NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is inspired by a debatte currently ongoing in Germany.
As many of you might be aware, Germany has laws that make it compulsory for children to attend schools until the age of 16. Exceptions will be granted if there are medical reasons why the child cannot attend, or if the child belongs to, say, a travelling community such as a circus. In those cases, qualified teachers will instruct the children outside of school.

There have been a number of - predominantly Christian - parents recently trying to oppose this law, and teach their children themselves at home.
Their actions ranged from legal battles down to keeping the child away from school unlawfully and actually emigrating.
Some of the more sensible groups have founded private schools, which are state-monitored and legal.

Their argument is that they are being oppressed, that the state indoctrinates their children, that they will get exposed to ungodly and unchristian teachings... and, how could it be any other way, that Germany is a fascist Nazi-state for enforcing the rights of children to have access to general free education.

Now, my view lines up with the German state here... children have the right to hear about different points of views, about different subjects and different ideas. Teaching children outside of regular schools is ok as long as the access to the same kind of knowledge can be guaranteed. It is in my eyes unresponsible to the extreme to keep children away from school and their peers in order to keep them ignorany about aspects of knowledge and public life. I see this very much as a children's rights issue. The parents do not own their kids, after all.

What's your take on this?

The law should stand.

This thread is inspired by a debatte currently ongoing in Germany.
As many of you might be aware, (.........)all.

What's your take on this?

The state is right. While those parents may well do a good job (if not a better one) academically, it's far too isolationist. The private school is fair enough, provided its curriculum is monitored and theres no opt out from state exams.

The state is right. While those parents may well do a good job (if not a better one) academically, it's far too isolationist. The private school is fair enough, provided its curriculum is monitored and theres no opt out from state exams.

Those are pretty much my thoughts. After all, there's nothing stopping the parents to teach children additional subjects (bible studies, or anything they choose really) in the afternoons after school. No child will ever learn everything in school alone, there's always knowledge that will be acquired in other environments as well.

im in agreeance with the state here

im in agreeance with the state here

This.

and, how could it be any other way, that Germany is a fascist Nazi-state for enforcing the rights of children to have access to general free education.


It is exactly at the heart of every fascist Nazi-state to keep the populace away from opposite views, starting with the children, so that they stay dumb are easier manipulated. I think children should have the right to become well-thinking beings who can take their own stand on moral issues instead being turned into pious slaves.
Underneath this lies the question: who "owns" children? Their parents, or the society they live in?

EDIT: What I actually never understood is what the religious groups are afraid of? If their moral viewpoint is (in their eyes) superior to all others, why are they afraid that their children will not understand this superiority and turn away from it?

If the kids will live in Germany, they should at the very least learn the most important viewpoints held by German citizens and the German government and how to educate themselves on other viewpoints if so desired. Being ignorant of the society you live in is not good. Believing in something because you do not know any better is not good either.

If the parents fear that will lead the kid away from their own viewpoints, perhaps they should wonder why.

It is exactly at the heart of every fascist Nazi-state to keep the populace away from opposite views, starting with the children, so that they stay dumb are easier manipulated. I think children should have the right to become well-thinking beings who can take their own stand on moral issues instead being turned into pious slaves.
Underneath this lies the question: who "owns" children? Their parents, or the society they live in?

I would say neither.
However, children are members of the society they live in, which gives them certain rights, as for example the right to an education, as well as certain duties. The same goes for the parents. They are the ones mostly responsible for their children, but not exclusively. And the parents' rights do not outweigh the children's rights. If anything, that's vice versa.

Gah y'all sound like Nazis. Just on the other side.

Why should the state be able to force them to do anything. As long as they are not hurting anyone, mind your business.

Maybe they are like the Amish . .. self sufficient and don't have to deal with the 'outside world' much at all. And if and when they do decide that closed community isn't the thing for them, they will leave, learn and adapt.

As long as there is no abuse going on .. I don't see the problem.

Quit trying to force people into your popular paradigm.

Gah y'all sound like Nazis. Just on the other side.

Why should the state be able to force them to do anything. As long as they are not hurting anyone, mind your business.

Maybe they are like the Amish . .. self sufficient and don't have to deal with the 'outside world' much at all. And if and when they do decide that closed community isn't the thing for them, they will leave, learn and adapt.

As long as there is no abuse going on .. I don't see the problem.

Quit trying to force people into your popular paradigm.

So children don't have the right to access knowledge and education, then? Rather it's up to the parents to decide what they get to know and what not?

And how far would you go there? Should parents be allowed not to teach their kids to read and write? Or not to read and write in the language of the country they're in? How about maths? Sciences? Politics?

Why should the state be able to force them to do anything. As long as they are not hurting anyone, mind your business.

Does it matter to you if the teachings of the parents are truthful or not ?

Not saying all the parents will lie to their children to make their own worldview seem better, or that all parents might just have an inaccurate and slightly biased view of other opinions - just asking the question sec.

So children don't have the right to access knowledge and education, then? Rather it's up to the parents to decide what they get to know and what not?

And how far would you go there? Should parents be allowed not to teach their kids to read and write? Or not to read and write in the language of the country they're in? How about maths? Sciences? Politics?

If they plan on working on their own compound farming or building I guess a lot of the stuff outsiders learn wouldn't be necessary. Even the Amish teach their children to read, write and math. They learn what is useful in their society .. including trades.

I also didn't see in your post where these parents were refusing to teach their kids reading , writing etc. Maybe I missed it.

Does it matter to you if the teachings of the parents are truthful or not ?

Not saying all the parents will lie to their children to make their own worldview seem better, or that all parents might just have an inaccurate and slightly biased view of other opinions - just asking the question sec.


Depends on how you mean that.

My first thought was no I do not as long as they are self sustained and don't bother anyone or have any abuse going on inside.

But I can't flat out say no, because sooo many things could fall into that category. I'm focusing on actions tho, not thoughts.

I think that state governments (national/state/provincial/whatevah) have the responsibility to ensure that children have access to:

a curriculum that supports a rigorous set of learning standards,
assessment that demonstrates that they have achieved those learning standards, and
instructors that are assessed on their ability to correlate their instruction to those standards.


I think that learning standards should either be drawn from, or at least based on, standards developed by practicing educators in their respective subject matter, and not by politicians, or church people or other people who know jack squat about education.

If a parent/homeschooler/private school/religious school wants to deviate from that curriculum, they should have to prove that they at least meet that before adding their additional agenda to it.

If they plan on working on their own compound farming or building I guess a lot of the stuff outsiders learn wouldn't be necessary. Even the Amish teach their children to read, write and math. They learn what is useful in their society .. including trades.

