of almost everyone.

I honestly don't know why anyone outside the scientific and religious community bothers discussing the beginning of the world, its bad enough that it happened either way.

Yes, you are right. I shouldn't use "you" since it is confusing. I should have used "one." I can't say you, as in you, because I don't know you.
yep, got into that dilema myself more than once, just checking ;)

When I talk about fundies, I am refering to religious fundamentalists. Almost 25% of homeschool parents (obviously not the intelligent ones) are religious fundamentalists, which means they take the word of the Bible literally. That is intelligence-defying.
so 3/4 of them are not fundies, that's the majority, besides, people who believe that will teach it to their children homeschool or not. I would rather have the freedom to homeschool my children, than to try to limit the damage you seem to percieve.

Then you aren't reading the thread. I asked it several pages ago.


I didn't read the whole thread. It's too long.



No it isn't. Its job is to protect their rights.

No, it's not. That's a very simplistic libertarian view of the world which is unrealistic. The government is far more complex in its duties than that; I doubt anything will convice a die-hard libertarian otherwise, since you don't share the same basic liberal-utilitarian philosophy I do.



More ad-hominem.

You obviously don't know what an ad hominem is, so stop misapplying fallacies. Saying you are not arguing rationally is not an ad hominem, since it's not used to prove you are wrong. An Ad Hominem is only a fallacy when you use it to prove your opponent is wrong as a premise to your own argument. I am not doing that, therefore, I cannot be ad homineming.

Don't confuse "insult" with ad hominem. They aren't the same.



You are not, in fact advocating public education here, you're advocating private schooling, and/or home tutoring, if you accept that a parent has the right to direct his child's education.

Public schools do not have the resources necessary, no matter what government spends, they simply don't get the results. Teachers are becoming less and less educated.

You're not being very cogent here. I am advocating public education, not private or home tutoring. It's a silly idea for the masses, good for a few elites. It's nonsense to allow parents to choose their child's education, since they are not experts in academic fields. What is taught ought to be chosen by educational and field-technocrats. Leave science to scientists who design the science curriculum. I don't care if you want to teach your son that the earth is made of cheese. That's wrong.

Public shools often do have the resources. Statistically, those that are wealthier do much better, but even if that weren't true, American Education is bad to begin with, unlike various public education programmes in Asia and Europe (IE Singapore, Japan, Sweden).



If the parents don't have the power to direct the education of their children (performing it themselves if they see fit, or hiring others so to do), then the government cannot direct the education of their children.

So if the parents don't and cannot and the government cannot, then they get no education? That's inane.



You said the only role parents should play in education is supporting the state. That is exactly what you said.


Actually no, I didn't say only. Don't invent words and put them into people's statements. It's very dishonest of you.



Firstly it is up to the parents to determine whether or not they have the resources. Secondly, part of the reason they don't is they are forced to pay for state education. Thirdly, more ad-hominem doesn't advance your argument. Fourthly, home-schooled children achieve higher average results than state-schooled children.


Firstly, no it's not.

Secondly, no it's not.

Thirdly, it's not an ad hominem, but it's cute that you don't understand what a logical fallacy is.

Fourthly, this was already adequately explained via educational statistics provided for someone else. It has little to do with state teachers and the essence of public education, but rather the home environment, the cogntive ability of the child, and the requirement to accept all children instead of cherry-picking. They don't do better becaues they are homeschooled; that's an unfounded assumption when you consider the vast differences that already naturally exist between homeschoolers and nonhomeschoolers. It's comparing apples to oranges sociologically.



Since you've produced no evidence, the only thing backing your argument is "it is thus because I say it is thus".

State schools push very specific moral, social, and political positions, and they are harsh with any deviation from these.

You should read this blog regularly: Education Watch. It is updated daily.

I have provided a lot of evidence and logical commentary on this issue. It's not so because I say it's so, and that's again, a strawman argument of yours. Morality in schools isn't bad; it's desirable. There ought to be a strong utilitarian ethic pushed in schools.

I don't read blogs for actual academic information.


Your argument is, however, based on conceit, namely that the state knows a child's best interests better than the child's parents do generally.


Often, parents don't, which is why we have a lot of whiney, stupid obese children unlike Europe and Asia. America pushes a poor worth ethic, anti-intellectualism.

okay, I believe you. You and I seem to be able to get along even when we are on opposite sides, so if you say someone is a troll, I believe you.
Bueno. :)

yep, got into that dilema myself more than once, just checking ;)


so 3/4 of them are not fundies, that's the majority, besides, people who believe that will teach it to their children homeschool or not. I would rather have the freedom to homeschool my children, than to try to limit the damage you seem to percieve.


You are right. A majority aren't fundamentalists, but a quater are. I am wary of having the parents have such direct control over thier children without any state intervention in their intellectual behalf. You are right that the parents can teach them it anyway, but they, if their children attend a school, are not around them 24/7 in preacher mode. Those children will be exposed to a wider world, which I doubt is possible in strict fundie homes.

I would just rather ban those specific religious groups from homeschooling, but that's illegal and would require too much paperwork. Perhaps keep the homeschooling and have some type of government oversight.

What you are calling "a deteriment" "to the public welfare" (whatever that is) is simply a difference of opinion on a topic which has no real relevance to the everyday lives of almost everyone.

I honestly don't know why anyone outside the scientific and religious community bothers discussing the beginning of the world, its bad enough that it happened either way.


You don't think it has real-life relevance? It does. Poorly educated people who believe in myths and superstitions are not good citizens. This reflects in the quality of their decision-making skills in the public political arena. Why do you think our nation suffers from so much retarded religiously inspired legislation? (E.g. Bill Frist and Rick Santrum and their "ten commandments save the children" crusade.

Now, I would try to fix the public education system in a variety of ways; I don't necessarily like the current version we have.

<snip>
This is an important observation; America is locked in a culture of anti-professional anti-intellectualism. To an extent, this is not new. It has existed largely since the foundation of the Populist movement of the 1880s and 90s which saw the blooming of the "common man." Now, everyone thinks that he's able to do anything just like any well-trained expert, regardless of lack of credentials or knowledge-base.

One can observe keenly the consequences of this "common-man" philsophy today. As a result of this, we have people who think that they are capable of creating valid critiques of science and specialized theories. This is why so many people feel no shame when they say "evolution?" Pfft bullshit! They think they know more than the scientists, and since everyone can do anything...you get it.
<snip>
I agree with you on this issue, very much so. This is not to say that there are not serious problems in the public education system (I'm talking about the US), but the knee-jerk reaction seems to be "I can do it better myself" than "we need to get people who know what they are doing."

Reminds me of a comment I heard on "MXC: Most Extreme Elimination Challenge" on the subject of optimism:

"Self esteem is one of the most dangerous things taught in our schools today. Did you know that more Americans are killed by baseless self-confidence than are drowned in bathtubs every year?"

Kidding, of course, but, seriously, I do agree with you.

You are right. A majority aren't fundamentalists, but a quater are. I am wary of having the parents have such direct control over thier children without any state intervention in their intellectual behalf. You are right that the parents can teach them it anyway, but they, if their children attend a school, are not around them 24/7 in preacher mode. Those children will be exposed to a wider world, which I doubt is possible in strict fundie homes.
As a parent I believe I should have the right to raise my children within the law, any way I see fit. The government should have no say past making sure I am not physically, sexually, or emotionally abusing them.

I would just rather ban those specific religious groups from homeschooling, but that's illegal and would require too much paperwork. Perhaps keep the homeschooling and have some type of government oversight.
You would like to limit an entire groups' freedom because you don't agree with their worldview? scary.

btw there is government oversight to homeschooling, and I think it's a good thing when practiced fairly, not with vague laws and unclear standards.

The government is far more complex in its duties than that; I doubt anything will convice a die-hard libertarian otherwise, since you don't share the same basic liberal-utilitarian philosophy I do.

The government shouldn't be doing those things. The utilitarian view is unrealistic because it simply doesn't work, the state simply can't perform what it promises to perform, and it is a poor judge of our interests.

Saying you are not arguing rationally is not an ad hominem, since it's not used to prove you are wrong.

Since you've not actually done anything to show that I am arguing irrationally, it is ad-hominem.

I am advocating public education, not private or home tutoring.

Then you are arguing irrationally, because public education doesn't do what you claim it does.

It's a silly idea for the masses, good for a few elites

Nonsense. If you're worried about their ability to pay, then a reimbursement/voucher system would solve that.

What is taught ought to be chosen by educational and field-technocrats.

You see what I mean about conceit. It is the one thing that binds all statists, whether left, right, or centre. This conceit that politicians, or technocrats know one's interests better than oneself. It sounds good in theory, but has never worked in practice.

So if the parents don't and cannot and the government cannot, then they get no education? That's inane.

Why would parents want their children to be totally uneducated?

Firstly, no it's not.

Yes it is. No one else can, nor should they.

Secondly, no it's not.

Effective Marginal Tax Rates being so high (and with a few exceptions, there is little chance of their getting lower) mean it is.

I have provided a lot of evidence and logical commentary on this issue. It's not so because I say it's so, and that's again, a strawman argument of yours.

You've not actually refuted the evidence that public schools do indoctrinate people.

Morality in schools isn't bad; it's desirable. There ought to be a strong utilitarian ethic pushed in schools.

Now we're getting to the real reason you advocate state schooling, you want indoctrination in the beliefs with which you agree.

I don't read blogs for actual academic information.

Read the blog. You might find something out about public education.

