NationStates Jolt Archive

When will the government fuck off and leave people alone so we can raise our kids how we want (provided, of course, that we're not abusing or starving them)?Never. Rights are never granted by authority-institutions. Only seized and exercised in spite of them.


All your thread are belong to Tongass.

Big Brother strikes again (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF).

The fact that they're considering whether home schooling should be legal or not ("In this dependency case, we consider the question whether parents can legally 'homeschool' their children") is frightening enough - after all, who the fuck are some faceless bureaucrats to tell us how we raise our kids? At least they're honest about the purpose behind public "education":

A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.

In other words, to indoctrinate students to worship the State. When will the government fuck off and leave people alone so we can raise our kids how we want (provided, of course, that we're not abusing or starving them)?

Aha, something I agree with PG on - good call. :)

I was home-schooled in California for part of my education, and I like to think that I'm not the worse for it. It's a sick thought that I would've been forced to sit in a building when it was absolutely necessary that I be working during the years I would've been in high school - the state has no right at all to impose itself here.

All your thread are belong to Tongass.

:upyours:


j/k :p

Big Brother strikes again (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF).

The fact that they're considering whether home schooling should be legal or not ("In this dependency case, we consider the question whether parents can legally 'homeschool' their children") is frightening enough - after all, who the fuck are some faceless bureaucrats to tell us how we raise our kids? At least they're honest about the purpose behind public "education":



In other words, to indoctrinate students to worship the State. When will the government fuck off and leave people alone so we can raise our kids how we want (provided, of course, that we're not abusing or starving them)?

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

:rolleyes:

I was homeschooled, and I wasn't "indoctrinated" in that. And who are you to decide what parents teach their children? They are, after all, their children. Not yours, not the state's, but theirs.

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

"Decent curriculum" as decided by faceless bureaucrats?

If a parent can provide education of at least comparable quality to a public school, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to homeschool. However, if they can't provide that education, they shouldn't be permitted to unless their instruction is improved to meet that standards.

As long as the kids are given the kind of education necessary for them to compete in the job market and pursue whatever secondary education they desire, I have no problem with home schooling.

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

Aw, someone got scared watching "Jesus Camp?" :(

Not that you'll listen, but those people are the exception.



"Decent curriculum" as decided by faceless bureaucrats?

By the state governments of Texas, CA and Massachusettes and the politicans that bank on publishing companies' kickbacks - none of whom I'd trust with my (hypothetical) kids.

Why? Again: They. Are. Not. Your. Children.

These kids will be granted rights and responsibilities as adults, the state has a duty to ensure those kids are properly prepared to handle those responsibilities.

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.
This is a good point. Perhaps a home-schooling license? How you would organize that, I don't know, but there are plenty of perfectly fine homsechooling peeps out there--Smunkee's one of them--that would be devestated if we just went and banned it completely.

But I agree that they can go to hell or whatever if they really think public education is for the purpose of indoctrinating into worshiping the state. I don't think so. It's to educate people so they have decent opportunities in life and is paid for by tax-payer money. It's not like it's a service the government gives at no cost to anyone else.

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

Epic fail.

Why? Again: They. Are. Not. Your. Children.

Well, no, but I do have to share the freeway with them.

However, if they can't provide that education, they shouldn't be permitted to unless their instruction is improved to meet that standards.

Why? Again: They. Are. Not. Your. Children.

Abusing your kids is one thing. That's aggression and violates their rights. Teaching them the "wrong" thing, on the other hand...

And it doesn't violate their rights to keep them undereducated?

When I saw this topic, I had the urge to start singing "California Uber Alles". :p

Unfortunately, this was not relevant to the song. :(

When I saw this topic, I had the urge to start singing "California Uber Alles". :p

Lol.

Unfortunately, this was not relevant to the song. :(

Why not?

Why? Again: They. Are. Not. Your. Children.

Well, you've already conceded that the government gets to intervene in cases of abuse. Therefore you concede that government, under certain circumstances, does have a right to interfere with parental upbringing of children. It all depends on what level of interference you wish to take it to. That's why. Whether that this level of interference is correct - that's the question you're really asking.

Well, you've already conceded that the government gets to intervene in cases of abuse. Therefore you concede that government, under certain circumstances, does have a right to interfere with parental upbringing of children. It all depends on what level of interference you wish to take it to. That's why. Whether that this level of interference is correct - that's the question you're really asking.

Abusing your kids is one thing. That's aggression and violates their rights. Teaching them the "wrong" thing, on the other hand...

Is it aggressing against them?

By condemning them to economic disadvantage and ignorance without their consent or foreknowledge of the consequences as well as preventing them from pursuing any other alternative? Sounds like aggression to me.

Well, you've already conceded that the government gets to intervene in cases of abuse. Therefore you concede that government, under certain circumstances, does have a right to interfere with parental upbringing of children. It all depends on what level of interference you wish to take it to. That's why. Whether that this level of interference is correct - that's the question you're really asking.

Unless you consider abuse a devation from upbringing. I think it's a categorically different thing.

I think home schooling could have many negative effects on a child. One of the major ones is lack of social skills, since they won't be surrounded by other children most days, they won't be forced to interact.

Parents should only home school when the public school is bad enough to warrant the removal of said child and money for private schooling is out of the question.

Perhaps a home-schooling license?

But I agree that they can go to hell or whatever if they really think public education is for the purpose of indoctrinating into worshiping the state.

How mature.

It's to educate people so they have decent opportunities in life

No, it isn't.

and is paid for by tax-payer money.

That's just part of the problem.

Regardless of the location that the child is being taught at, it is the curriculum and the medium in which it is being delivered is what matters most. A parent preaching communist rhetoric is no different from a state-sanctioned teacher doing the same. I am support of home schooling, however it raises many issues such as a) indoctrination by the parent, b) lack of social development, etc. There are likewise other things that can be avoided like crappy teachers, peer intimidation, etc.

How mature.

Sorry. Let me restate: I agree with you that those who said this:

A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.
can "go to hell" or however you wish to phrase the sentiment.


No, it isn't.

It ought to be if it isn't.


That's just part of the problem.

...what? What's wrong with taxes? We have to have publicly provided services, because people are simply not going to be able to afford everything on their own. In order to have those services, you have to have taxes.

The problem comes when tax money is inappropriately allocated or mis-used, not with the concept as a whole.

Click Stand;13494409']I think home schooling could have many negative effects on a child. One of the major ones is lack of social skills, since they won't be surrounded by other children most days, they won't be forced to interact.

They can always go to a local playground, or play with neighborhood kids.

Parents should only home school when the public school is bad enough to warrant the removal of said child and money for private schooling is out of the question.

Who are you to decide?

And who are you to decide what parents teach their children? They are, after all, their children.

We abolished slavery well over a century ago. No one "owns" children.

All right is predicated on the child's welfare and autonomy. Not the parents'.

And it doesn't violate their rights to keep them undereducated?

Is it aggressing against them?

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)
1) Source please.

2) Creationism is taught in some schools alongside evolution, or sometimes evolution isn't taught at all. The legal framework you support would disallow me from homeschooling my children to teach them evolution in these cases.

3) Public schools themselves perpetrate a form of psychological abuse through tolerance of bullying and fostering an atmosphere of competition and conformation rather than cooperation and creative critical thinking. Why is rampant publicly-sponsored abuse better than the occasional private ideological discrepancy that you are dubiously calling "abuse"?

Homeschooling costs basically nothing. Yet, parents who homeschool (and kids who homeschool themselves, like I did) pay as much in taxes as parents who send their kids to the local public school. There's nothing wrong with taxes in the broad sense, but equity matters to. A re-write of the tax code might make things a bit more equitable by, say, providing an education credit or voucher rather than taking school taxes out automatically like many counties do.

True. The tax system definitely needs to be reformed to make it more equitable.

Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. Remember that Nationstates Issue that gives an option for people to say where they want their taxes spent when they file their tax returns? Such a policy would actually result in a huge amount of new bureaucracy that would probably bog down the system.

That doesn't mean the idea lacks merit, however. It simply means we have to figure out just how to implement it.

Abusing your kids is one thing. That's aggression and violates their rights. Teaching them the "wrong" thing, on the other hand...

Could be construed as a form of deprivation. Vetalia's focus is a little more economic than I'd like, but his point is valid.

By condemning them to economic disadvantage and ignorance without their consent or foreknowledge of the consequences as well as preventing them from pursuing any other alternative? Sounds like aggression to me.

Homeschooling costs basically nothing. Yet, parents who homeschool (and kids who homeschool themselves, like I did) pay as much in taxes as parents who send their kids to the local public school. There's nothing wrong with taxes in the broad sense, but equity matters to. A re-write of the tax code might make things a bit more equitable by, say, providing an education credit or voucher rather than taking school taxes out automatically like many counties do.

Wouldn't a problem then be people 'homeschooling' as a tax dodge? ie claiming to homeschool, but in reality not giving their kids a reasonable standard of education. And is there any kind of regulatory framework for homeschooling? I've got no idea.

...what? What's wrong with taxes? We have to have publicly provided services, because people are simply not going to be able to afford everything on their own. In order to have those services, you have to have taxes.

The problem comes when tax money is inappropriately allocated or mis-used, not with the concept as a whole.

Homeschooling costs basically nothing. Yet, parents who homeschool (and kids who homeschool themselves, like I did) pay as much in taxes as parents who send their kids to the local public school. There's nothing wrong with taxes in the broad sense, but equity matters too. A re-write of the tax code might make things a bit more equitable by, say, providing an education credit or voucher rather than taking school taxes out automatically like many counties do.

Great. So now we are destroying one final thread that unites families together

Ownership of children?

Seriously, what claim of right can you make here?

in favor of a bureaucracy that, like any other, perpetuates failure so that they can complain that they aren't getting enough money.

"Bureaucracies" don't make decisions, individuals do... and more funding for the bureaucracy helps the individual a whole lot less than individual success would.

As much as I might not like the idea of government using public education to indoctrinate kids (and there are quite a few teachers who abuse their position by pushing their political ideology on their students) homeschooling isn't for everyone. Some home schooled kids are nigh genii while others end up believing that the Bible is completely accurate and should be taken word for word.

And yet, coercing them to learn isn't "aggression?"

Practically speaking, this choice will always be in the hands of the parents or the state. Not the children. In any case, our economic system makes education compulsory regardless of state intervention... and a reasonably standardized and formal education, too, because workers need not only skills but also ways to show employers that they have them.

Great. So now we are destroying one final thread that unites families together in favor of a bureaucracy that, like any other, perpetuates failure so that they can complain that they aren't getting enough money. Quite frankly, patriotism is a dead weight that simply perpetuates the illusion that we have some connection to the various thieves in politics so that they can freely bully and rob to their hearts' content.

Some home schooled kids are nigh genii while others end up believing that the Bible is completely accurate and should be taken word for word.

If people want to believe fallacies, that's their right, provided they don't try to make their fallacies public policy, whether the fallacy in question is Young Earth Creationism, Marxism, or whatever.

True. The tax system definitely needs to be reformed to make it more equitable.

Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. Remember that Nationstates Issue that gives an option for people to say where they want their taxes spent when they file their tax returns? Such a policy would actually result in a huge amount of new bureaucracy that would probably bog down the system.

That doesn't mean the idea lacks merit, however. It simply means we have to figure out just how to implement it.

There was some hope under Pres. Bush, but that was sidelined for a few reasons. In any case, it will never be easy, I agree, to make any progress at all so long as there is a monopoly to protect, as there is with public schools.

I was home-schooled.

My knowledge of English let me test out of English 101 and 102 for college. I consistently tested in the top 1% of every standardized test I took (Iowa Test of Basic Skills, ACT, SAT, etc.) I am better educated in civics, history, and political science than most. I CAN point out Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and anywhere else you like on a map. I can appreciate classical music and folk music from around the world. How has my education suffered?

<snip creationist whatever>
That is the only part of your post relevant to this thread. We're talking about homeschooling, not creationism.

I submit that refusal to accept evolution in no way affects one's reasoning ability.

I agree. But it's very telling when it comes to the education a person received. Especially if they're otherwise so intelligent. ;)

By condemning them to economic disadvantage and ignorance without their consent or foreknowledge of the consequences as well as preventing them from pursuing any other alternative? Sounds like aggression to me.

And yet, coercing them to learn isn't "aggression?"

and kids who homeschool themselves, like I did.

ENVY!

There's nothing wrong with taxes in the broad sense, but equity matters too. A re-write of the tax code might make things a bit more equitable by, say, providing an education credit or voucher rather than taking school taxes out automatically like many counties do.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, but this being NSG, I'll respond with my opinion anyway! :D
The trouble with not charging taxes automatically is that people could easily end up "homeschooling" their children to save some cash. Since apparently standardized testing isn't required in all of the US, giving a shoddy education would almost be encouraged. That could be changed as well, but standardized tests cost money…

I was home-schooled.

My knowledge of English let me test out of English 101 and 102 for college. I consistently tested in the top 1% of every standardized test I took (Iowa Test of Basic Skills, ACT, SAT, etc.) I am better educated in civics, history, and political science than most. I CAN point out Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and anywhere else you like on a map. I can appreciate classical music and folk music from around the world. How has my education suffered?

Regarding evolution vs. creationism, I present the following:

1. The theory of evolution was developed when a cell was thought to be no more than a blob of protoplasm. Now we know that the cell is a highly complex mechanism that we hardly understand at all. DNA is a very complex molecule, capable of storing vast quantities of information. It has been mapped, but we know almost nothing about what each segment does. Furthermore, the epigenome, which activates the sections of the DNA to tell a cell what it will be is not understood in the least. This came about by pure chance? Read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe for more information - he's a biochemistry professor and not an evangelical creationist layman. He's as credible as they come.

2. Nowhere on earth does the "geologic column" exist as it is presented in textbooks. Layers are missing or even out of order anywhere you look. Furthermore, circular reasoning is used to date the rocks and fossils: They date each other according to a predetermined chart. Not scientific. scientists were recently shocked to discover red blood cells and soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil. Instead of questioning the charts and the supposed age of the fossil (established through theory rather than the scientific method) they questioned everything they knew about chemistry and fossilization (which can be and has been tested thoroughly in laboratories). No one dates the fossils by any chemical method without consulting the official charts and any results that are outside the expected range are thrown out as errors.

3. The fossil record: All "missing links" between apes and humans have been shown to be 100% human, 100% extinct simian, or 100% fraud. There aren't any missing links anywhere, and the fossil record shows no gradual transitions anywhere. Every fossil can be classified as a member of a distinct species. Oddly enough, there are many

4. Observed evolution: Every nutation created by scientists under perfect laboratory conditions has proven harmful. No beneficial mutation has ever been observed. No change has ever been observed in any species that would change it into another species. the only evidence is,"well, if we evolved, we have to assume that it's possible to evolve, otherwise we wouldn't be here."

5. Scientific errors: Any evidence that calls into question any aspect of the theory of evolution is immediately disregarded without question. this is not scientific, but dogmatic. To raise points such as those above will result in people shouting me down as some crazed mystic who won't see the truth, no matter what questions or evidence I bring to the table. Is it scientific to assume that any theory is true when it has never been observed, only conjectured?

I submit that refusal to accept evolution in no way affects one's reasoning ability. The blind acceptance of ANYTHING based only on "it's in the book, so it's true" shows weakness in reasoning skills. To refuse to examine evidence contrary to accepted theory is no different from the Catholic Church's refusal to accept a universe model that wasn't earth-centered.

Side note: the Bible nowhere states that the earth is flat. That dogma was taken from pagan philosophers.