I also didn't see in your post where these parents were refusing to teach their kids reading , writing etc. Maybe I missed it.

And they can't teach their kids that in the afternoons? They have to keep them out of school for that?
What about the rights of the children here, again? What if they decide at one point that their parent's life isn't for them? They have no choice but to remain in it anyway, because their parents refused to let them have an education that will help them in society.

And my question was, would you still make the parents comply with the official curriculum, or should they be the only ones to decide what the kids learn and what they don't? Reading and writing were examples.

Depends on how you mean that.

My first thought was no I do not as long as they are self sustained and don't bother anyone or have any abuse going on inside.

More that category. Does a child have a "right" to be told the truth about certain things so it can make up its own mind or is it essentially something the parents are allowed to mold and shape as they see fit - as long as it stays happy.

But indeed, teaching the kid licking daddies lollipop is perfectly normal would also fall in that category. But if the kid does not know any better...

And they can't teach their kids that in the afternoons? They have to keep them out of school for that?
What about the rights of the children here, again? What if they decide at one point that their parent's life isn't for them? They have no choice but to remain in it anyway, because their parents refused to let them have an education that will help them in society.

And my question was, would you still make the parents comply with the official curriculum, or should they be the only ones to decide what the kids learn and what they don't? Reading and writing were examples.

Amish kids leave all the time, they may not have the 'worldy' experience, but they have reading , writing and math. Basics. Hell maybe they have more I dunno.

Depends on what that curriculum is.

If it's reading, writing and math then yes I feel they should know these. If not for nothing more than the fact of if/when they leave their hub they aren't helpless.

More that category. Does a child have a "right" to be told the truth about certain things so it can make up its own mind or is it essentially something the parents are allowed to mold and shape as they see fit - as long as it stays happy.

But indeed, teaching the kid licking daddies lollipop is perfectly normal would also fall in that category. But if the kid does not know any better...


Your first paragraph happens all the time. Public education and all. Some people learn differently down the road, others don't. Can't outlaw parents.

And your second paragraph falls under what I was speaking of about abuse. And that also happens often .. out here in society. Sadly.

Amish kids leave all the time, they may not have the 'worldy' experience, but they have reading , writing and math. Basics. Hell maybe they have more I dunno.

Depends on what that curriculum is.

If it's reading, writing and math then yes I feel they should know these. If not for nothing more than the fact of if/when they leave their hub they aren't helpless.

Ok, what about learning about biology? Things like how medication works, how to protect oneself from infection, how your body functions, what foods do what for it, etc.?
Should that be compulsory?

What about politics? How is the political system in your country structured, what rights do you have within the system, what makes it different from other countries?
Sounds fairly vital knowledge to me.

What about history? Give you an idea what events in the past are actually shaping events in the present, and why?

Btw, if I remember correctly, a lot of the Amish kids return after a fairly short while, as they find they cannot make their way in our society.

Your first paragraph happens all the time. Public education and all. Some people learn differently down the road, others don't. Can't outlaw parents.

And your second paragraph falls under what I was speaking of about abuse. And that also happens often .. out here in society. Sadly.

Of course you can't. But what this whole homeschooling movement seems to be aimed at is outlawing children's access to information not approved by their parents.
The parents have the ultimate say in what their kid can and cannot know. I find this very frightening.

How many of the people who claim that the State's opinion should over-ride parental opinions in this matter would still be doing so if it were the State that insisted on including a specific religion's doctrines in the curriculum and the parents who wanted to home-school their children wanted to do so in order to raise them as 'free-thinkers' instead? After all, if that religion was already established as a major element of the nation's culture then the parents would be depriving the children of that knowledge about "the most important viewpoints held by [NATION] citizens"...

How many of the people who claim that the State's opinion should over-ride parental opinions in this matter would still be doing so if it were the State that insisted on including a specific religion's doctrines in the curriculum and the parents who wanted to home-school their children wanted to do so in order to raise them as 'free-thinkers' instead? After all, if that religion was already established as a major element of the nation's culture then the parents would be depriving the children of that knowledge about "the most important viewpoints held by [NATION] citizens"...

I certainly would still hold the same view. Even more so, actually.
"Know you enemy"... how else can they be free thinkers in such a society?

Ok, what about learning about biology? Things like how medication works, how to protect oneself from infection, how your body functions, what foods do what for it, etc.?
Should that be compulsory?

What about politics? How is the political system in your country structured, what rights do you have within the system, what makes it different from other countries?
Sounds fairly vital knowledge to me.

What about history? Give you an idea what events in the past are actually shaping events in the present, and why?

Btw, if I remember correctly, a lot of the Amish kids return after a fairly short while, as they find they cannot make their way in our society.


Most of the kids coming out of public high school don't know what you are asking.


Medicine , where the heck in public school is that taught?

I understand what you are saying.

Money (Credit and Banking) should be focused on beginning in middle school. Out here in the real world, your life runs on it.

Most of the kids coming out of public high school don't know what you are asking.


Medicine , where the heck in public school is that taught?

I understand what you are saying.

Money (Credit and Banking) should be focused on beginning in middle school. Out here in the real world, your life runs on it.

I can only talk about German schools, and this is basic stuff on any curriculum.
So should it be enforced do you think? Or should parents get the ultimate power over the information their kids can get at?

Most of the kids coming out of public high school don't know what you are asking.


Medicine , where the heck in public school is that taught?

I understand what you are saying.

Money (Credit and Banking) should be focused on beginning in middle school. Out here in the real world, your life runs on it.

There is a difference between what is taught in school and what kids decide/has the ability to learn.

In school you have the possibility to learn a lot of things, but if you then learn it a different thing. The important thing is that you at least have a chance to learn it, which these people in the OP don't seem to like.

I am a big homeschooling advocate. I do not think children should be compelled to enter government run schools if their parents are willing and able to provide a comparable education. The key word here is comparable. If the parents are shorting the kids on knowledge through censorship the government has a right to set standards for what is being taught. My own state which is very lax (probably the least restriction in my whole country) has standards of what must be taught to children, even though they are rather vague. Whether you "believe" in evolution or not, you must teach it to your children, they will be scientifically illiterate in this day and age without it. You are welcome to teach your children your version of creation, but if they come out not knowing basics of evolution I think you've failed as a parent and a teacher.

Allow the home schools.
Statistically they do better then prep school kids.
Who cares as long as they have the knowledge required of them, socialization is not the state's responsibility.
Most of your home school groups join basketball leagues and such.

