PDA

View Full Version : California trying to turn home schoolers into criminals


Taco John
03-06-2008, 05:22 PM
Children are just government property, apparently.



Court: Teaching Credential Required To Home School

LOS ANGELES (AP) ―

California parents who don't have teaching credentials no longer can home school their children, according to a recent state appellate court ruling.

"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote in a Feb. 28 opinion for the 2nd District Court of Appeals.

Noncompliance could lead to a criminal complaint against the parents, Croskey said.

An estimated 166,000 students in California are home schooled.

California has allowed home schooling if parents either file paperwork to establish themselves as small, private schools; hire a credentialed tutor; or enroll their child in an independent study program run by an established school while teaching the child at home.

Until now, the state has left it up to local school districts to enforce those provisions. The districts have done little.

This undeclared police of laissez-faire has been popular with many.

"This works so well, I don't see any reason to change it," said J. Michael Smith, president of the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association.

The ruling stems from a case involving Phillip and Mary Long, a Los Angeles-area couple whose eight children are enrolled or have been enrolled in Sunland Christian School in suburban Sylmar and occasionally taken tests there.

But the children were educated at home by their mother, Phillip Long said. Mary Long does not have a teaching credential.

News of the court ruling is only starting to spread among educators and the home schooling communities, and it's unclear whether the ruling will be enforced. Attorneys for the State Department of Education are reviewing it, and home schooling organizations are lining up against it.

Phillip Long, meanwhile, is vowing to appeal to the State Supreme Court.

"I have sincerely held religious beliefs," he said. "Public schools conflict with that. I have to go with what my conscience requires me."

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 05:29 PM
Dumbass liberals

cookster50
03-06-2008, 05:39 PM
Doesn't everyone know the government educates better than any other institution?

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 05:43 PM
"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,"

This is the dumbest friggin thing I have heard out of liberals since, well, that thread about Obama

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 05:57 PM
That battle has been going in Cali for awhile. Much like the early homeschooling went through in the 80s per what I hear but that was fought too. Now some states have been more favorable since then. Don't know what's up with Cali. To the statists it's really about control of children—what's put in their heads. Sheep ranches. The teaching credential is just a red-herring. I see this going all the way to the SC.

NewChief
03-06-2008, 06:03 PM
Homeschooling, much like public schooling, is a mixed bag. I do believe it needs some closer monitoring process. In certain communities it's a way to keep the kids at home, indentured and working for their parents, while they get virtually nil for education. Some of these same people love to suck on the government teat as well, having 9-10 kids with tons of government assistance. In those situations, I don't particularly like it.

I lived and studied at L'Abri in England, though, and all of those kids were homeschooled there. It was amazingly awesome, and they were amazingly awesome kids.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 06:06 PM
It's issues like this that make me understand the "Liberals this" and "Liberals that" meme that gets out there. Trying to say that there is no constitutional right to home school is about as dishonest as it gets. There's no constitutional mandate for the government to control schools period -- not to collect money for it... not to regulate it. It doesn't exist.

The school issue irritates me to no end... The only solution that the left offers is to throw as much money at a failing system as possible, and when that doesn't work, blame not having enough funding as the reasons it's failing. Meanwhile, homeschoolers are giving their kids a quality education at a fraction of the costs.

Leave them alone. Get off their backs. They're not your kids to worry about.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 06:11 PM
And for what it's worth, School should only be mandatory up to age 12 in my opinion. After that, it's a choice. The public school system would improve virtually overnight. The drug and weapon problem at school would dissipate into thin air. There'd still be instances. But it wouldn't be rampant like it is now.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 07:13 PM
*shrug* I agree with the ruling. The courts did not strike down home-schooling, they just insisted that the parents prove they know what the hell they are doing.

I'm more worried about the rights of the kids here than I am of the parents, because the really good ones who do home schooling well are going to be fine. Suppose the parents want the kids to stay home for whatever stupid reason and they use home-schooling as a lame excuse? Suppose the parents are just retarded? (or merely stupid if not clinically retarded). Or lazy?

If the parents show the desire and ability to do a good job with home-schooling, then I'm absolutely on board with requireing the government to let them do it, but there has to be SOME kind of standards. If you cant or wont meet some basic educational standards, then I disagree that there's a fundamental "right" to home-school, because the rights of those kids trump the whim of the parent.

In the law, the best interests of the children ALWAYS, ALWAYS take precedence over the rights of the parents, and the kids have a right to some kind of an education. You can whine about public school if you want, but thats not a blanket pass to get out of showing that a particular home-schooling parent can do and is doing an adequate job.

Jenson71
03-06-2008, 07:13 PM
And for what it's worth, School should only be mandatory up to age 12 in my opinion. After that, it's a choice. The public school system would improve virtually overnight. The drug and weapon problem at school would dissipate into thin air. There'd still be instances. But it wouldn't be rampant like it is now.

Is that because you think those kids would stop going to school at age 12?

If it's the parents choice, who would want their kids to stop going to school after 6th grade? What would their kids do?

Jenson71
03-06-2008, 07:15 PM
*shrug* I agree with the ruling. The courts did not strike down home-schooling, they just insisted that the parents prove they know what the hell they are doing.

I'm more worried about the rights of the kids here than I am of the parents, because the really good ones who do home schooling well are going to be fine. Suppose the parents want the kids to stay home for whatever stupid reason and they use home-schooling as a lame excuse? Suppose the parents are just retarded? (or merely stupid if not clinically retarded).

If the parents show the desire and ability to do a good job with home-schooling, then I'm absolutely on board with requireing the government to let them do it, but there has to be SOME kind of standards. If you cant or wont meet some basic educational standards, then I disagree that there's a fundamental "right" to home-school, because the rights of those kids trump the whim of the parent.

I agree with this post.

Adept Havelock
03-06-2008, 07:31 PM
*shrug* I agree with the ruling. The courts did not strike down home-schooling, they just insisted that the parents prove they know what the hell they are doing.

I'm more worried about the rights of the kids here than I am of the parents, because the really good ones who do home schooling well are going to be fine. Suppose the parents want the kids to stay home for whatever stupid reason and they use home-schooling as a lame excuse? Suppose the parents are just retarded? (or merely stupid if not clinically retarded). Or lazy?

If the parents show the desire and ability to do a good job with home-schooling, then I'm absolutely on board with requireing the government to let them do it, but there has to be SOME kind of standards. If you cant or wont meet some basic educational standards, then I disagree that there's a fundamental "right" to home-school, because the rights of those kids trump the whim of the parent.

In the law, the best interests of the children ALWAYS, ALWAYS take precedence over the rights of the parents, and the kids have a right to some kind of an education. You can whine about public school if you want, but thats not a blanket pass to get out of showing that a particular home-schooling parent can do and is doing an adequate job.

I'm inclined to agree.

The state doesn't let you perform surgery on your kid without accreditation, but I suppose that also means your kid "is state property".

DaneMcCloud
03-06-2008, 07:38 PM
"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,"

This is the dumbest friggin thing I have heard out of liberals since, well, that thread about Obama

This is about the dumbest post I've read in a long time on the 'Planet.

California is the largest state in the Union according to population. The economy in California is the fifth largest in the world - larger than the country of France. Allowing anyone to home school without credentials in this state is tenuous at best.

America is already trailing several other countries in education. We're losing tech jobs and our science is no longer number one worldwide. And while I am usually against more government involvement, this actually makes sense on many levels.

The children of California public school are already behind in education due to the large illegal (and legal) Hispanic population. Mixed language classes tend to go much slower due to the language barrier. And while you might say "Hey, I'll just home-school", who's to say that the parent is actually qualified to home school?

I don't know what the solution for better education in America would be do I do think it's time for a National Language requirement. There are far, far too many organizations and government agencies that cater to Spanish speaking people. Not only is it slowing their development regarding education, but it's going to create a huge rift in this country in merely 20 years.

But "Home-School" educators should be required to pass certain tests or to have certain credentials. Otherwise, we're just further dumbing down the population.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 07:41 PM
There should be checks like standardized testing to make sure the kids measure up. I think that makes sense.

But I won't be surprised when leftier locales try to brand homeschooling as child abuse...

Cochise
03-06-2008, 07:43 PM
America is already trailing several other countries in education. We're losing tech jobs and our science is no longer number one worldwide.

We're not losing tech jobs because our tech workers are poorly educated, just like we don't lose manufacturing jobs because people are unqualified for those.

DaneMcCloud
03-06-2008, 07:48 PM
We're not losing tech jobs because our tech workers are poorly educated, just like we don't lose manufacturing jobs because people are unqualified for those.

Then please explain to me why at Toyota/Lexus Financial in Torrance, CA (where my brother was a PM last year), 60% of the tech employees were from Asia. Or at Yahoo (his next PM job), there were more than 50% Asians.

And I'm not talking about Americans of Asian descent. I'm talking about people here working with a Green Card. And it certainly isn't because of cheap labor because most of these guys were making 100k+ or near that figure.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 08:17 PM
Then please explain to me why at Toyota/Lexus Financial in Torrance, CA (where my brother was a PM last year), 60% of the tech employees were from Asia. Or at Yahoo (his next PM job), there were more than 50% Asians.

And I'm not talking about Americans of Asian descent. I'm talking about people here working with a Green Card. And it certainly isn't because of cheap labor because most of these guys were making 100k+ or near that figure.

Well, those people come here because they have a skill with which you can earn a high salary in the US, or they may have come here for higher education and gotten a job here as well. That is the case with a lot of them.

I've read in a few places recently that the number of degrees being conferred in CS and related disciplines in the US has also gone down in recent years, so the market for people here today with those skills is becoming tighter.

I thought you meant IT functions being outsourced overseas... that is just a function of the ability to compartmentalize those services and complete them off-site at a dramatically lower cost. The same thing has gone on with accounting or HR functions. (not out of country, but out of company) In many cases it's cheaper to hire specialists rather than build and maintain your own infrastructure if that's not what your company does. You still need people in the same geographic region to recruit talent or do some other types of work for now, but you don't need people in the same region to write code or do a lot of other types of work, which opens the possibility to access the cheap labor market.

In my opinion America's place in the world economy is as an innovator. We develop new things using our technology and abundance of capital available for investment, as well as the very highly skilled work force and produce them for a time when we're the best or the only people who can do it at all. Eventually those services become commoditized and can be done elsewhere cheaper, and we move on to something else. It used to be that we were the only country who could produce clothing because we had the means of production, but they do that in Bangladesh and everywhere else now.

We have to stay agile and keep moving forward, workers have to keep adding skills and making themselves marketable in order to compete. It's not right or wrong, it's just the facts of life.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 08:21 PM
Then please explain to me why at Toyota/Lexus Financial in Torrance, CA (where my brother was a PM last year), 60% of the tech employees were from Asia. Or at Yahoo (his next PM job), there were more than 50% Asians.

And I'm not talking about Americans of Asian descent. I'm talking about people here working with a Green Card. And it certainly isn't because of cheap labor because most of these guys were making 100k+ or near that figure.

Also, I think you may see high Asian population (if you mean east asian) in those jobs in California because there's already a much higher asian population, I bet, than there are in places like this part of the country. I have worked with some east Asians, particularly Chinese, but many more who are from India, came here for college, and elected to stay. Some I don't know how they arrived, one I think applied directly after college from India, but I think most of them came here for education and then stayed.

There are some from the mideast and some from asia, but India is by far the nationality that seems most dominant here.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 08:51 PM
*shrug* I agree with the ruling. The courts did not strike down home-schooling, they just insisted that the parents prove they know what the hell they are doing.

I'm more worried about the rights of the kids here than I am of the parents, because the really good ones who do home schooling well are going to be fine. Suppose the parents want the kids to stay home for whatever stupid reason and they use home-schooling as a lame excuse? Suppose the parents are just retarded? (or merely stupid if not clinically retarded). Or lazy?

If the parents show the desire and ability to do a good job with home-schooling, then I'm absolutely on board with requireing the government to let them do it, but there has to be SOME kind of standards. If you cant or wont meet some basic educational standards, then I disagree that there's a fundamental "right" to home-school, because the rights of those kids trump the whim of the parent.

In the law, the best interests of the children ALWAYS, ALWAYS take precedence over the rights of the parents, and the kids have a right to some kind of an education. You can whine about public school if you want, but thats not a blanket pass to get out of showing that a particular home-schooling parent can do and is doing an adequate job.


For the kids! People are stupid! We have to protect the government's kids from their parents!

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 08:55 PM
The fact of the matter is there already is some state monitoring and regulation in the states that allow homeschooling. In fact here, you can homeschool and even use the public school labs, gym and join their sports teams. They even allow the public/private school Bright Futures Scholarship program to go to homeschool children.

However, the homeschoolers do far better than public school kids. This is a fact. Many of them excel. The ones that abuse it and don't educate are more the EXCEPTION than the rule. Because to take on such an awesome load of work and responsibilty is not something a careless, irresponsible I don't care, let-somebody-else-raise my kids type parents would take on. In fact some hire professional tutors to handle what the parent can't do.

So what's the beef?

It's just baloney.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 08:57 PM
al north I don't know where you get this idea that because the govt monopolizes education that they're the only ones who can do it or do a good job. It's just not backed up with any fact.

In fact, teaching reading, is one of the easiest things in the world to do if you have the right methods. Because I was the one who mostly taught my daughter to read. I thought it was daunting at first but one can be trained and learn it with the guidance of a good tutor or former teacher. It's not rocket science.

My daughter was so bored, and too far ahead of her fellow Kindergardeners I had to find another school for her. She was reading at age 4. And I know parents who did it as early as age 3, and one at age 2.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 08:58 PM
Is that because you think those kids would stop going to school at age 12?

I don't know what they'd do. That's up to them and their parents to decide, not for me to sit and guess. I do know that the ones who weren't into it would no longer be required to go, thus improving the educational environment for everyone else at absolutely no one's exclusion.



If it's the parents choice, who would want their kids to stop going to school after 6th grade?

I wouldn't imagine there would be many parents who would. Seems like they might be motivated to keep their kids interested in school at that point.

What would their kids do?

Don't ask me. That's for the parents to determine.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 08:59 PM
I'm inclined to agree.

The state doesn't let you perform surgery on your kid without accreditation, but I suppose that also means your kid "is state property".



You carry yourself to be someone who is above such silly straw man arguments. It's good to see that you're a mortal.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:01 PM
For the kids! People are stupid! We have to protect the government's kids from their parents!

In many cases, yes. This isnt "Liberal" or insane. Children are not the unquestioned property of the parents, they are independant entities whose guardianship and care belongs to the parents unless they prove themselves unfit. In those cases, the parents can and should be ordered to act in the best interests of the child, or even lose custody in extreme cases.