My knowledge of English let me test out of English 101 and 102 for college. I consistently tested in the top 1% of every standardized test I took (Iowa Test of Basic Skills, ACT, SAT, etc.) I am better educated in civics, history, and political science than most. I CAN point out Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and anywhere else you like on a map. I can appreciate classical music and folk music from around the world. Me too and I went to public schools.

(various false claims and science-conspiracy theory)
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Lest Lord Tothe give a bad name to home schooling, I will say that at the state university I went to and consequently dropped out of, there were a great many students who were as blindly creationist, and to my knowledge few of them were home schooled.

A parent who cares about his/her kids is worth a thousand bureaucrats.

That depends entirely on how reasonable and wise the parent is.

"Bureaucracies" don't make decisions, individuals do... and more funding for the bureaucracy helps the individual a whole lot less than individual success would.

Have you ever worked in a bureaucratic system? A parent who cares about his/her kids is worth a thousand bureaucrats. In any case, parents who don't care about their kids don't homeschool them, and even if a parent were making a conscious effort to adopt an irrelevant curriculum, there's testing at each grade level on a standardized curriculum.


Regarding evolution vs. creationism, I present the following:

Not really the time or place for that.

Disclaimer: I was homeschooled. I loved it, I don't regret it.

With that in mind, here is a chain of logic which I really want someone to refute.

1. All children have the right to an education which will prepare them for life as an adult.

2. Not all homeschooling parents will provide that education, and under CA law and current educational practices there is no way to ensure that parents are providing their children with education.

3. Therefore, our current homeschooling system deprives at least some children of their rights, and must be amended or rejected.

Aw, someone got scared watching "Jesus Camp?" :(

Not that you'll listen, but those people are the exception.
Yes, but that exception is the subject of the case which the opening poster is citing. Follow the link and read the case: it is not about whether dedicated and well-educated parents should be allowed to homeschool their children, but about whether one particular set of parents, who appear to be abusive, ignorant, and paranoid, should be permitted to do so. Keeping those kids isolated in a little family cult would be doing them a profound disservice.

1. All children have the right to an education which will prepare them for life as an adult.

2. Not all homeschooling parents will provide that education, and under CA law and current educational practices there is no way to ensure that parents are providing their children with education.

3. Therefore, our current homeschooling system deprives at least some children of their rights, and must be amended or rejected.

The inaccuracy of the bolded part undermines the argument, I think. Parents and teachers are each capable of failure, but it doesn't go undetected for long - I'm not entirely sure how the relevant laws read here, but there are regular evaluations in place. For me it was every third week, but it's been years now. What happens if a child consistently fails, I'm not sure of either - I'm guessing a caseworker would be assigned to investigate, or the parents would voluntarily send the kid to a school of their choice.

3. Therefore, our current homeschooling system deprives at least some children of their rights, and must be amended or rejected.Can we be sure that amending or rejecting the current homeschooling system will result in the rights of children being better protected?

Yes, but that exception is the subject of the case which the opening poster is citing. Follow the link and read the case: it is not about whether dedicated and well-educated parents should be allowed to homeschool their children, but about whether one particular set of parents, who appear to be abusive, ignorant, and paranoid, should be permitted to do so. Keeping those kids isolated in a little family cult would be doing them a profound disservice.

The first couple pages of the brief were enough to convince me that the case will have ramifications for the rights of the average person, even if the parents in question are teaching gibberish. The right to homeschool is indeed at hand, if I haven't misread it completely. Lots of shady characters have incidentally protected our rights at the constitutional level. :p

If people want to believe fallacies [. . .] Marxism,

BURN! :D

I was home-schooled.

My knowledge of English let me test out of English 101 and 102 for college. I consistently tested in the top 1% of every standardized test I took (Iowa Test of Basic Skills, ACT, SAT, etc.) I am better educated in civics, history, and political science than most. I CAN point out Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and anywhere else you like on a map. I can appreciate classical music and folk music from around the world.

Oh boy. You're awesome. It's obvious that all of us publicly educated peons are worthless in your eyes. Let's all now bow down at the throne of home schooled children. :rolleyes:

*snip off topic fence sitting*

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/negative20bear.jpg
That was unnecessary.

Yes, but that exception is the subject of the case which the opening poster is citing. Follow the link and read the case: it is not about whether dedicated and well-educated parents should be allowed to homeschool their children, but about whether one particular set of parents, who appear to be abusive, ignorant, and paranoid, should be permitted to do so. Keeping those kids isolated in a little family cult would be doing them a profound disservice.

/thread

The inaccuracy of the bolded part undermines the argument, I think. Parents and teachers are each capable of failure, but it doesn't go undetected for long - I'm not entirely sure how the relevant laws read here, but there are regular evaluations in place. For me it was every third week, but it's been years now. What happens if a child consistently fails, I'm not sure of either - I'm guessing a caseworker would be assigned to investigate, or the parents would voluntarily send the kid to a school of their choice.

There are no evaluations in California--essentially, you can do whatever the hell you want. A homeschooled friend of mine didn't learn to read until he was 12.

/thread

*If* that were the case, perhaps. :p

Love the "location:" line, btw.

*If* that were the case, perhaps. :p

Love the "location:" line, btw.

It is a dark and terrible place, after all. :p

Do you like the bear? He's getting a lot of use lately.

Yes, but that exception is the subject of the case which the opening poster is citing. Follow the link and read the case: it is not about whether dedicated and well-educated parents should be allowed to homeschool their children, but about whether one particular set of parents, who appear to be abusive, ignorant, and paranoid, should be permitted to do so. Keeping those kids isolated in a little family cult would be doing them a profound disservice.

It's called "legal precedent." Note that the judges uniformly reject the rights of any parents to homeschool their children and make that the basis of their decision.

There are no evaluations in California--essentially, you can do whatever the hell you want. A homeschooled friend of mine didn't learn to read until he was 12.

I don't recall doing whatever the hell I wanted - and it wasn't *that* long ago. :p

This site seems to have the broad categories covered:

http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp?State=CA

I was an "option 4" student, by the looks of it - meaning I arranged it with my local district, which had its own rules. Obviously I can't vouch for the entire state, but I was evaluated fairly often.

Note that the judges uniformly reject the rights of any parents to homeschool their children and make that the basis of their decision.

Yes, the judges decided that parents don't have the constitutional right to homeschool.

Of course, we don't have constitutional rights to lots of things that we can do... so what? What that effectively means is that the government can (not must) restrict those things for the public good... and in the case of homeschooling, that's a good thing.

Yes, the judges decided that parents don't have the constitutional right to homeschool.

Of course, we don't have constitutional rights to lots of things that we can do... so what? What that effectively means is that the government can (not must) restrict those things for the public good... and in the case of homeschooling, that's a good thing.

I'd rather put the burden of proof on the government, than have to defend our rights in each individual circumstance. There are no rights that the government can't abridge for specific purposes, but I'd rather argue for mine from a position of strength rather than weakness.

It is a dark and terrible place, after all. :p

Do you like the bear? He's getting a lot of use lately.

Haven't been paying that much attention lately, but I do love the classics. :)

FINALLY got my internet working again, so I'll be able to post what I'd written just before it went out, plus replies to posts since then, too:

:rolleyes:

I was homeschooled, and I wasn't "indoctrinated" in that. And who are you to decide what parents teach their children? They are, after all, their children. Not yours, not the state's, but theirs.

By that argument, parents shouldn't have to feed, clothe, or provide shelter for their children, if they're just property. However, the children have rights, and education is one of those. Indoctrination should be considered a form of mental abuse, because it often destroys the individual's ability to think critically and ruins their potential.


"Decent curriculum" as decided by faceless bureaucrats?
Decent curriculum as decided, ideally, by people who know what the fuck they're talking about: the science curriculum by scientists, history by historians, and such. Or at least by people who listen to people who know what they're talking about.

Aw, someone got scared watching "Jesus Camp?" :(

Not that you'll listen, but those people are the exception.

This is admittedly anecdotal evidence, but of the several people I've met who were homeschooled, only 1 wasn't taught YEC, and she was taught Intelligent Design as science. (Luckily, she recovered from this disease of the mind, though.)

If it is indeed true that most parents teach their kids proper science and history and such, and they teach it competently, though, then I can accept that.

However, the fact that it's legal to teach such bullshit and let it be a legal equivalent to real schooling needs to change. Homeschools should be required to be of comparable quality to public schools, and that includes not brainwashing children with stupid ideas.

(Incidentally, Jesus Camp was pretty scary... Thanks for reminding me about it, I'm trying to block that out of my mind! :(:p)

This is a good point. Perhaps a home-schooling license? How you would organize that, I don't know, but there are plenty of perfectly fine homsechooling peeps out there--Smunkee's one of them--that would be devestated if we just went and banned it completely.

But I agree that they can go to hell or whatever if they really think public education is for the purpose of indoctrinating into worshiping the state. I don't think so. It's to educate people so they have decent opportunities in life and is paid for by tax-payer money. It's not like it's a service the government gives at no cost to anyone else.
As I said, there certainly are exceptions, but in my (admittedly limited to a handful of homeschoolers) experience, they are just that: the exception. Not just anybody can be a good teacher.

1) Source please.

2) Creationism is taught in some schools alongside evolution, or sometimes evolution isn't taught at all. The legal framework you support would disallow me from homeschooling my children to teach them evolution in these cases.

SCOTUS has determined that the teaching of creationism is a violation of the Establishment Clause (and that ID is Creationism); any public school teaching creationism is violating the US Constitution and can be taken to court. Any private school that's teaching it isn't in violation of the law, but is a failure in education.


3) Public schools themselves perpetrate a form of psychological abuse through tolerance of bullying and fostering an atmosphere of competition and conformation rather than cooperation and creative critical thinking.
Certainly, problems like bullying need to be addressed, but I challenge the assertion that public schools are against critical thinking. They certainly don't reward it enough, but intelligent people who can think critically can typically get into better classes.


Why is rampant publicly-sponsored abuse better than the occasional private ideological discrepancy that you are dubiously calling "abuse"?
1) The bullying is not publicly-sponsored; it's simply the fact that they aren't doing enough to prevent it. (This is a serious problem, of course, but you really shouldn't misrepresent it.)

2) The fact that you're calling it an "ideological discrepancy" implies that both sides are valid points of view. Creationism, however, is not a valid point of view, nor is design as science.

If people want to believe fallacies, that's their right, provided they don't try to make their fallacies public policy, whether the fallacy in question is Young Earth Creationism, Marxism, or whatever.
Yes, people have every right to believe fallacies, but children should be given a chance to learn, not just subjected to indoctrination and brainwashing.

Disclaimer: I was homeschooled. I loved it, I don't regret it.

With that in mind, here is a chain of logic which I really want someone to refute.

1. All children have the right to an education which will prepare them for life as an adult.

2. Not all homeschooling parents will provide that education, and under CA law and current educational practices there is no way to ensure that parents are providing their children with education.

3. Therefore, our current homeschooling system deprives at least some children of their rights, and must be amended or rejected.

Agreed. I would be perfectly fine, if I failed to convey that point earlier, if they'd actually ensure that homeschooled children got a proper education. However, they often don't, and this is a problem. (Then again, many public schools don't provide an ideal education either. That's also a huge problem that needs to be addressed, but that's another issue.)

BURN! :D



Oh boy. You're awesome. It's obvious that all of us publicly educated peons are worthless in your eyes. Let's all now bow down at the throne of home schooled children. :rolleyes:



Not at all. rather, I am showing that home schooling does not result in substandard education.

One of the concerns raised by other posters on this thread is the subject of religion in education. The questions about evolution are presented to show that public education does a disservice by its dogmatic presentation of "facts" that are disputed by many scientists (one of whom I cited). Many of you have shown yourselves to be quite closed-minded in your immediate dismissal of the statements I made on that subject, thus showing that you have been subject to far greater indoctrination than I have.

The State has monopolised the industry of education and driven it to the lowest level of all time. If we desire freedom, we must have choice. California wishes to force everyone to accept a service that many feel is substandard. This is unethical, immoral, and un-American.

I'd rather put the burden of proof on the government,

Yes, this is what we call "democracy": we have standards of procedural legitimacy (like elections) that ensure that what the government does is actually socially beneficial. Nothing I said suggested that the same would apply in a dictatorship.

than have to defend our rights in each individual circumstance. There are no rights that the government can't abridge for specific purposes, but I'd rather argue for mine from a position of strength rather than weakness.

I agree--when it comes to certain important rights. Homeschooling is not one of them. There is no compelling liberty that homeschooling protects, because children are not the property of their parents.

The State has monopolised the industry of education and driven it to the lowest level of all time.

Are you serious? You think public education in the US is anything close to the "lowest level of all time"?

If we desire freedom, we must have choice.

"Choice" when it comes to education can have rather severe harms. For one, it intends to reinforce privilege: the most active and economically well-off parents, who would be the ones most involved in improving the schools for everyone, instead have the capacity to send their kids elsewhere.

Yes, this is what we call "democracy": we have standards of procedural legitimacy (like elections) that ensure that what the government does is actually socially beneficial. Nothing I said suggested that the same would apply in a dictatorship.

I agree--when it comes to certain important rights. Homeschooling is not one of them. There is no compelling liberty that homeschooling protects, because children are not the property of their parents.

I don't really want to harp on how often the government steps on people, how often power is abused or mis-used, etc., and not just because it makes me sound like a flake, but because I agree with you that it's impractical to codify every individual right that we have. The reason I advocated a constitutional right to homeschooling is because it was up for judicial review, and that's the outcome I would support, not because I think that all of our rights need to be addressed constitutionally.

Whether children are property is a red herring in this case - that's not the basis on which parents' rights are usually argued, and it's not one I would take if I were a parent.

that's not the basis on which parents' rights are usually argued,

Not explicitly, no. The assumption, however, is generally there in one form or another.

Remember, we're talking about "rights." I can think of any number of reasons why parental control over education might in general be better--but none that justify the sort of fundamental right that should be defended against society's judgment of what is socially beneficial.

Help, help, help! Those Christians want to home school their kids, just like Jesus Camp. They want to teach our children the Bible. Ahhhh, we're all going to die!!!! In other news Atheists lobbying against homeschooling in California had an interesting answer:

Anchor: "The amount of children going to public schools in California is at an all time high. We cannot give quality education to that many children with the current state budget. What do you propose?"
Atheist: "We must place more children in schools by banning homeschooling. Although it will aggravate the problem, we don't care, cause it will hurt Christians. Yeeehhaaaa!"


Sarcasm aside, I have to ask: have you seen the bottom 50% of California public schools? I had the distinct "pleasure" more accurately described as torture, of going to an elementary school in the bottom 50% percent. There American 5th graders know the same stuff that European second-graders know. Fights were a common practice everyday, and our principal was mentally retarded. Luckily my middle schools didn't rank so bad, and in sixth grade I got around to learning triangles, in seventh I learned an intro to historiography, that is taught in 3rd grade in Europe. So educational-wise, our schools are wayyy behind Russian schools (for those of you who didn't know, Russia's part of Europe). Then I went to an ok high school, and a really great high school, that ranks in the top 100 of Cali high schools. Well in the great high school, I learned in 3 years' time what Europeans had the chance of learning in six years. That's not very fair, is it? Needless to say I didn't entirely succeed.

The reason for the action against homeschooling, is that it shows how miserably our education system fails, as homeschooled children (or kids in the top 10-20% of Cali schools) consistently outscore the rest, not by 1 or 2 points, but by 3 or 4 levels. So the state officials salivate to blame the failure that is California's bottom 50% of schools on homeschooling and on Christianity. I'd rather know how to read and not get my brains beat out of me everyday, then avoid coming to a creationist class. I'll take church-funded education (as long as it's not Catholic Priest or Bill Clinton style) over California's bottom 50% anyday, any school, any time.