....Does a child have a "right" to be told the truth about certain things so it can make up its own mind or is it essentially something the parents are allowed to mold and shape as they see fit - as long as it stays happy.
...

Yes, children should have that right. Do you have any evidence to suggest that a significant percentage of homeschooled children are unable to exercise that right?

So children don't have the right to access knowledge and education, then? ...

Yes, children should have that right. Do you have any evidence to suggest that a significant percentage of homeschooled children are unable to exercise that right?

Does it matter to you if the teachings of the parents are truthful or not ?

Not saying all the parents will lie to their children to make their own worldview seem better, or that all parents might just have an inaccurate and slightly biased view of other opinions - just asking the question sec.

And teachers never teach in a bias viewpoint either do they?

I can only talk about German schools, and this is basic stuff on any curriculum.
So should it be enforced do you think? Or should parents get the ultimate power over the information their kids can get at?


I'm not going to say that the state should be able to lay down the hammer over politics, history or even biology.

They (kids) should be able to read, write, do basic math and know how to call 911 in case they need to get the hell out of there. Don't say well what if they are scared into not using that phone. Happens all the time. Kids are abused every freaking day and they are afraid to tell anyone. Kids in public school pass by guidance counselors and whatever the hell else every day and they are either afraid of telling or they actually just do not realize they are being treated wrong. They feel guilty and bad.

Man .. it's a complicated subject. But many of the things you have pointed out happens (or well doesn't happen) with kids in public schools .. with no parental schooling control.

I can't say yea to state sponsored nannyism, any more so than it already is. Sorry. As much as I disagree with so many things kids learn or do not learn (socialized or not). It's just freaking .. 1984'ish to me.

Parents are the ultimate authority with regards to children, not the State. Here in the US, all states allow homeschooling and require that parents give a comparable education to what's found in public schools (every state differs on exactly what requirements there are, though).

And teachers never teach in a bias viewpoint either do they?

Did I say that ? No.
I am however asking if it is a bad thing if kids get taught such bias, inaccurate information or even outright lies an sich, as well as if you consider it bad if they get taught such exclusively without a secondary source to consult.

Normally after all kids are taught by parents AND teachers.

Parents are the ultimate authority with regards to children, not the State. Here in the US, all states allow homeschooling and require that parents give a comparable education to what's found in public schools (every state differs on exactly what requirements there are, though).

Since they have to give a comparable education the state is the ultimate authority, if the parent is following the law.

And teachers never teach in a bias viewpoint either do they?

There is pretty much no such thing as unbiased teaching (except for math perhaps), however with an educated teacher the state at least have some kind of quality check since a teacher need a degree.

The quality of the degree can of course be varied, but then you should discuss how we can improve the education of teachers instead.

What about homeschooling? It's done in the US, and as far as I know, the system works.

I am a big homeschooling advocate. I do not think children should be compelled to enter government run schools if their parents are willing and able to provide a comparable education. The key word here is comparable. If the parents are shorting the kids on knowledge through censorship the government has a right to set standards for what is being taught. My own state which is very lax (probably the least restriction in my whole country) has standards of what must be taught to children, even though they are rather vague. Whether you "believe" in evolution or not, you must teach it to your children, they will be scientifically illiterate in this day and age without it. You are welcome to teach your children your version of creation, but if they come out not knowing basics of evolution I think you've failed as a parent and a teacher.

I don't have any problem at all with a stricly enforced curriculum, combined with regular tests. In such a scenario, I wouldn't mind homeschooling.
I would however wonder if the money having to be spent on controlling the parents might not be better be used in schools and for the benefit of all students...

The parents in the given example don't agree with this, though.
As I said, one group has set up a private school for their children, which is approved and monitored. But the examples I read about aren't even happy with that.
Their argument is that what the schools teach and what is on the curriculum (biology, mostly, it would seem, along with physics and geology) is dangerous to their kids and therefore they should be exempt from learning about it.
And that is a mindset I cannot agree with, no matter which way I turn it.

I can only talk about German schools, and this is basic stuff on any curriculum.
So should it be enforced do you think? Or should parents get the ultimate power over the information their kids can get at?


Didn't answer your question earlier I don't think.

Yes. In public schools .. Money, Credit and how banking works should be taught. It's run by taxpayer dollars .. damn straight.

I don't have any problem at all with a stricly enforced curriculum, combined with regular tests. In such a scenario, I wouldn't mind homeschooling.
I would however wonder if the money having to be spent on controlling the parents might not be better be used in schools and for the benefit of all students...

The parents in the given example don't agree with this, though.
As I said, one group has set up a private school for their children, which is approved and monitored. But the examples I read about aren't even happy with that.
Their argument is that what the schools teach and what is on the curriculum (biology, mostly, it would seem, along with physics and geology) is dangerous to their kids and therefore they should be exempt from learning about it.
And that is a mindset I cannot agree with, no matter which way I turn it.
I might have issue with what you mean by "strictly enforced curriculum" but I don't have a problem with testing as long as homeschoolers are held to the exact same standards as public school kids.

I'm not sure how taxing works in Germany but here I pay for the public schools even though I do not use them. I'm not taking money away from them at all. However, I receive no government funding for my homeschooling, I don't think that having to test the minority of kids who homeschool is actually going to cost more than what is paid in.

Parents are the ultimate authority with regards to children, not the State. Here in the US, all states allow homeschooling and require that parents give a comparable education to what's found in public schools (every state differs on exactly what requirements there are, though).

Thats seems like the better way to approach it.

There is a difference between what is taught in school and what kids decide/has the ability to learn.

In school you have the possibility to learn a lot of things, but if you then learn it a different thing. The important thing is that you at least have a chance to learn it, which these people in the OP don't seem to like.

I understand what you are saying, even though I do not think they (kids) are forever always learning less or doomed from learning more or learning different. Taking away the parental rights and making it all state controlled .. I can't get behind.

The Westboro Baptist people (the "God Hates Fags" nuts) send their children to public school. It hasn't hampered their ability to indoctrinate their children.

Families don't homeschool just to "shield" their children from undesirable viewpoints. Our educational system is failing in many regards. Kids are often victims of substandard curriculum chosen because it seems "hip" and "edgy" and not because it efficiently teaches the subject matter (see w w w.city-journal.org/html/eon_3_7_03mc.html for an example).

We've produced generations of children who can't do basic math, who have poor reading and comprehension skills, and who have little knowledge of history. And disciplines like logic and rhetoric (and by proxy an understanding of Latin and Greek) that were once considered fundamentals of a sound education, are practically unheard of. My guess is that 9 out of 10 people reading this can't even think of a reason as to WHY understanding Latin is beneficial.