To give a few examples, If a parent is abusive, they lose custody, so there certainly isnt a constitutional right to have permenant custody no matter what, but no one is complaining about that.

If some insane religious nut's belief is that blood transfusions are forbidden and they would rather risk their kid's life based on their own ignorant whim, they can be overruled and no one complains.

Likewise, the kids have a right to a reasonable education, and if the parents are unable or unwilling to meet those standards, then they have no right to harm their kid's future with a woefully inadequate home-school.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:03 PM
al north I don't know where you get this idea that because the govt monopolizes education that they're the only ones who can do it or do a good job. It's just not backed up with any fact.

I believe you need to re-read my post, and then point out where I said the government is the only one who can do it or do a good job.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:03 PM
Kids were educated at home for hundreds of years. They learned to read from mom and from reading the Bible. There were more literate than kids, even adults today.

That's why we could have men like Jefferson who could write a Declaration of Indepence and a Consitution.

Just try and read the Federalist Papers which were after dinner reading on the front porch by families. Few could handle that material today.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:07 PM
If some insane religious nut's belief is that blood transfusions are forbidden and they would rather risk their kid's life based on their own ignorant whim, they can be overruled and no one complains.
Except that's considered a conflicting right with freedom of religion and some of those cases have been overturned supporting freedom of religion. As in the case of some Christian Scientists. It's not something I would do to a child but that is murky area...and it doesn't always turn out this way.

Likewise, the kids have a right to a reasonable education, and if the parents are unable or unwilling to meet those standards, then they have no right to harm their kid's future with a woefully inadequate home-school.

I'd say putting them in a public school is more harmful. Bullying, violence, drugs ( including legal ritalin), gunmen shooting people.

And no, there is no natural or inalienable "right" to an education. Our Constitution doesn't even list it as an inalienable right. It's a benefit that is voted on and a privilege but it is not a right.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:07 PM
This article shows a pretty decent example of a successful home-school process in my opinion.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/03/04/news/homeschool030408.txt

In this case there is a central "acadamy" where the parents go twice a week to meet with teachers to review the child's progress, discuss what should be done next, and map out the learning. Then the parents go home and home-school for the week. Rinse, repeat with the teacher's supervision, with the child coming in for an occasional standardized test. Sometimes they load up the week with multiple subjects, sometimes they let the child focus on only one subject at a time, sometimes they include optional subjects that arent required by the state.

They teach the material required by the state under the supervision of a credentialed teacher, and the students generally do very well and often go on to college.

Some people may quibble about some kind of social stunting, but this seems to work pretty well to me.

Mr. Laz
03-06-2008, 09:09 PM
if parents want to home school they should be able to

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:11 PM
I believe you need to re-read my post, and then point out where I said the government is the only one who can do it or do a good job.
Fair enough...mostly. It was generally implied that the state knew what they were doing standards-wise which they don't. Just look at their results...even compared to earlier public ed in this country. The standards of the state are minimal and very low. How dare they judge homeschooling parents!!

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:12 PM
This article shows a pretty decent example of a successful home-school process in my opinion.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/03/04/news/homeschool030408.txt

In this case there is a central "acadamy" where the parents go twice a week to meet with teachers to review the child's progress, discuss what should be done next, and map out the learning. Then the parents go home and home-school for the week. Rinse, repeat with the teacher's supervision, with the child coming in for an occasional standardized test. Sometimes they load up the week with multiple subjects, sometimes they let the child focus on only one subject at a time, sometimes they include optional subjects that arent required by the state.

They teach the material required by the state under the supervision of a credentialed teacher, and the students generally do very well and often go on to college.

Some people may quibble about some kind of social stunting, but this seems to work pretty well to me.

No one should be required to do it that way.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:13 PM
I'd say putting them in a public school is more harmful. Bullying, violence, drugs ( including legal ritalin), gunmen shooting people.

Again, this does not give the parents a free pass to do whatever the hell they want.

And not there is no natural or inalienable "right" to an education. Our Constitution doesn't even list it as an inalienable right. It's a benefit that is voted on and a privilege but it is not a right.

Its not a question of rights, its a question of whats in the best interests of the child. Its obvious that a basic education is in their best interests, and if that education is readily available, the parents cant deny it unless they can provide an acceptable alternative.

This is the same guiding principle that goes on in family courts across the country in all 50 states. You can have a reasonable parent vs a more spiteful parent situation, but if the 2nd parent is a good parent to their child and theres an added compelling reason for the child to remain with the 2nd parent (better provider, better location, whatever), thats where the kid goes even if the 1st parent would seem to "deserve" custody more. When the interests of the child conflict with the whim or perceived rights of the parent, the parent should and does always lose out.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:15 PM
No one should be required to do it that way.

Fine, if you dont want teacher supervision, then get your own teaching certificate.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:17 PM
Except that's considered a conflicting right with freedom of religion and some of those cases have been overturned supporting freedom of religion. As in the case of some Christian Scientists. It's not something I would do to a child but that is murky area...and it doesn't always turn out this way.

Actually its pretty clear-cut and decided. An adult can be stupid and kill themselves because the invisible man in the sky told them other people's blood contains cooties, but they have NO right to kill their children. This is a pretty good way to lose custody to the state.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:19 PM
Again, this does not give the parents a free pass to do whatever the hell they want.
No one is saying that...but that's not really saying much as it's too general. It's a free country and they have and should have the right to educate their children within their values. If they care about their kids, and most homeschooling parents care a lot about their kids, are in fact more conscientious then they will select material that will make them successful and meet the requires of the work world or college. That's just the market creating the necessity to make capable, literate adults. The type of parent you think is the norm in this camp is just not the norm.

Again, its not a question of rights, its a question of whats in the best interests of the child. Its obvious that a basic education is in their best interests, and if that education is readily available, the parents cant deny it unless they can provide an acceptable alternative.
Of course it is, but homeschooling parents are way above the average parent in this area and do a far better job. It's the government schools that don't do what's in the best interests of the children. They're just authoritarian about it. Let call these schools what they really are: government schools.

The state mainly wants to be involved so they can get their PC conditioning in on the kids mind. It's just a battle for their minds. Afterall, Dewey said education was more to socialize the kid with acedemics secondary. The state does not want well educated children. But parents do.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 09:20 PM
Fine, if you dont want teacher supervision, then get your own teaching certificate.


Why would someone need a teaching certificate to teach their own kids? I can understand needing a certificate to teach in a public system. But in a private system like home schooling, the public has no say. It's a private matter.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 09:23 PM
Children are not the unquestioned property of the parents, they are independant entities whose guardianship and care belongs to the parents unless they prove themselves unfit.


Thank you.

Except in your case, they are proven unfit until they can get the proper paperwork to be certified as fit? Don't tell me that isn't liberal or insane. It's absolutely both.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:23 PM
Why would someone need a teaching certificate to teach their own kids? I can understand needing a certificate to teach in a public system. But in a private system like home schooling, the public has no say. It's a private matter.

The best interests of the child trump "parents rights".

If the parents cant *objectively* show evidence that they have the ability and the training to do a decent job of education, then they cant be allowed to harm their child's future through their own willful ignorance.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:25 PM
Why would someone need a teaching certificate to teach their own kids? I can understand needing a certificate to teach in a public system. But in a private system like home schooling, the public has no say. It's a private matter.
I don't I don't know what a certificate means. I thought it was just a degree in education. Some have to retrain those with these degrees. Any moron can pass college these days. And accreditation of schools is done by private groups. It is not done by the govt as far as I've been told.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:26 PM
Thank you.

Except in your case, they are proven unfit until they can get the proper paperwork to be certified as fit? Don't tell me that isn't liberal or insane. It's absolutely both.

Does that also mean I dont need a license to drive? Does that mean I dont need to graduate from medical school to perform an operation on my own child at home? Of course not.

This is not a criminal situation where we must presume people to be innocent (of child abuse) till proven guilty. The vast majority of people are not qualified to teach kids in school due to lack of training or ability, so its not unreasonable to demand that a parent show that they have the ability and training to teach.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 09:27 PM
The best interests of the child trump "parents rights".

Who gets to determine the best interests of the child? In your view, the state owns the children and are giving permission to the parents to bring them up for them. It's liberal lunacy.


If the parents cant *objectively* show evidence that they have the ability and the training to do a decent job of education, then they cant be allowed to harm their child's future through their own willful ignorance.

Once again, you're guilty of abusing your children untily you prove that you're not abusing your children. Prove to the government that you're not abusing our property that we're grudgingly allowing you to "educate."

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:27 PM
The best interests of the child trump "parents rights".

If the parents cant *objectively* show evidence that they have the ability and the training to do a decent job of education, then they cant be allowed to harm their child's future through their own willful ignorance.


What is in the child's best interests is a matter of opinion to a large degree. It is subjective. The parent is usually the one who has the best interests of the child in mind. Not the state. Not unless there is blatant and obvious neglect and abuse.

To think that the state is educating kids is the problem with this comparison.

DaneMcCloud
03-06-2008, 09:27 PM
if parents want to home school they should be able to


Okay, let's say that a large majority of the Hispanic population of California suddenly decides "The hell with English-speaking teachers and school, we'll home-school our children in OUR language". Let me tell you, that's a very real possibility.

If that's the case, doesn't the State Government have a responsibility to step in and make requirements for home schooled children?

It seems like most of the people who've responded in this thread aren't thinking outside of the box. They're not Californians who deal with the reality every day of dealing with a large segment of the population who has no interest in learning English or getting a proper "American" education.

Unfortunately, the state government will need to intervene. Otherwise, there is going to be a catastrophic split in this state.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:28 PM
Who gets to determine the best interests of the child?

Who else? The courts.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:29 PM
What is in the child's best interests is a matter of opinion to a large degree. It's is subjective.

Sometimes that is true. Thats why we appoint and pay family law judges to make these difficult subjective decisions.

Jenson71
03-06-2008, 09:30 PM
I don't know what they'd do. That's up to them and their parents to decide, not for me to sit and guess. I do know that the ones who weren't into it would no longer be required to go, thus improving the educational environment for everyone else at absolutely no one's exclusion.

I wouldn't imagine there would be many parents who would. Seems like they might be motivated to keep their kids interested in school at that point.

Don't ask me. That's for the parents to determine.

It seems sad that a sense of civic virtue is dying. Despite our founding after the enlightment and Protestant Reformantion, there was still a great sense of attaining what was good for the society as a whole. Extreme liberal Individualism had not rotted every aspect of our thinking, to the point where we didn't care if the whole world but me and my kid were uneducated. "That's their concern, leave me alone! You're invading me!"

I also think you're giving a lot of credit to parents who might not deserve it and not giving enough credit to teachers out there that love to teach, have studied it, and make it their career.

Then again, maybe I'm just not giving enough credit to parents and too much credit to teachers.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:34 PM
Does that also mean I dont need a license to drive? Does that mean I dont need to graduate from medical school to perform an operation on my own child at home? Of course not.
Getting a license to drive is to drive on a public road. The state can regulate what it owns. It does not own your children.

This is not a criminal situation where we must presume people to be innocent (of child abuse) till proven guilty. The vast majority of people are not qualified to teach kids in school due to lack of training or ability, so its not unreasonable to demand that a parent show that they have the ability and training to teach.

No this is not true. A good example is those who learn the Doman Method which began with brain damaged kids. It was adopted to teach babies how to read. Yes babies. Now I don't happen to agree with this philosophy as I think it pushes reading too early and too hard, but it's been successful. My gf used it on her kid and swore by it. The Doman Institute found that it was the blonde bimbos that did a better job at implementing their program. It was the college educated ones that were not as successful because they already had their heads filled with different ideas.

I'd say a vast majority can be trained to teach their kids. Parents teach their kids things all the time. In fact most learning took place in the home at one time. Yet, people were more literate than they are today.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:36 PM
I'd say a vast majority can be trained to teach their kids.

Who should do that training, and how is it verified?

My basic point is just that the parents cant just say "I'll do the teaching, and you can just butt out without asking me any questions. I dont have to prove anything to anyone that I can teach."

I dont know what the CA standard is, and we could possibly argue if its too strict or not, I have no idea whats required to get a "teaching certificate". I do agree with the basic premise that the homeschool parent must meet certain standards to prove they have the ability and training to teach. If these standards are too high or too low in CA, thats a whole different arguement.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:37 PM
It seems sad that a sense of civic virtue is dying. Despite our founding after the enlightment and Protestant Reformantion, there was still a great sense of attaining what was good for the society as a whole. Extreme liberal Individualism had not rotted every aspect of our thinking, to the point where we didn't care if the whole world but me and my kid were uneducated. "That's their concern, leave me alone! You're invading me!"

I also think you're giving a lot of credit to parents who might not deserve it and not giving enough credit to teachers out there that love to teach, have studied it, and make it their career.

Then again, maybe I'm just not giving enough credit to parents and too much credit to teachers.

The reason we could have an Enlightenment is because there were no govt schools kicking out kids on a cookie-cutter assembly line to all think alike. Private education, particularly in the home, was based on a more individual approach. In fact some of our greatest minds, including scientists had an unconventional education per our standards.

Isaac Newton was a poor student and dropped out. Later a tutor inspired him an he resumed his studies with gusto.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 09:38 PM
Does that also mean I dont need a license to drive? Does that mean I dont need to graduate from medical school to perform an operation on my own child at home? Of course not.

Hello Apples! Meet oranges!


This is not a criminal situation where we must presume people to be innocent (of child abuse) till proven guilty.

The hell it's not. It's absolutely that. They/you are alleging child abuse. The logic follows that if you aren't certified by the government to teach your kids, then you are abusing them. And if you defy their certification? How do you think that's going to end? The government will come in by FORCE and you will eventually have to capitulate to their demands regardless if you were parent of the year and your kid was reading four grades ahead.

"Oh it's not that big a deal... Just go get the certification."

I don't ever want to run across a post of yours taking any sort of pride in this being the land of the free ever again. You've pretty much proven that is nothing but a feel good platitude. You're apparently willing to let the state run roughshod over people "for the kids," whether the kids need protecting or not.


The vast majority of people are not qualified to teach kids in school due to lack of training or ability, so its not unreasonable to demand that a parent show that they have the ability and training to teach.

The vast majority of people don't home school. But the vast majority of the ones who do are some of the most admirable people this nation has to offer.