A majority aren't fundamentalists, but a quater are. I am wary of having the parents have such direct control over thier children without any state intervention in their intellectual behalf. You are right that the parents can teach them it anyway, but they, if their children attend a school, are not around them 24/7 in preacher mode. Those children will be exposed to a wider world, which I doubt is possible in strict fundie homes.

Because children never rebel against their upbringing, and try to form their own views.

Incidently, state education doesn't produce children likely to do this, state education has always produced followers (which is why governments like it). It has always indoctrinated people. This is the reason for its existance, if government were really out to provide free/cheap education to the masses, they would simply give the parents vouchers, or reimburse the school fees.

Technokratishe Staaten, the fundamental question (which you have ignored) is the relationship between the individual and the state.

If you believe that the state is there to serve and protect the individual, then the state logically derives its powers from a mandate of the people. This means that if a family cannot educate its children, the government cannot educate them (i.e. if the parents have no legitimate power to educate, they cannot delegate this power to the state)
<snip>
The assertion above is nonsensical.

First of all, a "mandate of the people" is not just a matter of "the people" fobbing their jobs off on the government.

Second, what does it even mean to say "if I can't do it, then they can't do for me"? I can't catch criminals. Does that mean city governments should not maintain police forces?

If, as you claim, I have no power to delegate jobs that I can't do myself, then I should not be able to hail a taxi, because I don't know how to drive a car myself. If I lose my leg, I should not be able to buy a prosthetic from a manufacturer unless I can carve one out of wood myself.

And, according to your argument, if parents are not able to explain trigonometry to their child, then nobody else has the right to explain it either.

As a parent I believe I should have the right to raise my children within the law, any way I see fit. The government should have no say past making sure I am not physically, sexually, or emotionally abusing them.


You would like to limit an entire groups' freedom because you don't agree with their worldview? scary.

btw there is government oversight to homeschooling, and I think it's a good thing when practiced fairly, not with vague laws and unclear standards.


Well, I have no real problem with it if and only if it has government supervision, the parents have the time and resources, and are not raving lunatics.

I can't ban the group, but I would like to. It's not because I disagree with thier worldview; I disagree with lots of groups and ideas, but they aren't like Fundamentalists. It's not about mere disagreement. I dislike them, but that's not why I would want to. It's that they are a public danger--a lot like the parents of the Gaede twins. They are festering would in society.They serve no benefical purpouse to the collective and only serve to deteriorate progress.

You don't think it has real-life relevance? It does. Poorly educated people who believe in myths and superstitions are not good citizens.

Nonsense. I know many religious people, and all were perfectly good citizens. I didn't agree with any of their religious views, but they were perfectly good people.

Why do you think our nation suffers from so much retarded religiously inspired legislation?

Because the religious lobby groups have a lot of money. It doesn't reflect reality.

The assertion above is nonsensical.

First of all, a "mandate of the people" is not just a matter of "the people" fobbing their jobs off on the government.

Second, what does it even mean to say "if I can't do it, then they can't do for me"? I can't catch criminals. Does that mean city governments should not maintain police forces?

If, as you claim, I have no power to delegate jobs that I can't do myself, then I should not be able to hail a taxi, because I don't know how to drive a car myself. If I lose my leg, I should not be able to buy a prosthetic from a manufacturer unless I can carve one out of wood myself.

And, according to your argument, if parents are not able to explain trigonometry to their child, then nobody else has the right to explain it either.

You should try reading my posts.

It is all about having the right to do something. If you don't have the right to do something, you clearly cannot ask someone to do it. I explained this quite clearly.

I can't ban the group, but I would like to. It's not because I disagree with thier worldview; I disagree with lots of groups and ideas, but they aren't like Fundamentalists. It's not about mere disagreement. I dislike them, but that's not why I would want to. It's that they are a public danger--a lot like the parents of the Gaede twins. They are festering would in society.They serve no benefical purpouse to the collective and only serve to deteriorate progress.

You've still not actually shown that they are dangerous. Merely that they don't agree with you.

The government shouldn't be doing those things. The utilitarian view is unrealistic because it simply doesn't work, the state simply can't perform what it promises to perform, and it is a poor judge of our interests.

It does work notwithstanding your disagreement. You probably don't even know what it is.



Since you've not actually done anything to show that I am arguing irrationally, it is ad-hominem.

Of course I have shown it. Again, you only show you don't comprehend what an ad hominem is.



Then you are arguing irrationally, because public education doesn't do what you claim it does.

Of course it does, and I also advocate public education reform.



Nonsense. If you're worried about their ability to pay, then a reimbursement/voucher system would solve that.

Nope. Vouchers are a poor choice.



You see what I mean about conceit. It is the one thing that binds all statists, whether left, right, or centre. This conceit that politicians, or technocrats know one's interests better than oneself. It sounds good in theory, but has never worked in practice.

I am not a statist, but calling someone a "statistic" to dimiss an idea really IS an ad hominem. Again, you probably don't know what either Utilitarianism or Technocracy are.



Why would parents want their children to be totally uneducated?

Why do some people believe the world is 6000 years old and that the earth is flat? They are fucking stupid. That's why.


[qote]
Effective Marginal Tax Rates being so high (and with a few exceptions, there is little chance of their getting lower) mean it is.
[/quote]

LoL. You are grasping at straws. There are ways to juggle taxations levels and institute reform, cut back pork.


You've not actually refuted the evidence that public schools do indoctrinate people.

There's no use refuting what doesn't exist. I don't have to prove it doesn't exist; you have failed to prove it does.



Now we're getting to the real reason you advocate state schooling, you want indoctrination in the beliefs with which you agree.

Not really. The truth isn't indoctrination, unless you are a fundamentalist or something.



Read the blog. You might find something out about public education.

That you get most of your information from blogs is telling of the quality of your argumentation.

You've still not actually shown that they are dangerous. Merely that they don't agree with you.


The danger in having a group so woefully uneducated on important issues which they can influence via the vote, with no supervision, is self-evidently dangerous. Fundamentalism itself is profoundly dangerous. It spreads ignorance on purpuose.

It's as bad as Scientology, if not worse. It ammounts to brainwashing and making the population stupid. That IS dangerous. If you don't think so, then nothing could make you think so.

Nonsense. I know many religious people, and all were perfectly good citizens. I didn't agree with any of their religious views, but they were perfectly good people.



Because the religious lobby groups have a lot of money. It doesn't reflect reality.



You should try reading my posts.

It is all about having the right to do something. If you don't have the right to do something, you clearly cannot ask someone to do it. I explained this quite clearly.


Rights aren't absolute, and they are not an ethical philosophy to which I adhere. First and foremost, I am a Utilitarian. Rights are valuable only insofar as they have utility. WHen they no longer do, or when other interests are at stake that weigh more heavily, and there are many, they are easily overriden.

Well, I have no real problem with it if and only if it has government supervision, the parents have the time and resources, and are not raving lunatics.

I can't ban the group, but I would like to. It's not because I disagree with thier worldview; I disagree with lots of groups and ideas, but they aren't like Fundamentalists. It's not about mere disagreement. I dislike them, but that's not why I would want to. It's that they are a public danger--a lot like the parents of the Gaede twins. They are festering would in society.They serve no benefical purpouse to the collective and only serve to deteriorate progress.
While I agree with you on the subject of fundamentalism, I think I should point out that this kind of purely subjective speech is likely to alienate many posters.

Myself, I believe that people have an absolute right to take themselves to hell in any handbasket they like, and if that turns out to be a Bible-shaped one, so be it -- for them. I am not bothered by the existence of fundamentalists. However, I will not allow them to impose their fundamentalism on me, and by extension, I am uncomfortable with the idea of letting them impose it on any other person, including their own children. But I am also unhappy with the idea of restricting liberties, so I would not want to ban homeschooling or ban any group from homeschooling. I would be willing to accept it with stringent, consistent, clear, state-issued testing standards to make sure homeschooled kids are getting a good education.

However, I still prefer public education for two reasons:

1) As I said earlier, I consider it a tool of social equality. Universal public education paid for by tax dollars guarantees at least a common minimum standard of education to ALL citizens regardless of economic bracket. I want to live in a world where everyone starts from the same starting line, with the same basic skills and same basic syllabus in hand. I don't want the rich man's son always to have an educational advantage over the poor man's son.

Homeschoolers may think they are giving their kids the best possible education, but can they really be sure, if they don't see what the other kids are getting? I say the easiest way to be sure is to put all the kids in the same classes together. I would supplement that with further education at home, by all means.

2) I see the job of education as not just being about teaching this or that curriculum and set of skills. I see it as giving people the intellectual tools they need to be good citizens. I believe that, in the US, "good citizen" means a free person able to understand issues and to give the mandate Disraeliland thinks is so vital to the government, able to adapt to and control their own environment. You can't do this in a vacuum.

I think the mere act of going to school is one of the most important parts of going to school. I believe children need to get out of the house, away from their parents now and then. They need to learn how to interact with non-parental authorities. They need to meet strangers (adults and other kids) and hear other viewpoints and figure out how to react to these things. The earlier they start to do this, the longer they will have to practice with their parents' help and guidance, thus preparing them for adulthood, when they will be completely on their own.