Moreover, the public schools have created a system that churns out children who have no understanding or experience of concepts like winning or losing. Many teachers these days won't even grade with red ink anymore because it might make kids "feel bad." When I was a kid and we had "field day" there were people that left with nothing. Now everyone mustleave with a ribbon or a trophy, otherwise it isn't "fair." How on earth does this prepare children for the real world??

I might have issue with what you mean by "strictly enforced curriculum" but I don't have a problem with testing as long as homeschoolers are held to the exact same standards as public school kids.

The issue however here is that some parents do NOT want their children to be held to the same standards as other kids. They want their kids to be kept ignorant of certain subjects which are an obligatory part of the curriculum.

Yes, children should have that right. Do you have any evidence to suggest that a significant percentage of homeschooled children are unable to exercise that right?



Yes, children should have that right. Do you have any evidence to suggest that a significant percentage of homeschooled children are unable to exercise that right?

I don't.
I have links to those parent's efforts to deny them that right, though, although those links are in German.

The issue however here is that some parents do NOT want their children to be held to the same standards as other kids. They want their kids to be kept ignorant of certain subjects which are an obligatory part of the curriculum.

I think they should be held to the same standard. I think the state has an interest in doing so. I fight homeschooling laws in my area because they try to hold us to a higher standard with harsher penalties. I have no problem with being held to the same standard.

I don't know about the specific parental groups in Germany, I haven't met them and the media does have a way to spin. Whether what is said is true or not I would support the government testing the children.

The issue however here is that some parents do NOT want their children to be held to the same standards as other kids. They want their kids to be kept ignorant of certain subjects which are an obligatory part of the curriculum.

Or they do not want their kids to mix with people that do not share their ideas and ideals?

Again really I can't see much wrong with that. I try to keep my kids away from bigots of any discription, for example.

The Westboro Baptist people (the "God Hates Fags" nuts) send their children to public school. It hasn't hampered their ability to indoctrinate their children.

Families don't homeschool just to "shield" their children from undesirable viewpoints. Our educational system is failing in many regards. Kids are often victims of substandard curriculum chosen because it seems "hip" and "edgy" and not because it efficiently teaches the subject matter (see w w w.city-journal.org/html/eon_3_7_03mc.html for an example).

We've produced generations of children who can't do basic math, who have poor reading and comprehension skills, and who have little knowledge of history. And disciplines like logic and rhetoric (and by proxy an understanding of Latin and Greek) that were once considered fundamentals of a sound education, are practically unheard of. My guess is that 9 out of 10 people reading this can't even think of a reason as to WHY understanding Latin is beneficial.

Moreover, the public schools have created a system that churns out children who have no understanding or experience of concepts like winning or losing. Many teachers these days won't even grade with red ink anymore because it might make kids "feel bad." When I was a kid and we had "field day" there were people that left with nothing. Now everyone mustleave with a ribbon or a trophy, otherwise it isn't "fair." How on earth does this prepare children for the real world??

Way to miss the point.
I've made it clear in the OP that the scenario I'm talking about is people refusing to let their children go to school because they do not agree with the subjects taught there, mostly as I said it seems to be about science classes.
So, yes, those parents are actively pursueing a right not to teach their children something they would get to learn about were they to go to school.

Since they have to give a comparable education the state is the ultimate authority, if the parent is following the law.

Not quite. By ultimate I'm not inferring "only." In Indiana I have no set curriculum I'm forced to follow. As long as my daughter is learning the basics (mathematics, reading, grammar, etc) the state has no say in what or how I teach her. And I'm fully able to add in whatever subjects I desire, regardless of whether they're taught in public schools. In Indiana, the laws are very lax- they're designed to ensure children aren't being neglected while allowing parents the ultimate authority. In fact, the only thing the state superintendent is legally allowed to ask me to submit is attendance records (we must school for at least 180 days, but there's no definition of what constitutes a school day, and we can school any time or day of week). There's also no definition in my state of what a "comparable" education would be. It's generally understood to mean instruction in the basics of mathematics, reading, grammar, etc.

I might have issue with what you mean by "strictly enforced curriculum" but I don't have a problem with testing as long as homeschoolers are held to the exact same standards as public school kids.

I'm not sure how taxing works in Germany but here I pay for the public schools even though I do not use them. I'm not taking money away from them at all. However, I receive no government funding for my homeschooling, I don't think that having to test the minority of kids who homeschool is actually going to cost more than what is paid in.

There is no specific tax for schooling in Germany. As far as I know, school funding and education funding comes out of the general federal tax pot.

Seeing as the parents in question that got me thinking about the issue in the first place don't work, I'd say they'd end up costing society double.

Way to miss the point.
I've made it clear in the OP that the scenario I'm talking about is people refusing to let their children go to school because they do not agree with the subjects taught there, mostly as I said it seems to be about science classes.
So, yes, those parents are actively pursueing a right not to teach their children something they would get to learn about were they to go to school.

Normally when people want to Home school for that the state still requires the subjects to be taught. The parents tolerate it because they can put their own spin on the matter, but for things like evolution and gun control a child would still have a worker knowledge of it.

I think they should be held to the same standard. I think the state has an interest in doing so. I fight homeschooling laws in my area because they try to hold us to a higher standard with harsher penalties. I have no problem with being held to the same standard.

I don't know about the specific parental groups in Germany, I haven't met them and the media does have a way to spin. Whether what is said is true or not I would support the government testing the children.

I wouldn't expect higher standards, but the same curriculum and tests to make sure that it's been taught.
I just think that the organisational effort to get such a system up and running would be rather cost-intensive.

Since they have to give a comparable education the state is the ultimate authority, if the parent is following the law.

Way to miss the point.
I've made it clear in the OP that the scenario I'm talking about is people refusing to let their children go to school because they do not agree with the subjects taught there, mostly as I said it seems to be about science classes.
So, yes, those parents are actively pursueing a right not to teach their children something they would get to learn about were they to go to school.

But you're pointed specifically to Germany, and at least the first few posters said they agreed with the German government (you are also far from the only person posting in here, so don't assume every post is directed solely at you, and can't address the issues other posters bring up. Unless you're quoted directly, it's entirely possibly people are responding to other thoughts and arguments).

At any rate, in Germany, homeschooling is 100% illegal. You can't homeschool no matter what your reasoning is.

I wouldn't expect higher standards, but the same curriculum and tests to make sure that it's been taught.
I just think that the organisational effort to get such a system up and running would be rather cost-intensive.