It's absolutely unreasonable to force them to impose public educational standards on them. They are not part of the public educational system. If you can prove abuse, then level charges and do it the right way. Don't condemn a whole state/nation of home schoolers under the guise of "helping the children" by imposing failed government standards on them. What a great way to wreck the best schooling this nation can provide.

banyon
03-06-2008, 09:40 PM
It's issues like this that make me understand the "Liberals this" and "Liberals that" meme that gets out there. Trying to say that there is no constitutional right to home school is about as dishonest as it gets. There's no constitutional mandate for the government to control schools period -- not to collect money for it... not to regulate it. It doesn't exist.

The Court was right saying that there isn't a Consitutional right to home school (federally).

But when you turn that around and say there's no mandate (federally) to control schools, that's correct to a degree as well. In this situation though, it's a State law being passed, so as long as it doesn't violate due process or interfere with a federally controlled area of legislation, then there shouldn't be anything in the Federal Consitution to prohibit California passing their law either. That is, unless you are wanting some more federal "judge-made law" to overturn the California legislature's action.

banyon
03-06-2008, 09:43 PM
By the way this is likely motivated by gang activity I'd bet.

Adjudicating kids for truancy is one of the best ways to find out about gang involvement. If these kids are homeschooled without oversight, then they can basically just go do what they want during the day and the 5-0 is none the wiser.

Sometimes the parents are bangers too, so they are probably abusing this lax scheme to have kids deal for them, etc.
Opposing this basically makes things considerably more difficult for anti-gang law enforcement work.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:44 PM
They/you are alleging child abuse. The logic follows that if you aren't certified by the government to teach your kids, then you are abusing them.

Nope. If public education were theoretically unavailable in some remote location, not that the parents are denying it, its just not there without paying a huge price, then obviously there is no question of whats in the "best interests of the child". Education is then just not available at all and thats the end of it.

If education is readily available, then its in the best interests of the child to get that education. The parents cant just arbitrarily keep their kids out of school to work at home, for example. So, naturally the courts would demand that parent to explain why they seem to be acting against the best interests of the child, and the parents answer is that they are teaching at home. Are we to take them at their word no questions asked? Hell no.

We can argue whether or not CA's standards are too high or too low, but if the parents are going to keep kids out of school, that is an action that on its face looks like its against the best interest of the child. Just like if a kid is walking around with bruises and cuts, on its face that looks like its child abuse.

It could be perfectly innocent, but the parents are going to be questioned and investigated. Similarly, if you appear to act against the best interests of the child in education, its up to YOU to PROVE that you have the ability and the training to teach, OR that you are acting under the supervision of a qualified tutor or teacher.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:45 PM
Who should do that training, and how is it verified? Your question shows the difference between you and I in philosophy. I think education can be as varied as one wants it to be. In fact I'd say it works best when suited to the child's individuality and interests. So I can't answer your question.

My basic point is just that the parents cant just say "I'll do the teaching, and you can just butt out without asking me any questions. I dont have to prove anything to anyone that I can teach."

I dont know what the CA standard is, and we could possibly argue if its too strict or not, I have no idea whats required to get a "teaching certificate". I do agree with the basic premise that the homeschool parent must meet certain standards to prove they have the ability and training to teach. If these standards are too high or too low in CA, thats a whole different arguement.

I think the state can only set a minimum on what subjects need to be covered to graduate. Then just let the kid take the tests everyone else takes. Even if a GED. That tells them what they need to go back and get. The only way I see the training thing being an issue is if the parent was educated in a govt school or has a certificate since I feel most teachers need to be retrained. IMO A certificate doesn't guarantee a good teacher.

I teach college as an adjunct professor. I have no masters degree. I get good reviews from students and peers. In fact I've received letters later from students thanking me in helping them get a job with the skills I gave since I am more real world based. I even had a 20 year old student once stand at the front of the room on his final, which was a Power Point presentation claim he was a changed man.

banyon
03-06-2008, 09:49 PM
Kids were educated at home for hundreds of years. They learned to read from mom and from reading the Bible. There were more literate than kids, even adults today.

That's why we could have men like Jefferson who could write a Declaration of Indepence and a Consitution.

Just try and read the Federalist Papers which were after dinner reading on the front porch by families. Few could handle that material today.

Sometimes your posts read like the mutterings of a street corner person. Sure there were well-educated people during the founding. These people also were often the scions of very wealthy families who employed private tutors as well. I'm happy for you that you managed to home school some of your kids, that's great. But MOST people were illiterate and far less knowledgable than today. Hell, a lot of kids were already in agriculture or industrial jobs by age 12, so there wasn't much time to learn anything other than their trade. Kids have really only regressed in the last 30 years or so (coinciding with having both parents working, IMO).

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:50 PM
The vast majority of people don't home school. But the vast majority of the ones who do are some of the most admirable people this nation has to offer.
That's right. It's damn hard work and takes dedication.

It's absolutely unreasonable to force them to impose public educational standards on them. They are not part of the public educational system. If you can prove abuse, then level charges and do it the right way. Don't condemn a whole state/nation of home schoolers under the guise of "helping the children" by imposing failed government standards on them. What a great way to wreck the best schooling this nation can provide.

But, but, but the government knows what is best for each of us!

I think what's missing in this debate is the actual good job homeschooling parents do. And it is no longer the domain of religious folks anymore. There is an exodus out of the govt system for a reason. They're not delivering results. So it sounds to me that the state doesn't like the competition. And the ability to mold the minds of the next generation.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 09:53 PM
Al North, did you know that there's all types of support, support groups and tools out there for homeschooling parents? It's a huge network...and they help each other.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:54 PM
I think what's missing in this debate is the actual good job homeschooling parents do. And it is no longer the domain of religious folks anymore. There is an exodus out of the govt system for a reason. They're not delivering results. So it sounds to me that the state doesn't like the competition. And the ability to mold the minds of the next generation.

Banyon and I probably part ways here, but my answer is the old conservative approach with vouchers and spirited free market competition between private schools. "No child left behind" on steroids.

Reallocate huge chunks of our spending on public education for private school vouchers, and let the free market work with some guidelines. Parents generally want their kids to be educated but sometimes are limited in what to do about it, trapped into sending kids to overcrowded schools. If they get a voucher and the ability to shop, then the best schools prosper, and their kids benefit.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 09:56 PM
It seems sad that a sense of civic virtue is dying. Despite our founding after the enlightment and Protestant Reformantion, there was still a great sense of attaining what was good for the society as a whole. Extreme liberal Individualism had not rotted every aspect of our thinking, to the point where we didn't care if the whole world but me and my kid were uneducated. "That's their concern, leave me alone! You're invading me!"

Oh I see... If people aren't allowed the liberty to decide for themselves how their children are being educated, then those people are shitting all over the sacred cow "society." And what's more important than "society?"

Guess what? America was founded on individual liberty. Nowhere in the constitution will you find the words "society." Society has zero rights over the individual. Society isn't even an actual existing entity. What is it? Can you define society? Where does "society" begin, and where does it end? Society doesn't have the capability to choose, or act. "Society" has no rights.

And my point wasn't "That's their concern, leave me alone! You're invading me." It was "That's their concern, leave them alone! You're invading them!" They're the ones with the rights, remember?


I also think you're giving a lot of credit to parents who might not deserve it and not giving enough credit to teachers out there that love to teach, have studied it, and make it their career.

I don't understand why a thread about home schoolers needs to stop to praise public school teachers when they're not a part of the topic. Sure there are plenty of fine public school teachers. What does that have to do with homeschoolers?

banyon
03-06-2008, 09:57 PM
Banyon and I probably part ways here, but my answer is the old conservative approach with vouchers and spirited free market competition between private schools. "No child left behind" on steroids.

Reallocate huge chunks of our spending on public education for private school vouchers, and let the free market work with some guidelines. Parents generally want their kids to be educated but sometimes are limited in what to do about it, trapped into sending kids to overcrowded schools. If they get a voucher and the ability to shop, then the best schools prosper, and their kids benefit.

I'm not necessarily anti-voucher as long as it's tied to a qualifying income threshhold. We've got to try something different, the situation is deplorable.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 09:59 PM
I'm not necessarily anti-voucher as long as it's tied to a qualifying income threshhold. We've got to try something different, the situation is deplorable.

meh, ok I'll go along with some means-testing. If someone is wealthy enough to pay for their own private schooling, thats acceptable. Not the most "pure" approach, but politically this probably doesnt have a chance without means-testing.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 10:01 PM
By the way this is likely motivated by gang activity I'd bet.

Adjudicating kids for truancy is one of the best ways to find out about gang involvement. If these kids are homeschooled without oversight, then they can basically just go do what they want during the day and the 5-0 is none the wiser.

Sometimes the parents are bangers too, so they are probably abusing this lax scheme to have kids deal for them, etc.
Opposing this basically makes things considerably more difficult for anti-gang law enforcement work.

So the way to combat this is to force all home schoolers across the state to get government certified, instead of going after the actual law breakers?

I'm guessing that this type of rationalization for subjugating everyone to the failed public standards is popular. It makes taking away people's liberty sound noble when you are doing it in the name of twarting gang banging...

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 10:02 PM
Banyon and I probably part ways here, but my answer is the old conservative approach with vouchers and spirited free market competition between private schools. "No child left behind" on steroids.

Reallocate huge chunks of our spending on public education for private school vouchers, and let the free market work with some guidelines. Parents generally want their kids to be educated but sometimes are limited in what to do about it, trapped into sending kids to overcrowded schools. If they get a voucher and the ability to shop, then the best schools prosper, and their kids benefit.

Well, you're probably going to be surprised to hear me say that I am against vouchers. It sounds good on paper and I applaud the introduction of market principles in education. The problem is what the govt funds it controls. You can bet your bottom dollar, if you study the effects of govt the way I have, that this will result in govt setting excessive mandates, controls and regulations which will ultimately destroy what makes private education a step up generally from govt schools. ( there are some private schools that are no better). Vouchers will destroy private education just the way the govt destroyed healthcare. I'd rather they stay out of it altogether.

I'd say I prefer tuition tax credits. Boy! I could use it as I pay a lot in tuition even though I split it. However, the govt could even try to control via that by saying your school has to have this, or that or we don't give you the credit. If you want something for cheap, or free then you don't value it enough.

banyon
03-06-2008, 10:05 PM
So the way to combat this is to force all home schoolers across the state to get government certified, instead of going after the actual law breakers?

I'm guessing that this type of rationalization for subjugating everyone to the failed public standards is popular. It makes taking away people's liberty sound noble when you are doing it in the name of twarting gang banging...

Well you can't go after the law breakers if they aren't breaking a law.

Otherwise the conversation goes like this:

Cop: Hello Mr. Jorge Gonzales (suspected drug dealer and Norteno gang leader). I got a report from the school that your son Jesus (new gang initiate and suspected drug runner) hasn't been there for about three weeks. Where's he at?



Jorge: Oh, he's home school, Holmes.

Cop: Oh. Are you schooling him right now then?

Jorge: Yeah, he's on a field trip. I gave him my permission slip.

Cop: when do you normally teach him.

Jorge: It varies, yo.

Cop: Ok. sorry to bother you then.

Also, I'd better that this is probably a bigger problem in California, which is why it makes sense for them to address it in their own way. Probably in Idaho they don't have as many of those type of situations. Why not let them at least address it with certification?

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 10:06 PM
So the way to combat this is to force all home schoolers across the state to get government certified, instead of going after the actual law breakers?
Oh gawd! That is so disgustingly fascist I can't believe an American is advocating that. Especially when some private schools aren't even accredited. Especially, when accreditation is done by private groups and not the govt.

I mean it's like manufacturers wanting the cherished and highly valued Underwriter Laboratories seal to validate the quality of their product. That's private.

I'm guessing that this type of rationalization for subjugating everyone to the failed public standards is popular. It makes taking away people's liberty sound noble when you are doing it in the name of twarting gang banging...

Have to say I agree here with Jonah Goldberg...it's liberal fascism.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 10:07 PM
I like the idea of vouchers, but I agree that excessive government regulation would destroy whatever advantages the free market could provide. That's why I favor lowering the age of compulsory attendance. I think that clearing the system of the people who aren't committed to getting an education would help both the private and the public school system.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 10:08 PM
Well you can't go after the law breakers if they aren't breaking a law.

Otherwise the conversation goes like this:

Cop: Hello Mr. Jorge Gonzales (suspected drug dealer and Norteno gang leader). I got a report from the school that your son Jesus (new gang initiate and suspected drug runner) hasn't been there for about three weeks. Where's he at?


Also, I'd better that this is probably a bigger problem in California, which is why it makes sense for them to address it in their own way. Probably in Idaho they don't have as many of those type of situations. Why not let them at least address it with certification?
Jorge: Oh, he's home school, Holmes.

Cop: Oh. Are you schooling him right now then?

Jorge: Yeah, he's on a field trip. I gave him my permission slip.

Cop: when do you normally teach him.

Jorge: It varies, yo.

Cop: Ok. sorry to bother you then.



See , I expect straw men like this from you.

banyon
03-06-2008, 10:09 PM
Well, you're probably going to be surprised to hear me say that I am against vouchers. It sounds good on paper and I applaud the introduction of market principles in education. The problem is what the govt funds it controls. You can bet your bottom dollar, if you study the effects of govt the way I have, that this will result in govt setting excessive mandates, controls and regulations which will ultimately destroy what makes private education a step up generally from govt schools. ( there are some private schools that are no better). Vouchers will destroy private education just the way the govt destroyed healthcare. I'd rather they stay out of it altogether.

I'd say I prefer tuition tax credits. Boy! I could use it as I pay a lot in tuition even though I split it. However, the govt could even try to control via that by saying your school has to have this, or that or we don't give you the credit. If you want something for cheap, or free then you don't value it enough.


The answer is to do nothing and hope against hope that the problem just magically goes away.

banyon
03-06-2008, 10:10 PM
See , I expect straw men like this from you.

There's no straw man. Truancy and gang activity is intimately related. Read anything on it.

I've done child in need of care dockets in this state. 80% of the kids there are admitted gang members.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 10:10 PM
I was talking to a woman the other day who is not trained as a teacher and has no degree but she started her own school. She puts parents under her who want to homeschool but prefer to have guidance. Her own daughter attended since Grade 2 and got 1400 on her SAT scores and pretty nearly a full scholarship to college. One from the state and one from the college and a grant. She writes individualized programs for the kids.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 10:12 PM
Oh gawd! That is so disgustingly fascist I can't believe an American is advocating that. Especially when some private schools aren't even accredited. Especially, when accreditation is done by private groups and not the govt.

I mean it's like manufacturers wanting the cherished and highly valued Underwriter Laboratories seal to validate the quality of their product. That's private.