And just so that you don't think I'm a moron, or as California's bottom 50% love to spell it, "moran", I'll show-off my geography skills. The only poster here whose name is that of a city is Tmutarakhan, which is an ancient city that controlled the passage from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov. But of course most posters here don't know about the Sea of Azov. Case in point: instead of debating Creationism vs. Evolution, and mandating that kids go to failing schools and get the crap beaten out of them, why not just upgrade the amount of money we spend on schools? Oh right, that requires taxes on the corporations and we can't have that in the USA. Let's go back to bashing Christianity instead.

Not at all. rather, I am showing that home schooling does not result in substandard education.

One of the concerns raised by other posters on this thread is the subject of religion in education. The questions about evolution are presented to show that public education does a disservice by its dogmatic presentation of "facts" that are disputed by many scientists (one of whom I cited). Many of you have shown yourselves to be quite closed-minded in your immediate dismissal of the statements I made on that subject, thus showing that you have been subject to far greater indoctrination than I have.

:rolleyes:
Yeah, the same Michael Behe that was so embarrassed in the Dover trial?

"No, I haven't read a single one of those papers that are piled up in a stack that's taller than I am. But I am still qualified to assert that not a single one of them gives good evidence."

You're not really helping homeschooling's case much here. I don't want to digress too much here, since this thread isn't specifically about evolution; if you want to debate Evolution's accuracy, then create a thread on that, and you'll see that we don't just blindly accept it.

Oh dear God, did I just encourage the creation of another one of those threads?! I'm so so sorry, NSG.


The State has monopolised the industry of education and driven it to the lowest level of all time. If we desire freedom, we must have choice. California wishes to force everyone to accept a service that many feel is substandard. This is unethical, immoral, and un-American.

Right, because private schools are illegal. Everybody in the country is required to go to a public school.

How has my education suffered?
You present utter, unmitigated falsehoods as if they were facts:
1. Beneficial mutations and speciation events have been observed dozens of times, both in the laboratory and in the wild.
2. It is impossible to draw any sharp line between "simian" and "hominid" among the fossil remains.
3. Behe's book has been ripped to shreds and commands zero respect or credibility among his colleagues.
Like many other children, you have been systematically lied to.

Certainly, problems like bullying need to be addressed, but I challenge the assertion that public schools are against critical thinking. They certainly don't reward it enough, but intelligent people who can think critically can typically get into better classes.As a public school-goer, I witnessed teaching styles that served to repress critical thinking. In the face of a student body that was naturally eager to question and learn, teachers would become frustrated that we simply didn't just memorize the dogma. Now I went to school in one of the better states for public schooling (Iowa), and from what I've read, my experience is endemic to the system.

1) The bullying is not publicly-sponsored; it's simply the fact that they aren't doing enough to prevent it. (This is a serious problem, of course, but you really shouldn't misrepresent it.)You have a point, but I think there's an argument to be made that it is publicly-sponsored in a way. If not for teacher favoritism, traditional PE classes, uncontrollably-large class sizes, etc, would half of bullying even exist in schools?

2) The fact that you're calling it an "ideological discrepancy" implies that both sides are valid points of view. Creationism, however, is not a valid point of view, nor is design as science. But that isn't necessarily the case with all issues. History books often give a positive and one-sided view of America's activities and gloss over the uncomfortable parts. Certain areas and techniques in art, language, and music are taught as more legitimate than others.

Yes, people have every right to believe fallacies, but children should be given a chance to learn, not just subjected to indoctrination and brainwashing.But if you subtract the buzzwordiness, that's exactly what public schools function to do almost by definition.

The idea that the government is a sufficiently infallible body to ultimately be in charge of determining how to mold the minds of children is dangerous, and undermines democracy at its foundation.

As a public school-goer, I witnessed teaching styles that served to repress critical thinking. In the face of a student body that was naturally eager to question and learn, teachers would become frustrated that we simply didn't just memorize the dogma. Now I went to school in one of the better states for public schooling (Iowa), and from what I've read, my experience is endemic to the system.

You have a point, but I think there's an argument to be made that it is publicly-sponsored in a way. If not for teacher favoritism, traditional PE classes, uncontrollably-large class sizes, etc, would half of bullying even exist in schools?

But that isn't necessarily the case with all issues. History books often give a positive and one-sided view of America's activities and gloss over the uncomfortable parts. Certain areas and techniques in art, language, and music are taught as more legitimate than others.

But if you subtract the buzzwordiness, that's exactly what public schools function to do almost by definition.

The idea that the government is a sufficiently infallible body to ultimately be in charge of determining how to mold the minds of children is dangerous, and undermines democracy at its foundation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think public education as it is is perfect, or even all that good. (I went to a great public school, but I recognize how lucky I am in this regard.) However, I don't think it's beyond repair-- nor do I think that it implies that we should let parents teach whatever the hell they want, as some posters seem to be implying. There needs to be some sort of (perhaps loose) curriculum set. It seems that, often, the problem in public schools isn't as much that their curriculum is necessarily a bad one, but that they do not teach it well.

Not explicitly, no. The assumption, however, is generally there in one form or another.

Remember, we're talking about "rights." I can think of any number of reasons why parental control over education might in general be better--but none that justify the sort of fundamental right that should be defended against society's judgment of what is socially beneficial.

I don't have much of an opinion, as a non-parent, about where and when those rights start and stop. But a favorable constitutional ruling hardly ever establishes any sort of right - it might simply raise the burden of proof put on the state government to disqualify a parent as a potential teacher. That much would probably be progress, in my strictly hypotherical opinion. A sort of categorcal yes-or-no decision on parental rights could only either hurt parents or kids, depending on which way it went, and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

Yes, this is what we call "democracy": we have standards of procedural legitimacy (like elections) that ensure that what the government does is actually socially beneficial. Nothing I said suggested that the same would apply in a dictatorship.



I agree--when it comes to certain important rights. Homeschooling is not one of them. There is no compelling liberty that homeschooling protects, because children are not the property of their parents.
Umm, well if your mean the US I'd say the right of recall for public office is too long and it's powers too great.

I think the this thread would be more instructive if the OP would explain his comments in the "dream job" thread which indicate that he cannot get a college education because he lacks a math qualification.

The relation between his homeschooling and failure to achieve basic proficiency in math is certainly relevant to the point at hand.

Inquiring minds want to know.

These kids will be granted rights and responsibilities as adults, the state has a duty to ensure those kids are properly prepared to handle those responsibilities.*Cough* Commie *Cough*

:p

Homeschooling costs basically nothing. Yet, parents who homeschool (and kids who homeschool themselves, like I did) pay as much in taxes as parents who send their kids to the local public school. There's nothing wrong with taxes in the broad sense, but equity matters too. A re-write of the tax code might make things a bit more equitable by, say, providing an education credit or voucher rather than taking school taxes out automatically like many counties do.

Would you opt to let those without children to get a refund from their taxes?

Big Brother strikes again (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF).

The fact that they're considering whether home schooling should be legal or not ("In this dependency case, we consider the question whether parents can legally 'homeschool' their children") is frightening enough - after all, who the fuck are some faceless bureaucrats to tell us how we raise our kids? At least they're honest about the purpose behind public "education":



In other words, to indoctrinate students to worship the State. When will the government fuck off and leave people alone so we can raise our kids how we want (provided, of course, that we're not abusing or starving them)?

Most people who home-school their kids here are ridiculously overprotective, often Christian Fundamentalist parents who think they are saving their kids from the harshness of schoolyard life, but really are only setting them back years by ensuring that they lack social skills. Most, not all.

Not at all. rather, I am showing that home schooling does not result in substandard education.


Sorry, man, but you managed to show the exact opposite.

Side note: the Bible nowhere states that the earth is flat. That dogma was taken from pagan philosophers.

(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

And my favorite:

(Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor...

Very off-topic but I like how you literally dodge it.

The idea that the government is a sufficiently infallible body to ultimately be in charge of determining how to mold the minds of children is dangerous, and undermines democracy at its foundation.

And the same can be said for those who are currently home-schooling their children. It's all about the curriculum.

I can't view PDF's here at work, can someone get me a link to a news article?

Can't we let the kids decide?

Can't we let the kids decide?

But the "kids" decision would be controlled by the parents in the extreme cases that we are trying to prevent here.

I see a pattern here.

So do I: people whining outrageously about perfectly reasonable policies.

I tell ya, from what I’ve read in articles this past year California is becoming the left wing version of Saudi Arabia.
Hyperbole, much?

Unless Ahhhnie’s threatening to behead people for witchcraft?

Big Brother strikes again (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF).

The fact that they're considering whether home schooling should be legal or not ("In this dependency case, we consider the question whether parents can legally 'homeschool' their children") is frightening enough - after all, who the fuck are some faceless bureaucrats to tell us how we raise our kids? At least they're honest about the purpose behind public "education":



In other words, to indoctrinate students to worship the State. When will the government fuck off and leave people alone so we can raise our kids how we want (provided, of course, that we're not abusing or starving them)?

California is the most overtly liberal fascist of all the state governments by far. I see a pattern here. I remember they were making unisex bathrooms mandatory and concerned parents wanted to homeschool their kids in fear that the government and I quote "was trying to indoctrinate homosexuality into our children". Now they[state gov] want to ban home schools. I tell ya, from what I've read in articles this past year California is becoming the left wing version of Saudi Arabia.

California is the most overtly liberal fascist of all the state governments by far. I see a pattern here. I remember they were making unisex bathrooms mandatory and concerned parents wanted to homeschool their kids in fear that the government and I quote "was trying to indoctrinate homosexuality into our children". Now they[state gov] want to ban home schools. I tell ya, from what I've read in articles this past year California is becoming the left wing version of Saudi Arabia.

unisex bathrooms is a means of indoctrinating homosexuality into children?
california for president!!

Big Brother strikes again (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF).

The fact that they're considering whether home schooling should be legal or not ("In this dependency case, we consider the question whether parents can legally 'homeschool' their children") is frightening enough - after all, who the fuck are some faceless bureaucrats to tell us how we raise our kids? At least they're honest about the purpose behind public "education":

In other words, to indoctrinate students to worship the State. When will the government fuck off and leave people alone so we can raise our kids how we want (provided, of course, that we're not abusing or starving them)?

Did you actually read the opinion you linked? Did any of the others commenting here do so?

The father in question is suspected of emotional and physical abuse of at least 3 of his eight children. It is for this reason the case is before the courts.

All eight children are being homeschooled by their mother, who has no teaching credentials and is not part of a private school. Independent attorneys appointed to represent the interests of the children asked that the children be enrolled in either a public OR A PRIVATE school. The trial court determined that the home schooling the children were receiving was “lousy,” “meager,” and “bad,” and determined that keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ “cloistered” setting. The parents. The reasons the parents have given for wanting to homeschool the children have apparently varied over time, but the father recently opined that
educating children outside the home exposes them to “snitches.”

The issue is whether the parents have an absolute right to homeschool their children without being required to comply with the state's standards for education. The court rightly denies such a right. It is NOT saying that parents cannot homeschool their children.

Yes, but that exception is the subject of the case which the opening poster is citing. Follow the link and read the case: it is not about whether dedicated and well-educated parents should be allowed to homeschool their children, but about whether one particular set of parents, who appear to be abusive, ignorant, and paranoid, should be permitted to do so. Keeping those kids isolated in a little family cult would be doing them a profound disservice.

Exactly. I wonder if anyone else actually read the case.

The first couple pages of the brief were enough to convince me that the case will have ramifications for the rights of the average person, even if the parents in question are teaching gibberish. The right to homeschool is indeed at hand, if I haven't misread it completely. Lots of shady characters have incidentally protected our rights at the constitutional level. :p

It's called "legal precedent." Note that the judges uniformly reject the rights of any parents to homeschool their children and make that the basis of their decision.

Read the opinion again, if you must. It does reject the idea that all parents have an absolute right to homeshool their children, because (1) the children have an interest that must be protected and (2) the state has an interest in certain educational standards. It does NOT hold that no parents can homeschool their children -- only that homeschooling is subject to the laws of the state that seek to set educational standards.

I don't have much of an opinion, as a non-parent, about where and when those rights start and stop. But a favorable constitutional ruling hardly ever establishes any sort of right - it might simply raise the burden of proof put on the state government to disqualify a parent as a potential teacher. That much would probably be progress, in my strictly hypotherical opinion. A sort of categorcal yes-or-no decision on parental rights could only either hurt parents or kids, depending on which way it went, and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about, as it doesn't really address the question at hand. The parents here looked for a categorical "yes" decision on parental rights. They were denied that. The court did NOT give a categorical "no" decision on home schooling, however.

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

When I lived in California, I knew several people who homeschooled their kids. They weren't religious fanatics at all. In fact, they were pretty much non-religious. They felt that the public schools didn't educate their children and private schools, while they provided a better education, indoctrinated them vis-a-vis religion. These people wanted their kids to learn things like math, science and critical thinking. Yes, homeschooling can be abused, but then the public schools already are.

It's too bad Smunkee isn't around. She homeschools her kids and she could explain how it actually works.

Seriously now.

I doubt it.

Can't we let the kids decide?

The petition that the kids be enrolled in public or private school was made by lawyers representing the kids themselves.

People are apparently apoplectic that the kids don't simply belong to their parents as chattel and can't be denied basic educational standards.

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

Thank God I live in PA then. We have strict standards that we had to live by same as any other school district.

Long live Homeschooling.

So do I: people whining outrageously about perfectly reasonable policies.

[sarcasm]So banning homeschool and forcing all children to be indoctrinated to worship the state and it's officials is reasonable? Well I guess if your one of the power-hungry leaders brainwashing the populace's youth does seem reasonable. Afterall the hitler youth was such a success. You know what Soheran I think your right. All heil our new liberal fascist overlords. SEIG HEIL! Death to all who oppose the left wing's lunacy! [sarcasm/]:rolleyes:

Seriously now.

Before anyone mistakes this as an informed opinion, keep in mind that SL here thinks that the government is spying on him through his civics homework.

I guess when dentists switched from metal fillings to enamel ones, the CIA had to spy on people somehow.

Click Stand;13494409']I think home schooling could have many negative effects on a child. One of the major ones is lack of social skills, since they won't be surrounded by other children most days, they won't be forced to interact.

:headbang:

Parents should only home school when the public school is bad enough to warrant the removal of said child and money for private schooling is out of the question.

Or for the safety of a child. I could elaborate on this but I'd rather not.

Homeschooling costs basically nothing.

Tell that one to my parents.

[sarcasm]So banning homeschool and forcing all children to be indoctrinated to worship the state and it's officials is reasonable? Well I guess if your one of the power-hungry leaders brainwashing the populace's youth does seem reasonable. Afterall the hitler youth was such a success. You know what Soheran I think your right. All heil our new liberal fascist overlords. SEIG HEIL! Death to all who oppose the left wing's lunacy! [sarcasm/]:rolleyes:

Seriously now.

Before anyone mistakes this as an informed opinion, keep in mind that SL here thinks that the government is spying on him through his civics homework.

So banning homeschool and forcing all children to be indoctrinated to worship the state and it's officials is reasonable?

Yes. We need a properly obedient population so that the government can expand its powers and implement socialism, destroy family values, and indoctrinate everyone into homosexuality.

Well I guess if your one of the power-hungry leaders brainwashing the populace's youth does seem reasonable.

Oh, no! You've found me out!