Can you tell me what you mean by curriculum? I know it sounds like a stupid question but many people use that word to mean a wide range of different things.

Parents are the ultimate authority with regards to children, not the State.
Nope. The State determines the boundaries within which parents are allowed to operate.

Here in the US, all states allow homeschooling and require that parents give a comparable education to what's found in public schools (every state differs on exactly what requirements there are, though).
As long as those requirements are there and enforced, I don't see an issue with home schooling (although I wonder if parents can transfer knowledge as well as specialist teachers, especially ins secondary education...). If they can, it's all fine. This would fall in the same category as the "special interest group schools" mentioned in the original post. Trying to get away from certain topics or teachings from the curriculum requirements would be different matter... (btw, doesn't setting the "comparable education requirements" give the state control over education, also in the case of home schooling?)

But you're pointed specifically to Germany, and at least the first few posters said they agreed with the German government (you are also far from the only person posting in here, so don't assume every post is directed solely at you, and can't address the issues other posters bring up. Unless you're quoted directly, it's entirely possibly people are responding to other thoughts and arguments).

At any rate, in Germany, homeschooling is 100% illegal. You can't homeschool no matter what your reasoning is.

That's not true.
I've pointed out in the OP that there are exceptions to the rule.
However, parents not wanting kids to know about certain subjects is not accepted.

Can you tell me what you mean by curriculum? I know it sounds like a stupid question but many people use that word to mean a wide range of different things.

Er... the curriculum containing the subjects and details on it that children have to learn about in their school year? The minimum requirements, if you want? What else can it mean? :confused:

The Neubronners are a family that risked legal sanction because they wanted to homeschool. They are not religious, by the way.

Linky. (http://www.homeedmag.com/newscomm//1095/neubronner-family-in-germany-to-face-fines/)

Apologies, I shouldn't say it's "100%" illegal, they do allow an extremely limited number of reasons.

I wouldn't expect higher standards, but the same curriculum and tests to make sure that it's been taught.
I just think that the organisational effort to get such a system up and running would be rather cost-intensive.

With this .. I have to ask .. what is the difference? If the parent is willing to teach everything the public school teaches.. then their reason for keeping them out of public school is keeping them away from the other students, teachers? No bus comes near?

If it is keeping them away from students, teachers .. I can understand why a parent could possibly do that.

Don't think I would though. But what do I know .. I'm not a parent.


Edit: Nevermind .. I forgot how shitty in general our school system is. With a good teaching parent it probably only takes 2 hours a day to teach what a public school takes 8. Plus the class is smaller =)

You can't homeschool no matter what your reasoning is.
Name a few of those reasonings please? I think that one of the reasons homeschooling is installed in the US is because of the distances, some kids just living too far away from schools to reasonably require them traveling there every day. This is something that does not apply quite as much to Germany. If you think a school has a bad (learning/social/...) environment, send your kids to another. Trying to withhold certain aspects of the curriculum, which this thread really is about if you ask me, is a bad idea I think as I outlined in a previous post. I can't think of any other reasonings, but if they are there, please name them.

Curriculum simply means a course of study.

The Neubronners are a family that risked legal sanction because they wanted to homeschool. They are not religious, by the way.

Linky. (http://www.homeedmag.com/newscomm//1095/neubronner-family-in-germany-to-face-fines/)

I read the article behind the link. Apparently the children are not happy at the school they were going to in the state of Bremen. Ok, although the question remains why. But I do not believe that there is absolutely no other recognized school around.

If the kids will live in Germany, they should at the very least learn the most important viewpoints held by German citizens and the German government and how to educate themselves on other viewpoints if so desired. Being ignorant of the society you live in is not good. Believing in something because you do not know any better is not good either.

If the parents fear that will lead the kid away from their own viewpoints, perhaps they should wonder why.

This. ^

How many of the people who claim that the State's opinion should over-ride parental opinions in this matter would still be doing so if it were the State that insisted on including a specific religion's doctrines in the curriculum and the parents who wanted to home-school their children wanted to do so in order to raise them as 'free-thinkers' instead? After all, if that religion was already established as a major element of the nation's culture then the parents would be depriving the children of that knowledge about "the most important viewpoints held by [NATION] citizens"...

You mean like Iran? Your argument fails because it depends on something the schools don't control -- the prevalence of the church in state matters.

Name a few of those reasonings please? I think that one of the reasons homeschooling is installed in the US is because of the distances, some kids just living too far away from schools to reasonably require them traveling there every day. This is something that does not apply quite as much to Germany. If you think a school has a bad (learning/social/...) environment, send your kids to another. Trying to withhold certain aspects of the curriculum, which this thread really is about if you ask me, is a bad idea I think as I outlined in a previous post. I can't think of any other reasonings, but if they are there, please name them.

This isn't necessarily true in the US. I live rurally, there is only one public school option. We did send our eldest to a Catholic school for pre-K and Kindergarten, but it was a 20 minute drive one way, and was too much of a financial strain (particularly when gas was 4 dollars a gallon, on top of the $205 monthly for tuition, plus uniforms, plus book rentals, etc).

As for withholding certain aspects of a curriculum, I think it would depend on what you're talking about. Evolution seems to be the hot button issue. I personally adhere to theistic evolution, but I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not other people agree. Not believing in evolution doesn't impede a person's ability to function in the world, like not being able to read or do basic math does. You could argue that it can make you something of a pariah, but it isn't the school's (or State's) responsibility to make sure people like you. And, sending your children to public school doesn't mean that parents can't, at home, speak against evolution and teach Creationism, anyway.

I've known many, many homeschooling families, and I've never yet met any who's sole reason for choosing that route was to keep their children ignorant of certain subjects. That's not to say they aren't out there, but I really don't think it's the overriding reason for most families. I'm not anti-public school, my middle daughter has mild cerebral palsy and attends the developmental preschool in our area, but I see no overwhelming benefit of public education that would, at this point in time, encourage me to utilize that for my oldest child. If at some point in the future we felt it would be in her best interest, we'd certainly go that route, and I think most homeschooling families would agree.

I homeschool largely to provide a classically based education in conjunction with fundamental religious instruction.

I think you have side with the state on this. If you want to send your kids to private schools that is another matter. I think the basics are required by all, even more so in today's world. It is fine if you are never going to leave your corner of Pennsylvania but when you enter society then you need the same basic skills as everyone else.

I have a question, is home schooling legal in Germany? That might be an alternative for these parents if they don't like the public schools....

I have a question, is home schooling legal in Germany? That might be an alternative for these parents if they don't like the public schools....

Only for medical reasons.