I don't mind private accreditation. Just so long as it's not forced. If I'm a private school, I would absolutely want to get my school accredited by respectable private organizations committed to improving education. That would help me market my school, and get publicity for it.

I'd shun public accreditation like it was the kiss of satan himself.

banyon
03-06-2008, 10:14 PM
The problem isn't these exceptional parents who go out of their way toprovide an indivual home schooling for their kids, the problem is the dead beat ones who refuse. I knowit's always let's set the default to "government is evil", but what else are you supposed to do with these dead beat parents who abuse this system?

Taco John
03-06-2008, 10:15 PM
There's no straw man. Truancy and gang activity is intimately related. Read anything on it.

I've done child in need of care dockets in this state. 80% of the kids there are admitted gang members.

So what does any of this have anything to do with forcing law abiding parents to subjugating themselves to public standards?

And let me ask you then... The state puts the law into affect. The top homeschoolers with the top homeschooled students in California scoffs at the law and says "no way. I'm not going to submit to your laughable standards. Stuff your public accreditation where the sun don't shine." For how many days should the state take their children away? Until they submit to the law, presumably?

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 10:17 PM
I don't mind private accreditation. Just so long as it's not forced. If I'm a private school, I would absolutely want to get my school accredited by respectable private organizations committed to improving education. That would help me market my school, and get publicity for it.

I'd shun public accreditation like it was the kiss of satan himself.

Oh no! It isn't forced. It's accreditation is voluntary participatory private system just like the college system. It is not done publically at all. It had better stay that way too. I'm not sure how a public school fits in. I'd think they wouldn't need it.

BTW my daughter's school is not accredited but the US Dept of Ed considers it one of the best schools in the country. A lot of kids get the Presidents Award for Academic Achievement each year. By age 14,15 or 16 if they take the GED they are considered HS graduates.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 10:22 PM
The problem isn't these exceptional parents who go out of their way toprovide an indivual home schooling for their kids, the problem is the dead beat ones who refuse.

Wrong. The problem is people over regulating the non-problem parents in order to nail the problem parents. The problem is treating everyone like they're guilty of being the problem parents.


I knowit's always let's set the default to "government is evil", but what else are you supposed to do with these dead beat parents who abuse this system?

How about treating them like ****ing individuals and hold them individually accountable, instead of treating all homeschoolers as though they're the problem with society?

The problem with liberalism/progressivism is that it assumes the worst of all people, and treats them accordingly. Liberal/progressive government expects that everyone is the lowest common denominator from square one, and treats them all with the same cattle branding iron. Instead of going after the strays, it treats everyone equally as law breakers, in order to prevent them from becoming law breakers.

What's wrong with allowing parents the freedom to teach their kids, and then going after them when a case has been built up for abuse? What's wrong with assuming that they're innocent of wrongdoing until proven guilty?

banyon
03-06-2008, 10:27 PM
So what does any of this have anything to do with forcing law abiding parents to subjugating themselves to public standards?

If you want to enforce a law, there has to be one in place. That's like saying, why can't we just catch the bad drivers without making the good drivers go throught the hassle of getting a license? I know that you actually try to learn things for yourself sometimes, so I welcome you to talk with law enforcement or whoever handles truant kids in court where you live. I bet they'll tell you almost the same thing. I guess I don't think it's a very big burden to put on home schooling parents given the compelling interests at stake (not just for gang activity, but also just for kids with sh*** parents) You'd be amazed the kinds of things we can learn just by bringing a kid into Truancy court to ask them about their lives. Sometimes the kid is just a slacker, we wag our finger at them and send them on their way. But sometimes they're also missing school because of drug abuse (sometimes pot, but also out here meth and coke a lot) or in the worst case,they are missing school because their parent is abusing them and wants to hide bruises from school authorities or is having sexual relations with them. I think without certification, the Stateof California loses a powerful tool to help kids out of bad situations in their state. Also those kids are most likely to be your future serious criminals, so its very preventative too.

And let me ask you then... The state puts the law into affect. The top homeschoolers with the top homeschooled students in California scoffs at the law and says "no way. I'm not going to submit to your laughable standards. Stuff your public accreditation where the sun don't shine." For how many days should the state take their children away? Until they submit to the law, presumably?


Well, I guess I'd treat them like a minor traffic offender. If they just say I wasn't speeding and want to come to court and argue about it fine. But if they say "f*** you pig, I'm not signing your GD ticket" and spit in the officer's face, then they need to spend a night in jail. If they show up to court and do the same thing to the judge, then probably a fine for contempt and some more jail. If they refuse for quite a while and it's clear that they will never comply, I guess you might threaten to take them out of the home, but unless they want to fight you all the way I think you don't play that card until there's no other option. At least from what I've seen, unless kids are in immediate danger, it takes a while for a parent to really lose custody of their kids to the state. You have to do some pretty sh***y stuff.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 10:29 PM
What's wrong with allowing parents the freedom to teach their kids, and then going after them when a case has been built up for abuse? What's wrong with assuming that they're innocent of wrongdoing until proven guilty?

Again, on its face, keeping kids out of school looks like the parents are acting against the best interests of the child.

Without an acceptable defense, the child goes back to school. I'm fine with home-schooling if they can show evidence that they know what the hell they are doing, but your argueing that the defense isnt necessary at all.

You normally dont need to prove to the cops on a casual day that you arent a bank robber, but when they get evidence, you better show them where you were on the afternoon of the 15th between 1:30 and 2. Similarly, you dont normally need to prove that you are acting in the best interests of the child, but when there is evidence that you are not, you'd better be able to show that your home-school isnt some pathetically inadequate sham.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 10:30 PM
Wrong. The problem is people over regulating the non-problem parents in order to nail the problem parents. The problem is treating everyone like they're guilty of being the problem parents.

There's the crux of it right here. Pass laws on everybody to punish the few.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 10:32 PM
Al, there's just not enough facts to show there is a need for this. There is not enough abuse of poor standards.

I've checking this abuse neglect charge out more. Every state already has abuse and neglect statutes. Targeting homeschooler for extra legislation due to perceptions that there is a link between homeschooling and abuse/neglect may be discriminatory.

There are actually many more cases nationwide of abuse/neglect from un-homeschooled children. It occurs in all segments of society. It is not a homeschool issue.

banyon
03-06-2008, 10:35 PM
Wrong. The problem is people over regulating the non-problem parents in order to nail the problem parents. The problem is treating everyone like they're guilty of being the problem parents.

Equal Protection under Law. It's written on the building where our highest court sits. and the standard is innocence, not guilt. The burden is on the state to prove that a child is truant.


How about treating them like ****ing individuals and hold them individually accountable, instead of treating all homeschoolers as though they're the problem with society?

The way I see it, this makes homeschooling parents the same as public/private school parents. If your kid doesn't show up to private orpublic school, you'll have the same issues as the homeschoolers now. Before, the homeschoolers had a loophole to get around the truancy responsibilities other parents had.

The problem with liberalism/progressivism is that it assumes the worst of all people, and treats them accordingly. Liberal/progressive government expects that everyone is the lowest common denominator from square one, and treats them all with the same cattle branding iron. Instead of going after the strays, it treats everyone equally as law breakers, in order to prevent them from becoming law breakers.

This dosn't make any sense. Whatis your policy suggestion to "go after strays" that wouldn't be an unconstitutional bill of attainder?

What's wrong with allowing parents the freedom to teach their kids, and then going after them when a case has been built up for abuse? What's wrong with assuming that they're innocent of wrongdoing until proven guilty?

Hopefully I explained the importance of truancy laws in my last post and wy we might want to act on the first warning sign for children and not the last.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2008, 10:38 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't think it is in the best interests of the child or the citizenry to have some stupid cocksucker teaching them that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is a myth; nor would it be wise to have someone who is a "home maker" trying to teach someone calculus.

Yeah, there might occasionally be people who can explicate the merits of literature, or explain the FOIL method who aren't in the workforce, but those people are few and far between, and I guarantee you that most of them have NO training in education methodology or curriculum development.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iS6LwHJz1jk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iS6LwHJz1jk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Jenson71
03-06-2008, 10:39 PM
Oh I see... If people aren't allowed the liberty to decide for themselves how their children are being educated, then those people are shitting all over the sacred cow "society." And what's more important than "society?"

Guess what? America was founded on individual liberty. Nowhere in the constitution will you find the words "society." Society has zero rights over the individual. Society isn't even an actual existing entity. What is it? Can you define society? Where does "society" begin, and where does it end? Society doesn't have the capability to choose, or act. "Society" has no rights.

And my point wasn't "That's their concern, leave me alone! You're invading me." It was "That's their concern, leave them alone! You're invading them!" They're the ones with the rights, remember?

I don't understand why a thread about home schoolers needs to stop to praise public school teachers when they're not a part of the topic. Sure there are plenty of fine public school teachers. What does that have to do with homeschoolers?

I'm arguing that we should take an interest in people and children and education and the public. Not that parents shouldn't have great influence in everything about their children, but it can't just stop there.

We can define society. We can see it as a group of people organized and working together, for our purposes. In this sense, the United States can be a form of society.

So although, as you and I both mentioned, the United States was a very individualistic nation at it's founding, this did not at all mean that society was not important.

The founding fathers viewed civic virtue as one of the most important values. Our greatest liberals were aware of the dark side of liberalism. Allowing a parent to destroy their child's education just because interference from the state would be considered by some as "against the liberty of the parent" would be foolish.

I may have added my own thoughts not based on anything you or anyone else had written for no good reason.

It's always interesting to have good ideas, and you certainly force me to examine my own views, so thanks TJ.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 10:40 PM
What's wrong with allowing parents the freedom to teach their kids, and then going after them when a case has been built up for abuse? What's wrong with assuming that they're innocent of wrongdoing until proven guilty?

I'm all for letting people fail through their own mistakes. If someone takes a risk and succeeds, great. If they fail and hurt themselves, thats life in a capitalist system with few safety nets, and I'm all for that.

However, in this case failure does not hurt the parent, and the child is not the parent's property to do with as they please. They are only the guardian who is required by the courts to act in the child's best interests as they care for them. Sort of like a conservator caring for someone else, or when you have a fiduciary duty to manage someone's money with care, there is a huge responsibilty involved and you arent permitted to act carelessly without regard to those depending upon you.

alanm
03-06-2008, 10:52 PM
Why not say what this is really all about? People are rebelling about the recent liberal PC mandates recently passed by Arnold. Most likely about it being now law to teach about homosexuality, trans gender bullshit and parents are threating to pull their kids out of public school by the 100's of thousands and this is the states way of insuring that they can't.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 10:52 PM
I was a bit curious about laws, and to no surprise it varies widely by state. Kind of amusing that my state is stricter than California.

http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp

I was surprised to see that this wasnt really a red state/blue state divide like you see with gun laws and other hot-button issues, more of a east/west divide with some odd exceptions. I was surprised to see that the south seems to be moderately strict on home schooling (except KY,TX,MS,AL), maybe because they are sensitive to the old "dumb farming southerner" stereotype.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 10:53 PM
I'm arguing that we should take an interest in people and children and education and the public. Not that parents shouldn't have great influence in everything about their children, but it can't just stop there.

We can define society. We can see it as a group of people organized and working together, for our purposes. In this sense, the United States can be a form of society.

So although, as you and I both mentioned, the United States was a very individualistic nation at it's founding, this did not at all mean that society was not important.

The founding fathers viewed civic virtue as one of the most important values. Our greatest liberals were aware of the dark side of liberalism. Allowing a parent to destroy their child's education just because interference from the state would be considered by some as "against the liberty of the parent" would be foolish.

I may have added my own thoughts not based on anything you or anyone else had written for no good reason.

It's always interesting to have good ideas, and you certainly force me to examine my own views, so thanks TJ.
At the time of the Founders the states were left to their own for certain things. Some states had official churches and it was the churches that were the main institution that educated people—not the state. The Founders believed that virtue was necessary to have a free society, as in free from too much govt otherwise more govt would be needed. But society is separate from government. Its just the people and it's culture creating their society and the laws reflected those values. That doesn't mean lots of compulsory laws for most things. There were none for education. It wasn't needed.

Certainly, Jenson, you must know that it was the RCC that educated its masses when they built the great cathedrals of Europe. The cities sprang up around those cathedrals and it was the church that opened education to everyone including women as the universities sprang up. Often Jesuits would take a son from a poor family and educate him. Supposedly, that is how Colombus was educated.

In fact the first university in the North and South America was set up by the RCC. It was the U of Mexico. Harvard university was set up by Protestants to compete with it. The old Cath/Prot competition thing still going on.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 10:54 PM
Why not say what this is really all about? People are rebelling about the recent liberal PC mandates recently passed by Arnold. Most likely about it being now law to teach about homosexuality, trans gender bullshit and parents are threating to pull their kids out of public school by the 100's of thousands and this is the states way of insuring that they can't.

Except that the state didnt act, it was the courts. CA law is actually pretty lax. (or it was, pending appeals to this ruling)

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 10:59 PM
Why not say what this is really all about? People are rebelling about the recent liberal PC mandates recently passed by Arnold. Most likely about it being now law to teach about homosexuality, trans gender bullshit and parents are threating to pull their kids out of public school by the 100's of thousands and this is the states way of insuring that they can't.

I'm glad you brought this up because this, besides academic standards which are actually considered less important than the academics believe it or not, was another reason why homeschooling began. It began mainly by religious folks because they were teaching values that pitted their children against their parents and their home values including nosy questionnaires about what parents believed. They've become more like social engineering clinics.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 11:04 PM
Except that the state didnt act, it was the courts. CA law is actually pretty lax. (or it was, pending appeals to this ruling)
The state is the courts too. It's three branches of govt.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 11:42 PM
If you want to enforce a law, there has to be one in place.

You're telling me that there aren't already laws on the books now to protect kids from being drug mules for their parents? Just out of curiosity... You're a smart guy -- don't you find it naive to believe that some sort of mandatory certification is going to stop this kind of parent from abusing their kids in this way?

Gang banger: Yo, Money! Did you see the law they just passed? Look like we better get our kids back in the public school system, dawg!

Taco John
03-06-2008, 11:58 PM
Without an acceptable defense, the child goes back to school. I'm fine with home-schooling if they can show evidence that they know what the hell they are doing, but your argueing that the defense isnt necessary at all.




Let's get the argument straight... Not only am I arguing that the "defense" isn't necessary at all, but that it will ultimately become a detriment to the education of the kids that the government thinks that they are protecting. The government is BAD at education. Terrible at it.