As for the claim that public education just indoctrinates kids to be slaves of the state, well, whether that is its aim or not, the result is hardly a given. For instance, I went to public school, but I was never what a "statist" might call a model student. In fact, as early as 2nd grade, I was bringing home report cards with notations under "Attitude" such as: "Does not suffer fools lightly." (that actually happened; way beyond "runs with scissors" :D) In high school, I had serious confrontations with bad administrators who threatened all kinds of things if I would not comply. I challenged them ceaselessly on every issue. The school authorities appealed to my mother. She sided with me and threatened legal action if they didn't stop threatening me. She didn't demand that they comply with my demands, just that they stop threatening me, so the wars carried on for four full years, with half the authorities in my life totally loving me and the other half totally hating me. All that independence, all that free thinking, all that defiance of state power, yet I was a product of the public (state) education system.

<snip>
You should try reading my posts.

It is all about having the right to do something. If you don't have the right to do something, you clearly cannot ask someone to do it. I explained this quite clearly.
I did read it, and you did explain it very clearly, and it is still nonsense because you are trying to create a direct relationship between things that are not directly related, i.e. what individuals have the right to do and what the state has the power to do. In the US, for instance, the people have the right to do anything at all that is not specifically restricted or prohibited by law -- including educate their kids -- while the state only has the power to do the things that it is specifically empowered to do under the law. So there is no direct correlation between the rights of the people and the powers of the state.

Second, even your own argument above, that we cannot ask people to do things for us that we don't have the right to do ourselves, is simply not true. I am not a licensed surgeon. Therefore I do not have the right to practice surgery, but I have every right to ask a licensed surgeon to do it for me, on me. I do not have the right to take away another person's liberty, no matter what grievance I have against them, but I do have the right to ask the state to take their liberty away for me, by filing a criminal complaint against them with the police.

Now, I would try to fix the public education system in a variety of ways; I don't necessarily like the current version we have.

I don't honestly believe the public education system can be sufficiently fixed; I believe that it is based on a broken premise.

The premise I see is that children of similar ages are sufficiently similar that they can be educated in large groups (between 20 and 40 at a time) and still meet their educational needs. "Special Education" exists because this is patently untrue for the extremes of intelligence and abilities.

This premise fails with any child who develops asynchronously. The child who can read at a fifth grade level, is learning calculus, but has trouble sharing her toys is an obvious example. Yes, she's also hypothetical, and exagerrated for effect. You're more likely to see a child who is half a grade ahead in one subject and half a grade behind in another. I would suggest that, with varying margins and subjects, this is true for most children.

In either case, a mass, age-based education plan will have the child struggling in one area while waiting for the mythical average child to catch up in others. The only solution I can see to this while maintaining mass education is eradicating the age-based system and having children either work independently on each subject in the same classroom (as one sees in a Montessori school, I believe) or have the child rotate between different classes for different subjects.

With increased use of computer technology, the former might actually become possible. It's unlikely to be implemented, however, because it is a "redo from start" rather than "tweak here and there to fix" option. The latter is seen in some high schools, and some very rare private schools; it would probably be difficult, developmentally, for small children. Were I to design the ideal system, I would start with five years in a Montessori-like child-directed learning environment, then test the children for placement in skill-based classes regardless of age.

Bias Disclosure: Often in school, I was told to stay with the rest of the class when my brain was racing ahead. I didn't like it. I do not feel that I was well-served by spending the majority of my time repeating things I understood so that others could catch up. I respect their right to be educated at a speed appropriate for them, but I contest the necessity of MY being educated at a speed appropriate for them.

Given the limitations of an age-based mass-education system, I believe that home schooling is a viable option, especially in terms of meeting the needs of asynchronous students and those with abnormal intelligence levels or abilities. Cherry-picking may be non-egalitarian, but I feel that meeting the intellectual needs of each child should take priority over the delusion that people are equal in all areas. Harrison Bergeron is egalitarian; if you consider this a good thing, I invite you to read the short story. It's the first Google hit for "Harrison Bergeron," though I decline to link directly as it is probably posted in violation of copyright law.

It does work notwithstanding your disagreement. You probably don't even know what it is.

I do know what it is, and it has never worked, it has always produced unintended consequences. A group of technocrats cannot control a society.

Of course I have shown it.

No, you haven't, because you've not refuted the conceit problem inherient in all your thinking.

Why do some people believe the world is 6000 years old and that the earth is flat? They are fucking stupid. That's why.

That's not an answer. That's an insult.

LoL. You are grasping at straws. There are ways to juggle taxations levels and institute reform, cut back pork.

Decades of trying to cut the pork has meant even more pork.

Not really. The truth isn't indoctrination, unless you are a fundamentalist or something.

Your ideas are not truth, they are a moral, political, and social position.

I did read it, and you did explain it very clearly, and it is still nonsense because you are trying to create a direct relationship between things that are not directly related, i.e. what individuals have the right to do and what the state has the power to do. In the US, for instance, the people have the right to do anything at all that is not specifically restricted or prohibited by law -- including educate their kids -- while the state only has the power to do the things that it is specifically empowered to do under the law. So there is no direct correlation between the rights of the people and the powers of the state.

There is. You should read the founding documents of the United States. People have rights, and the people institute governments in order to protect those rights. They could protect these rights themselves, but they are less efficient at so doing than a government, so they delegate powers to a government.

One cannot delegate a power one does not have. I do not have the right to murder someone, I therefore do not have the right to pay you to murder someone.

I do not have the right to take away another person's liberty, no matter what grievance I have against them, but I do have the right to ask the state to take their liberty away for me, by filing a criminal complaint against them with the police.

This point actually supports my argument, in that the state, be enforcing criminal law, is protecting your rights against this person who are complaining about.

As for the claim that public education just indoctrinates kids to be slaves of the state, well, whether that is its aim or not, the result is hardly a given. For instance, I went to public school, but I was never what a "statist" might call a model student. In fact, as early as 2nd grade, I was bringing home report cards with notations under "Attitude" such as: "Does not suffer fools lightly." (that actually happened; way beyond "runs with scissors" ) In high school, I had serious confrontations with bad administrators who threatened all kinds of things if I would not comply. I challenged them ceaselessly on every issue. The school authorities appealed to my mother. She sided with me and threatened legal action if they didn't stop threatening me. She didn't demand that they comply with my demands, just that they stop threatening me, so the wars carried on for four full years, with half the authorities in my life totally loving me and the other half totally hating me. All that independence, all that free thinking, all that defiance of state power, yet I was a product of the public (state) education system.

Good for you, however you are illustrating a failure of public education, not a product of it, as you noted yourself (the notations under "attitude" and so forth). If you were doing what they wanted you to do, it stands to reason that they wouldn't have had a problem with you challenging the teachers, you would have been praised for it.

You successfully resisted what so many others couldn't, so you should be proud.

If you can resist the indoctrination of the state, I see no reason to believe that someone could not resist the indoctrination of the church.

Apparently Belgium, where homeschooling is legal, has passed a law requiring homeschoolers to follow vague undefined UN requirements for education and allow unrestricted inspectors to determine whether the children are meeting said requirements. If they "fail" the inspection, the children are put back into public schools.

Ah, the beauty of leftism. They can't stand to have anyone deviate from their way of thinking. We can't have anyone thinking independently, can we? People who don't meet "requirements" are forced at gun-point to attend indoctrination centers and swallow whatever they teach hook, line, and sinker. A friend of mine once said, "True freedom is the freedom to say two and two make five. You may be a fucking idiot, but that's your right." State control over what people learn and how they think is nothing short of tyranny. Then again, that's what leftism is all about: total control.

Myself, I believe that people have an absolute right to take themselves to hell in any handbasket they like, and if that turns out to be a Bible-shaped one, so be it -- for them. I am not bothered by the existence of fundamentalists. However, I will not allow them to impose their fundamentalism on me, and by extension, I am uncomfortable with the idea of letting them impose it on any other person, including their own children. But I am also unhappy with the idea of restricting liberties, so I would not want to ban homeschooling or ban any group from homeschooling. I would be willing to accept it with stringent, consistent, clear, state-issued testing standards to make sure homeschooled kids are getting a good education.



That's all I am saying, you don't have to like it, but we should have the right to do it anyway. I don't mind government oversight as long as it's clear, consistent, and has fair standards.

That's all I am saying, you don't have to like it, but we should have the right to do it anyway. I don't mind government oversight as long as it's clear, consistent, and has fair standards.

And that'w the whole crux of the matter. The Belgium situation, assuming the article is accurate, has no set standards.

I'm generally against homeschooling but w/ set standards ( I believe it was DK who said he had to be checked out) I have fewer problems w/ it. In Illinios, there are less guidelines so I have met a large number of homeschoolers w/ very poor to effectively no education but have also met some w/ exceptional ones.

Well, I think public education, to an extent, can be fixed. Other nations have valuable, feasable education systems that are public, so I know it can be done. There need to be changes on a community, discipline, and curriculum level.

One major problem that interferes with learning in higschool, for example, goes back to my comment about the school needing to take everyone, regardless of behavioral issues. It's ridiculously difficult to remove problem causers, especially since when the issue is serious, there is little evidence of wrongdoing other than heresay, in which the parents cause a stink because little Johnny couldn't possibly have done what the teacher said. So what needs to be done is that teachers and administrators should have more power to remove problem-causers so as to maximize flow in the classroom.

To help generate evidence and mantain classroom obedience, there ought to be surveillance cameras in the corner of the rooom, so that, if need be, a teacher can utilize that in a defense. The camera doesn't lie, so the parents will have to shut up. It's also likely the kid won't act up as much in class if he's being watched as such.