I think your right. All heil our new liberal fascist overlords. SEIG HEIL! Death to all who oppose the left wing's lunacy!

Exactly.

Yes. We need a properly obedient population so that the government can expand its powers and implement socialism, destroy family values, and indoctrinate everyone into homosexuality.


Unfortunatly we haven't figured out exactly what we're going to do to populate the species after that but, you know, we'll think of something.

Unfortunatly we haven't figured out exactly what we're going to do to populate the species after that but, you know, we'll think of something.

Cloning. So we can spite God.

For God's sake that was over a year ago.

Exactly! He doesn't even TAKE civics anymore...

now the government is spying on him through his math homework

Cloning. So we can spite God.

Brilliant! Now we are working against families, heterosexuals, and god. It's the liberal trifecta!

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

Indoctrinate them in the value of Ritalin and Prozac, manipulate them in to thinking life is about receiving two gold stars from your teacher and that if somebody is violent towards you you should sit back and let things happen so as to not get punished, lie them in to believing that numbers are quantities when frankly numbers can be anything that makes numerical sense ("i" for instance), tell our children that anything that burdens a teacher or anybody else isn't worth it, regardless of the cost to them or anybody else. Then tell them that science doesn't change, <insert fashionable hero here> is always right, and <insert fashionable villain here> is always wrong. And then, when we're close to done, tell all our children that right and wrong can be briefly summarized in a set of 5 to 6 absolute laws and that morality has no complexity.

Not to say the creationist weirdos are not the weirdos that they are, but I can hardly say that our current public school system is a model of free, or even effective, thinking.

Before anyone mistakes this as an informed opinion, keep in mind that SL here thinks that the government is spying on him through his civics homework.

For God's sake that was over a year ago.

Indoctrinate them in the value of Ritalin and Prozac,

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Any clue at all?

I don't want to get into a side debate about mental illness, but such problems are very real and very serious. They aren't simply talking points to be used to bash schools.

[sarcasm]So banning homeschool and forcing all children to be indoctrinated to worship the state and it's officials is reasonable? Well I guess if your one of the power-hungry leaders brainwashing the populace's youth does seem reasonable. Afterall the hitler youth was such a success. You know what Soheran I think your right. All heil our new liberal fascist overlords. SEIG HEIL! Death to all who oppose the left wing's lunacy! [sarcasm/]:rolleyes:

Seriously now.

Try to get a grip. California does not ban homeschooling and nothing in the decision cited in the OP bans homeschooling. So what are you babbling about?

I know the OP tried to make the quote seem ominous, but do you deny that we as a society have an interest in seeing that children are educated? Or that children themselves have an interest in being taught?

Indoctrinate them in the value of Ritalin and Prozac, manipulate them in to thinking life is about receiving two gold stars from your teacher and that if somebody is violent towards you you should sit back and let things happen so as to not get punished, lie them in to believing that numbers are quantities when frankly numbers can be anything that makes numerical sense ("i" for instance), tell our children that anything that burdens a teacher or anybody else isn't worth it, regardless of the cost to them or anybody else. Then tell them that science doesn't change, <insert fashionable hero here> is always right, and <insert fashionable villain here> is always wrong. And then, when we're close to done, tell all our children that right and wrong can be briefly summarized in a set of 5 to 6 absolute laws and that morality has no complexity.


I don't know what shit school you went to, but my class learned about i long before we even had a use for it.

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Any clue at all?

I don't want to get into a side debate about mental illness, but such problems are very real and very serious. They aren't simply talking points to be used to bash schools.

Well said TCT!

And I do hate to change the subject but...Neo Art. But you sir are a toxic person (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=0312152329&itm=4)I wonder if way number 1 in that book is "log out of the forum and not return"...

Exactly! He doesn't even TAKE civics anymore...

now the government is spying on him through his math homework

And how would you know which classes I do and do not take? YOU DON'T! And to correct you I still take history. Are you really so dumb that you believe people stay the same and cease to mature over long periods of time?! You've been behaving like a child recently and everyone's beginning to notice it. You attack random people on this forum just to get your jollies not because you actually have a problem with them but just for the sake of attacking them. You look around on the forums like a hunter for somebody to slip up or make themselves open to any sort of verbal attack your mind can dish then you attack them. There's only one kind of person that behaves that way.

And I do hate to change the subject but...Neo Art. But you sir are a toxic person (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=0312152329&itm=4)

Indoctrinate them in the value of Ritalin and Prozac.

As someone who has taken one of those, you need to STFU. Now. Don't talk about things you have no clue about.

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Any clue at all?

I don't want to get into a side debate about mental illness, but such problems are very real and very serious. They aren't simply talking points to be used to bash schools.

QFT. Exactly

Yeah, permanently putting kids on drugs might seem acceptable to some weaker minds. Welcome to the future.

Yeah.

Like insulin. Only the weak of mind support giving diabetic kids insulin.

:rolleyes::headbang:

I'm in favor of home-schooling. It keeps retards out of public schools.

Shut up Mirkai.

How fascist.

Is that the best you can do?

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Any clue at all?

I don't want to get into a side debate about mental illness, but such problems are very real and very serious. They aren't simply talking points to be used to bash schools.Yeah, permanently putting kids on drugs might seem acceptable to some weaker minds. Welcome to the future.

I'm in favor of home-schooling. It keeps retards out of public schools.

Some people are simply incapable of learning certain things, no matter what.

However, it's considerably more likely that the relevant factor here was the homeschooling.

What that effectively means is that the government can (not must) restrict those things for the public good... and in the case of homeschooling, that's a good thing.

How fascist.

No, we're "apoplectic" because fascists such as yourself believe that kids belong to the State as chattel.

Really? Where did I make this announcement? Where and when, for that matter, did California?

Setting standards for children's education is far from taking control of children as chattel. Your "parents have an absolute right" argument is the only one treating children as chattel.

No, we're "apoplectic" because fascists such as yourself believe that kids belong to the State as chattel.Actually, if you read what TCT posted, you'd have known that this is not the case.

You have to admit, it does sound fascist, whether you mean it to or not. Dictators often justify restricting certain freedoms in the name of "the public good."So can legally elected representative governments without being fascist. Your point?

The relation between his homeschooling and failure to achieve basic proficiency in math is certainly relevant to the point at hand.

No, it isn't, unless you believe that everyone in the world has the exact same capabilities, which is silly. Some people are simply incapable of learning certain things, no matter what.

Inquiring minds want to know.

See above.

As if insulin and ritalin were comparable. Ritalin is a mind-altering drug prescribed to gain better grades, while insulin is a vital hormone.

Ritalin is a treatment for a disease, just like insulin. Ritalin is not simply "prescribed to gain better grades." You really don't know what you are talking about.

But your point about putting kids permanently on some treatment is effectively rebutted regardless.

No, we're "apoplectic" because fascists such as yourself believe that kids belong to the State as chattel.

After the Revolution, we can talk about how to design an education and economic system that respects the autonomy of children.

Until then, the most you can do is ensure "best master"... and when the parents fail to comply with basic educational standards, the state has a right and duty to intervene.

Parents do not own their children. Their power is conditional on that power actually serving their childrens' welfare. When it fails to do so, it can and should be restricted.

You have to admit, it does sound fascist, whether you mean it to or not. Dictators often justify restricting certain freedoms in the name of "the public good."

I'm pretty sure the public good is also the reason I'm not allowed to keep a nuclear bomb in my back garden. Damn those fascists, always controlling my bombs :mad:

Yeah.
Like insulin. Only the weak of mind support giving diabetic kids insulin.As if insulin and ritalin were comparable. Ritalin is a mind-altering drug prescribed to gain better grades, while insulin is a vital hormone.

People are apparently apoplectic that the kids don't simply belong to their parents as chattel and can't be denied basic educational standards.

No, we're "apoplectic" because fascists such as yourself believe that kids belong to the State as chattel.

That's just silly. Unless you want to argue that there's a "right" to own WMDs.

Almost as silly as arguing there's an absolute right to own children.

That's just silly. Unless you want to argue that there's a "right" to own WMDs.You want to argue there isn't? Or are you going to argue there is a "right" to homeschool?

However, it's considerably more likely that the relevant factor here was the homeschooling.

No, it isn't. I would like to add that I was only homeschooled for three years. The rest of the time I was in public school. I've tried virtually everything, and no matter what, I can't understand math. My brain just doesn't register math.

Some people are simply incapable of learning certain things, no matter what.That solely depends on the respective teacher. Math as taught to school kids does not contain any parts that are incomprehensible.

No, it isn't. I would like to add that I was only homeschooled for three years. The rest of the time I was in public school. I've tried virtually everything, and no matter what, I can't understand math. My brain just doesn't register math.

Sorry, I missed the context there. I thought you were talking about the children in the case, where it does seem fairly clear that the relevant factor was the parenting, not the children.

Dictators often justify restricting certain freedoms in the name of "the public good."

Problem is, so does everyone else.

Hell, "the public good" in one form or another is pretty much the justification of every government, ever.

That's just silly. Unless you want to argue that there's a "right" to own WMDs.

Another way of looking at it might be that home schooling is not be a right.

Is that the best you can do?

You have to admit, it does sound fascist, whether you mean it to or not. Dictators often justify restricting certain freedoms in the name of "the public good."

That solely depends on the respective teacher.

No, it doesn't.

Math as taught to school kids does not contain any parts that are incomprehensible.

Incomprehensible to the vast majority of kids? No. Incomprehensible to me? Yes.

You'd have better luck trying to teach math to a frog.

That's just silly. Unless you want to argue that there's a "right" to own WMDs.

Right. There's no "right" to own WMDs. And there's no "right" to rule over children.

No, but deciding how one's children raised is a right.

No, it isn't.

Deciding how someone else's life should proceed is never a right.

No, but deciding how one's children raised is a right.

Just curious, as I agree that something along these lines is a right* (and so does the court in the case at issue), but where is this right found? Where is it protected? In the U.S. Constitution? Where?

*Note: this is not an absolute right.

No, but deciding how one's children raised is a right.

What if you decided to raise a child by keeping him or her locked in a basement and sticking the appropiate meals under the door?

Legally elected representative governments are no better in that regard.Irrelevant.

No, but deciding how one's children raised is a right.Yup. So is walking free and driving a car, both of which can be revoked under relevant circumstances, such as in the case you described.

Just curious, as I agree that something along these lines is a right (and so does the court in the case at issue), but where is this right found? Where is it protected? In the U.S. Constitution? Where?German constitution. :p

I'm pretty sure the public good is also the reason I'm not allowed to keep a nuclear bomb in my back garden. Damn those fascists, always controlling my bombs :mad:

That's just silly. Unless you want to argue that there's a "right" to own WMDs.

As if insulin and ritalin were comparable. Ritalin is a mind-altering drug prescribed to gain better grades, while insulin is a vital hormone.

Seriously. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Any at all?

So can legally elected representative governments without being fascist. Your point?

Legally elected representative governments are no better in that regard.

as I agree that something along these lines is a right*

Why?

How can sovereignty over someone else ever be justified as a matter of right?

Another way of looking at it might be that home schooling is not be a right.

No, but deciding how one's children raised is a right.

That book applies to people in general and is not restricted to only web forum situations. You fail.If you seriously think that TCT is harmful to you there's this really simple method to keep him from hurting you:Log off

I wonder if way number 1 in that book is "log out of the forum and not return"...

That book applies to people in general and is not restricted to only web forum situations. You fail.

No, but deciding how one's children raised is a right.

This right is not absolute. Just as one can't abuse one's children physically one can't deny them a basic education

No, it doesn't.Brains all basically work the same way. So it only depends on the form of input how the input can be processed.


Incomprehensible to the vast majority of kids? No. Incomprehensible to me? Yes.

You'd have better luck trying to teach math to a frog.You are just lazy then.

No, but deciding how one's children raised is a right.It shouldn't be, because most parents are just not competent enough to make that determination.

Brains all basically work the same way.

And at this point, it becomes abdundantly clear that you don't have a clue.

Yes, ban homeschooling.

The majority of Homeschooling parents have no idea what they're doing and often fail to teach the children anything that clashes with their world view.

Yes, ban homeschooling.

The majority of Homeschooling parents have no idea what they're doing and often fail to teach the children anything that clashes with their world view.

Um yea...:rolleyes:

Legally elected representative governments are no better in that regard.

So Legally Elected Representatives following the will of the voters are fascists? :confused:

So Legally Elected Representatives following the will of the voters are fascists? :confused:

*shrugs*
To be honest, I've heard that view often from several USAmerican posters on here... one minute they're shouting about how the US is the freest country in the world, and the oldest democracy, etc., and the next they'll tell you that they need to protect themselves from the people they've elected, and how those folks are corrupt and evil and will bring about the end of the world.

It's a good thing I like a paradox ;)

Your fascism is pretty weak.

Your fascism is pretty weak.

Well, well...your fascism leaves a lot to be desired. So there!:mad:

My new theory on this subject is have the parents either hire tutors or have to be certified as a teacher for the subjects they are teaching.

That solely depends on the respective teacher. Math as taught to school kids does not contain any parts that are incomprehensible.
Look up learning disability before you embarrass yourself any further.

Look up learning disability before you embarrass yourself any further.

DEY IS JUS LAZY!!111

No, it isn't, unless you believe that everyone in the world has the exact same capabilities, which is silly. Some people are simply incapable of learning certain things, no matter what.



See above.

I think that with competent instruction you would find that this novel hypothesis of yours is not at all the case.

No, it doesn't.



Incomprehensible to the vast majority of kids? No. Incomprehensible to me? Yes.

You'd have better luck trying to teach math to a frog.

Do you suffer from some rare cognitive brain malady? Perhaps you can provide a link to some literature on this rare and surprising condition. I wonder, why such a strange specimen could not get some sort of dispensation to go to college anyway, being victim of such a rare and debilitating malady.

On the other hand, it may be that you were denied the benefit of a proper and profession math education.

I think that with competent instruction you would find that this novel hypothesis of yours is not at all the case.
Or it really could be a learning disability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_disability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia

Or it really could be a learning disability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_disability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia

EXACTLY!

Thanks, NERVUN. *gives you a billion cookies*

Brains all basically work the same way. So it only depends on the form of input how the input can be processed.

Bollocks.

You are just lazy then.

:rolleyes:

Ownership of children?

Seriously, what claim of right can you make here?

I don't recall saying that children can be owned. Regardless, I do not think the case can be made for any kind of second-comer distribution of agency rights; just because Bill Gates could provide a better childhood through his money than a middle-class family doesn't give him the right to abduct any child he wants to raise as his own. The same can be said for a normal family taking away a slightly dysfunctional family's child. And it especially cannot be held up for the most dysfunctional institution, the state, which has murdered, kidnapped and robbed far more people than anyone else, taking away people's children for education in order to indoctrinate them (this, after all, was Bismarck's original purpose for public education.) There could definitely be voluntary arrangements between families so as to best tend to children better than the nuclear family could, for sure, but the state isn't the one to do it.

I would rather children be taught silly ideas than become drones for the state and set a precedent for whatever ad hoc reason the state may think of in order to take my own kids' because I did not raise them to their specifications (which given the Federal government's current powergrabs and my political leanings is an uncomfortably probable occurrence.)



"Bureaucracies" don't make decisions, individuals do... and more funding for the bureaucracy helps the individual a whole lot less than individual success would.

That individual success necessarily helps the individual assumes a price-rationing system wherein the successful individual becomes more valuable due to his talent. However, given a non-price rationing system in which education is not given on the basis of highest valuation between goods and services but on political sensitivity, so the logical conclusion would be to give public school employees as much money as possible so as to give them as many incentives to mobilize to lobby and support friendly candidates due to the high opportunity costs of these officials not being elected or to courses that please political agitators (like creationists), as opposed to spending the money towards improving the actual quality education.