I believe just as strongly in the separation of education and state as I believe in the separation of church and state... And for the very same reasons. You look at me like some selfish right winger when you read my arguments. Well I'm here to tell you that I look at you like you would see a religious zealot when you tell me your church of state education is the way, the truth, and the life.

Education should be diverse and abundant, with plenty of choice. A single solution should not be crammed down our throats until we are willing to finally kneel at the alter of government in submission. What you call "reasonable," I call "rape." It's no more "reasonable" to force parents and kids to submit to inferior public standards "for the good of the kids" than it is for a parent to educate their seed in their way, with their values. At the end of the day, the only time the state should be involved is if there is a crime being committed. In this case, the government wants to manufacture a crime: the crime of not submitting to the government mandate of government qualified certification - which comes with government prescribed standards, regulations, and of course, fees.

And don't presume that I'm going to accept this canard that they're doing any of this for the "good of the kids." The road to hell is paved with good intentions by people who honestly believe they're making things better. But it's the devil who ends up walking down that road. Liberal progressives have been paving that road for a century in this country, and have the audacity to complain when someone comes in who manipulates the powerful levers they have installed into government. The whole ideology is so naive.

There's a reason why the founding fathers built the constitution around the rights of the individual.

Taco John
03-07-2008, 12:07 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't think it is in the best interests ... blah blah blah

Oh well... There we have it. 'Hamas' Jenkins doesn't think that it's in their best interests. End of argument.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-07-2008, 12:33 AM
Oh well... There we have it. 'Hamas' Jenkins doesn't think that it's in their best interests. End of argument.

Funny how you completely ignore the rest of my point which has specific evidence to the kind of idiocy that I fear would come en masse from such an increase in home schooling.

Just treat it like cancer. If you don't know about it, it will never mestasize.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-07-2008, 12:34 AM
There's a reason why the founding fathers built the constitution around the rights of the individual.

Like the 3/5 clause and electoral votes?

Taco John
03-07-2008, 12:38 AM
We can define society. We can see it as a group of people organized and working together, for our purposes. In this sense, the United States can be a form of society.


A group of people organized and working together for "our" purposes? Who is our? My family is a group of people organized and working together for "our" purposes. Are we a society? In my career I work with a group of people organized and working together for "our" purposes. Do we count as a "society?" These are about the only groups that I belong to that I would say are consistently organized and working together for "our" purposes.

So if my two named groups are "societies," whose rights do I get to subjugate in order to ensure that my "societies" are better off? Can I claim you as a part of the "society" and demand a portion of your paycheck?

Of course not.

The United States is not a "society." It's a nation. It can actually be defined. It actually has legal substance.

"Society" has absolutely no substance. It has absolutely no legal standing. It has no rights.


The founding fathers viewed civic virtue as one of the most important values.

Absolutely they did. And so do I. But that has nothing to do with "society." I see civic virtue as something that only individuals can display. Can a "society" demonstrate civic virtue? Of course not. It doesn't exist. "Society" doesn't have the capability to show civic virtue. Only individuals have that capability.



It's always interesting to have good ideas, and you certainly force me to examine my own views, so thanks TJ.

No problem.

My argument isn't that parents should be allowed to abuse their children. We have plenty of abuse laws on the books that it should be pretty well covered by now. My position is that individual liberty is what this nation was founded on, and that when you start to subjugate these individual liberties, you pave the way for all manners of treachery. As far as I'm concerned concept of "society" is nothing more than a by-product of individualism. And there's no two ways around that. People are always going to act as individuals for their own individual best interests first. I don't care whether it's the pizza man or the pope. When you start to use government to try to engineer "society," all you're doing is intervening on the lives of these individuals - and that intervention will almost always produce results that counter the reason you were trying to intervene in the first place.

In the case of home schooling, government intervention is going to result in the bulk of these home schoolers getting a worse education than they'd otherwise have gotten if the government didn't intervene. How does that serve the god "society?"

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-07-2008, 12:45 AM
A group of people organized and working together for "our" purposes? Who is our? My family is a group of people organized and working together for "our" purposes. Are we a society? In my career I work with a group of people organized and working together for "our" purposes. Do we count as a "society?" These are about the only groups that I belong to that I would say are consistently organized and working together for "our" purposes.

So if my two named groups are "societies," whose rights do I get to subjugate in order to ensure that my "societies" are better off? Can I claim you as a part of the "society" and demand a portion of your paycheck?

Of course not.

The United States is not a "society." It's a nation. It can actually be defined. It actually has legal substance.

"Society" has absolutely no substance. It has absolutely no legal standing. It has no rights.




Absolutely they did. And so do I. But that has nothing to do with "society." I see civic virtue as something that only individuals can display. Can a "society" demonstrate civic virtue? Of course not. It doesn't exist. "Society" doesn't have the capability to show civic virtue. Only individuals have that capability.





No problem.

My argument isn't that parents should be allowed to abuse their children. We have plenty of abuse laws on the books that it should be pretty well covered by now. My position is that individual liberty is what this nation was founded on, and that when you start to subjugate these individual liberties, you pave the way for all manners of treachery. As far as I'm concerned concept of "society" is nothing more than a by-product of individualism. And there's no two ways around that. People are always going to act as individuals for their own individual best interests first. I don't care whether it's the pizza man or the pope. When you start to use government to try to engineer "society," all you're doing is intervening on the lives of these individuals - and that intervention will almost always produce results that counter the reason you were trying to intervene in the first place.

In the case of home schooling, government intervention is going to result in the bulk of these home schoolers getting a worse education than they'd otherwise have gotten if the government didn't intervene. How does that serve the god "society?"

Do you honestly believe that bullshit drivel?

I don't think anyone is arguing that homeschooling should be illegal. I think what we are arguing is that homeschooling provides the student with a less capable and educated instructor as well as a poorly-rounded curriculum.

If the parent can pass a certification that proves they are competent to actually instruct their student, then I have no problem with them doing so, even though I personally think home schooling churns out masses of socially retarded kids...

Here's what concerns me...

According to a 2000-2001 Barna survey, [32] [33]. The study indicated that home school parents are 39 percent less likely to be college graduates, 21 percent more likely to be married, 28 percent less likely to have experienced a divorce, and that the household income is 10% below the national average. Barna found that homeschoolers in the U.S. live predominantly in the Mid-Atlantic, the South-Atlantic, and the Pacific states. It found that homeschoolers are almost twice as likely to be evangelical as the national average (15 percent vs 8 percent), and that 91 percent describe themselves as Christian, although only 49 percent can be classified as "born again Christians." It found they were five times more likely to describe themselves as "mostly conservative" on political matters than as "mostly liberal," although only about 37 percent chose "mostly conservative", and were "notably" more likely than the national average to have high view of the Bible and hold orthodox Christian beliefs.

Taco John
03-07-2008, 12:46 AM
Like the 3/5 clause and electoral votes?


With the 3/5ths clause, our founders were still subject to the politics of their day. Certainly, there's no doubt that there were snakes among our founding fathers. There were plenty who were dead set against it. In the end, that's one that they got wrong -- but in order to fix it, they fixed it the right way. They didn't just ignore the 3/5ths clause. They amended it.

And for my part, I have no problem with the electoral colege. I personally think that it's a great system. I love the Republican system of government. I just wish that Republicans still believed in it, rather than accepting the liberal progressive system we have now, and just working to suck as much money out of it as possible for their pet causes.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-07-2008, 12:50 AM
With the 3/5ths clause, our founders were still subject to the politics of their day. Certainly, there's no doubt that there were snakes among our founding fathers. There were plenty who were dead set against it. In the end, that's one that they got wrong -- but in order to fix it, they fixed it the right way. They didn't just ignore the 3/5ths clause. They amended it.

And for my part, I have no problem with the electoral colege. I personally think that it's a great system. I love the Republican system of government. I just wish that Republicans still believed in it, rather than accepting the liberal progressive system we have now, and just working to suck as much money out of it as possible for their pet causes.

So the legality of a faithless elector in no way undermines the democratic process?

Isn't that itself a necessary component of the liberty that you claim to hold so near and dear?

Ok.

So taking 78 years and a war that killed 500,000 people is fixing it right away?

:hmmm:

Taco John
03-07-2008, 12:58 AM
Do you honestly believe that bullshit drivel?

Every word of it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that homeschooling should be illegal. I think what we are arguing is that homeschooling provides the student with a less capable and educated instructor as well as a poorly-rounded curriculum.

Oh, well that's a silly thing to argue. There's absolutely no statistics you can find to back up this assertion. Homeschoolers blow away public schoolers across the board... all subjects. (http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp) And of course they would. They get better teaching from instructors committed to their education.



It found that homeschoolers are almost twice as likely to be evangelical as the national average (15 percent vs 8 percent), and that 91 percent describe themselves as Christian, although only 49 percent can be classified as "born again Christians." It found they were five times more likely to describe themselves as "mostly conservative" on political matters than as "mostly liberal," although only about 37 percent chose "mostly conservative", and were "notably" more likely than the national average to have high view of the Bible and hold orthodox Christian beliefs.


How did I know that your problem with them is that you disagree with them religiously? I would have never guessed it in a million years... :rolleyes:

Taco John
03-07-2008, 01:04 AM
So the legality of a faithless elector in no way undermines the democratic process?

I don't see how. I participated this year in our local caucuses. It would have been a very simple matter for me to become a delegate if I was interested in it. It's not like people are beating down the doors to become delegates. Just the people who are committed to their causes are. I see this as a great blessing. It truly means that a committed minority can affect real change in this nation and defeat a non-committed sitting on their thumbs majority.

Isn't that itself a necessary component of the liberty that you claim to hold so near and dear?

I don't see how.

So taking 78 years and a war that killed 500,000 people is fixing it right away?



Huh? Apparently you aren't as educated on this stuff as you like to think you are. The civil war was neither about slavery, nor did it fix the 3/5ths clause.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-07-2008, 01:08 AM
Every word of it.



Oh, well that's a silly thing to argue. There's absolutely no statistics you can find to back up this assertion. Homeschoolers blow away public schoolers across the board... all subjects. (http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp) And of course they would. They get better teaching from instructors committed to their education.


How did I know that your problem with them is that you disagree with them religiously? I would have never guessed it in a million years... :rolleyes:

I hate to break it to you, but the standardized tests that are used to compare public vs. home schooled students are not the same.

Nothing like selection bias to beautify your results

"Although there are studies that conclude that homeschooled students on average do well on standardized tests,[52] these studies generally compare voluntary homeschool testing with mandatory public-school testing. The study organizers cannot require testing. Homeschooled students are not subject to the testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Some states require testing for homeschooled students and some do not; many that do require testing let homeschooling parents choose from more than one evaluation method. Since testing is not required, homeschoolers taking the tests are self-selected, which biases the statistical results. Therefore, the progress of homeschooled students cannot be compared with that of students in public schools."

Furthermore, if they want to be religious that's fine, but you can't honestly claim that they are getting as good of an education in the realm of science when their evangelical beliefs directly contradict the laws of physics.

Again, I urge you to watch that video clip I posted. That is the exact kind of mono-vision, narrow-minded horseshit that I, someone who is actually in the field of education, would like to avoid.

Having a populace full of mouth breathers who think that the earth is 6000 years old isn't going to help us close the gap in our students' abilities.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-07-2008, 01:12 AM
I don't see how. I participated this year in our local caucuses. It would have been a very simple matter for me to become a delegate if I was interested in it. It's not like people are beating down the doors to become delegates. Just the people who are committed to their causes are. I see this as a great blessing. It truly means that a committed minority can affect real change in this nation and defeat a non-committed sitting on their thumbs majority.



I don't see how.




Huh? Apparently you aren't as educated on this stuff as you like to think you are. The civil war was neither about slavery, nor did it fix the 3/5ths clause.

How long was the 3/5ths clause around? You're the one who claimed "it was fixed right away". What was it fixed after? Would it have changed had the civil war not occurred? Give me a break.

78 years, which in that time was two full adult average lifespans isn't exactly right away.

That would be like us taking 80 years to repeal prohibition and saying it was fixed right away.

You have no f*cking idea what you are talking about. The 3/5 clause was rendered moot by the 13th amendment, which, I'm just guessing, probably wouldn't have passed if not for the civil war, regardless of the origins of the conflict (which I never claimed it to have been a cause of, but continue with your spiel of unrelated bullshit, by all means).

alanm
03-07-2008, 01:30 AM
Let's get the argument straight... Not only am I arguing that the "defense" isn't necessary at all, but that it will ultimately become a detriment to the education of the kids that the government thinks that they are protecting. The government is BAD at education. Terrible at it.

I believe just as strongly in the separation of education and state as I believe in the separation of church and state... And for the very same reasons. You look at me like some selfish right winger when you read my arguments. Well I'm here to tell you that I look at you like you would see a religious zealot when you tell me your church of state education is the way, the truth, and the life.

Education should be diverse and abundant, with plenty of choice. A single solution should not be crammed down our throats until we are willing to finally kneel at the alter of government in submission. What you call "reasonable," I call "rape." It's no more "reasonable" to force parents and kids to submit to inferior public standards "for the good of the kids" than it is for a parent to educate their seed in their way, with their values. At the end of the day, the only time the state should be involved is if there is a crime being committed. In this case, the government wants to manufacture a crime: the crime of not submitting to the government mandate of government qualified certification - which comes with government prescribed standards, regulations, and of course, fees.

And don't presume that I'm going to accept this canard that they're doing any of this for the "good of the kids." The road to hell is paved with good intentions by people who honestly believe they're making things better. But it's the devil who ends up walking down that road. Liberal progressives have been paving that road for a century in this country, and have the audacity to complain when someone comes in who manipulates the powerful levers they have installed into government. The whole ideology is so naive.

There's a reason why the founding fathers built the constitution around the rights of the individual.
:clap::clap::clap:

Taco John
03-07-2008, 01:57 AM
How long was the 3/5ths clause around? You're the one who claimed "it was fixed right away".

I never claimed it was "fixed right away."

Taco John
03-07-2008, 01:58 AM
The 3/5 clause was rendered moot by the 13th amendment...


Yeah, that was kind of my point...

Taco John
03-07-2008, 02:03 AM
I hate to break it to you, but the standardized tests that are used to compare public vs. home schooled students are not the same.

Nothing like selection bias to beautify your results

"Although there are studies that conclude that homeschooled students on average do well on standardized tests,[52] these studies generally compare voluntary homeschool testing with mandatory public-school testing. The study organizers cannot require testing. Homeschooled students are not subject to the testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Some states require testing for homeschooled students and some do not; many that do require testing let homeschooling parents choose from more than one evaluation method. Since testing is not required, homeschoolers taking the tests are self-selected, which biases the statistical results. Therefore, the progress of homeschooled students cannot be compared with that of students in public schools."