Now, my view lines up with the German state here... I see this very much as a children's rights issue. The parents do not own their kids, after all.


Thumbs up for Germany.
Except for a thing, maybe. Raise the age for compulsory schooling to 18 years.

Only for medical reasons.
Oh, OK, only if the child has a serious illness/injury and is home bound?

There's a disturbing trend in the posts on this thread that say homeschooling = isolation. I don't understand why that assumption is being made.

I can see where parents might feel their kids are being indoctrinated if the state is taking upon itself to teach things from a particular moral slant that may conflict with the morals being taught by the parents.

For example, it isn't isolationist or indoctrination to teach children that the state has legalized gay marriage.

Isolationism: "There is no gay marriage."
Indoctrination: "There is gay marriage and that's a good and moral thing."

The middle ground: "Yes, the state has legalized gay marriage, thus people who participate are not criminals. However, our Scriptures have taught us that those are sinful practices."

That's just an example but hopefully you see where I'm going. The state should teach, yes. It shouldn't presume to engage in moral indoctrination and unfortunately we do see it from time to time. It's a parent's job to teach morals. You can't criminalize that just because they don't agree with your own (or the state's.)

Thumbs up for Germany.
Except for a thing, maybe. Raise the age for compulsory schooling to 18 years.

So, do you think that the state should compel parents to take their kids to public school even if they are, say, atheist intellectuals who wish to provide their children with an even better education?

Oh, OK, only if the child has a serious illness/injury and is home bound?

Or severe allergies or chronic illness.

There's a disturbing trend in the posts on this thread that say homeschooling = isolation. I don't understand why that assumption is being made.

Because that is what the group asking for it wants. It does not have to be true in general, but it is the aim here.

Because that is what the group asking for it wants. It does not have to be true in general, but it is the aim here.

Not all homeschoolers in Germany want that isolation. Please see my link upthread.

Because that is what the group asking for it wants. It does not have to be true in general, but it is the aim here.

If the group in question is, in fact, looking to totally isolate themselves from the rest of the world I think it's goofy and impractical but there's got to be more to it than that. If it were that simple why not just incorporate a private school? I mean, if these people can afford to emigrate to other countries over it then surely they can afford it. Mind you, I still think parents have the right to home school their kids, but this is what leads me to think there's more going on here than what we've seen.

There's a disturbing trend in the posts on this thread that say homeschooling = isolation. I don't understand why that assumption is being made.

I can see where parents might feel their kids are being indoctrinated if the state is taking upon itself to teach things from a particular moral slant that may conflict with the morals being taught by the parents.

For example, it isn't isolationist or indoctrination to teach children that the state has legalized gay marriage.

Isolationism: "There is no gay marriage."
Indoctrination: "There is gay marriage and that's a good and moral thing."

The middle ground: "Yes, the state has legalized gay marriage, thus people who participate are not criminals. However, our Scriptures have taught us that those are sinful practices."

That's just an example but hopefully you see where I'm going. The state should teach, yes. It shouldn't presume to engage in moral indoctrination and unfortunately we do see it from time to time. It's a parent's job to teach morals. You can't criminalize that just because they don't agree with your own (or the state's.)

Home schooling in my opinion is a rejection of society. Public schools are just that public. There many private schools that teach religion. I suppose if you can not afford one then home schooling becomes and option. At some point though unless you live on a farm in PA, that child will likely need to be among those heathen to go to University, to get a job. How about let the child go to school and teach morality at home or in church?

It is isolating yourself, it is censorship and self-segregating your children. Children need to be taught critical thinking to make decision on their own. I have been at both private (Catholic) and public schools and I don't feel my opinions were shaped at all by the school that I went to.

Home schooling in my opinion is a rejection of society. Public schools are just that public. There many private schools that teach religion. I suppose if you can not afford one then home schooling becomes and option. At some point though unless you live on a farm in PA, that child will likely need to be among those heathen to go to University, to get a job. How about let the child go to school and teach morality at home or in church?

It is isolating yourself, it is censorship and self-segregating your children. Children need to be taught critical thinking to make decision on their own. I have been at both private (Catholic) and public schools and I don't feel my opinions were shaped at all by the school that I went to.

Hahahahhah!

Home schooling in my opinion is a rejection of society. Public schools are just that public. There many private schools that teach religion. I suppose if you can not afford one then home schooling becomes and option. At some point though unless you live on a farm in PA, that child will likely need to be among those heathen to go to University, to get a job. How about let the child go to school and teach morality at home or in church?

I don't agree that home schooling is, by definition, a rejection of society. In my Dungeons & Dragons club we have a couple members who were home schooled and they aren't isolated or hidden away from society in any way, shape or form. One of them is now in college and the other is active in social groups, athletics and is working toward becoming a volunteer firefighter. I see no rejection of society here.

I do agree that morality should be taught at home and that school is for academic studies. The problem is that there seems to be a trend for the schools to try and usurp that role.


It is isolating yourself, it is censorship and self-segregating your children. Children need to be taught critical thinking to make decision on their own. I have been at both private (Catholic) and public schools and I don't feel my opinions were shaped at all by the school that I went to.

I've been to both Catholic and public schools too, and I think you're kidding yourself. If you went to Catholic school then you were taught some very specific things regarding morality. That's probably why you were sent here in the first place. Now, if you resisted those teachings then that is what it is, but you can hardly say that your case would be a typical one.

I will admit that unless that religious training continues beyond that school people who aren't enthusiastic about their religion tend to leave those lessons behind (like in my case) and I can tell you that my attendance of a public high school after graduation form the Catholic school accelerated the process. (Not because my high school indoctrinated me one way or the other, it was just the absence of the reinforcing lessons.)

Nowadays there IS overlap and it's unhealthy. It's not good for kids to get conflicting messages between their school and their church/parents when it comes to morality. It will cause them to lose respect for one, the other or both and I see no advantage in it.

I don't agree that home schooling is, by definition, a rejection of society. In my Dungeons & Dragons club we have a couple members who were home schooled and they aren't isolated or hidden away from society in any way, shape or form. One of them is now in college and the other is active in social groups, athletics and is working toward becoming a volunteer firefighter. I see no rejection of society here.

Now you need to ask them how difficult was the transition from home schooling to the public system. Also did it make a difference on their religious beliefs? I think in the majority of case it will not. The same could be said from a public school kid.


I do agree that morality should be taught at home and that school is for academic studies. The problem is that there seems to be a trend for the schools to try and usurp that role.