Since quality of education is not the main concern due to a lack of incentives as well as the fact that poor performance can be spun as a signal for more funding, and schools will press for greater difficulty for firings so as to raise opportunity costs and make greater incentives for public employee lobbying, there will be very little reason for an individual to be a better teacher past some unquantifiable psychic benefit (the same goes for other public employees like judges who will take as few and as easy cases as possible. In the end, more funding for bureaucracy will be equivalent to more funding for the individual public employee.

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

First of all let me point to your statement saying homeschooling is an abuse of the child's mind. That would have to be the biggest amount of bs I have heard for a while.

Are you saying that if a child is 'taught' or told about something that influences their way of thinking is abuse, because then if that is the case then the schools through their teachers and the curriculum is also abusing these kids as they are taught in a way to influence their thinking in some areas. The Media and TV shows have also engaged in this 'abuse' I dare say that if you or have any children then you have abused them as well in what you have said to them or around them in regards to almost anything you have said if you say that God does not exist and have told your children this or anything related then you have 'abused' them as well

Just because someone thinks differently to you or has different beliefs doesnt mean that they are wrong or shouldn't be allowed to express these views.

I am friends with a couple of kids who were home schooled the reason they grew up on a farm and the nearest school took two hours each to attend therefore they were home-schooled until they were old enough to go to High school when they attended a boarding school.

First of all let me point to your statement saying homeschooling is an abuse of the child's mind. That would have to be the biggest amount of bs I have heard for a while.

Are you saying that if a child is 'taught' or told about something that influences their way of thinking is abuse, because then if that is the case then the schools through their teachers and the curriculum is also abusing these kids as they are taught in a way to influence their thinking in some areas. The Media and TV shows have also engaged in this 'abuse' I dare say that if you or have any children then you have abused them as well in what you have said to them or around them in regards to almost anything you have said if you say that God does not exist and have told your children this or anything related then you have 'abused' them as well

Just because someone thinks differently to you or has different beliefs doesnt mean that they are wrong or shouldn't be allowed to express these views.

I am friends with a couple of kids who were home schooled the reason they grew up on a farm and the nearest school took two hours each to attend therefore they were home-schooled until they were old enough to go to High school when they attended a boarding school.

Did you read my post, or just skim it? I didn't say homeschooling is inherently abuse of the mind; I said that homeschooling is often used for religious indoctrination, which is abuse of the mind. Indoctrination stamps out reason and potential. Each person who is intentionally put into a position where they cannot fairly make up their own mind on the evidence is a tragedy.

However, I did, afterwards, concede that if, indeed, my experiences with homeschooling were outliers, then there's not as big a problem, though increased regulation is necessary to prevent an abuse of the system.

Regardless, I do not think the case can be made for any kind of second-comer distribution of agency rights; just because Bill Gates could provide a better childhood through his money than a middle-class family doesn't give him the right to abduct any child he wants to raise as his own.

No, but no one's proposing abducting anyone, and in any case there are all kinds of costs (to children and to parents) that are worthy of consideration here. Generally speaking, "natural" family relations ("natural" to allow for voluntary adoption) are best. But that is not an argument from right.

And it especially cannot be held up for the most dysfunctional institution, the state, which has murdered, kidnapped and robbed far more people than anyone else, taking away people's children for education in order to indoctrinate them (this, after all, was Bismarck's original purpose for public education.)

It's still not even remotely how the public education system functions within democratic societies.

I would rather children be taught silly ideas than become drones for the state and set a precedent for whatever ad hoc reason the state may think of in order to take my own kids' because I did not raise them to their specifications

That's not how the system works, and it's not how the system is ever likely to work. We live in a democracy. Parents can and do vote, and they tend to be rather concerned for the preservation of their power.

That individual success necessarily helps the individual assumes a price-rationing system wherein the successful individual becomes more valuable due to his talent.

That's right. That's how virtually every institution, including the government, pays its workers (except for the high-level ones, who in both government and corporations are sometimes political.)

However, given a non-price rationing system in which education is not given on the basis of highest valuation between goods and services but on political sensitivity,

"Political sensitivity" is quite directly a measure of "highest valuation between goods and services."

The population has judged--justifiably--that education should be a high priority.

so the logical conclusion would be to give public school employees as much money as possible so as to give them as many incentives to mobilize to lobby and support friendly candidates due to the high opportunity costs of these officials not being elected

Only if there is no concern whatsoever for cost. But of course there is. Both budget deficits and tax increases are unpopular.

or to courses that please political agitators (like creationists),

Private education is virtually guaranteed to produce more teaching of creationism than public education, because private education, unlike public education, need not be secular.

as opposed to spending the money towards improving the actual quality education.

You don't think that would be popular? Seriously?

Certainly it would bring far more political benefits than merely improving the pay of those who have already failed... the population does not like bureaucracies, and responds well to promises of reform in cases where they are seen to be ineffective.

there will be very little reason for an individual to be a better teacher past some unquantifiable psychic benefit

All benefits are "unquantifiable" and "psychic." We have every reason to suspect that such motives apply especially to teachers.

No, but no one's proposing abducting anyone, and in any case there are all kinds of costs (to children and to parents) that are worthy of consideration here. Generally speaking, "natural" family relations ("natural" to allow for voluntary adoption) are best. But that is not an argument from right.

Forcing a kid to go to a public school is abduction, just the same as conscription. The state may SAY that forcing a child away from their parents does them better than letting parents have that time, but that is an entirely arbitrary decision.

It's still not even remotely how the public education system functions within democratic societies.

Seeing as how the American public school system is based upon Bismarck's, I find your claim dubious, especially considering how the teacher's union has obvious political common cause with politicians. And even from my own experience in public school, with the fascistic Pledge of Allegiance and idolatry towards the various murderous scum that have ruled this country, it is quite how all statist societies work.

That's not how the system works, and it's not how the system is ever likely to work. We live in a democracy. Parents can and do vote, and they tend to be rather concerned for the preservation of their power.

Then please explain to me how the American public has supported bloody wars that served only the interest of a select few, given that a great deal of their reasoning comes from public education? I wish it were true that people cared about their power, but time and time again the state has sucked up their rights for its own schemes through manipulation of crisis (like the Patriot Act), and voting only serves to give an ignorant public the feeling that their government is legitimate while all the substantive deals are made by the self-interested state and their allies.

That's right. That's how virtually every institution, including the government, pays its workers (except for the high-level ones, who in both government and corporations are sometimes political.)

In a sense, perhaps, if you take a very broad view of the word 'success' (Presidents are rewarded because they are successful in manipulating the political arena.) However, if one means success as in rendering each their due, then they fall far, far short of such an ideal.

"Political sensitivity" is quite directly a measure of "highest valuation between goods and services."

As is the police's political sensitivity to punishing drug offenders over those who commit property crimes. But if there was no way for statists and their allies to externalize costs and distort true valuations, then the result would be far, far different.

The population has judged--justifiably--that education should be a high priority.

Argumentum ad populum.

Only if there is no concern whatsoever for cost. But of course there is. Both budget deficits and tax increases are unpopular.

Hardly. If you say that you will just tax 'the rich', or use debt as an invisible form of taxing, there is far less concern. And quite frankly most people don't give a hoot about the budget deficit, as they hardly comprehend the concept. The public is more affected by what free stuff they think they are getting, and as such will accept low-quality goods because they think they are 'free.' (When in actual fact it is a matter of externalized cost.)

Private education is virtually guaranteed to produce more teaching of creationism than public education, because private education, unlike public education, need not be secular.

Maybe so, but I would not patronize a school that would teach my kid creationism. People can pay for and do all sorts of stupid things, like buy crack and wear offensive T-shirts, but as long as they don't use my money I support what they will do.

You don't think that would be popular? Seriously?

The benefits are so dispersed as to be far less effective in political aggrandizement. Hence why there is little focus on property crimes which affect a great deal of people but there is little political agitation for, while stupid things like drug use get a disproportionate amount of attention devoted to.

Certainly it would bring far more political benefits than merely improving the pay of those who have already failed... the population does not like bureaucracies, and responds well to promises of reform in cases where they are seen to be ineffective.

Yes, but you can spin anything as reform, since the margin of return is so slight for political involvement. So you could have your cake (public support) and eat it too (more pay.) The better ones to appeal to are those who have undergone the investment costs of being able to influence politics and who have the most to gain from appealing to their agenda, rather than the dispersed benefits of the apathetic public.

All benefits are "unquantifiable" and "psychic." We have every reason to suspect that such motives apply especially to teachers.

Yes, but you can't eat psychic income. Being that we are not disembodied wraiths but physical beings, material benefit will always be a very important factor in our actions, whereas 'feeling good' can only go so far when put up against our other needs.

Forcing a kid to go to a public school is abduction, just the same as conscription.

No, taking the kid forcibly away from her parents and making her live somewhere else is abduction.

The state may SAY that forcing a child away from their parents does them better than letting parents have that time, but that is an entirely arbitrary decision.

Only if any judgment of welfare is arbitrary, which is obviously false.

Seeing as how the American public school system is based upon Bismarck's, I find your claim dubious, especially considering how the teacher's union has obvious political common cause with politicians.

What does that have to do with indoctrination? If anything, teachers have the opposite interest: they don't want the government forcing them to teach the party line.

And even from my own experience in public school, with the fascistic Pledge of Allegiance

Annoying, but marginal in its effect.

and idolatry towards the various murderous scum that have ruled this country,

You confuse mainstream opinion with government-imposed opinion. Public schools do, as a factual matter, allow relative freedom of opinion: students are allowed to express different, even radical, political views freely. They teach mainstream thinking, which like mainstream thinking in any society is biased towards the status quo, but still is not a matter of government imposition.

Furthermore, public schools, because they are public, are legally required to restrict students' freedom of expression less than private schools are. This is a good example of how democracies protect diversity: everyone being in the minority in some respects, there is a strong incentive for voters to act to protect freedom of expression in public institutions.

Then please explain to me how the American public has supported bloody wars that served only the interest of a select few, given that a great deal of their reasoning comes from public education?

The American public tends to support wars only when they perceive that there is something truly massive at stake (and when they do, there usually is) or when they believe the costs will be low (a judgment they are often wrong about, but to their credit, when they are, they are quick to change their minds.)

I wish it were true that people cared about their power, but time and time again the state has sucked up their rights for its own schemes through manipulation of crisis (like the Patriot Act),

To which has been garnered quite considerable popular resistance, such that the Bush Administration is essentially politically incapable of using many of the powers it has declared itself legally entitled to use.

and voting only serves to give an ignorant public the feeling that their government is legitimate while all the substantive deals are made by the self-interested state and their allies.

Then let's have more democracy, not less. ;)

In a sense, perhaps, if you take a very broad view of the word 'success' (Presidents are rewarded because they are successful in manipulating the political arena.)

Just like businesses are rewarded because they are successful in manipulating the market arena. Generally, in both cases, there is an element of serving people involved--though in the case of democratic governance, we have "one person, one vote" instead of "one dollar, one vote."

As is the police's political sensitivity to punishing drug offenders over those who commit property crimes.

Most people are more concerned over harm to their property than over victimless crimes... at least, all else being equal. This issue is complicated by other factors, like severe racial and economic inequality, but plenty of democrats have always insisted that democracy doesn't work as it should without a more equal society as a whole.

Argumentum ad populum.

Only if you want to deny that value is subjective.

Hardly. If you say that you will just tax 'the rich',

Taxes on the rich in our society are actually rather low... large portions of the population, for various reasons, are willing to oppose tax increases even on them. In any case, even if you increase taxes on the rich, the opportunity cost of monetary expenditure is still there: you could spend it on education, or you could spend it on health care, or you could spend it on giving the middle class a tax break, and so forth.

or use debt as an invisible form of taxing, there is far less concern. And quite frankly most people don't give a hoot about the budget deficit, as they hardly comprehend the concept.

Then why is the budget deficit such an issue in federal and state elections? Why are budget issues as a whole so crucial politically, when funds are unlimited in political terms?

Maybe so, but I would not patronize a school that would teach my kid creationism.

You might not have much of a choice, depending on your location... at least not a good one.

The benefits are so dispersed as to be far less effective in political aggrandizement.

That's the theory, but it doesn't actually hold out in practice, which should not surprise us, because generally such attempts to explain voter behavior can't even explain why people vote in the first place.

People view themselves as citizens, and they are concerned for society as a whole... and while effects on their personal well-being are naturally of priority importance to them, when it comes to political opinions they are often so not as a matter of self-interest, but rather as an illustration of broader social trends.

An improvement in the quality of education may only benefit a given family slightly, but if it signifies to them a political commitment to improve education, since they believe in education's general social value they will act to support such a commitment.

Why do you think the quality of education is such an important political issue, by your reasoning? Shouldn't the discourse be entirely dominated by the teacher's unions? But as a matter of simple fact it's not--the focus, instead, is overwhelmingly on how well students in general are being educated.

Edit: Also, your analysis here runs against your earlier analysis, in a way that's quite typical of this sort of critique of democracy. If "political aggrandizement" is most effective when concentrated, why would any politician tax the rich for the sake of everyone else?

Yes, but you can spin anything as reform, since the margin of return is so slight for political involvement.

I don't know. Politically speaking NCLB isn't doing Bush and the Republicans so well.

Being that we are not disembodied wraiths but physical beings, material benefit will always be a very important factor in our actions, whereas 'feeling good' can only go so far when put up against our other needs.

Teachers are not, generally speaking, in danger of starvation. Once basic needs have been met, other motivations--especially social ones--play at least as much a role as material incentives do.

Seeing as how the American public school system is based upon Bismarck's, I find your claim dubious, especially considering how the teacher's union has obvious political common cause with politicians.
Wow! Bismark must have been one cool dude to have been capable of time traveling back to the colonial era and instituting an educational system in what would one day be Germany and was then copied by the various colonies as they set up their own systems! Damn! I never learned THAT in my History of Education course work, nor in all of my course work for my BA and MS in Education!

Learn something new everyday, huh? /sarcasm I find your claim to be ridiculous.

BTW, WHICH teacher's union are we talking about here? There's quite a number of them, a good chunk of which have nothing to do with the NEA.

Do you suffer from some rare cognitive brain malady? Perhaps you can provide a link to some literature on this rare and surprising condition. <snip>

New Granada, other posters have provided you with links to articles on a condition that is neither rare nor surprising. Your attempts to ridicule Privatised Gaols for his disability are flaming, not made less so by sarcasm. What's more, you seem to have decided to pursue him across threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13494576&postcount=102).

See you in 24 hours.

As someone who has taken one of those, you need to STFU. Now. Don't talk about things you have no clue about.

Considering the fact that I have also taken Ritalin and nearly died from starvation as a result of it, I do believe I know what I'm talking about.

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

Receiving good education is a right of all kids (as stated by the UN iirc), and the State must ensure this right.

Here in Italy, if the parents opt for homeschooling they have to:
1.prove that they're able to teach their kids (by passing an exam)
2.take their kids every year to a statal examination to pass the grade.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Oh, btw, parents who don't give their kids any acceptable education lose their rights as guardians of the kids - and go to jail, too.

Click Stand;13494409']I think home schooling could have many negative effects on a child. One of the major ones is lack of social skills, since they won't be surrounded by other children most days, they won't be forced to interact.

Parents should only home school when the public school is bad enough to warrant the removal of said child and money for private schooling is out of the question.