Furthermore, if they want to be religious that's fine, but you can't honestly claim that they are getting as good of an education in the realm of science when their evangelical beliefs directly contradict the laws of physics.

Again, I urge you to watch that video clip I posted. That is the exact kind of mono-vision, narrow-minded horseshit that I, someone who is actually in the field of education, would like to avoid.

Having a populace full of mouth breathers who think that the earth is 6000 years old isn't going to help us close the gap in our students' abilities.



You're bad at arguments.

So not only can you not prove that the public education system is better than home schooling, the crux of your point is that the kids might get religion in their teaching, and religion is bad.

How dare you put up a post criticizing Dense as everything that is wrong with liberalism, and then come in here with such drivel.

Guru
03-07-2008, 02:05 AM
I want our kids to get all the facts and draw their own conclusions.

Chiefmanwillcatch
03-07-2008, 02:23 AM
who owns the kids?

tiptap
03-07-2008, 06:35 AM
It is not who owns the kids. Because parents don't own the kids. Parental actions are already subject to societal oversight. Society often overrides religious thought such as blood transfusions for Jehovah Witnesses and such. (I am not singling them out except as example.) It is the kids whose rights are being short changed. Keeping kids in a closed room would also be seen as wrong.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 06:55 AM
Why is the court being blamed for this? It's California law, based on my brief review. Are courts supposed to ignore an obvious law that is completely clear on its face. Blame the legislature or change the law, but don't blame the courts for upholding something.

California has allowed home schooling if parents either file paperwork to establish themselves as small, private schools; hire a credentialed tutor; or enroll their child in an independent study program run by an established school while teaching the child at home.

banyon
03-07-2008, 07:17 AM
You're telling me that there aren't already laws on the books now to protect kids from being drug mules for their parents? Just out of curiosity... You're a smart guy -- don't you find it naive to believe that some sort of mandatory certification is going to stop this kind of parent from abusing their kids in this way?

Gang banger: Yo, Money! Did you see the law they just passed? Look like we better get our kids back in the public school system, dawg!

I explained in a perfectly reasonable way how truancy is a first indicator for other trouble signs with children in the previous posts, but you chose to respond flippantly to only one part of it. To answer your second question, yes. it will stop some parents, not all of them, but some. I've done it (not for home schooling, but for truancy)..

Let me ask you this. Sure there are child abuse and incest laws on the books. But if a parent is allowed to home school uncertified and keep a kid indoors all of the time away from the public view, how would anyone ever know about it to be able to charge them with abuse?

alanm
03-07-2008, 07:22 AM
who owns the kids?
Why according to liberals the Gubment owns them. Didn't you know that? Parents are just leasing them.

banyon
03-07-2008, 07:23 AM
Why according to liberals the Gubment owns them. Didn't you know that? Parents are just leasing them.

Yeah, I remember seeing that posted somewhere. :shake:

alanm
03-07-2008, 07:25 AM
It is not who owns the kids. Because parents don't own the kids. Parental actions are already subject to societal oversight. Society often overrides religious thought such as blood transfusions for Jehovah Witnesses and such. (I am not singling them out except as example.) It is the kids whose rights are being short changed. Keeping kids in a closed room would also be seen as wrong. You're not singling them out but you just did.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 07:42 AM
It is not who owns the kids. Because parents don't own the kids. Parental actions are already subject to societal oversight. Society often overrides religious thought such as blood transfusions for Jehovah Witnesses and such. (I am not singling them out except as example.) It is the kids whose rights are being short changed. Keeping kids in a closed room would also be seen as wrong.
No society doesn't do that. Government does that. Government is not society.
I'd like to see what cases where this has been done. Do you have any?

As far as I know where it has it's eventually been overruled under freedom of religion. Now the life versus liberty argument is a tough one for me but requiring a certificate to educate your kids is not the same order of magnitude.

tiptap
03-07-2008, 07:44 AM
You're not singling them out but you just did.

I am confident that most parents act responsibly. And I have home schooled my kids at times. (I have a teaching certificate.) And so I am not against home schooling with oversight. But an educated populous is necessary for a democratic society. And the society does have oversight of that. You don't get the benefits that this society provides without contributing responsibly. Otherwise everyone eventually loses.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 07:53 AM
I am confident that most parents act responsibly. And I have home schooled my kids at times. (I have a teaching certificate.) And so I am not against home schooling with oversight. But an educated populous is necessary for a democratic society. And the society does have oversight of that. You don't get the benefits that this society provides without contributing responsibly. Otherwise everyone eventually loses.
You state society has oversight of education of other's children like it's a fact or a long term precedent. Neither are true. It's just an opinion that it should be that way. And if it were society, our neighbor could just come over and check and tell us what to do.

Society is NOT the govt. This is the collectivistic viewpoint. It's the collectivist types that assert this. It has no basis in anything. It's the collectivist that are seeking govt power to make this the case.

Our Founders said nothing about our govt enforcing such notions by any particular group on a free people. No one operated with this mentality over a hundred years here. Nor in other countries for thousands of years. It was and has mostly been the parent's right to educate their children.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-07-2008, 08:31 AM
You're bad at arguments.

So not only can you not prove that the public education system is better than home schooling, the crux of your point is that the kids might get religion in their teaching, and religion is bad.

How dare you put up a post criticizing Dense as everything that is wrong with liberalism, and then come in here with such drivel.

You can't just say I'm bad at arguments and then use no substance to back it up. It doesn't work that way, especially on a forum where your opinion holds about as much weight as that of a troll's.

I didn't say that there is anything wrong with an education that has elements of sprituality in it. What I do find telling is that an overwhelming % of children who are homeschooled are done so because of their parents' religious values, the same values that contradict science. Is that not a part of education?

Sorry if I hold the scientific method above dirt worshiping.

Again, please watch the video that I have mentioned, and tell me if you want that to be the kind of education that your children get.
Getting religion through needn't be Jesus Camp, but it seems to be the way homeschooling is trending.

Say what you will about public schooling, but at least the kids

tiptap
03-07-2008, 08:32 AM
I understand your point of view. You think that people given freedom (without all the information) make the right choices. We understand you positions on economics and government but you are informed. And you and any parent, have a large opportunity to offer education to one's children. Every Sunday (or Friday or Saturday) millions take their children to religious training. It is not that the child is being removed from the parent. And good parents will always have a large and lasting influence. I am arguing that the information provided needs to be less circumcised for a more educated society.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 08:54 AM
I understand your point of view. You think that people given freedom (without all the information) make the right choices. We understand you positions on economics and government but you are informed. And you and any parent, have a large opportunity to offer education to one's children. Every Sunday (or Friday or Saturday) millions take their children to religious training. It is not that the child is being removed from the parent. And good parents will always have a large and lasting influence. I am arguing that the information provided needs to be less circumcised for a more educated society.

Do you have a single thought that is outside of the statist, progressive, collectivist box? Children today are less educated as a society. Literacy is about 45%. Literacy was as high as 75 even 90% in some areas before govt education. These type controls are just a cover-up for more monopoly control over education, one reason it's a failure. Liscensing is often used to drive out competition hiding under safety arguments.

Homeschoolers are more mature, polite, better behaved with better academics than what it is being made out to be. Neglect and abuse of children is higher with kids who go to public school. There is no cause and effect link that homeschooling results in more neglect, abuse of lower education standards.

"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.”—The Fuhrer's words


Education was a central plank of the Progressives’ plan to bring about the national community they sought. If children were to be emancipated from the stupid prejudices of their parents, educated in the values of progressivism, and lifted out of their “parallel societies,” they would have to be instructed in a government-run school staffed by people who shared the Progressive outlook. Private and/or religious education only compounded the problem that Progressive education aimed to solve. No wonder John Dewey said, with regard to the Catholic school system, “It is essential that this basic issue be seen for what it is—namely, as the encouragement of a powerful reactionary world organization in the most vital realm of democratic life, with the resulting promulgation of principles inimical to democracy.”

"This had been a Progressive theme from the beginning. William T. Harris, the most prominent figure in the American educational establishment after the Civil War, and who possessed the mystical reverence for the state so characteristic of Hegelians, warned in an 1871 address to the National Educational Association:

“Neither is it safe to leave the education of youth to religious zeal or private benevolence,” since “our State [will] find elements heterogeneous to it continually growing up.” We certainly can’t have that. [ What it's really all about!]

It's just competition to the goals of the NRA. I'd love for this to go to the SC.

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/print.aspx?article=41&loc=b&type=cbtp

Adept Havelock
03-07-2008, 08:58 AM
You carry yourself to be someone who is above such silly straw man arguments. It's good to see that you're a mortal.

Hardly a strawman. If we accept that government regulation of an activity involving our behavior towards our children in that instance, the only difference with your issue is a matter of degree. :shrug:

The best interests of the child trump "parents rights".

If the parents cant *objectively* show evidence that they have the ability and the training to do a decent job of education, then they cant be allowed to harm their child's future through their own willful ignorance.

Indeed. There are some fantastic parents out there home-schooling. There are also some really tragic failures. A minimum standard is in the best interest of the child, the parents, and society.

banyon
03-07-2008, 09:05 AM
Do you have a single thought that is outside of the statist, progressive, collectivist box? Children today are less educated as a society. Literacy is about 45%. Literacy was as high as 75 even 90% in some areas before govt education. These type controls are just a cover-up for more monopoly control over education, one reason it's a failure. Liscensing is often used to drive out competition hiding under safety arguments.

Sorry, I'm going to ask for a link on that one, that I'm sure won't be provided.

Literacy is at 45%, that's ridiculous.

That would put us in the bottom ten rated countries on the planet (which of course we aren't).

168 Senegal 39.3
169 Mozambique 38.7
170 Ethiopia 35.9
171 Sierra Leone 34.8
172 Benin 34.7
173 Guinea 29.5
174 Niger 28.7
175 Chad 25.7
176 Mali 24.0
177 Burkina Faso 23.6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

Your continual attempt to pigeonhole facts to fit your extremist narrow viewpoint has reached Dadaeqsue proportions.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 09:12 AM
Indeed. There are some fantastic parents out there home-schooling. There are also some really tragic failures. A minimum standard is in the best interest of the child, the parents, and society.

Prove it .
Provide cases and statistics. Then compare to cases and stats with govt schools.

Then make a cause and effect link that it's caused by homeschooling and lack of teacher certs. ( These HS are linked up with experts to train them. They get training. They use tutors.)

tiptap
03-07-2008, 09:16 AM
Do you have a single thought that is outside of the statist, progressive, collectivist box? Children today are less educated as a society. Literacy is about 45%. Literacy was as high as 75 even 90% in some areas before govt education. These type controls are just a cover-up for more monopoly control over education, one reason it's a failure. Liscensing is often used to drive out competition hiding under safety arguments.

Homeschoolers are more mature, polite, better behaved with better academics than what it is being made out to be. Neglect and abuse of children is higher with kids who go to public school. There is no cause and effect link that homeschooling results in more neglect, abuse of lower education standards.

"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.”—The Fuhrer's words




It's just competition to the goals of the NRA. I'd love for this to go to the SC.

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/print.aspx?article=41&loc=b&type=cbtp


No BEP. I am a social animal. Humans success if based upon social cooperation. There is no single way to organize people. The box of interaction is always there. Your wish to put public education as only a tool of state control is also a box. It is what we make of it. We can have the debate whether we are doing it poorly. But that discussion is very distinct from the vitriolic contention that public education can only be a tool of governmental thought control. Please don't go to such extreme contention in dealing with the relative evaluation of the successes of home vs public education.

Adept Havelock
03-07-2008, 09:17 AM
Prove it .
Provide cases and statistics. Then compare to cases and stats with govt schools.

Then make a cause and effect link that it's caused by homeschooling and lack of teacher certs. ( These HS are linked up with experts to train them. They get training. They use tutors.)

Sorry, you aren't calling this square dance. ;)

It's my own experience and I frankly don't care if you believe me or not.

Nor am I about to waste the better part of a day compiling a massive amount of documentation to "prove" a point to someone on an internet Bboard.

You may actually believe that every home-schooling parent is as conscientious and dutiful as you. I wish I was that optimistic.

I'm offering my own impressions of those I've met over the years. Nothing more, nor did I claim it was.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 09:21 AM
What you guys on the side of the CA courts fail to understand or at least acknowledge is that there is already plenty of oversight—minus requiring a cert to teach.

Teaching goes on in plenty of private places: schools, colleges, corporate trainers ( which I've also done) without any requirement for a govt recognized teacher cert.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 09:22 AM
Sorry, you aren't calling this square dance. ;)

It's my own experience and I frankly don't care if you believe me or not.

Nor am I about to waste the better part of a day compiling a massive amount of documentation to "prove" a point to someone on an internet Bboard.

You may actually believe that every home-schooling parent is as conscientious and dutiful as you. I wish I was that optimistic.

I'm offering my own impressions of those I've met over the years. Nothing more, nor did I claim it was.

Ah, but you're the one who said you didn't role that way. Please tell me the egregious anecdotal examples of which you encountered.
I know a LOT of homeschoolers and I have found such cases to be minimal.

Adept Havelock
03-07-2008, 09:23 AM
Ah, but you're the one who said you didn't role that way. Please tell me the egregious anecdotal examples of which you encountered.
I know a LOT of homeschoolers and I have found such cases to be minimal.

We all have different experiences. :shrug:

BTW- Please show me where I stated I would never offer a strictly personal impression of something, bereft of supporting data. Here's a hint. I haven't. So much for "not rolling that way". :)

As for the experiences/anecdotes, no thanks. They disturb me enough to lead me to my conclusions, even in face of my general view of government. As I'm not interested in trying to convince you of my POV, I see no reason to go through the process. In my experience, many, if not most home school situations are good. That's insufficient reason for me to turn my back on the few that are being ill-served by their home "education". JMO.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 09:28 AM
We all have different experiences. :shrug:

BTW- Please show me where I stated I would never offer a strictly personal impression of something, bereft of supporting data. Here's a hint. I haven't. So much for "not rolling that way". :)
Your personal observations are yours to have but do not necessarily mean they
represent the typical case. The facts are just not on your side here, if you care to research them. It's basically a media driven perception.

Adept Havelock
03-07-2008, 09:28 AM
Your personal observations are yours to have but to not necessarily mean they
represent the typical case. The facts are just not on your side here, if you care to research them. It's basically a media driven perception.