This is where many parents drop the ball so to speak. They expect their child's school to fulfill this role. When I have heard of home schooling the argument goes something like this. The local school suck. If the local schools suck we need to search them out and fix them. The solution is not to remove your child but work within the system to improve things.


I've been to both Catholic and public schools too, and I think you're kidding yourself. If you went to Catholic school then you were taught some very specific things regarding morality. That's probably why you were sent here in the first place. Now, if you resisted those teachings then that is what it is, but you can hardly say that your case would be a typical one.


In my experience just as many teen pregnancies, just as many "dope" smokers, just as many Heavy Metalers, just as many jocks and so on. I chose to go simply because I liked the football team. St. Pius the X, the team was the Crusaders and they had cool uniforms.


I will admit that unless that religious training continues beyond that school people who aren't enthusiastic about their religion tend to leave those lessons behind (like in my case) and I can tell you that my attendance of a public high school after graduation form the Catholic school accelerated the process. (Not because my high school indoctrinated me one way or the other, it was just the absence of the reinforcing lessons.)

It absolutely must continue outside of school. Most of the time "Mass" is optional, although you do get a religion class. Science class are pretty much the same, yes even evolution. Yes they do mention Creationism and you know what the ceiling did not fall in.


Nowadays there IS overlap and it's unhealthy. It's not good for kids to get conflicting messages between their school and their church/parents when it comes to morality. It will cause them to lose respect for one, the other or both and I see no advantage in it.

Critical thinking is the cure. One has to decide what is right for one's self. Rarely do I remember morality even entering the equation in high school. If we are talking about being exposed to different elements of society then yes of course. Morality is important don't get me wrong.

The main problem with homeschooling is the parents that chose to do it, nobody choses to homeschool their kids without due reason and these reasons are too frequently that the parents are scared of the schools or want to teach a curriculum different to how they would be taught in a school. These parents are never going to give their kids a fair and balanced education and I believe that the only alternative to state schools is an educational curriculum which is deemed by (the german equivilant of) OfSTED to give an equivalent and full education, and part of this is interaction with other people.

Gah y'all sound like Nazis. Just on the other side.

Why should the state be able to force them to do anything. As long as they are not hurting anyone, mind your business.
Because they get so much back from the state that it'd be uncouth to not do anything for it?
Maybe they are like the Amish . .. self sufficient and don't have to deal with the 'outside world' much at all. And if and when they do decide that closed community isn't the thing for them, they will leave, learn and adapt.
Yeah Germany isn't really big enough to have a massive space for hicks to breed, unlike the US.
As long as there is no abuse going on .. I don't see the problem.
What if their parents simply haven't got the skills to teach them, say, a foreign language, or high level maths?
Quit trying to force people into your popular paradigm.
Never, mediocrity is what makes the protestant states succeed the way they do.

I have no problem with home schooling. All though, I will say that most of the kids I know who were home schooled were weird. But I think that was for other reasons.

I am not very sympathetic to the arguement from some religious types that follows roughly this pattern: Oh noes, the ebil public schools will teach our kids about evolution and that the world isnt only 6000 years old! They might even teach them about gays and contraceptives! And to make it even worse, they might read things critical of religion in english class! Thats indoctrination!

I have no problem with private schools. If you want to shelter and brainwash your kids, thats fine. I just scoff at the arguement that learning facts instead of myth is somehow 'indoctrination'.

Don't make your kids go to school. Whatever. Kids in great places like Sierra Leone and Somalia don't go to school and those countries are both top notch.

These people who claim public schooling is "brainwashing their children" or whatever shit they spute from their mouthes sounds a lot like the fucktards here in the US who think that vaccinating their kids from horrible, horrible diseases that have have been wiped out in any country worth a damn will give them autism, which is a load of shit.

It just proves that stupid people are everywhere.

I've been to both Catholic and public schools too, and I think you're kidding yourself. If you went to Catholic school then you were taught some very specific things regarding morality. That's probably why you were sent here in the first place. Now, if you resisted those teachings then that is what it is, but you can hardly say that your case would be a typical one.

I will admit that unless that religious training continues beyond that school people who aren't enthusiastic about their religion tend to leave those lessons behind (like in my case) and I can tell you that my attendance of a public high school after graduation form the Catholic school accelerated the process. (Not because my high school indoctrinated me one way or the other, it was just the absence of the reinforcing lessons.)


I went to Catholic school. I think they are perceived completely wrong in the public, as I honestly can't say that they provided any kind of "religious training" of any kind. We were taught what we needed to know, including sex ed classes every year, and critical thinking in every way of life.
Mind you, once I left school, I found out that the Catholic church itself is nowhere near as open-minded and tolerant that the school was.


Nowadays there IS overlap and it's unhealthy. It's not good for kids to get conflicting messages between their school and their church/parents when it comes to morality. It will cause them to lose respect for one, the other or both and I see no advantage in it.

Er... are you seriously claiming that kids should not be taught to think critically about moral questions and blindly accept what they're handed by authority? Really?

Interestingly enough, the law banning home schooling in Germany dates to the Nazi era. That law should be repealed immediately. The state does not own peoples' children, nor should it.

Interestingly enough, the law banning home schooling in Germany dates to the Nazi era. That law should be repealed immediately. The state does not own peoples' children, nor should it.

Actually, no it doesn't. But I did read about the US lobbyist lawyer who publicly claims it is. The duty to attend school in Germany is based on a law from the late 18th century.
The latest revision of this law is from 1937, that much is true, but the law itself is a few centuries old.

Actually, no it doesn't. But I did read about the US lobbyist lawyer who publicly claims it is. The duty to attend school in Germany is based on a law from the late 18th century.
The latest revision of this law is from 1937, that much is true, but the law itself is a few centuries old.

I stand corrected.

This thread is inspired by a debatte currently ongoing in Germany.
As many of you might be aware, Germany has laws that make it compulsory for children to attend schools until the age of 16. Exceptions will be granted if there are medical reasons why the child cannot attend, or if the child belongs to, say, a travelling community such as a circus. In those cases, qualified teachers will instruct the children outside of school.

There have been a number of - predominantly Christian - parents recently trying to oppose this law, and teach their children themselves at home.
Their actions ranged from legal battles down to keeping the child away from school unlawfully and actually emigrating.
Some of the more sensible groups have founded private schools, which are state-monitored and legal.

Their argument is that they are being oppressed, that the state indoctrinates their children, that they will get exposed to ungodly and unchristian teachings... and, how could it be any other way, that Germany is a fascist Nazi-state for enforcing the rights of children to have access to general free education.