Is this because of the odd little hyperspatial rift that sucks all schoolage children into another dimension once the school day is over? I'd heard about it, but I wasn't sure until now. Seriously -- lame argument, always has been, always will be.

Homeschooling is like any other human endeavor -- a bell curve. Most will be fine, some will be excellent, and (let's face it) some will be...not so good. That's the way it is with public schools at present. The difference being that the local tax base has the power to alter the composition of that bell curve for every district. Current funding models and the disparity of teacher pay scales by location make a truly egalitarian education impossible.

Wow! Bismark must have been one cool dude to have been capable of time traveling back to the colonial era and instituting an educational system in what would one day be Germany and was then copied by the various colonies as they set up their own systems! Damn! I never learned THAT in my History of Education course work, nor in all of my course work for my BA and MS in Education!

Learn something new everyday, huh? /sarcasm I find your claim to be ridiculous.

BTW, WHICH teacher's union are we talking about here? There's quite a number of them, a good chunk of which have nothing to do with the NEA.

In the US, aside from the NEA, there's the AFT (American Federation of Teachers). Plus state-level union subsidiaries of those two major unions and so forth. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher's_union) a list.

Do you suffer from some rare cognitive brain malady? Perhaps you can provide a link to some literature on this rare and surprising condition. I wonder, why such a strange specimen could not get some sort of dispensation to go to college anyway, being victim of such a rare and debilitating malady.

On the other hand, it may be that you were denied the benefit of a proper and profession math education.

Dyscalculea. Actually, in some ways it would be more suprising if there wasn't a cognitive deficit affecting mathematical ability but not linguistic ability, given that with certain types of dyslexia, linguistic ability is severely impaired but mathematical ability is unaffected, if not better than normal (it makes for a nice double dissociation, I think someone in my department is actually looking at this for their PhD thesis).

That he couldn't get dispensation is because these things are often poorly diagnosed, and dispensation is often only given if your learning difficulty falls under specific categories. Or at least that would be my guess, PG have you been to see a chartered educational psychologist about this, have you had a proper diagnosis yet?

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

Heh now I'm sure there is some of that going on, but really most of the home schooled kids I knew where taight at home because their parenats could not get them in decent school, or the school they wanted. That was almost the case with my children also.

In the US, aside from the NEA, there's the AFT (American Federation of Teachers). Plus state-level union subsidiaries of those two major unions and so forth. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher's_union) a list.
Intangelon... I'm a teacher.

I might teach in Japan, but me degrees are from the US, I know what teacher unions are. Many of them actually have very little to do with the NEA, most of them are just local to the school boards to which they bargain with.

I think what Venndee means is that he wants the abolition of public schools so only the richest and 'most successful' parents can send their children to school, thus 'weeding out the weak'.

Intangelon... I'm a teacher.

I might teach in Japan, but me degrees are from the US, I know what teacher unions are. Many of them actually have very little to do with the NEA, most of them are just local to the school boards to which they bargain with.

Then you have the PSEA who seems to want to strike at every opportunity.

These kids will be granted rights and responsibilities as adults, the state has a duty to ensure those kids are properly prepared to handle those responsibilities.

Really? No shit? And I always thought it was parents who were responsible for their children. W00T for the state! I'm dropping my kids off with them tomorrow and goin drinkin!

No, taking the kid forcibly away from her parents and making her live somewhere else is abduction.

If I go, kidnap your kid, and keep him for eight hours every day but give her back to you for the rest of the time, I'm still abducting him.

Only if any judgment of welfare is arbitrary, which is obviously false.

Interesting that later you say value is subjective. Quite frankly, you can conjure up any number of reasons to say that you are doing what you are doing out of concern for the child's welfare.

What does that have to do with indoctrination? If anything, teachers have the opposite interest: they don't want the government forcing them to teach the party line.

Why would they not want to follow the party line, if the party line coincides with their interests? You would have to search far and wide for a public school teacher that would want to restrict or eliminate public schooling, and as such his political interests are in line with others who want to expand public schooling, which tends to bleed over into other demands for interventionism.

Annoying, but marginal in its effect.

Is it really marginal to force students to repeat every day their devotion to the American state when it does so much evil, in the past and now?

You confuse mainstream opinion with government-imposed opinion. Public schools do, as a factual matter, allow relative freedom of opinion: students are allowed to express different, even radical, political views freely. They teach mainstream thinking, which like mainstream thinking in any society is biased towards the status quo, but still is not a matter of government imposition.

Government-imposed opinion IS mainstream opinion, because of its control over the education process through its money and regulations. "Mainstream" opinion is dangerously friendly even to questionable acts such as the Spanish-American and Mexican-American War (my textbook praised the latter as the emergence of America as a world power, for instance.) The pantheon of public heroes that the public school system worships has a dangerously high number of murderers and fiends.

Furthermore, public schools, because they are public, are legally required to restrict students' freedom of expression less than private schools are. This is a good example of how democracies protect diversity: everyone being in the minority in some respects, there is a strong incentive for voters to act to protect freedom of expression in public institutions.

There actually isn't a strong incentive to protect freedom of expression in schools, seeing as how one individual can do very, very little to change political institutions and there are many more useful things he can do with his time that affect him directly. Those who would change the presentation of issues, having assembled some political machine and thus able to exploit economies of scale in lobbying, have a much stronger incentive to manipulate the system primarily by presenting ideas in such a way as to aid their cause.

The American public tends to support wars only when they perceive that there is something truly massive at stake (and when they do, there usually is) or when they believe the costs will be low (a judgment they are often wrong about, but to their credit, when they are, they are quick to change their minds.)

The American public is rather infatuated with the military power of the Federal government, and as such have allowed it to run amok throughout the world out of a desire for national greatness or so-called "national security." (Interestingly enough, it is the Federal government by its aggression that provokes reprisal against the American public, a fact which the American public deliberately ignores.) If they didn't have to say the Pledge everyday that psychologically binds them to the health of the Federal government, they could very well be more cautious.

To which has been garnered quite considerable popular resistance, such that the Bush Administration is essentially politically incapable of using many of the powers it has declared itself legally entitled to use.

Tell that to all the poor bastards that have had their rights of habeas corpus suspended, or all the falsely-accused people in Gitmo.

Then let's have more democracy, not less. ;)

Let's have no state, instead, so that people cannot externalize their costs onto others and they have to take into account the real consequences of their actions instead of being sweet-talked by some guy with broad shoulders and a great smile.

Just like businesses are rewarded because they are successful in manipulating the market arena. Generally, in both cases, there is an element of serving people involved--though in the case of democratic governance, we have "one person, one vote" instead of "one dollar, one vote."

Votes are more or less irrelevant, due to rational ignorance and rent-seeking. There is little incentive for people to be active in politics past doing what other people tell them because of the very slight marginal benefits involved in doing so, whereas there is far more incentive for those with political machines to be active due to economies of scale of lobbying. The nature of non-price rationing is that the rank-and-file consumer is irrelevant, whereas those that can give political aid (i.e. the ones with party machines) are the ones that get the goods. (Not to mention that the political arena is the prime way to externalize costs through taxes and regulations and spending and debt and no right to secession, i.e. dissociation.)

Most people are more concerned over harm to their property than over victimless crimes... at least, all else being equal. This issue is complicated by other factors, like severe racial and economic inequality, but plenty of democrats have always insisted that democracy doesn't work as it should without a more equal society as a whole.

Yes, most people are more concerned with harm to their property than victimless crimes, but the police hardly ever solve property crime cases (an adult burglar only has a .0024 chance of being sent to prison for a single offense) and act so as to capture as many drug users so as to appease political power (hence why we have state and Federal prisons filled with drug users.)

Only if you want to deny that value is subjective.

Actually, I did not deny that value is subjective; I am saying that whether or not the general public likes a policy is irrelevant, because their values are not necessarily true.

Taxes on the rich in our society are actually rather low... large portions of the population, for various reasons, are willing to oppose tax increases even on them. In any case, even if you increase taxes on the rich, the opportunity cost of monetary expenditure is still there: you could spend it on education, or you could spend it on health care, or you could spend it on giving the middle class a tax break, and so forth.

Actually, if you say you are closing 'loopholes' so that everyone pays their 'fair' share, most people won't bat an eyelid. (This is what the so-called free-marketeer Reagan did, after all.) Or you can take out debt, so that you impose a more or less invisible tax. There are a variety of means to use so as to tax the public. And as for opportunity costs, seeing as how the budgets for schools have consistently risen it is fairly obvious that they are strong enough to get their share of whatever extra revenue the state gains.

Then why is the budget deficit such an issue in federal and state elections? Why are budget issues as a whole so crucial politically, when funds are unlimited in political terms?

Seeing as how George W. Bush stayed in power despite his budget deficits, as did the supposed free-marketeer Ronald Reagan, and that many a US President and other countries in the world have budget deficits, it seems obvious that it isn't much of a problem, especially considering how little people understand about it and how remote the effects of the budget is to them.

You might not have much of a choice, depending on your location... at least not a good one.

I could sooner live with correcting the errors of Creationism in my own house at my own expense than having other people pay for my kids to be drones of the state.

That's the theory, but it doesn't actually hold out in practice, which should not surprise us, because generally such attempts to explain voter behavior can't even explain why people vote in the first place.

They vote so that they can externalize costs onto others so that they can get what they want. They have some vague idea that someone in office will give them something for free or provide some psychic benefit, but do not put much thought into it or they would realize the various long-term costs of their decision.

People view themselves as citizens, and they are concerned for society as a whole... and while effects on their personal well-being are naturally of priority importance to them, when it comes to political opinions they are often so not as a matter of self-interest, but rather as an illustration of broader social trends.

Generally by the panic caused by the state's manipulation of crises, both real and imagined, and the possibility of externalizing some part of their costs. It is largely a short-term, emotive reaction to the issues rather than a deliberate and far-sighted response.

An improvement in the quality of education may only benefit a given family slightly, but if it signifies to them a political commitment to improve education, since they believe in education's general social value they will act to support such a commitment.

But generally they think that such an improvement can be made simply by giving more money out, which, though an intuitive answer, is false.

Why do you think the quality of education is such an important political issue, by your reasoning? Shouldn't the discourse be entirely dominated by the teacher's unions? But as a matter of simple fact it's not--the focus, instead, is overwhelmingly on how well students in general are being educated.

Because the state needs to maintain its legitimacy, and would never tell its dirty secret that it is ruled entirely by the desires of a political elite. It is enough to tell these people, whose own contributions have an individually small marginal benefit, that they will fix their problems with free services if they support them, and they do not go past that. Those with the greater marginal interest, such as politicians and bureaucrats, have the greater control as it is something to which their acts have a greater marginal effect.

Edit: Also, your analysis here runs against your earlier analysis, in a way that's quite typical of this sort of critique of democracy. If "political aggrandizement" is most effective when concentrated, why would any politician tax the rich for the sake of everyone else?

They don't, actually. They tax those on the political periphery in order to help their friends. Hence while they may claim to tax the rich in general, they merely mean they will tax those rich people who are arrayed against them for the benefit of those rich who are on their side. They don't actually work for the benefit of 'everyone else' past maintaining legitimacy through the lowest cost possible while splitting the main benefits between themselves and their allies.

I don't know. Politically speaking NCLB isn't doing Bush and the Republicans so well.

Because it is not entirely beneficial to certain interest groups, seeing as how it would transfer funds from one interest group to another. However, reform can be spun quite easily as long as you do not alienate the most important interest groups, such as the supposed free-marketeer Ronald Reagan did in protecting industrial and financial groups through interventionism despite his supposed commitment to free-market ideals.

Teachers are not, generally speaking, in danger of starvation. Once basic needs have been met, other motivations--especially social ones--play at least as much a role as material incentives do.

I did not mean that they are starving. I meant that, as physical beings, physical objects will always have a strong impact on us that makes us pursue them. Also, labor is a source of disutility (just the same as leisure is a consumer good), and as such we can expect people to shirk unless there are strong incentives to make them work. Also, concerning social acceptance, teachers may want to avoid working too hard and as such making other teachers who shirk look bad and threaten to improve grades, thus making it so that the argument of "we need more funds because we are doing so badly" can no longer be used. I am not saying ALL teachers will shirk, but there are strong incentives to do so in a political arena.

Wow! Bismark must have been one cool dude to have been capable of time traveling back to the colonial era and instituting an educational system in what would one day be Germany and was then copied by the various colonies as they set up their own systems! Damn! I never learned THAT in my History of Education course work, nor in all of my course work for my BA and MS in Education!

Learn something new everyday, huh? /sarcasm I find your claim to be ridiculous.

BTW, WHICH teacher's union are we talking about here? There's quite a number of them, a good chunk of which have nothing to do with the NEA.

Bismarck's Kulturkampf had a strong influence on American public education, in which Protestants wanted to 'Christianize the Catholics,' and as such led to the introduction of things such as Kindergarten. And it doesn't particularly matter which teacher's union, as they all have a particular interest in maintaining the political status quo.

Really? No shit? And I always thought it was parents who were responsible for their children. W00T for the state! I'm dropping my kids off with them tomorrow and goin drinkin!

Why even bother quoting someone if you are going to act like they said something they did not?

W00T for strawmen!

Intangelon... I'm a teacher.

I might teach in Japan, but me degrees are from the US, I know what teacher unions are. Many of them actually have very little to do with the NEA, most of them are just local to the school boards to which they bargain with.

ROFLAMO!!

http://www.educationpolicy.org/data.htm
http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/dailyreport/archive/2867046.html


Here's an eye-opener. This article was written and published on a TEACHERS UNION website about CA governor Schwarzenegger;
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/on_campus/sept05/news_trends7.htm

Why such negativity? Simply because the Governor suggested that union members should have control over what, if any, partisan political movements their dues money is given to.

Teachers unions are barely about teaching and ALL about protecting the interests of the union. Don't kid us.

Why even bother quoting someone if you are going to act like they said something they did not?

W00T for strawmen!

Wow. Point completely missed. If you missed that then even astroturf is over your head.

You really need a new term other than 'strawman'. It seems to be your universal answer to ever argument you don't know anything about. Why not give the lion, tinman or even Dorothy a chance? ;)

Bismarck's Kulturkampf had a strong influence on American public education, in which Protestants wanted to 'Christianize the Catholics,' and as such led to the introduction of things such as Kindergarten.
Ah, no. See, parts of the Prussian system that was around before Bismark influenced Horace Mann, but of all the reforms that he brought, the only bits of it that survive is the idea of compulsory education and kindergarten, which was thought up by Froebel in 1840. It also had nothing to do with 'Christianizing the Catholics' as in 1925, SCOTUS ruled that you could go to private religious schools if you wanted to. Mann didn't care about the Catholics, he just thought that everyone should have some education.

The current American system has colonial, Prussian, and a hodgepodge of other elements in it, including very strong influences from Dewey, but it is in no way based off of Bismark's system.

In fact, when Japan was looking to institute an education system after they opened up to the world, they took Bismark's Prussian system because it was felt that the US system was just FAR too liberal and placed far too much emphasis on individualism and freedoms than what the Japanese wanted.

I'm going to have to mark you as having failed.

And it doesn't particularly matter which teacher's union, as they all have a particular interest in maintaining the political status quo.
Ah! So you really don't know about teacher's unions then.

ROFLAMO!!

http://www.educationpolicy.org/data.htm
http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/dailyreport/archive/2867046.html


Here's an eye-opener. This article was written and published on a TEACHERS UNION website about CA governor Schwarzenegger;
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/on_campus/sept05/news_trends7.htm

Why such negativity? Simply because the Governor suggested that union members should have control over what, if any, partisan political movements their dues money is given to.