Another thing schools need to do is relax the stringent failure standards and fail more people who simply cannot cut it. Highschool is so absurdly easy already, even though some still fail. The problem is that there's not enough incentive to stop goofing off. If they do, fail them. They can flip burgers. None of this 40 chances shit.

------------

Another thing that needs doing is a weakening of the Teachers Unions, which are an impedement to education. Often, they get so powerful that they become only self-serving. The Union should be highly regulated so as to prevent it from becomming so self-serving to the point at which it ignores the quality of education it provides to students. Striking should be universally illegal in the field as well. All teachers should have at least a BA degree in the particular field they are teaching, which sadly, isn't universally done already, which is why you can get gym teachers who teach biology because they got a minor in it.

------------

As for the curriculum itself, it should make use of Social Constructivism as much as possible, encouraging cooperation and real-time problem solving instead of rote memorization of mindless reality-irrelevant problems. The Curriculum should switch to one that is more useful in real life as well--one that has utility in the most strict definition. Right now, we have a lot of worthless waste-of-time-frill courses that are thrown in there, like Literature, which is virtually worthless in real life. It's a time-filler subject.

Since a good body of citizens requires the ability to reason, civil knowledge, and ethical behavior, the highschool curriculum should centre around:

Ethics
Maths
Sciences
Modern Language
Logic
History

The Logic in conjunction with Ethics can teach people how to reason about public issues and how to act appropriately. Basic civics can be taught in American History and have a cross-curriculum focus with what is learned in Ethics.

A modern language helps the population be more useful in a globalizing world, and sciences and maths help promote rationality. Every citizen should know the Scientific Method, how it works, and it it can be applied to reality. Now, our science programmes are more interested in children pedantic memorization of facts than the actual Scientific Method. It's a programme of trivia memorization.

Maths are useful because they build real-life competency, and math is important in every day life, so it is practical. Math skills can also improve reasoning skills, since symbolic logic is largely a basic form of mathematics.

-------------------

According to Urie Bronfenbrenner's Ecological theory, a child's cognitive and socio-emotional development is a key player in the success of his education, as it represents one of the 5 major microsystems in a child's life. Many eduational problems of children in depressed, poverty-stricken areas are catalyzed by their environment; therefore, if a major problem is the home environment/community environment (and if that problem cannot be remedied), the best solution would be to remove the child from that environment. In that respect, those parents who are unfit to parent and contributing to the delinquency of their child or acting detrimentally to his education should contribute their child to a State Boarding School programme in which the previous curriculum will be taught.

For those parents who are capable of giving the time and resources necessary to helping their child, they should be encouraged to participate in school-home cooperatives that act as cognitive reinforcement plans.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do know what it is, and it has never worked, it has always produced unintended consequences. A group of technocrats cannot control a society.

Of course it has worked; it's largely been responsible for some of the greatest social gains in history. It's also the primary ethical paradigm of Engineers, most of the bioethics field, so you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

It's one of the most useful, important ethical systems ever, and no, you still got it wrong with what Technocracy is, even though I wasn't refering to that. Technocratic has more than one definition.


No, you haven't, because you've not refuted the conceit problem inherient in all your thinking.

I need not refute some imaginary accusation of yours.



That's not an answer. That's an insult.

Some people play russian roulette because they think it's cool. They are morons. Some people drink poison as a game. They are fools. Some people like to beat their children even though they know it harms them. They are assholes. Some parents like to screw up their children's education because of 2000 year old faerie-tales that interfere with reality. Yes, it is an answer. It's the truth, and it accurately explains why some parents might be willing to harm their children. They are fucking dumb-asses, that's why.





Your ideas are not truth, they are a moral, political, and social position.

Yes, it is truth.



There is. You should read the founding documents of the United States. People have rights, and the people institute governments in order to protect those rights. They could protect these rights themselves, but they are less efficient at so doing than a government, so they delegate powers to a government.

I have read the founding documents, but appealing to their authority in an ethical dicussion doesn't score any points. However, I don't believe you have read only real important founding document--the US constitution, which is a legalistic defense of rights, not a cogent ethical one. Ethically, the purpouse of government isn't only to protect rights: only Libertarians think so, because they don't recognize things like the prima-facie nature of duty and moral dillemas.

If you read the Constitution, it makes clear reference several times to the collective public welfare, which often does conflict with a mindlessly simplistic conception of absolute rights. However, even if they DIDN'T and really did think that rights were absolute, that's a poor ethical foundation because they are making arbitrary declarations that people have natural rights, which is a bogus claim, since there's no evidence of such. No one is born with rights. Rights are handed down by the government for the benefit of the people. After all, Rights are imaginary constructs desgined to make society better in the long run; they don't exist in and of themselves for themselves, but rather for the usefulness they serve as general guidelines of conduct.

In reality, however, there are moral quandries, since duties are prima facie, not absolute. Since rights are only valuable insofar as they continue to produce utility, when certain situations arise, utility may and does dictate those rights be violated, and there are MANY legitimate cases in which this would be a true condition. To believe otherwise is irrational, for rights have no ethical, logical foundation other than their utility to society. When utility strongly outweighs one's rights, they ought to be violated in the interests of reducing objective suffering of others.


One cannot delegate a power one does not have. I do not have the right to murder someone, I therefore do not have the right to pay you to murder someone.

You don't need a right to murder someone. Murder isn't wrong because you are violating someone's imaginary rights, but because of the objective consequences it has for the individual as well as for society if universalized as a practice. It does more harm to society to allow it in the long run. The violation of rights is a side-issue, but not the main one. It's a policy that cannot be universalized or allowed because it causes significant drops in public utility.



This point actually supports my argument, in that the state, be enforcing criminal law, is protecting your rights against this person who are complaining about.




If you can resist the indoctrination of the state, I see no reason to believe that someone could not resist the indoctrination of the church.

The notion of everlasting life and bliss in the afterworld and an all-knowing infallible God protecting you is one of the most potent forces of irrationality there is.

Of course it has worked; it's largely been responsible for some of the greatest social gains in history.

No, it hasn't and the gain it has produced have never been sustainable, and have come at great cost.

I need not refute some imaginary accusation of yours.

Any technocratic argument is necessarily grounded in conceit.

Yes, it is truth.

Poppycock. One could produce a thousand god-botherers who would swear the Bible was true.

However, I don't believe you have read only real important founding document--the US constitution, which is a legalistic defense of rights, not a cogent ethical one.

It didn't need to be. All it was intended to do was provide and limit a US Government.

The people who wrote the constitution made their position on rights clear, and their position is the right one.

only Libertarians think so, because they don't recognize things like the prima-facie nature of duty and moral dillemas.

Nonsense.

If you read the Constitution, it makes clear reference several times to the collective public welfare, which often does conflict with a mindlessly simplistic conception of absolute rights.

Actually, it didn't, it made a reference to "general welfare", but elsewhere limited the government to only a few functions.

Rights are handed down by the government for the benefit of the people.

Nonsense. Were that true, they would not be rights. They would be privileges, little goodies handed out by a King.

When utility strongly outweighs one's rights, they ought to be violated in the interests of reducing objective suffering of others.

Utility? To whom? "The collective" (a frightening term if ever I heard one) isn't an answer. They are not a single entity, they therefore have no single interest. Only an individual can think and act. An individual may act with other individuals, but this isn't a collective entity acting, just a bunch of individuals who happen to agree at the time. A "collective" cannot think and act (outside Star Trek, that is).

Murder isn't wrong because you are violating someone's imaginary rights, but because of the objective consequences it has for the individual as well as for society if universalized as a practice. It does more harm to society to allow it in the long run.

A murder doesn't have much effect on society. Society is hardly harmed when a prostitute outlives her usefulness. It may well be harmed when an important business leader is assassinated, but a civilised society treats both as the same crime.

Society has and uses the capacity to judge things on a case-by-case basis, so if societies acted as you say they do, on the basis of utility (to someone, we haven't quite worked out whom), they would not judge them as the same crime, they may even see the killing of the prostitute as a good thing.

The notion of everlasting life and bliss in the afterworld and an all-knowing infallible God protecting you is one of the most potent forces of irrationality there is.

And you propose to replace it with the notion of an all-knowing infallible bunch of technocrats protecting you. You are guilty of the same thing as the god-squad you accuse, the difference is that the evidence of your all-knowing infallible bunch screwing up children is overwhelming, where as the evidence of the god-squad screwing up children is anecdotal, and grounded in anti-religous prejudice.

No, it hasn't and the gain it has produced have never been sustainable, and have come at great cost.


No, it has, which is what makes you wrong. Again, you don't understand the philosophy at all, yet you feel knowledgeable to critique it. Absurd. The more you speak on this issue, the less you show that you know.

It has been effective, and it's an excellent theory in practice. Again, refer to it being the primary ethic of many professional fields, such as bioethics, engineering etc. It has also lead to many achievements in society involving prision, abortion, suffrage, slavery etc.


Any technocratic argument is necessarily grounded in conceit.


Not really, unless you have some irrational fear of intellectualism and credentials.


Poppycock. One could produce a thousand god-botherers who would swear the Bible was true.

They would easily and verifiably wrong.



It didn't need to be. All it was intended to do was provide and limit a US Government.

The people who wrote the constitution made their position on rights clear, and their position is the right one.

Not really. It's largely nonsense on stilts.



Nonsense. Were that true, they would not be rights. They would be privileges, little goodies handed out by a King.


Obviously you are a proponent of the laughably illogical "natural rights" theory . There are no such things as "natural rights." You have no rights in a state of nature. All rights are in fact created by society and handed down through the power structure.