Yes, it's my own perceptions driving my own views, but thanks for the amateur diagnosis. :thumb:

Taco John
03-07-2008, 09:35 AM
You can't just say I'm bad at arguments and then use no substance to back it up.


That's the whole point. You provided absolutely no substance.

banyon
03-07-2008, 09:35 AM
What you guys on the side of the CA courts fail to understand or at least acknowledge is that there is already plenty of oversight—minus requiring a cert to teach.

Teaching goes on in plenty of private places: schools, colleges, corporate trainers ( which I've also done) without any requirement for a govt recognized teacher cert.

This is wrong, colleges and private schools are accredited and the teachers have to follow standards set by the diabolical government.

Taco John
03-07-2008, 09:35 AM
It doesn't work that way, especially on a forum where your opinion holds about as much weight as that of a troll's.



I am very comfortable about the weight of my opinion in this forum compared to your laughable whiney ass.

Taco John
03-07-2008, 09:40 AM
It's my own experience and I frankly don't care if you believe me or not.




"I don't have to prove anything I say to slander homeschoolers. I should just be able to say anything I want, and you just accept it on my authority."

Adept Havelock
03-07-2008, 09:42 AM
"I don't have to prove anything I say to slander homeschoolers. I should just be able to say anything I want, and you just accept it on my authority."

I offered my own impression, nothing more or less. Nor did I claim it was.

Sorry that puts your tinfoil panties in a bunch.

I feel no obligation to "prove" my own opinion, drawn from my own experiences with something, to you.

Nor do I see a reason to put you in judgment as to the "legitimacy" of my experiences supporting my conclusion as you're attempting to do.

Thanks for playing, you've been a lovely contestant. Johnny says we've got a copy of the home game, a case of turtle-wax, and a nice shiny fake Amero for you as a consolation prize.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 09:47 AM
Yes, it's my own perceptions driving my own views, but thanks for the amateur diagnosis. :thumb:

It's not amateur. It's pointing out what it is and logic. I didn't say it counted for nothing. I just said it may not be typical, absent your providing a specific example.

There's no arguing with results. Homeschoolers have earned the right to be left alone barring a few oversight points which we already have.

Independent Evaluations of Homeschoolers:

(1) 1997 "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America" — a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families. The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects.

A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile.

--Dr. Ray, in this same study, found the average cost per homeschool student is $546 while the average cost per public school student is $5,325. Yet the homeschool children in this study averaged in 85th percentile while the public school students averaged in the 50th percentile on nationally standardized achievement tests.

There is no positive correlation between money spent on education and student performance. Loving and caring parents are what matters. Money can never replace simple, hard work.

(2) Study by Dr. Lawrence Rudner of 20,760 homeschooled students which found the homeschoolers who have homeschooled all their school aged years had the highest academic achievement. This was especially apparent in the higher grades.


(3)Affects of Gov't Regulation on Homeschooling from Strengths of Their Own: Dr. Brian Ray compared the impact of government regulation on the academic performance of homeschool students and he found no positive correlation. In other words, whether a state had a high degree of regulation (i.e., curriculum approval, teacher qualifications, testing, home visits) or a state had no regulation of homeschoolers, the homeschooled students in both categories of states performed the same. The students all scored on the average in the 86th percentile regardless of state regulation.

Academic Statistics on Homeschooling (http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp) Contains various studies done by independent groups, State Dept of Ed groups, local school district groups and from Homeschooling groups on homeschooling results. Has a full bibliography at the bottom

Conclusion
These statistics point to one conclusion: homeschooling works. Even many of the State Departments of Education, which are generally biased toward the public school system, cannot argue with these facts. Not only does homeschooling work, but it works without the myriad of state controls and accreditation standards imposed on the public schools.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 09:49 AM
Oh, btw I am NOT a homeschooler. Teaching a child to read before school enrollment I don't believe qualifies as full homeschooling as a substitute for a school. It's just helping the kid gain an edge.

Adept Havelock
03-07-2008, 09:50 AM
It's not amateur. It's pointing out what it is and logic. I didn't say it counted for nothing. I just said it may not be typical, absent your providing a specific example.


:doh!:

Oy. The "amateur" point spoke solely to you attempting to discern the motivations and influences that led to my conclusions. Unless you also have a degree in Psychology/Psychiatry, I stand by my statement.

My apologies for not making that more clear in my post.

Taco John
03-07-2008, 09:51 AM
I offered my own impression, nothing more or less. Nor did I claim it was.

Sorry that puts your tinfoil panties in a bunch.

I feel no obligation to "prove" my own opinion, drawn from my own experiences with something, to you.

Nor do I see a reason to put you in judgment as to the "legitimacy" of my experiences supporting my conclusion.

Thanks for playing, you've been a lovely contestant. Johnny says we've got a copy of the home game, a case of turtle-wax, and a nice shiny fake Amero for you as a consolation prize.


I love how bitter you get when you get behind in an argument. That's right, take your ball and go home. Nobody wanted to play with you anyway.

Adept Havelock
03-07-2008, 09:53 AM
I love how bitter you get when you get behind in an argument. That's right, take your ball and go home. Nobody wanted to play with you anyway.

LMAO

What argument?

I offered my own opinion on homeschooling. That most are good, but a few cases I've seen have left the kid in a bad way. Nothing more, nothing less.

BEP demanded "proof" of my opinion.

I explained "opinion" was all I was offering, as I have zero interest in trying to convince her (or you for that matter) of my POV. She accepted that, though with a suggestion my opinion wasn't well founded.

Then you decided to drop in and start crowing about a weak "argument", when I haven't offered one. ROFL

The only thing approaching an "argument" I've offered in this thread was that my initial point to you wasn't a strawman, as they both involve government regulation of our behavior towards our children. The difference between my example and yours is one of degree, nothing more.

If you want to engage me or critique me on an argument, how about choosing one I've actually made?

Now, remove the tinfoil panties from your crack and carry on.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 10:02 AM
Yes, it's my own perceptions driving my own views, but thanks for the amateur diagnosis. :thumb:
What amatuer diagnosis or psychology? You mean this?

Your personal observations are yours to have but do not necessarily mean they represent the typical case.
That there is allowing you to have your opinion based on what you want. It says nothing about your motivations.
I'm all for pure opinion and having it based on nothing even.

But you made a statement of fact, in plural:
There are also some really tragic failures.
I only asked you to back up a statement of fact.
I did not ask you to back up your opinion.
Opinion may or may not be based on facts. But you used a fact to back it up.
This is not psychology. It's breaking down your argument.

Adept Havelock
03-07-2008, 10:07 AM
What amatuer diagnosis or psychology? You mean this?


That there is allowing you to have your opinion based on what you want. It says nothing about your motivations.
I'm all for pure opinion and having it based on nothing even.

But you made a statement of fact, in plural:

I only asked you to back up a statement of fact.
I did not ask you to back up your opinion.
Opinion may or may not be based on facts. But you used a fact to back it up.
This is not psychology. It's breaking down your argument.

OK. I consider attempting to infer how someone might come to an opinion "psychology". Your milage differs.

Also, "Tragic failures" is an opinion. Someone else may think the few unfortunate situations I've seen aren't bad. I do, so that's how I address it.

I still don't see how my offering an opinion= "making an argument" as TJ has stated, nor my opinion being an "argument to be broken down", but whatever floats your boat.

To you, I offer this apology...and hopefully, chuckle.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m7mIy97_rlo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m7mIy97_rlo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

banyon
03-07-2008, 10:10 AM
you guys stopped being interested in reasonable discussion of this issue on the merits several pages ago. Now it's confined to just anti-government vitriol.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 10:10 AM
I need no apology AH. I was not offended...just pointing out that wasn't what I was doing nor my intentions. The net leads to misunderstandings.

I just wanted to hear your egregious examples, how many there were compared to the same with public school kids.

BTW I just found an example of a homeless family and the kid was still homeschooled, amazingly and got a perfect SAT score.

Adept Havelock
03-07-2008, 10:13 AM
I need no apology AH. I was not offended...just pointing out that wasn't what I was doing nor my intentions. The net leads to misunderstandings.

I just wanted to hear your egregious examples, how many there were compared to the same with public school kids.

BTW I just found an example of a homeless family and the kid was still homeschooled, amazingly and got a perfect SAT score.

As I said, experiences differ. That's one reason I don't see much point in laying mine out for discussion. For every "bad" point I can offer, you've got a success story. At the end of it all, nothing has changed other than a great deal of time has passed. I guess I'm just not up for a "Senate Rules" game of Pazaak (read as Poker for no stakes) today.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 10:18 AM
As I said, experiences differ.
That's exactly right, which is why I was making a case for it not being enough of a yardstick as in a typical example. Govt schools have egregious examples too.

That's one reason I don't see much point in laying mine out for discussion. For every "bad" point I can offer, you've got a success story. At the end of it all, nothing has changed other than a great deal of time has passed. I guess I'm just not up for a "Senate Rules" game of Pazaak (read as Poker for no stakes) today.
That's why additional independent information is needed in comparison to govt schools. Especially before we give the govt more power over the area. They have enough is my argument.

The way I look at regulation, and what I use to call it excessive is when there are not enough examples of egregiousness or foul play to warrant punishing the majority for what the few do. It's when something is affecting a larger sphere the govt should step in. If anything this makes a case for getting the govt out of more educational areas not more.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 10:30 AM
From: Inside Catholic (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Ace-of-Spades-Homeschooling-is-safe-in-California.html&Itemid=102) Short Version and Ace of Spades (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/257230.php#257230) Long Version

Parents without teaching credentials can still educate their children at home under the various exemptions to mandatory public school enrollment provided in § 48220 et seq. of the Cal. Ed. Code

You can still homeschool your kids, assuming that you can pass a criminal background check and aren't totally incompetent.

Seems like there already are some standards short of being a credentialed teacher.

LA Times misunderstood the case and misreported it.

a1na2
03-07-2008, 11:07 AM
I love how bitter you get when you get behind in an argument. That's right, take your ball and go home. Nobody wanted to play with you anyway.

I love it how virtually everyone that gets into a discussion with you eventually gets the same statement as above.

I'm seeing that you are more of a stick than most here would give you credit for.

Taco John
03-07-2008, 11:19 AM
I love it how virtually everyone that gets into a discussion with you eventually gets the same statement as above.

I'm seeing that you are more of a stick than most here would give you credit for.



What are you lying about?

NewChief
03-07-2008, 12:20 PM
If you want specific examples of homeschool failures, I can give you quite a few from my own experiences living in the bastion of homeschooling known as Northwest Arkansas. Hell, there was one well published one on an episode of Supernanny. Both parents were busy pursuing their own careers. They had two high school aged daughters who were "home schooling," which consisted of them logging in for a couple of hours on the computer then taking care of their 5 younger preschool aged siblings so their parents could work. THe parents entire motivation for homeschooling their kids, as far as I could tell, was so they could go off and work while they had two daughters at home as free daycare.

NewChief
03-07-2008, 12:22 PM
By the way, a quick google on the epidsode showed that homeschoolers (http://www.homeschoolspot.com/showthread.php?t=9818) didn't think much of the homeschooling going on either.

a1na2
03-07-2008, 12:34 PM
What are you lying about?

I'm just pointing out that I've seen you post that exact reply to several people that you have had arguments.

You seem to be stuck in some kind of loop. go home to the Orange Mange. I'm posting stuff there for you to see.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 01:30 PM
Anything can be abused. No one said there was none. Now that example sounds close to government schools that can be used as child-rearing centers with before and after care so the parents can get free care while they work. Keepin' the childer out form underfoot. And the results are pretty close to the same as some of the govt versions. Since most of the time is spent on their emotional and social development than academics.

Move along...nothing new to see here.

NewChief
03-07-2008, 01:37 PM
Anything can be abused. No one said there was none. Now that example sounds close to government schools that can be used as child-rearing centers with before and after care so the parents can get free care while they work. Keepin' the childer out form underfoot. And the results are pretty close to the same as some of the govt versions. Since most of the time is spent on their emotional and social development than academics.

Move along...nothing new to see here.

It's actually nothing like that. The caregivers (teenage daughters) were the ones who were supposed to be homeschooled. The younger siblings who there were having to babysit were preschool age.

Move along...noting new to see here. BEP is just going off on another tangential rant. :D

stevieray
03-07-2008, 01:46 PM
It's actually nothing like that. The caregivers (teenage daughters) were the ones who were supposed to be homeschooled. The younger siblings who there were having to babysit were preschool age.

Move along...noting new to see here. BEP is just going off on another tangential rant. :D


...from the guy who posts here from his teaching job on a daily basis...

if people focused on their own family as much as they do others, this wouldn't even be an issue.

the gap between parents and schools is huge, with predetermined stereotypes ruling the day...the next time a teacher patronizes me with another 'thank you" for doing what I'm supposed to do...I'm gonna go off.

Taco John
03-07-2008, 01:51 PM
I'm just pointing out that I've seen you post that exact reply to several people that you have had arguments.

Ah. If you repeat the lie, then that makes it true.

NewChief
03-07-2008, 02:18 PM
...from the guy who posts here from his teaching job on a daily basis...

if people focused on their own family as much as they do others, this wouldn't even be an issue.

the gap between parents and schools is huge, with predetermined stereotypes ruling the day...the next time a teacher patronizes me with another 'thank you" for doing what I'm supposed to do...I'm gonna go off.

I really don't understand what this has to do with my post.

BTW, I wouldn't say I post here daily from work. I've posted a lot in the last few days, because we've been doing standardized testing this week.

StcChief
03-07-2008, 02:20 PM
do the kids pass the grade test at the end of the year..... Good enough for me, since that's all the school seems geared tword to keep their funding coming.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2008, 03:44 PM
It's actually nothing like that. The caregivers (teenage daughters) were the ones who were supposed to be homeschooled. The younger siblings who there were having to babysit were preschool age.

Move along...noting new to see here. BEP is just going off on another tangential rant. :D

You mean it was over your head?

I don't approve of this situation you posted. My point is there are worse situations in the schools. How many sex scandals have their been with teachers hittin' on students? How many kids are put on drugs by the schools because they don't know how to handle kids? Daily they don't get much of an education anyway with about 45% graduating illiterate.

irishjayhawk
03-07-2008, 04:22 PM
I haven't read the thread and stumbled upon this today but here's the quote that gets me:

"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," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

I was unaware that nationalism was supposed to be the primary purpose of the educational system....

banyon
03-07-2008, 05:15 PM
I haven't read the thread and stumbled upon this today but here's the quote that gets me:



I was unaware that nationalism was supposed to be the primary purpose of the educational system....