Teachers unions are barely about teaching and ALL about protecting the interests of the union. Don't kid us.

How are these citations about how the NEA PAC spends its money in any way responsive to what NERVUN said?

Are you incapable of responding to other posters directly?

And did you read the AFT article or did you just assume no one else would?

EDIT: BTW, I love your sources. Those kooks at at the "Education Policy Institute" are a hoot. "Ground-breaking studies" revealing the left-wing "agenda" of the Parents-Teacher Association (PTA). Get out the tin-foil hats! :D:D:p

Wow. Point completely missed. If you missed that then even astroturf is over your head.

You really need a new term other than 'strawman'. It seems to be your universal answer to ever argument you don't know anything about. Why not give the lion, tinman or even Dorothy a chance? ;)

Ah, no, "point" complete understood but considered (1) stupid and (2) not responsive to the post you quoted.

I'd love to see you change which fallacies you engage in, but so long as you stick with attacking points which other posters haven't actually made, I'll have to just point that out.

ROFLAMO!!

http://www.educationpolicy.org/data.htm
http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/dailyreport/archive/2867046.html


Here's an eye-opener. This article was written and published on a TEACHERS UNION website about CA governor Schwarzenegger;
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/on_campus/sept05/news_trends7.htm

Why such negativity? Simply because the Governor suggested that union members should have control over what, if any, partisan political movements their dues money is given to.

Teachers unions are barely about teaching and ALL about protecting the interests of the union. Don't kid us.

Then corporation employees should determine where the money they help the company make goes.

ROFLAMO!!

http://www.educationpolicy.org/data.htm
http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/dailyreport/archive/2867046.html


Here's an eye-opener. This article was written and published on a TEACHERS UNION website about CA governor Schwarzenegger;
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/on_campus/sept05/news_trends7.htm

Why such negativity? Simply because the Governor suggested that union members should have control over what, if any, partisan political movements their dues money is given to.

Teachers unions are barely about teaching and ALL about protecting the interests of the union. Don't kid us.
Most teachers unions are collective bargaining groups for their members in individual school districts. Once again, many do not have connections to the NEA, or if they do, have rather tenuous ones.

Try actually reading up on what teachers unions actually do instead of listening to conservative bogymen.

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

That is VERY true. I have neighbors who homeschool their children. They teach them that homosexuality is evil, and all homosexuals are going to hell. They also teach them that there is no such thing as evolution...period.

I wish I were kidding. It's kind of funny, because they live next door to a family of Atheists.

Homeschooling, in the case of most parents who opt for it, is child abuse. It's an abuse of the child's mind because the reason for homeschooling is often to indoctrinate the child in the "correct" religion and to teach them idiotic ideas like Young Earth Creationism that aren't allowed in proper schools. (I recognize that there are exceptions, but they're just that.)

If homeschooling is to be allowed, it should be more regulated to ensure that a decent curriculum is taught.

Agreed. The reason my sister-in-law homsechools is because she didn't want her children to be exposed to evolution.

When will the government fuck off and leave people alone so we can raise our kids how we want (provided, of course, that we're not abusing or starving them)?

On the other hand... why should an ordered and conformist society be forced to accomodate wantonly destructive influences?

They can always go to a local playground, or play with neighborhood kids.


Which isn't the same thing at all.

Agreed. The reason my sister-in-law homsechools is because she didn't want her children to be exposed to evolution.

How've you been ?


I think there is some good to home schooling, but the parent has to be very intelligent and very dedicated.

In my opinion, I'm not qualified to be the sole source of my children's education. They deserve better than I can do.

I think that children need not only the curriculum presented in school, but the socialization as well. homeschooled children may do fine academicaly, but how will they do whne they go out in the world and have to deal with/interact with their peers?

My wife and I are very involved with our kid's edcation. I guess you could say we "homeschool" part time. We are hands-on with their homework and studying for tests and quizes.
My 14 yr old is on the honor roll and my 9 yr old is straight A an A+ and he is has also just entered a gifted program.
They both also particpate in one extra curricular sport.

They seem to be flourishing and well adjusted and happy with thier performance.

I hope they keep the momentum. I couldnt homeschool them exclusively though.

How've you been ?


I think there is some good to home schooling, but the parent has to be very intelligent and very dedicated.

In my opinion, I'm not qualified to be the sole source of my children's education. They deserve better than I can do.

I think that children need not only the curriculum presented in school, but the socialization as well. homeschooled children may do fine academicaly, but how will they do whne they go out in the world and have to deal with/interact with their peers?

My wife and I are very involved with our kid's edcation. I guess you could say we "homeschool" part time. We are hands-on with their homework and studying for tests and quizes.
My 14 yr old is on the honor roll and my 9 yr old is straight A an A+ and he is has also just entered a gifted program.
They both also particpate in one extra curricular sport.

They seem to be flourishing and well adjusted and happy with thier performance.

I hope they keep the momentum. I couldnt homeschool them exclusively though.

Hey. :) I've been busy. I think I've posted on NS maybe once this month. If verything goes right at work, I might be able to return to a slightly more usual schedule in another couple of weeks.

I totally agree with your central premise here - and it's an 'argument' I've had with homeschoolers before, not least within my own extended family. My own brother was homeschooled, and it had made a noticable (I think) difference - not so much to his overall 'education' level, but to the way he deals with people, and a certain amount of how he approaches finding solutions.

I hate the schools near where I live. I don't know what US says my oldest girl's school should be like, but the reality is that schools around here are bible schools, even when they present a thin veil of not being so. Anyone who has seen Mr Garrison's dealings with evolution in South Park knows what I mean.

I considered taking my little girl out of school and homeschooling her. The biggest obstacle being that I have to work (at least) fulltime, and thus it's pretty much a no-no right off the bat. But the next consideration is about what one gains from a schooling that isn't necessarily measured in test scores.

I have two more little ones that will be entering the US school system within the next few years, and I'm going to have to do with them the same thing I've done with the oldest - use the available schoolsystem as a central core, and educate around it. So.. they can talk about butterflies and counting beans, at school... and my little girl comes to me to explain parallax effects, and help her research on the history of Babylon.

Really? No shit? And I always thought it was parents who were responsible for their children. W00T for the state! I'm dropping my kids off with them tomorrow and goin drinkin!

They both have a responsibility to look after the wellbeing of children. Generally parents have primary responsibility while states make sure the parents fulfill their obligations and provide services that parents can't or wont.

The whole issue seems remarkably simple to me. A teacher at a school needs a teachers degree to be alowed to teach, so a homeschool teacher should also need a teachers degree to teach.

The whole issue seems remarkably simple to me. A teacher at a school needs a teachers degree to be alowed to teach, so a homeschool teacher should also need a teachers degree to teach.

I think this is a thread win.

The whole issue seems remarkably simple to me. A teacher at a school needs a teachers degree to be alowed to teach, so a homeschool teacher should also need a teachers degree to teach.

Why should parents be forced to get teaching credentials? My mother taught me and she did a damn good job of teaching me and she does not have a teaching degree.

Of course, the state I live in, we all have standards to live to same as any normal school and my mom documented every little thing that I did.

Why should parents be forced to get teaching credentials? My mother taught me and she did a damn good job of teaching me and she does not have a teaching degree.

Of course, the state I live in, we all have standards to live to same as any normal school and my mom documented every little thing that I did.

Yeah I agree, what parent does not have the knowledge that they try to teach in schools?

Yeah I agree, what parent does not have the knowledge that they try to teach in schools?
Uh... are you REALLY being serious here? Because it turns out to be quite a lot of information from not just curricula, but methods and theory.

Uh... are you REALLY being serious here? Because it turns out to be quite a lot of information from not just curricula, but methods and theory.

I am yes. As an adult, I am readily able to pickup, read and digest books about teaching methoeds, and what my kids are learning at school is certianly not beyond my experiance or knowledge. Do you contend then that either this is not the majority case, or that parents are unable to do this? Beacuse really, I don't think that is the case at all.

I am yes. As an adult, I am readily able to pickup, read and digest books about teaching methoeds, and what my kids are learning at school is certianly not beyond my experiance or knowledge. Do you contend then that either this is not the majority case, or that parents are unable to do this? Beacuse really, I don't think that is the case at all.
I contend that teaching is not as easy as you would think. It isn't just subject knowledge, or methods, or theory, it's a combination of all three plus art which, when it works, seems effortless.

The problem comes when things don't work.

Or to put it another way, what happens when your children have problems with your material?

I contend that teaching is not as easy as you would think. It isn't just subject knowledge, or methods, or theory, it's a combination of all three plus art which, when it works, seems effortless.

The problem comes when things don't work.

Or to put it another way, what happens when your children have problems with your material?

Plus, I'm having serious difficulties believing that someone like, for example my grandmother, would have had the capabilities of teaching, say my mother.
My grandmother had 7 years of school in her whole life, she read enough to read the daily paper, write enough for shopping lists (not enough for letters, though), do sums and small multiplications enough for gorceries and bills.
That's about it, though.
She's got no grasp on history, biology, geography, grammar, spelling,any forgeign language including the official version of her own language which she can understand, but not speak, art, music, physics, chemistry, politics...
Don't get me wrong, she's a loving and caring person and I adore her for that. But she's neither educated nor - to be blunt - bright enough to teach kids.
Claiming that every partent is capable to expose children to the same amount of knowledge as school is just bollocks. Some might be, most aren't.

Why should parents be forced to get teaching credentials? My mother taught me and she did a damn good job of teaching me and she does not have a teaching degree.

Of course, the state I live in, we all have standards to live to same as any normal school and my mom documented every little thing that I did.

Up to what age?

I would say both my parents were extremely bright - but I don't think that even between them they would have been able to teach all the subjects I took qualifications in at more than a basic level. As for the science and maths subjects I did at A level they would not have been able to begin to cope.

Middle of Sixth grade on up through my Senior Year in high school.

Did you cover much science and maths? Not you personally, but there do seem to be some people from the US on this board who seem to lack even a basic understanding of science.

Up to what age?

Middle of Sixth grade on up through my Senior Year in high school.

I am yes. As an adult, I am readily able to pickup, read and digest books about teaching methoeds, and what my kids are learning at school is certianly not beyond my experiance or knowledge. Do you contend then that either this is not the majority case, or that parents are unable to do this? Beacuse really, I don't think that is the case at all.

Because even if the majority can. Some almost certainly can't (probably from the lower classes). And it is the state's responsibility to ensure all children have an education of at least a certain standard. Therefore if they wish to homeschool parents must show that they are able to provide an education of that standard.

Hey. :) I've been busy. I think I've posted on NS maybe once this month. If verything goes right at work, I might be able to return to a slightly more usual schedule in another couple of weeks.

I totally agree with your central premise here - and it's an 'argument' I've had with homeschoolers before, not least within my own extended family. My own brother was homeschooled, and it had made a noticable (I think) difference - not so much to his overall 'education' level, but to the way he deals with people, and a certain amount of how he approaches finding solutions.

I hate the schools near where I live. I don't know what US says my oldest girl's school should be like, but the reality is that schools around here are bible schools, even when they present a thin veil of not being so. Anyone who has seen Mr Garrison's dealings with evolution in South Park knows what I mean.

I considered taking my little girl out of school and homeschooling her. The biggest obstacle being that I have to work (at least) fulltime, and thus it's pretty much a no-no right off the bat. But the next consideration is about what one gains from a schooling that isn't necessarily measured in test scores.

I have two more little ones that will be entering the US school system within the next few years, and I'm going to have to do with them the same thing I've done with the oldest - use the available schoolsystem as a central core, and educate around it. So.. they can talk about butterflies and counting beans, at school... and my little girl comes to me to explain parallax effects, and help her research on the history of Babylon.


I'd be concerned about that myself. We are Christians, but my kids have my wife & I, church/Sunday school for faith - I dont need or want it in public school.

Homeschooling must be a tremendous effort-the consistancy, the routine, etc...

Any consideration for possibly moving to an area more in accordance with what you want for your kids ?
Thats a monumental effort to, but in the long run-probably much simpler than homeschooling your children-and feeling satisfied with your efforts.

I'd never feel I was providing them with what they need/deserve.

I'm much happier playing a very active role- a support role though.

Why should parents be forced to get teaching credentials? My mother taught me and she did a damn good job of teaching me and she does not have a teaching degree.

Of course, the state I live in, we all have standards to live to same as any normal school and my mom documented every little thing that I did.

We should force parents, who want to teach, to get a teaching degree, for the same reason that we force anyone else who wants to teach to get a teaching degree. We simply can't asume that every single parent is able to teach theyre children every single subject well enough without them getting a degree.

After all, why am i forced to get a drivers license ? i know how to drive without one.
Why should i be forced to get a masters degree in order to be a lawyer, i can read a lawbook.
etc.

A lot of parents won't be as conscientious as your mum was, and theyre children will suffer for it. Imho, thats simply unfair for the children.

In reality...all you have to do is order the books, plus the teachers edition, and you are pretty much set. It helps if you know the subject but knowing the subject is not a requirement as I found out with my brief stint at the local high school.

I daresay it's not that easy, if it was, my friend who's studying to be a teacher, wouldn't have to go through 4 years of classes for this. (he's going to teach roughly high school level)

We should force parents, who want to teach, to get a teaching degree, for the same reason that we force anyone else who wants to teach to get a teaching degree. We simply can't asume that every single parent is able to teach theyre children every single subject well enough without them getting a degree.

After all, why am i forced to get a drivers license ? i know how to drive without one.
Why should i be forced to get a masters degree in order to be a lawyer, i can read a lawbook.
etc.

A lot of parents won't be as conscientious as your mum was, and theyre children will suffer for it. Imho, thats simply unfair for the children.

In reality...all you have to do is order the books, plus the teachers edition, and you are pretty much set. It helps if you know the subject but knowing the subject is not a requirement as I found out with my brief stint at the local high school.

In reality...all you have to do is order the books, plus the teachers edition, and you are pretty much set. It helps if you know the subject but knowing the subject is not a requirement as I found out with my brief stint at the local high school.

However easy it may be there are going to be parents who aren't clever/talented/etc enough to manage it. And we need to have a system that ensures that all children receive an education of a certain standard. Rather than just a *crosses fingers* approach.

We should force parents, who want to teach, to get a teaching degree, for the same reason that we force anyone else who wants to teach to get a teaching degree. We simply can't asume that every single parent is able to teach theyre children every single subject well enough without them getting a degree.

After all, why am i forced to get a drivers license ? i know how to drive without one.
Why should i be forced to get a masters degree in order to be a lawyer, i can read a lawbook.
etc.

A lot of parents won't be as conscientious as your mum was, and theyre children will suffer for it. Imho, thats simply unfair for the children.


Thats a good point and part of my concern.

If children are required by law in the US with the right to an education, how can a parent home school their children with no qualifications but a teacher needs a teaching degree ?

Well intended parents may not give adequate teaching.

But-there are plenty of teachers complete with all credentials that shouldnt be teaching.

I'm in favor of homeschooling, but it's very difficult to do. Most parents have at least one fulltime job each, and most people have gaps in their own education ability. I'm sure I could teach several subjects, but I'd be clueless on others. Ideally, there should be decent public schools (though I'm not holding my breath for that).

I'm in favor of homeschooling, but it's very difficult to do. Most parents have at least one fulltime job each, and most people have gaps in their own education ability. I'm sure I could teach several subjects, but I'd be clueless on others. Ideally, there should be decent public schools (though I'm not holding my breath for that).

We should take education much more seriously than we do.