Actually, it didn't, it made a reference to "general welfare", but elsewhere limited the government to only a few functions.

Ahh. The argument from semantics. Cute, but not logical.



Utility? To whom? "The collective" (a frightening term if ever I heard one) isn't an answer. They are not a single entity, they therefore have no single interest. Only an individual can think and act. An individual may act with other individuals, but this isn't a collective entity acting, just a bunch of individuals who happen to agree at the time. A "collective" cannot think and act (outside Star Trek, that is).

Yes, it is an answer. The needs of the many outweigh the needs and wants of the few. If 500 people will die if you don't kill person X, then you are acting immorality if you let X live. If 50 people can be saved by killing 2, you ought to kill those 2, regardless of their rights. The act-interest, if universalized, would be fine and desirable. You should act such that every maxim seeks to satisfice the greatest good for the greatest number--the principle of utility. Generally, this occures best by setting up general social rules.

No one said anything about a collective thinking, therefore, that criticism is a red herring, thus irrelevant bullshit.



A murder doesn't have much effect on society. Society is hardly harmed when a prostitute outlives her usefulness. It may well be harmed when an important business leader is assassinated, but a civilised society treats both as the same crime.

Society has and uses the capacity to judge things on a case-by-case basis, so if societies acted as you say they do, on the basis of utility (to someone, we haven't quite worked out whom), they would not judge them as the same crime, they may even see the killing of the prostitute as a good thing.

Of course murder has a detrimental effect on society. That's an absurd claim otherwise. If murder were universalized and allowed, the quality of life in any given population will easily decline. There are many examples in anthropology of societies that allowed willy-nilly murder and violance. Those societies collapsed.

Rights do not have any natural presence, as I correctly stated. THey are invented and propped up by society itself. They are valuable insofar as they are general utility rules. They are beneficial to the aggregate.



And you propose to replace it with the notion of an all-knowing infallible bunch of technocrats protecting you. You are guilty of the same thing as the god-squad you accuse, the difference is that the evidence of your all-knowing infallible bunch screwing up children is overwhelming, where as the evidence of the god-squad screwing up children is anecdotal, and grounded in anti-religous prejudice.

There's never been a technocracy or a technocratic government in the sense I am talking about, so no, there aren't any examples.

Technokratishe Staaten, the fundamental question (which you have ignored) is the relationship between the individual and the state.

If you believe that the state is there to serve and protect the individual, then the state logically derives its powers from a mandate of the people. This means that if a family cannot educate its children, the government cannot educate them (i.e. if the parents have no legitimate power to educate, they cannot delegate this power to the state)

If you believe the individual is a slave to the state, then your position can make sense.

The only legitimate role for a citizen is to support whatever the state does? Bollocks.

If you don't think the state is in the business of indoctrination, you are clearly insane.

That you agree with it doesn't mean it isn't indoctrination.

Technokratishe Staaten, your entire argument is based on conceit, and ad-hominem.

He's not insane - he's just completely indoctrinated. You know, that flouridated water sapping our vital essence...

Wow. This thread has made for some interesting reading. I have quite a bit to say on this topic. Rather than finding and copying all the posts I would like to reply to; which would take a tremendous amount of time, I am just going to post my thoughts. There are several people I agree with so I may repeat some of what they said. I think a lot of it could use a "seconding".

Firstly, rights are not granted to people by the government, it is the other way around. Or, should be anyway. The founders of America knew this. That is why you (that is a collective you - I think their is a clear lack in the English language in not having a separate word for plural "you") will find the phrase "endowed by their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence.

One of those rights, specifically mentioned in the Constitution is the freedom of religion. Which means that each individual has the right to practice their own particular religion, without being forced by government to fund belief systems with which they disagree.

Education is inherently religious. All education is infused with the belief system of the person or organization running it. This comes in several forms, be it the history books, the reading primers, or the word problems in the math texts. Someone mentioned the need to teach Ethics to the populace. Your ethics are a direct result of your belief system. Education cannot be neutral. In the U.S. public education system that belief system is secular humanism. Anyone who disagrees with secular humanism is still required to pay to educate children (their own or someone else's) in that religion. For this reason, government-run, taxpayer-funded education is unConstitutional.

Besides that, it just plain doesn't work. Except that it does. Its purpose is to create compliant citizens. Which is exactly what it does. Schools do not turn out well-educated, free-thinkers. They turn out citizens who believe what they are told to believe and expect the government to support them through every misfortune and bad choice. This citizenry is, of course, supportive of big-government. Which is exactly what the government wants. It is a lesson in self-survival. Not individual self-survival, but government self-survival. Putting the government in charge of education is like allowing Congress the power to vote their own raises...

The one-size-fits-all classroom model is ineffective, at best, for most children. As has already been posted children learn at different rates in different subjects as compared to other children the same age. A classroom teacher can rarely take this into consideration. This is not the teacher's fault. It is part of the system. For some children this works, but even for those that can survive it, it could be argued that it may not be the best.

It is not just the parent's right, but their responsibility, to see that their children are educated. Public schools appropriate that right and downplay that responsibility. Not all parents can or want to homeschool. But, all parents should have a direct say in what their children are taught. This is only practicable when there is no government monopoly to interfere.

Parents are abdicating the raising of their children to the government. Because they have been taught that government knows best how to do the raising. Plus, why should the poor parents have to care for those little leeches when they could be out doing something much more selfish - I mean fulfilling.

Teaching is easy. Teaching in a classroom is hard, teaching a small group is not. The purpose of education is to give your children the tools they need to succeed in life. In the past that would have meant an understanding of whatever trade their father did. In our society that means how to read and do math. How to research. How to think critically. How to use logic. How to find whatever information they need. Also, a basic background in history and science. I may have missed something, but that covers most of it. Children need to be taught how to learn and how to process information. In our society there is too much information to teach in the "school years". The focus needs to be on how to find and use that information for themselves. If this is not something the parents can do themselves (for whatever reason), they should be able to find someone else to do so. Someone who has a similar belief system. They should have the ability to pick and choose those who have an influence over their children and to take their money with them to fund that choice.

Firstly, rights are not granted to people by the government, it is the other way around. Or, should be anyway. The founders of America knew this. That is why you (that is a collective you - I think their is a clear lack in the English language in not having a separate word for plural "you") will find the phrase "endowed by their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence.

If Rights are not granted by the government to the people, rather the other way around, then that means the Rights are granted to the government by the people, but that makes no sense.

I also don't see the importance of the Founding Father's declaration that rights stem from "the creator." There is no creator, first of all to hand rights down to anyone. Show me where your "right" gene is or how humans are naturally born with innate rights. You can't, because they are social creations--abstractions.

Do you think people are really born with them? I am confused on this issue. Are you a "natural rights" ethicist?



One of those rights, specifically mentioned in the Constitution is the freedom of religion. Which means that each individual has the right to practice their own particular religion, without being forced by government to fund belief systems with which they disagree.

I understand fully that you have a legal right to religion, and that's ok, as long as you, by practicing your religion, do not objectively hurt society. That is the case, though, with religious fundamentalism.



Education is inherently religious. All education is infused with the belief system of the person or organization running it. This comes in several forms, be it the history books, the reading primers, or the word problems in the math texts. Someone mentioned the need to teach Ethics to the populace. Your ethics are a direct result of your belief system. Education cannot be neutral. In the U.S. public education system that belief system is secular humanism. Anyone who disagrees with secular humanism is still required to pay to educate children (their own or someone else's) in that religion. For this reason, government-run, taxpayer-funded education is unConstitutional.

I would ask that you provide some heavy evidence that all education is inherently religious. I think you are equivocating on the term "religion." Education is secular, not religious in the mystical metaphysical sense. I mentioned ethics, but ethics need not be religious at all.

It is also true that one can evaluate ethical beliefs: some are more efficient and better than others. Today, there are several fairly good ethical systems, including mine. Taxpayer funded education isn't unconstitutional at all. That's a baseless assumption founded on an equivocation of the word "religion." Once one understand that "belief != religion" then that notion no longer applies. There's no reason everyone must agree on the philosophy; there is no anti-philosophy clause in the Constitution. There is, however, an anti-religion clause that creates a wall of separation. HOwever, not all philosophies are religious.

People keep harping on how eeeeeeevil public education is, but that's not true at all. It's hyperbole. There are many successful models of public education. It's a large misunderstanding of the concept.

There is, however, an anti-religion clause that creates a wall of separation.
and that explains everything about you. The establishment clause in the first amendment isn't "anti-religion" it's not supposed to stop religion at all. It's supposed to protect the rights of the people to practice religion freely.

You are biased to the point that you can't even see something for what it is, and that is sad. Deep Kimchi is right, you have been brainwashed. :(

<snip>
There is. You should read the founding documents of the United States. People have rights, and the people institute governments in order to protect those rights. They could protect these rights themselves, but they are less efficient at so doing than a government, so they delegate powers to a government.
So cute -- implying that I am ignorant of the laws of my own country. :rolleyes:

First, there is only one document that matters in the US and that is the Constitution, and the Constitution has nothing to do with this particular point. It does not address this theoretical issue and has no data or guidance to offer on the subject. I know that because I've read it.