Now, my view lines up with the German state here... children have the right to hear about different points of views, about different subjects and different ideas. Teaching children outside of regular schools is ok as long as the access to the same kind of knowledge can be guaranteed. It is in my eyes unresponsible to the extreme to keep children away from school and their peers in order to keep them ignorany about aspects of knowledge and public life. I see this very much as a children's rights issue. The parents do not own their kids, after all.

What's your take on this?


Do you mean the case recently covered by Spiegel? The Plett case? Or the Konrad case? About the two children who were homeschooled for quite a while, but now the parents are in legal trouble because homeschooling is illegal? Well to be honest. Food for thought is that when given a test, the two homeschooled children tested with a much higher score than most others of their year. Meaning logically they received a higher scholastic education at home than they would have at school. Considering the sorry state of German public education this does not surprise me. But why do you want to take the children out of an enviroment where they are learning more and faster than their peers in State run facilities? You're dumbing them down more or less.

As well. Do you know who instituted the ban on homeschooling? The National Socialists. So why are we all up and uppity on upholding an oppressive law enacted and invented by the Nazis robbing parents of their rights to decide their childrens education and giving the State the precedent?

One of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools, and school-related issues.

In 1937, Hitler said, "The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."

Nice to see we're keeping Hitler's rules and laws intact. At least those we can get away with, without risking being an international pariah. Shows how far we came since 1945. Not too far.

Actually, no it doesn't. But I did read about the US lobbyist lawyer who publicly claims it is. The duty to attend school in Germany is based on a law from the late 18th century.
The latest revision of this law is from 1937, that much is true, but the law itself is a few centuries old.

Faux pas. The old Imperial law allowed exceptions for minorities and religiously inclined individuals. The reasoning for the law in the 18th century was to ensure that all children got an education. As long as you could prove that they were being educated it was acceptable. It was also largely a move against child labor. The Nazi enacted law doesn't. There children have to go to State mandated schools, following a strict State mandated curricula. And today we still adhere to the Nazi interpretation of the law. Which is bad...

Faux pas. The old Imperial law allowed exceptions for minorities and religiously inclined individuals. The reasoning for the law in the 18th century was to ensure that all children got an education. As long as you could prove that they were being educated it was acceptable. It was also largely a move against child labor. The Nazi enacted law doesn't. There children have to go to State mandated schools, following a strict State mandated curricula. And today we still adhere to the Nazi interpretation of the law. Which is bad...
What, "it has anything at all to do with the Nazis so is instantly bad?"

Cmon, grow up.

I don't see how the law infringes on the rights of children in any way. There is nothing inherent in education that requires (the vast majority of) students to go against their religious beliefs. The only argument the parents seem to have here is that, if children are exposed to information from multiple sources, they may not choose the path their parents want them to choose. Welcome to raising children.

What, "it has anything at all to do with the Nazis so is instantly bad?"

Cmon, grow up.


I tend to value people's civil liberties and individual rights to freedom. But I'm just speaking for myself here.

The problem is that there seems to be a trend for the schools to try and usurp that role.

...

Nowadays there IS overlap and it's unhealthy. It's not good for kids to get conflicting messages between their school and their church/parents when it comes to morality. It will cause them to lose respect for one, the other or both and I see no advantage in it.

I'm a public school teacher. I'd like some specific examples.

I tend to value people's civil liberties and individual rights to freedom. But I'm just speaking for myself here.

The argument you made doesn't value civil liberties, it values the correlation between a law that may or may not have merit all on its own and the horrific weight of the word "Nazi".

If the law is bad, it's because it's a bad law, not because it has any associated with the Nazis. The U.S. was founded by slave-holding white Christian men who didn't feel any obligation to give rights to anyone who wasn't a white Christian man. That doesn't invalidate the importance or basic "good" of the U.S. Constitution.

Ah homeschool debates, how I love thee.

I'm a public school teacher. I'd like some specific examples.

Its simple. Usually the arguement boils down to "By not teaching my kids about my religion's beliefs and messeges, and teaching them facts about the world that my religion tries to ignore, you are just confusing my kids!"

Because apperantly kids shouldnt be allowed to make up their own minds.

Honestly, if you want your kids to get a religious oriented education, send them to a private school. Dont expect the state to give them it for you.

I think that schools must not teach things uncritically, there must be a promotion of critical analysis of the major topics IF there must be no home schooling. If they don't, then they are by definition, indoctrinating. If the schools are unable to do this (it may be a little impractical at times), then Children should be allowed to receive alternate education not from the state IMO.

This isn't necessarily true in the US. I live rurally, there is only one public school option. We did send our eldest to a Catholic school for pre-K and Kindergarten, but it was a 20 minute drive one way, and was too much of a financial strain (particularly when gas was 4 dollars a gallon, on top of the $205 monthly for tuition, plus uniforms, plus book rentals, etc).



A whole 20 minute drive? Whoa. In the area I'm in, we have kids who travel nearly an hour to school and an hour home just to go to the "crappy" public high school. Our town doesn't even have the option of a private high school. And the public school isn't allowed to expel kids because its the only one and they would be "denying children the right to an education."

As for the OP, I agree. Children should not be exempted from attending school because their parents don't agree with what is taught or don't like the behaviour of the students or whatever. Children have a right to be exposed to a range of viewpoints and a range of experiences, experiences that they won't get being homeschooled. One of the most valuable things going to a public school taught me was that racism existed, some people didn't care about history or politics, drugs were very, very bad for you (I had friends who were schizophrenic at 13), and that not every person was as lucky as I was to have the advantages my parents sacrificed a lot to give me.

I also learnt about differing viewpoints from having a very pro-Israel modern history teacher in year 9 and a very anti-American teacher in year 10. My biology teacher taught me that every viewpoint is valid, but not in every context (she was a staunch atheist, we had a YEC student in our class - the battles were endless). Without these experiences I would have been hopelessly unprepared to meet religious fundamentalists (some of whom are my friends), racists, drug addicts, opposing viewpoints.

I'm not saying that all home-schooled kids have these experiences. But a lot do.

In Australia, many students who live rurally are forced to be homeschooled, or be shipped off to boarding school at a young age. I teach Japanese at a School of the Air, over the radio. If it wasn't mandated by our education system, most of these children would never be exposed to another language or culture, because their parents just wouldn't see the point. These students are sometimes 2 or more hours away from their nearest neighbour, let alone the nearest town (where the school might only have 6 students from grades Prep to 7. So homeschooling isn't an option, it's a necessity.

But we have as part of our public education system, a schooling service in place that ensures that students are getting an education that exposes them to a range of views and teaches them what every student should know about the world.