And consideration of job training should be researched earlier in the child's schooling.Children's individual strengths and weaknesses need to be determined early on and addressed.

I will say this...homeschooling is not for everyone. I am in no way advocating that it is for everyone.



That is why Pennsylvania requires us to submit our work to the local school board. My mother never had a problem with the school board nor with the state.

It sounds like your mother is more than capable and dedicated-AND- I think you seem to be a willing student.

Like you say,though- it isnt for everyone.

I think its safe to assume the tendency to "slack off" might be very high with some people.

However easy it may be there are going to be parents who aren't clever/talented/etc enough to manage it.

I will say this...homeschooling is not for everyone. I am in no way advocating that it is for everyone.

And we need to have a system that ensures that all children receive an education of a certain standard. Rather than just a *crosses fingers* approach.

That is why Pennsylvania requires us to submit our work to the local school board. My mother never had a problem with the school board nor with the state.

It sounds like your mother is more than capable and dedicated-AND- I think you seem to be a willing student.

Like you say,though- it isnt for everyone.

I think its safe to assume the tendency to "slack off" might be very high with some people.

Lord knows I slacked off alot. :D

It sounds like your mother is more than capable and dedicated-AND- I think you seem to be a willing student.

Like you say,though- it isnt for everyone.

I think its safe to assume the tendency to "slack off" might be very high with some people.

I'd agree.
I would promote it as a form of tutoring gifted children who would not be challenged sufficiently at a normal school, and with no access to extra facilities for gifted children. And even in this case I wouldn't advocate home schooling alone, but rather a mixture between time at school and learning at home.
It might be that nasty European socialisation talking through me here, but I do believe that a good school is offering infinitely more to a kid than a home environment ever could.

I'd agree.
I would promote it as a form of tutoring gifted children who would not be challenged sufficiently at a normal school, and with no access to extra facilities for gifted children. And even in this case I wouldn't advocate home schooling alone, but rather a mixture between time at school and learning at home.
It might be that nasty European socialisation talking through me here, but I do believe that a good school is offering infinitely more to a kid than a home environment ever could.

I have no personal knowledge whatsoever about the homeschooling program.

I have to imagine,with the internet,that there would be a state required curriculum and the ability for a qualified person to administer testing and some type of regular check-up to make sure the home schooled child doesnt fall behind and is maintaining a certain standard.

Again,my wife and I are as involved as we can be with my kids-I think they are getting a good education in public school to start with,they are doing well above the average and we supplement at home with studying,reviewing.

And we try to augment what they are studying with family activities. We took a trip to Washington DC last year. They both have digital cameras and took notes,collected brochures,etc... and were very well informed when they covered related topics in class.
They did the same after a trip out west-Grand Canyon and surrounding area- they put life experience directly into geography, geology, Native American subjects.

So-I believe in my kids getting an education in school, but my wife and I have a responsibilty to support and encourage with other means outside of school.

I will say this...homeschooling is not for everyone. I am in no way advocating that it is for everyone.



That is why Pennsylvania requires us to submit our work to the local school board. My mother never had a problem with the school board nor with the state.

I didnt know you were in PA.

I'm in Pike County

I didnt know you were in PA.

I'm in Pike County

Currently living in Lancaster County :)

Currently living in Lancaster County :)

thats a little southwest of me.

My wife wants to do some weekend exploring out there this spring

I contend that teaching is not as easy as you would think. It isn't just subject knowledge, or methods, or theory, it's a combination of all three plus art which, when it works, seems effortless.

The problem comes when things don't work.

Or to put it another way, what happens when your children have problems with your material?

First off lets just note that I don't think teaching is an easy job, god knows I wouldn't do it.

Having said that I still think that any parent can teach their own kids, after all who knows them better.

.....Claiming that every partent is capable to expose children to the same amount of knowledge as school is just bollocks. Some might be, most aren't.

Then lets claim any responisble, normaly educated parent. In addition lets turn your claim around and say most aren't some are.

Because even if the majority can. Some almost certainly can't (probably from the lower classes). And it is the state's responsibility to ensure all children have an education of at least a certain standard. Therefore if they wish to homeschool parents must show that they are able to provide an education of that standard.

I agree to this. It doesn't detract from my point though. I think most parents help there kids with homework, I think most parents remember being taught the same sort of things at a the same sort of age, I think most parents would not have much trouble teaching whatever the current national curricula is, to their own children.

I also think most parents who's knowledge may be lacking, can reasonbly pick up a book and do some study.

thats a little southwest of me.

My wife wants to do some weekend exploring out there this spring

I know some good areas to shop and eat. :)

Their friends, and, in many case, their teachers.

Heheh yeah I certianly agree with that one.

Agreed. The reason my sister-in-law homsechools is because she didn't want her children to be exposed to evolution.

"Exposed"? What else does she not want her kids to be "exposed" to? Does she have a problem with, say irrational or imaginary numbers? Other principles of biology that night be related to evolution? I've heard of one-issue voters, but one-issue students? I'm not trying to be adversely glib, but why not just ask when that particular unit is being taught and pull the kid out? Yanking them from the whole shooting match based on one sliver of one subject seems...irrational.

*snip...and...*

That's not how the system works, and it's not how the system is ever likely to work. We live in a democracy. Parents can and do vote, and they tend to be rather concerned for the preservation of their power.

*...snip*

Not only that, in this era, parents are very nearly running the show. All a parent needs is to hear something from their kid that they don't like or agree with and, if they're the active type, roll on down to the principal's office or a school board meeting. Three parents out of a senior class of 251 got the movie Platoon (in a Vietnam unit of a Contemporary World Problems class -- it was 1987 and swarms of Vietnam-themed films were storming the box office and video store) turned off after the first 50 minutes (one class period). Three. Instead of offering those kids a library period for the two-and-a-half days the film would have taken, they pulled the film.

You bet your ass a noisy parent has concern for the preservation of their power, no matter how out of whack their priorities may be. And you know what? I'm all for that kind of access, but when a parent is so clearly in the extreme minority, it seems to me that the more flexible entity should bend, not the entire school.

Intangelon... I'm a teacher.

I might teach in Japan, but my degrees are from the US, I know what teacher unions are. Many of them actually have very little to do with the NEA, most of them are just local to the school boards to which they bargain with.

NERVUN...so am I.

I posted the union links to support your statement, not answer it as if it were a question. Apologies for not including words to that effect in the post you quoted.

I'd be concerned about that myself. We are Christians, but my kids have my wife & I, church/Sunday school for faith - I dont need or want it in public school.

Homeschooling must be a tremendous effort-the consistancy, the routine, etc...

Any consideration for possibly moving to an area more in accordance with what you want for your kids ?
Thats a monumental effort to, but in the long run-probably much simpler than homeschooling your children-and feeling satisfied with your efforts.

I'd never feel I was providing them with what they need/deserve.

I'm much happier playing a very active role- a support role though.

And that's exactly how it should be. Parents should be secure enough in their own faiths (and many clearly aren't) to be able to hear something like the principles of evolution and not run around screaming like the world's come to an end. The kid comes home, and the parents say something like "mankind has always looked for answers to very big questions, and 'where did humanity come from' is about as big as questions get. The study of the origin of everything is called cosmology, Some people like a scientific approach, and some people like to take the word of holy books and received wisdom from God. Let's talk about that..."

Alas, no. Far more frequently, at least where I used to live, it was "I DIDN'T COME FROM NO MONKEY! GOD MADE ME!!!" I always liked to reply, sotto voce "yeah -- and it looks like He rushed the job, too."

I have met some extremely intelligent Christians (like you, CL), and there are indeed ways to explain evolution and creation without buying into a dichotomy that sets people against one another. Most folks can't be bothered to think that much, those people outnumber the ones who do, and worse yet, those people vote.

First off lets just note that I don't think teaching is an easy job, god knows I wouldn't do it.

Having said that I still think that any parent can teach their own kids, after all who knows them better.

Their friends, and, in many case, their teachers.

I agree to this. It doesn't detract from my point though. I think most parents help there kids with homework, I think most parents remember being taught the same sort of things at a the same sort of age, I think most parents would not have much trouble teaching whatever the current national curricula is, to their own children.

I also think most parents who's knowledge may be lacking, can reasonbly pick up a book and do some study.

Sucks to be a kid whose parent isn't one of the majority then eh?

I know some good areas to shop and eat. :)

I'll have to ask you for some ideas when we are planning

Then lets claim any responisble, normaly educated parent. In addition lets turn your claim around and say most aren't some are.

And how would you be able to know the difference between those who actually know the capital of Mongolia, the particuliarities of the echidna and the binomial series, and those who don't?

"
Alas, no. Far more frequently, at least where I used to live, it was "I DIDN'T COME FROM NO MONKEY! GOD MADE ME!!!" I always liked to reply, sotto voce "yeah -- and it looks like He rushed the job, too."

I have met some extremely intelligent Christians (like you, CL), and there are indeed ways to explain evolution and creation without buying into a dichotomy that sets people against one another. Most folks can't be bothered to think that much, those people outnumber the ones who do, and worse yet, those people vote.

Thanks- I'll take that as a compliment. I dont battle creationism v.evolution.
I have faith in a creator and I'm also amazed at what science has proven in the relatively short time. I'd love to get some concrete answers in my lifetime.

As for the onesthat vote- I always hope the nuts on one extreme cancel out the nuts on the other...and the ones in the middle cast votes that benefit the majority more

I agree to this. It doesn't detract from my point though. I think most parents help there kids with homework, I think most parents remember being taught the same sort of things at a the same sort of age, I think most parents would not have much trouble teaching whatever the current national curricula is, to their own children.

I also think most parents who's knowledge may be lacking, can reasonbly pick up a book and do some study.

Well, let's take a look at one particular group I happen to be a member of : immigrants.
Do you honestly think I'd be equally qualified to teach my kid Gaelic, Irish history and the Irish political system as people who actually studied those subjects for several years?

I'll have to ask you for some ideas when we are planning

Possibly even meet. I've always wanted to meet members from NSG

The road to hell...


(w00T! post 3000!)

If a parent can provide education of at least comparable quality to a public school, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to homeschool. However, if they can't provide that education, they shouldn't be permitted to unless their instruction is improved to meet that standards.

As long as the kids are given the kind of education necessary for them to compete in the job market and pursue whatever secondary education they desire, I have no problem with home schooling.

Generally, that. Except I think the tests for homeschoolability should be very strict. However, THAT


A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.
is quite scary. None of it should be taught in school, and there certainly are things that are lacking here. Like, knowledge.

However, THAT


is quite scary. None of it should be taught in school, and there certainly are things that are lacking here. Like, knowledge.

While I personally don't agree with the patriotism-nonsense, I distincly remember more than one of my former teachers explaining to us that to be a responsible citizen, knowledge is vital. You cannot make any sort of informed decision without knowing what you decide on. But knowledge is only one side of the coin. The other is to be able to take in different information from different sources, to weigh probabilities and reliability, in short to make sure to hear both sides of the story before deciding.
Our teachers were quite adamant that we be taught both elements of the decision making process, and be exposed to as many views as possible. And that's where I personally have my doubts were homeschooling is concerned.
I cannot imagine that it would expose the child to an equal amount of different opinions, equally passionately presented and defended and with equal credibility. Sure, the parent can play the devil's advocate now and then, but anybody who ever tried doing this on a subject they themselves felt strongly about will know how difficult or near impossible it is to present an opposing viewpoint consistently and convincingly. And I wouldn't be surprised if many homeschooling parents wouldn't even try to do so in the first place.
I remember a while back a similar thread and a statistic showing that the vast majority of homeschooling parents do so for religious reasons, meaning they don't want their child exposed to religious or non-religious views that differ from their own.
It might sound drastic, but in my eyes such behaviour is just a very small step away from child abuse. Depriving a child of information it might well need in life, not allowing it to gain crucial skills, is very dubious indeed.

Then corporation employees should determine where the money they help the company make goes.

False. They no more have ownership of that than the plumber who installed your plumbing owns your toilet or a portion of the equity in your home.

but you are on to something... If unions are held to that standard then corporations should also be required to accept shareholder input on their partisan politics donations.

Of course - corporate america has been much more balanced and bi-partisan than unions. Not to mention - right now it may be counterproductive for democrats to champion the cause of governing corporate political contributions;
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117790069010286617-Xz4XikFqFlSwWSokkpgptCULmoo_20080428.html

First off lets just note that I don't think teaching is an easy job, god knows I wouldn't do it.

Having said that I still think that any parent can teach their own kids, after all who knows them better.
*dryly* Yes, that's why we teachers NEVER get parents coming in and saying, "Oh no! MY little Johnny would NEVER punch another kid! He's not like that at all!"

I'm not saying that there are not effective homeschoolers out there, because there are, but I am saying that assuming all parents have the ability of homeschool is well off the mark.

And like I said, what happens when things go wrong? Will parents spot it in time? If they do spot something, will they be detached enough to do what needs to be done? In my classes I have a child who is... well, honestly I don't know. I suspect ADHD, possibly emotional troubles if not autistic. He (And I'm just using the pronoun and not confirming the gender of the child) is violently disruptive in class. Most classes end up with said child having to be literally carried out of the room kicking and screaming. We teachers are pretty sure that this child needs help and he needs to get tested to find out what's going on. His parents however won't hear of it, their child is perfect and they refuse to even consider the possibility of a LD.

Some parents have some rather large blind spots when it comes to their kids.

NERVUN...so am I.

I posted the union links to support your statement, not answer it as if it were a question. Apologies for not including words to that effect in the post you quoted.
My apologies as well. I was being cranky yesterday due to a 5 month old boy who insists that 4 am in the morning is the PERFECT time to start a loud conversation, never mind that his father has to get up at 5:30 to get to school and is doped up on allergy medication. I responded quicker and sharper than I should have.

I am a bit torn on this issue. In the UK children start school at a younger age than other European countries and yet somehow manage to not do as well. So I would not claim that schools are the only, or even the best, place to learn. I can see home-schooling being preferable up to a certain age (I am thinking about 11 or 12), but after that I really don't see how parents on their own can provide the breadth and depth of curriculum needed. I also worry that home-schooled children could potentially miss out on the socialisation that comes from going to school. However I suspect the offical view is that it makes it more complicated and expensive in order to make sure children are receiving adequate tuition. I am guessing that there are quite a variety of motives for parents wishing to do home-schooling from protecting their children being bullied to preventing them from learning about sex and science.

False. They no more have ownership of that than the plumber who installed your plumbing owns your toilet or a portion of the equity in your home.

but you are on to something... If unions are held to that standard then corporations should also be required to accept shareholder input on their partisan politics donations.

Of course - corporate america has been much more balanced and bi-partisan than unions. Not to mention - right now it may be counterproductive for democrats to champion the cause of governing corporate political contributions;
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117790069010286617-Xz4XikFqFlSwWSokkpgptCULmoo_20080428.html

Your analogy falls a bit flat. Doesn't really work, since my toilet does not make money for me.

Your analogy falls a bit flat. Doesn't really work, since my toilet does not make money for me.
Never heard of real estate equity? Rental income? Every little part helps - particularly indoor plumbing.

It is not an analogy - it is fact - your plumber was hired and paid to do a job. End of story. He has no interest beyond what he agreed to do for what he was paid. He has no right to determine use or share profit beyond his agreed cost to install. He has chosen not only to sell a toilet, but also his labor to install it.

It is the same for ANY job.

Your analogy falls a bit flat. Doesn't really work, since my toilet does not make money for me.

You mean...you don't charge a toll for guests using your toilet?!?

Click Stand;13511081']You mean...you don't charge a toll for guests using your toilet?!?

Amazingly, I don't.