Second, in most cases, throughout history, people do not institute governments at all. Only republican governments are instituted by "the people," and until the American revolution, republics were the historical exception. And in governments that are imposed, rather than instituted, the concept of rights is rarer still. Even in modern republics and democracies, people do not institute governments to protect rights. People institute governments to pave roads and maintain armies and conduct business with other governments on the people's behalf. Sometimes, people institute governments to enforce laws because when individuals try to do that themselves, independently, the result is social chaos. But even the concept of law does not automatically imply a concept of rights. Rights only come into play when people start to feel that they are being abused by their government. The specific ways in which they want the government to stop abusing them are called rights.

Third, if you are going to insist that people cannot ask the government to do for them something they have no right to do for themselves, then explain to me how I have a right to take your liberty away from you if you do something I don't like. Let's say you steal my money. Tell me how I, as a private individual, have the right to kidnap you off the street and lock you up in my cellar until I feel satisfied you have made up for the loss of my money. Because obviously, I must have the right to do that, since I have already delegated that right, in the form of a power, to the government, according to you.

You do understand the difference between being able to do something and having a right to do it, don't you?

One cannot delegate a power one does not have. I do not have the right to murder someone, I therefore do not have the right to pay you to murder someone.
This is a bogus example because there is no such thing as a right to commit a crime. Murder is a crime, so no one has a right to do it. Period. So yeah, no shit, you don't have the right to kill your wife for isurance money, and you don't have the right to ask the mayor of your town to kill her so you can get the insurance money, either.

BTW, viz above, you are able to commit murder. You do not have a right to commit murder. Just in case you didn't know the difference.

This point actually supports my argument, in that the state, be enforcing criminal law, is protecting your rights against this person who are complaining about.
This point only supports your argument if you choose to miss the point. As I asked above, explain as clearly as you can precisely how I, individually, have a right to take your liberty away from you.

Good for you, however you are illustrating a failure of public education, not a product of it, as you noted yourself (the notations under "attitude" and so forth). If you were doing what they wanted you to do, it stands to reason that they wouldn't have had a problem with you challenging the teachers, you would have been praised for it.
That's right, I am illustrating public education's failure to indoctrinate.

BTW, that notation about my attitude WAS praise (one of many such), but then I got my education in NYC where hard-ass-edness is considered a positive character trait. In fact, the only potential problem any authority (aside from the 5 or 6 people I was warring with) ever mentioned about me was when a high school English teacher told my mother that she was worried that I might not cope too well once I got out into the real world and found out just how "profoundly stupid most of the world really is." (the teacher's words, as reported by my mom) This teacher was afraid I might become prematurely bitter. It was already too late, of course. :)

You successfully resisted what so many others couldn't, so you should be proud.
I am, as you can tell, no doubt. But, you know, I would really enjoy seeing some evidence of this supposed indoctrination. I would like to know what the content and direction of the indoctrination is, and I would like to see some statistics showing the effects of this indoctrination.

I have already outlined the controlling purpose of the US school system as originally designed following the Prussian model. But I have also said that I do not think it is all that successful in molding humans into cogs in the machine of state. After all, most of the most radical American rebels, innovators, and free thinkers since the revolution have been products of the public school system. Also, current American politics are so bitterly and vehemently divided that people are actually starting to talk about secession and civil war again (Cassandra-type worrying). So I would like to see proof that the system is churning out nothing but conformist, indoctrinated drones of the state.

If you can resist the indoctrination of the state, I see no reason to believe that someone could not resist the indoctrination of the church.
Especially if the indoctrination is as weak as it is in the public school system.

Not really, unless you have some irrational fear of intellectualism and credentials.

No, I don't, I however do not have absolute faith in them as you do. I can also see what is happening behind the scenes. What you might call credentials is in fact a notice that Mr. X is fully acquainted with the currently fashionable theories, and can plausably argue them.

The notion that we need professional for everything is becoming more and more absurd. We have psychologists making profound discoveries like "a child needs a mother's love", which are regarded as quite revolutionary be the intellectuals, and are greeted with "well, duh!" by the general population who knew it anyway.

They would easily and verifiably wrong.

While the best, and truthful theories of your experts would be debunked by other experts every five years.

Obviously you are a proponent of the laughably illogical "natural rights" theory . There are no such things as "natural rights." You have no rights in a state of nature. All rights are in fact created by society and handed down through the power structure.

"you don't understand the philosophy at all, yet you feel knowledgeable to critique it. Absurd. The more you speak on this issue, the less you show that you know.".

Natural rights are derived from the nature of man and the world.

The legal rights doctrine is illogical because it is contradictory. One cannot say that rights are handed down by government because they would not be rights, merely privileges.

You should act such that every maxim seeks to satisfice the greatest good for the greatest number--the principle of utility.

Which doesn't work in practice because you don't know what is good for them, nor do your experts.

No one said anything about a collective thinking, therefore, that criticism is a red herring, thus irrelevant bullshit.

No, it isn't. A collective cannot have interests unless it thinks. The closest thing the collective has to a common interest is an interest in each individual being left alone to go about his business.

Of course murder has a detrimental effect on society. That's an absurd claim otherwise. If murder were universalized and allowed, the quality of life in any given population will easily decline. There are many examples in anthropology of societies that allowed willy-nilly murder and violance. Those societies collapsed.

Who said universalised? A society can judge things on a case-by-case basis, as you well know, and on a case-by-case basis, it can be said that the murder of certain people benefits society, so no, murder can benefit society when specifically applied. The protagonist in Taxi Driver committed murder several times, but can you honestly say society suffered?

There's never been a technocracy or a technocratic government in the sense I am talking about, so no, there aren't any examples.

Technocracy has been put into practice (if it had not been, how could you say that it had achieved any results at all, let alone good results?), and it has always shown that society tends to avoid control, and the attempts to produce good outcomes always produce bad outcomes.

Technocracy is inheriently wrong because the scientific method is useless in society, it is fine in a lab, you can control all the factors except the one you're seeking to examine. A society cannot be controlled that way.

Tell me how I, as a private individual, have the right to kidnap you off the street and lock you up in my cellar until I feel satisfied you have made up for the loss of my money. Because obviously, I must have the right to do that, since I have already delegated that right, in the form of a power, to the government, according to you.

Firstly, it's a bogus example because even if you could catch him, you could not prove that he had in fact committed the crime. Secondly, your satisfaction is irrelevant, only your rights are relevant.

Especially if the indoctrination is as weak as it is in the public school system.

They used to have religious education classes in my school, and religious education used to fairly common in my country, but you got the sense that they had given up. It was mostly retelling of biblical stories, and talking about being "a good person".

Not really, unless you have some irrational fear of intellectualism and credentials.

I've met plenty of people who have "credentials" who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag.

<snip>
Firstly, it's a bogus example because even if you could catch him, you could not prove that he had in fact committed the crime.
Well, you would be the expert on bogus examples. You tried to cite murder as an example of how people can't turn rights they don't have into powers of the government, even though murder is neither a right (had or not had) nor a power of government; it is completely irrelevant to any discussion of rights or powers. I cited a specific example of a right I do not have but which I, as a citizen, invest in the government as a power of government, i.e. punishing a criminal by taking away his liberty. So it is an entirely germaine, real world example -- and one for which you have no proper answer, perhaps?

By the way, how do you know I can't prove you stole my money? What if I got you on security video? What if I investigated? You know, the way the cops would if I filed a complaint accusing you of stealing my money. Tell me, how, having proved that you stole my money, I would be able, of my own accord, to take away your liberty. You can't, because I can't. But the state can -- because WE say it can.

Secondly, your satisfaction is irrelevant, only your rights are relevant.
Only my rights are relevant to what? Whether you committed a crime or not? You are completely wrong about this. My rights are irrelevant; my satisfaction is what matters. How are my rights to be addressed by punishing you for a crime? Will catching you, proving your guilt, and punishing you lead to my rights never having been violated in the first place? No, it will not. Will punishing you for your crime erase the effect upon me of having had my rights violated by you? No, it will not. So, since my rights are already damaged by your crime, the only thing I can be offered in compensation is the satisfaction of seeing you lose your rights, too.

They used to have religious education classes in my school, and religious education used to fairly common in my country, but you got the sense that they had given up. It was mostly retelling of biblical stories, and talking about being "a good person".
What does this have to do with anything?

EDIT: BTW, it would be so unbelievably helpful if you identify who you are quoting and responding to from now on. Thanks.

You tried to cite murder as an example of how people can't turn rights they don't have into powers of the government, even though murder is neither a right (had or not had) nor a power of government

Murder has been regarded as a perogative of governments for centuries.

What if I investigated?

By what objective standard are you judging this man? Outside immediate self-defence (i.e., when he is stealing your money, rather than after he has stolen it, individual victims taking unilateral action against criminals doesn't work.

Only my rights are relevant to what?

To crime and punishment. If your rights are irrelevant, than one can hardly say a crime as been committed.

My rights are irrelevant; my satisfaction is what matters.

No it isn't. No justice system works on the basis of satisfying the victims.

Will catching you, proving your guilt, and punishing you lead to my rights never having been violated in the first place? No, it will not.

If he violates your rights, his rights are forfeited to the same degree. (which is why you don't have the right to kidnap a thief).

So, since my rights are already damaged by your crime, the only thing I can be offered in compensation is the satisfaction of seeing you lose your rights, too.

The aim is not satisfaction because criminal punishment is proportional, and his rights are not violated, he forfeits his rights through his violation of your rights.

Murder has been regarded as a perogative of governments for centuries.



By what objective standard are you judging this man?



To crime and punishment. If your rights are irrelevant, than one can hardly say a crime as been committed.



No it isn't. No justice system works on the basis of satisfying the victims.



If he violates your rights, his rights are forfeited to the same degree. (which is why you don't have the right to kidnap a thief).



The aim is not satisfaction because criminal punishment is proportional, and his rights are not violated, he forfeits his rights through his violation of your rights.
I realize that you are responding to me, and I have answers to your points, but I will not give them until you edit your post to include the name of the person you are responding to, dammit. It is a courtesy that helps everyone keep track of the debate. You do want to be courteous, don't you?

Just in case -- if you respond to a post by clicking on the quote button at the bottom of the post, your new reply will automatically contain the other person's post and their name. You can then edit the orginal post down to the points you want to address.

Now I'm not generally a big fan of homeschooling but this is rediculous.

A family in Brussels is having charges brought up against them for not properly educating their children even though 4 out of 5 have gone to college and the 5th is taking their equivalency exams now.

Apparently Belgium, where homeschooling is legal, has passed a law requiring homeschoolers to follow vague undefined UN requirements for education and allow unrestricted inspectors to determine whether the children are meeting said requirements. If they "fail" the inspection, the children are put back into public schools.

Now assuming this is accurate, I wouldn't have a problem w/ it if there was some sort of age appropriate standards made for education but it seems the Belgium Gov't is just looking to regain control of a growing segment of the population.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1114
Sounds more like the authorities are trying to hassel this family other then attacking the homeschooling movement.

Sounds more like the authorities are trying to hassle this family other then attacking the homeschooling movement.

That is exactly right. The head of this family has opinions the government finds disagreeable, and he doesn't want to hand his children over to the state.

Thank you. You didn't have to do it for every paragraph, btw. Just once at the top of the post is sufficient. So:

Murder has been regarded as a perogative of governments for centuries.
No, it hasn't.

By what objective standard are you judging this man?
The objective standard of evidence, i.e. the aforementioned video tape of you actually doing the crime.

To crime and punishment. If your rights are irrelevant, than one can hardly say a crime as been committed.
You are both incorrect and missing the point. There are crimes which do not affect someone's rights, but are still crimes, such as crimes against property. Also, if a crime damages my rights, the law cannot undo that damage. It can only offer compensation to me for the damage I have suffered, and often that compensation must be indirect, even just symbolic. In law, it is a principle known as "making the complainant whole" again.

No it isn't. No justice system works on the basis of satisfying the victims.
The purpose of a justice system is to maintain social order by limiting the damage people do to each other, both in offenses and in revenge for offenses. But, from the point of view of the offended person, the only thing a justice system can offer me is satisfaction in exchange for the offense I have already suffered.

If he violates your rights, his rights are forfeited to the same degree. (which is why you don't have the right to kidnap a thief).
I don't have the right to steal from a thief, either.

The aim is not satisfaction because criminal punishment is proportional, and his rights are not violated, he forfeits his rights through his violation of your rights.
I never said it was an even exchange, and I never said the compensation offered by the justice system as satisfaction would actually be satisfactory. I just said it was all I could be offered.

Thank you. You didn't have to do it for every paragraph, btw. Just once at the top of the post is sufficient. So:

I tend to reply to more than one person in a post.

No, it hasn't.

Thumbs up, or thumbs down?

The objective standard of evidence, i.e. the aforementioned video tape of you actually doing the crime.

The evidence has to be tested according to consistant standards, the alleged criminal has rights himself.

Personal vendettas are not justice. Justice must be decided objectively, and you are not satisfying that condition.

There are crimes which do not affect someone's rights, but are still crimes, such as crimes against property.

No, a crime against property violates the rights of its owner.

If rights are irrelevant, then so is crime.

The purpose of a justice system is to maintain social order by limiting the damage people do to each other, both in offenses and in revenge for offenses. But, from the point of view of the offended person, the only thing a justice system can offer me is satisfaction in exchange for the offense I have already suffered.

But it doesn't, nor does it have the capacity so to do. An example is some of the (absurdly in my mind) short sentences some criminals get. I doubt a rape victim will be satisfied with a few years prison as a punishment for the rapist, and the victim can't appeal the sentence. There is some leave for the state to appeal sentences, but not on the grounds of satisfying the victim.

I just said it was all I could be offered.

It isn't offered. The closest justice systems get to it is "Victim Impact Statements".

I tend to reply to more than one person in a post.
I know that. You can identify each person you are talking to, in turn.

Thumbs up, or thumbs down?



The evidence has to be tested according to consistant standards, the alleged criminal has rights himself.

Personal vendettas are not justice. Justice must be decided objectively, and you are not satisfying that condition.



No, a crime against property violates the rights of its owner.

If rights are irrelevant, then so is crime.



But it doesn't, nor does it have the capacity so to do. An example is some of the (absurdly in my mind) short sentences some criminals get. I doubt a rape victim will be satisfied with a few years prison as a punishment for the rapist, and the victim can't appeal the sentence. There is some leave for the state to appeal sentences, but not on the grounds of satisfying the victim.



It isn't offered. The closest justice systems get to it is "Victim Impact Statements".
You clearly don't understand much about the law, or the legal system, or rights, or crime (that last one is probably a good thing).

I have to go to bed now (early appointment tomorrow). I would like to offer you two options. Please take your time and think about it. (A) I can take the time to explain to you exactly why I think you are wrong on all of this, OR (B) we can save it for another thread. I offer this choice for two reasons. (1) I suddenly realized just badly we are hijacking the thread, and I really hate to hijack threads; and (2) I also really hate having these arguments because they go on forever and never develop into anything. I mean, if you think murder is a power of the government, then we'd spend 2/3 of our time just arguing about defined terms. Fun for no one.

PS: I'd be happy to get votes from other posters, too.

I mean, if you think murder is a power of the government, then we'd spend 2/3 of our time just arguing about defined terms. Fun for no one.

Its a power the government assumes on behalf of the people (in one way or another). It is not a legitimate power of state as such (we'll leave capital punishment, police shootings, and war, because its not murder as such in these cases), because it is not a right an individual has, yet states do murder and justify it in the people's name.

In any case, it was an analogy, used to illustrate that asking someone to do something you have no right to do yourself is not legitimate, therefore (as in this thread) if a parent has no right to direct the education of children, then neither does the state. Parents may and do delegate that decision to governments, but the mandate comes from the parents.

Its a power the government assumes on behalf of the people (in one way or another). It is not a legitimate power of state as such (we'll leave capital punishment, police shootings, and war, because its not murder as such in these cases), because it is not a right an individual has, yet states do murder and justify it in the people's name.
I disagree, but whatever. Thanks for getting us back on topic. :)

In any case, it was an analogy, used to illustrate that asking someone to do something you have no right to do yourself is not legitimate, therefore (as in this thread) if a parent has no right to direct the education of children, then neither does the state. Parents may and do delegate that decision to governments, but the mandate comes from the parents.
But not from each individual set of parents. The state has to determine a direction for the education of children from ALL walks of life, and so a public school curriculum must be a compromise. Generally, the foundation will be a combination of basic intellectual skills (the legendary Three R's, etc) and whatever the state considers to be the greatest common need of the society as a whole.

You may argue that the state's idea of the greatest common need is always going to end in exploitation of the citizenry, and I may argue that that is not necessarily the case and that public education is a tool the citizens can use just as powerfully as the government can -- the truth of that will vary widely from country to country, school district to school district, even school to school.

I have no problem with homeschooling per se. I think that the current US school system is so dysfunctional that, even if my local school was clean and safe, and I wanted my kids to attend it in order to develop their social skills and get experience of the outside world, I would still supplement their academic education -- up to 100% -- with education at home, on the assumption that they just wouldn't be learning anything in their classes.

But I do not agree that only parents should be determining what kids get to learn. I do not see giving parents total power to control the flow of information to their children as any less potentially harmful than giving the government total power to do it. I don't see how the former is not indoctrination while the latter is.

My take on it is that, if Little Johnny learns that the rest of his society is not as negative about homosexuality as his parents are, and if that makes it a little harder for his parents to make sure that he grows up hating gays just like they do, well that's too fucking bad for Little Johnny's parents. They're just going to have to work harder to brick up their child's mind against other people's ideas, aren't they?

My take on it is that, if Little Johnny learns that the rest of his society is not as negative about homosexuality as his parents are, and if that makes it a little harder for his parents to make sure that he grows up hating gays just like they do, well that's too fucking bad for Little Johnny's parents. They're just going to have to work harder to brick up their child's mind against other people's ideas, aren't they?

What about situations where the public school, in the interest of not offending those who are "average", and in the interest of making the electorate feel that "we are all above average" dumbs down the curriculum to the point where your children are actually being harmed - when they could learn so much more elsewhere?

Don't laugh - it happens often enough here in the US. Some public school districts explicitly do not have a "gifted" childrens' program because the people whose kids are stupid are mightily offended.

In most cases, homeschooling should be banned anyway. Normal people are not capable of adequately teaching their children, especially when students start enterting the far more and increasingly complex subjects.

If I know more about chemistry than my kid's chemistry teacher, then I'm more qualified to teach her chemistry.

The fact is, public school teachers are often quite bad (public unions rarely have any means to eliminate incompetence). In many cases I can do a better job than they do.

Plus, public schools often try to instill specific values in the kids, and that's not their job. It's my job to teach my kids values.

What about situations where the public school, in the interest of not offending those who are "average", and in the interest of making the electorate feel that "we are all above average" dumbs down the curriculum to the point where your children are actually being harmed - when they could learn so much more elsewhere?

Don't laugh - it happens often enough here in the US. Some public school districts explicitly do not have a "gifted" childrens' program because the people whose kids are stupid are mightily offended.
like the local school district who isn't allowed to score a paper below a C so everything below 70% gets marked up?

for example a kid gets a 70% then that's their grade, their neighbor gets a 10% they also get a 70%

:rolleyes:

The tone of the article makes me think that this person is quite possible racist and quite possibly educating their children to be like-minded...

It's one thing to homeschool because you don't think other schools are good, it's quite another to homeschool because you're a paranoid/racist bastard and want to make sure your children aren't exposed to any other sorts of opinions.

like the local school district who isn't allowed to score a paper below a C so everything below 70% gets marked up?

for example a kid gets a 70% then that's their grade, their neighbor gets a 10% they also get a 70%

:rolleyes:

Seen that before. Also have seen bans on grading on curves, and bans on awards for academic performance.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, they are eliminating testing and evaluation to define "gifted" children, and are asking parents to write essays on how well their child plays the guitar, or paints pictures - the child can be as dumb as a rock, and that's "gifted".

What about situations where the public school, in the interest of not offending those who are "average", and in the interest of making the electorate feel that "we are all above average" dumbs down the curriculum to the point where your children are actually being harmed - when they could learn so much more elsewhere?

Don't laugh - it happens often enough here in the US. Some public school districts explicitly do not have a "gifted" childrens' program because the people whose kids are stupid are mightily offended.
Did you go to public school? Because you seem to have a very hard time reading entire posts.

From the very same post you partially quoted:

Originally posted by me
I have no problem with homeschooling per se. I think that the current US school system is so dysfunctional that, even if my local school was clean and safe, and I wanted my kids to attend it in order to develop their social skills and get experience of the outside world, I would still supplement their academic education -- up to 100% -- with education at home, on the assumption that they just wouldn't be learning anything in their classes.

But not from each individual set of parents. The state has to determine a direction for the education of children from ALL walks of life, and so a public school curriculum must be a compromise.

They give the state a mandate to direct the education, so what you're saying is in fact what I am saying (provided that the state provision takes the form of the state forming and running a complete education bureaucracy, rather than simply reimbursing school fees for the poor, or providing vouchers)

You may argue that the state's idea of the greatest common need is always going to end in exploitation of the citizenry

I would never argue that. I would argue that the state cannot do anything for the people except in proportion to the state doing something to the people.

But I do not agree that only parents should be determining what kids get to learn. I do not see giving parents total power to control the flow of information to their children as any less potentially harmful than giving the government total power to do it. I don't see how the former is not indoctrination while the latter is.

Someone has to bring up the children, which means someone has to be in control, and the parents are better than the state. You must face the fact that children are not mature enough to determine things for themselves (which is why we are having this discussion in the first place), thing must be determined for them, and the state is not only malevolent, it is incompetant.

My take on it is that, if Little Johnny learns that the rest of his society is not as negative about homosexuality as his parents are, and if that makes it a little harder for his parents to make sure that he grows up hating gays just like they do, well that's too fucking bad for Little Johnny's parents. They're just going to have to work harder to brick up their child's mind against other people's ideas, aren't they?

Now you are advocating indoctrination.

Why should an educator be telling a child what is normal and acceptable in society? That is not their job, and never was.

You've gone from education in its proper form (teaching a child knowledge, how to think, and how to learn) to teaching a child what to think.

You are also proceeding from the premise that state education can broaden the mind, a premise you denied yourself in that you regard your independence of thought as a failure of state education.

They give the state a mandate to direct the education, so what you're saying is in fact what I am saying (provided that the state provision takes the form of the state forming and running a complete education bureaucracy, rather than simply reimbursing school fees for the poor, or providing vouchers)
If that is what you were saying, then yes.

I would never argue that. I would argue that the state cannot do anything for the people except in proportion to the state doing something to the people.
Yet, further down in this very post, you describe the state as "malevolent."

Someone has to bring up the children, which means someone has to be in control, and the parents are better than the state.
Not all parents. There is such a thing as child abuse, and frankly, while some people, without any actual evidence, claim that homosexuals could never make good parents, I admit that I make the same assumption about Fred Phelps.

You must face the fact that children are not mature enough to determine things for themselves (which is why we are having this discussion in the first place),
Nobody is asking children to make the decisions.

thing must be determined for them, and the state is not only malevolent, it is incompetant.
What form does this "malevolence" take, if it is not exploitation of the citizenry through conditioning by indoctrination?

Now you are advocating indoctrination.

Why should an educator be telling a child what is normal and acceptable in society? That is not their job, and never was.

You've gone from education in its proper form (teaching a child knowledge, how to think, and how to learn) to teaching a child what to think.
No, I'm not. I am advocating AGAINST indoctrination by exposure to a wide range of differing views and a wide assortment of information sources, which would give the little tykes everything they need to learn how to MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS, which is the antithesis of indoctrination.

Just because Little Johnny is hearing messages from other people, it does not follow that he cannot hear messages from his parents. If they want him to think the way they do, let them show him how their ideas are better than those other people's.

You are also proceeding from the premise that state education can broaden the mind, a premise you denied yourself in that you regard your independence of thought as a failure of state education.
I described the potential of public education to be a factor in establishing a basis of social equality by making sure that everyone in a society gets at least the same minimum level of education. I also said that the current US system (I have no knowledge of systems in other countries) is broken and dysfunctional. I said that the practical model for the current US system was the 19th century Prussian system which was deliberately unequal and doctrinaire. I also said that this was not the original concept of what public education should be in the US; that original concept was inherently equal and anti-doctrinaire (despite the fact that it was a puritan concept; ironic, that).

I believe the dysfunction of the US system is rooted in the ideological dissonance between its foundational concept and the practical model it chose to use. It is trying to produce equality out of an unequal system. That is a problem with the current US system.

But it is NOT a problem inherent in the concept of public education itself.

Well I support Belgium because the government is the only thing that has ever actually cared about people. For example, the fundies smile at you, but then they hate you because you have sex. The government doesn't stop you and in fact funds it for you, which is nice, seeing as it is a human right.

Now, if these parents were fundies, then the kids should have never been allowed out of the public schools.

Also, the United Nations has a stake in world peace, and is the only government to ever give children rights. For example, the right to access information even if your parents don't agree with it.

The United Nations should set the agenda for the schools, and everyone should be required to go to public school, not private, and certainly not "homeschool." The other thing is that if rich parents were forced to send their kids to public schools, they would suddenly get better for the rest of us.

Well I support Belgium because the government is the only thing that has ever actually cared about people. For example, the fundies smile at you, but then they hate you because you have sex. The government doesn't stop you and in fact funds it for you, which is nice, seeing as it is a human right.

It is not a human right to have state funded public school.

Now, if these parents were fundies, then the kids should have never been allowed out of the public schools.

Violating their rights as parents.

Also, the United Nations has a stake in world peace, and is the only government to ever give children rights. For example, the right to access information even if your parents don't agree with it.

Gov't knows best? Please...:rolleyes: We have enough of a problem with that here in the US.

The United Nations should set the agenda for the schools, and everyone should be required to go to public school, not private, and certainly not "homeschool." The other thing is that if rich parents were forced to send their kids to public schools, they would suddenly get better for the rest of us.

I will homeschool my kids just for the hell of it. What's the UN gonna do about it? And no, just because rich people send their kids to that school doesn't mean it will get better. Private schools are the way to go, in my opinion, if homeschool isn't an option.

The studies have shown that public schools do better than private schools, if you adjust for income.

Yet, further down in this very post, you describe the state as "malevolent."

It necessarily ends up that way. No matter how it starts. Even the best intentioned governments end up that way due to the way in which they operate.

Not all parents. There is such a thing as child abuse, and frankly, while some people, without any actual evidence, claim that homosexuals could never make good parents, I admit that I make the same assumption about Fred Phelps.

I know, and in that case substitute parents are better than the state.

Nobody is asking children to make the decisions.

Public education is getting to that point, and some schools in the US actively push it.

No, I'm not. I am advocating AGAINST indoctrination by exposure to a wide range of differing views and a wide assortment of information sources, which would give the little tykes everything they need to learn how to MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS, which is the antithesis of indoctrination.

Except that they aren't doing it. Children in state schools are given a viewpoint, and if they express anything against that viewpoint, they are punished, or restricted.

I described the potential of public education to be a factor in establishing a basis of social equality by making sure that everyone in a society gets at least the same minimum level of education. I also said that the current US system (I have no knowledge of systems in other countries) is broken and dysfunctional. I said that the practical model for the current US system was the 19th century Prussian system which was deliberately unequal and doctrinaire. I also said that this was not the original concept of what public education should be in the US; that original concept was inherently equal and anti-doctrinaire (despite the fact that it was a puritan concept; ironic, that).

I believe the dysfunction of the US system is rooted in the ideological dissonance between its foundational concept and the practical model it chose to use. It is trying to produce equality out of an unequal system. That is a problem with the current US system.

No, there were two problems. The first was that they intended to achieve this aim by the least efficient, most bureaucratic method possible. The second was the aim itself. You simply cannot make people equal, and attempting so to do simply drives things down to the lowest common denominator.

But it is NOT a problem inherent in the concept of public education itself.

A large part of the cause of its failure is.

Do parents have the right to educate their children if it teaches that homosexuality isn't a normal lifestyle? To me, that's against equality.