It says "a" not "the" (primary purpose).

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-07-2008, 05:24 PM
I haven't read the thread and stumbled upon this today but here's the quote that gets me:



I was unaware that nationalism was supposed to be the primary purpose of the educational system....

Really??

The public education system has numerous faults, one of which is an anglo-centric curriculum. However, in spite of its multitude of faults, it at least has standards of achievement that are qualitative as well as quantitative. Moreover, the instructors must prove competence in order to instruct their students.

That is nowhere present in homeschooling. Does that mean that all homeschooled kids will suffer? No, nor has anyone here claimed as such.

What it has done, and what my entire argument is based around, is the fact that homeschooling as TJ would desire it requires no oversight, and wouldn't require the instructor to have any credentials.

Would you want your child being taught by a functionally illiterate person who couldn't finish college?

TJ, explain this to me:

Do the existence of lawyers irk you, since they must register with the state bar and pass a qualifying exam in order to represent you?? Or are you more comfortable pulling a Colin Ferguson if your legal rights are on the line?

If you were going to fight this in court if you were a parent of CA, would you use a state-sanctioned lawyer, or would you represent yourself? If so, why? If not, why not?

There are no controls in a homeschooling system. You can't quantify nor can you reprimand an incompetent instructor, since the teacher isn't held to any standards. If a teacher is incompetent, he or she can be disciplined or removed for said incompetence. Is a 7-year old going to be able to call a PTA meeting or file a complaint with the board of education?

You think that you are giving independence to the children by opposing this decision, but you are actually completely removing agency from children who are taught by incompetent instructors.

a1na2
03-07-2008, 05:54 PM
Ah. If you repeat the lie, then that makes it true.

That must be it, this is the second time you've denied your activities.

irishjayhawk
03-07-2008, 06:12 PM
It says "a" not "the" (primary purpose).

Yeah, typo on my part. Still though.....

alanm
03-07-2008, 10:37 PM
Teachers turn tables on disinterested students
<!--subtitle--><!--byline-->By Howard Pankratz
The Denver Post
(hpankratz@denverpost.com?subject=The%20Denver%20Post:%20Teachers%20turn%20tables%20on%20disinterest ed%20students)
<!--date-->Article Last Updated: 03/07/2008 04:41:59 PM MST

<script language="JavaScript"> var requestedWidth = 0; </script>
<script language="JavaScript"> if(requestedWidth > 0){ document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.width = requestedWidth + "px"; document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.margin = "0px 0px 10px 10px"; } </script>Teachers at the Jefferson County Open School turned the tables on their students today, locking classroom doors and going outside and playing music and cards.
The faculty of the school at 7655 W. 10th Ave. in Lakewood took the action after an increasing lack of participation and engagement by students, said Melissa Reeves, spokesperson for Jefferson County Public Schools.
Reeves said some students were not attending class when the school bell rang. And others would listen to music or play cards in the classroom while class was in session.
Frequent trips to a nearby convenience store, which involved skipping out on classes, also were a problem, said Reeves.
As a result, the teachers decided to mimic the students and do some role playing, she said.
The result late this morning was an hour-long, faculty-student assembly in which issues were hashed out and the students ended up apologizing to the school's faculty, said Reeves.
Earlier, one student had called The Denver Post and said that the teachers had gone out on strike.
Reeves said that was not the case.
There are 33 teachers and 550 students at the school.
Howard Pankratz: 303-954-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8491410



Just a for instance. :spock:

ClevelandBronco
03-08-2008, 02:51 AM
I'm as surprised and disappointed in this decision as I can be, but I have to admit that the State of California, through her courts, has every right to have the final say about the circumstances under which home schooling can or should be allowed inside her borders.

Our federal Constitution can't be used as an appeal against a state's power on this issue. At least I've seen no compelling argument yet in this thread. But maybe it's still young.

It's a matter of having the cajones to disobey and suffer the consequences, comply and bow to the state, leave the state for a friendlier state, or try to change the situation while doing any of the above.

I'll admit that several among us who advocate states' rights against the federal government are going to be vexed by this decision.

(Until this ruling gets overturned as a freedom of privacy issue, that is. Yeah, sure. That's next.)

Saggysack
03-08-2008, 05:26 AM
You mean it was over your head?

I don't approve of this situation you posted. My point is there are worse situations in the schools. How many sex scandals have their been with teachers hittin' on students? How many kids are put on drugs by the schools because they don't know how to handle kids? Daily they don't get much of an education anyway with about 45% graduating illiterate.

What? Kids don't get sexually and physically abused, or worse, murdered by their parents ever? Actually, a home schooled child IMO may be more likely to be a victim of abuse than a public school child. Sure would be easier for parent to hide the abuse if the child didn't have much interaction outside the home. Hmmm, imagine that logic. It's called rocket science.

Schools don't have the authority to put any child on prescription medication. Try again. Concerning illicit drug use, it must be a lie when evidence supports most children that try drugs for the first time try with a family member? 45% of public school children graduate illiterate? Where do you live, Bhutan? But for giggles, have anything to back up that claim? BTW, this country has a 99% literacy rate.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 06:52 AM
What? Kids don't get sexually and physically abused, or worse, murdered by their parents ever?
Who said that? Can you read?

Actually, a home schooled child IMO may be more likely to be a victim of abuse than a public school child. Sure would be easier for parent to hide the abuse if the child didn't have much interaction outside the home. Hmmm, imagine that logic. It's called rocket science.
Good thing you called it an opinion. Do you have anything to back that up?
Sounds like prejudice and antipathy toward homeschoolers or independent minded parents.
It's illogical. The types of parents that will abuse their children will abuse them regardless of where they go to school.

Schools don't have the authority to put any child on prescription medication. Try again.
Guess you've never seen those long lines of kids for their Ritalin—700 percent increase since 1990. And some parents get pressured to do so. Those parents who are unwilling are being reported by their schools to local offices of Child Protective Services with the implication of neglect.


45% of public school children graduate illiterate? Where do you live, Bhutan? But for giggles, have anything to back up that claim? BTW, this country has a 99% literacy rate.
No you live with your head under a rock....and don't have the facts here.
I've been involved in education, including reform and I teach college as an adjunct. I assure you literacy is much, much lower than 99%. There's a reason SAT tests were made easier, tutoring is rampant today outside of school, and why college campuses have ads up for remedial reading. You mustn't keep up on the issue is the problem.

I think someone needs to do some remedial reading up on the topic.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 07:11 AM
Literacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy)
Here is one source, that lists various sources on literacy and shows how the varying standards and methods on determining illiteracy—some of them flawed.

There are various definitions of literacy. Governments may label individuals who can read a couple of thousand simple words they learned by sight in the first four grades in school as literate; but the most comprehensive study of U.S. adult literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government argues that such adults are functionally illiterate--they cannot read well enough to hold a good job

Adult Literacy in America, National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002, <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf>. Retrieved on 11 December 2007

A follow-up study by the same group of researchers using a smaller database (19,714 interviewees) was released in 2006 that showed no statistically significant improvement in U.S. adult literacy.[21] These studies assert that 46 to 51 percent of U.S. adults read so poorly that they earn significantly below the threshold poverty level for an individual. [stats I was relying on]

The World Fact Book prepared by the CIA claims that the U.S. literacy rate is 99 percent, but defines literacy as being able to read and write when a person is 15 years old or older. A person who can only read a few hundred--or even a couple of thousand--simple words learned in the first four grades in school, is only marginally literate.

Jonathan Kozol, in his book Illiterate America, states that there may not be any intentional deception in the literacy figures. He goes on to explain that the census bureau reported literacy rates of 99 percent based on personal interviews of a relatively small portion of the population and on written [ Lol!] responses to census bureau mailings. If the interviewees or written responders had completed fifth grade they were considered literate.

LOL! Grade school completion does not necessarily equal grade school competence. That's probably only true for some of them.

plbrdude
03-08-2008, 08:13 AM
one step closer to a police state.

patteeu
03-08-2008, 08:13 AM
*shrug* I agree with the ruling. The courts did not strike down home-schooling, they just insisted that the parents prove they know what the hell they are doing.

I'm more worried about the rights of the kids here than I am of the parents, because the really good ones who do home schooling well are going to be fine. Suppose the parents want the kids to stay home for whatever stupid reason and they use home-schooling as a lame excuse? Suppose the parents are just retarded? (or merely stupid if not clinically retarded). Or lazy?

If the parents show the desire and ability to do a good job with home-schooling, then I'm absolutely on board with requireing the government to let them do it, but there has to be SOME kind of standards. If you cant or wont meet some basic educational standards, then I disagree that there's a fundamental "right" to home-school, because the rights of those kids trump the whim of the parent.

In the law, the best interests of the children ALWAYS, ALWAYS take precedence over the rights of the parents, and the kids have a right to some kind of an education. You can whine about public school if you want, but thats not a blanket pass to get out of showing that a particular home-schooling parent can do and is doing an adequate job.

Should people have to pass a test and get credentialed to procreate? If not, what's the difference between your argument here and an argument in favor of that proposition? When it comes to developing a kid into a functional adult, parents have a lot more responsibilities than just providing a competent education.

irishjayhawk
03-08-2008, 08:20 AM
Who said that? Can you read?


Good thing you called it an opinion. Do you have anything to back that up?
Sounds like prejudice and antipathy toward homeschoolers or independent minded parents.


Guess you've never seen those long lines of kids for their Ritalin—700 percent increase since 1990. And some parents get pressured to do so. Those parents who are unwilling are being reported by their schools to local offices of Child Protective Services with the implication of neglect.



No you live with your head under a rock....and don't have the facts here.
I've been involved in education, including reform and I teach college as an adjunct. I assure you literacy is much, much lower than 99%. There's a reason SAT tests were made easier and why college campuses have ads up for remedial reading. You mustn't keep up on the issue is the problem.

I think someone needs to do some remedial reading up on the topic.

To be fair, you didn't back your post (of which he quotes) up either.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 08:21 AM
I'm as surprised and disappointed in this decision as I can be, but I have to admit that the State of California, through her courts, has every right to have the final say about the circumstances under which home schooling can or should be allowed inside her borders.

Our federal Constitution can't be used as an appeal against a state's power on this issue. At least I've seen no compelling argument yet in this thread. But maybe it's still young.

Well, that's correct. I fell into the modern-mind-set without thinkin' for a moment, because I can see something like this going up there due to how often such things do nowadays. The article said they'd take to the State SC though. Anyhow, neither is necessary as this was mis-reported by the LA Times and the court did not decide a teacher cert was necessary. Check out my post #147 (I think it is?)

Bottom line though, if this really was decided as reported originally, it would have ended homeschooling which is no doubt the aim of many statists—left, right and moderate.

banyon
03-08-2008, 09:04 AM
Literacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy)
Here is one source, that lists various sources on literacy and shows how the varying standards and methods on determining illiteracy—some of them flawed.

There are various definitions of literacy. Governments may label individuals who can read a couple of thousand simple words they learned by sight in the first four grades in school as literate; but the most comprehensive study of U.S. adult literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government argues that such adults are functionally illiterate--they cannot read well enough to hold a good job

Adult Literacy in America, National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002, <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf>. Retrieved on 11 December 2007

A follow-up study by the same group of researchers using a smaller database (19,714 interviewees) was released in 2006 that showed no statistically significant improvement in U.S. adult literacy.[21] These studies assert that 46 to 51 percent of U.S. adults read so poorly that they earn significantly below the threshold poverty level for an individual. [stats I was relying on]

The World Fact Book prepared by the CIA claims that the U.S. literacy rate is 99 percent, but defines literacy as being able to read and write when a person is 15 years old or older. A person who can only read a few hundred--or even a couple of thousand--simple words learned in the first four grades in school, is only marginally literate.

Jonathan Kozol, in his book Illiterate America, states that there may not be any intentional deception in the literacy figures. He goes on to explain that the census bureau reported literacy rates of 99 percent based on personal interviews of a relatively small portion of the population and on written [ Lol!] responses to census bureau mailings. If the interviewees or written responders had completed fifth grade they were considered literate.

LOL! Grade school completion does not necessarily equal grade school competence. That's probably only true for some of them.


LOL! :rolleyes: Moving the goalposts to "functional illiteracy" now that it's obvious that the 99% figure is correct. I mean how many people do you really know that can't read or write? Is it 6/10 that you meet? Of course not. If you rated "functional illiteracy" in other countries, what kind of number ould you expect in impoverished countries?

Here:s the original post:

Do you have a single thought that is outside of the statist, progressive, collectivist box? Children today are less educated as a society. Literacy is about 45%. Literacy was as high as 75 even 90% in some areas before govt education. These type controls are just a cover-up for more monopoly control over education, one reason it's a failure. Liscensing is often used to drive out competition hiding under safety arguments.

Seeing as "functional illeteracy" is a new data construct, you have no idea what the "functional literacy" rate would have been "before govt education". You are comparing apples and oranges.


Also, just so you know, the countries on the top of the list are mostly *GASP* socialist countries. How can that be, surely total anarchy is the only way to teach kids?

banyon
03-08-2008, 09:15 AM
Oh gawd! That is so disgustingly fascist I can't believe an American is advocating that. Especially when some private schools aren't even accredited. Especially, when accreditation is done by private groups and not the govt. .

Also love how you're back to your old tricks. Disagree with me? Think the government should be able to verify kids are going to school? You're a Nazi!! You're not an American! ... I'm sure the Founders would approve of your robust embrace of the free exchange of ideas. Putrid.

irishjayhawk
03-08-2008, 09:16 AM
LOL! :rolleyes: Moving the goalposts to "functional illiteracy" now that it's obvious that the 99% figure is correct. I mean how many people do you really know that can't read or write? Is it 6/10 that you meet? Of course not. If you rated "functional illiteracy" in other countries, what kind of number ould you expect in impoverished countries?

Here:s the original post:



Seeing as "functional illeteracy" is a new data construct, you have no idea what the "functional literacy" rate would have been "before govt education". You are comparing apples and oranges.


Also, just so you know, the countries on the top of the list are mostly *GASP* socialist countries. How can that be, surely total anarchy is the only way to teach kids?

Notice how there were no citations to back up her claim. Interesting, because she always asks others to back up theirs.

banyon
03-08-2008, 09:17 AM
Notice how there were no citations to back up her claim. Interesting, because she always asks others to back up theirs.

She never does. She'll either put you on ignore if you press her on it, pretend that it didn't happen, or maybe call you a name and move on to another topic.

Sully
03-08-2008, 09:48 AM
In my education classes, in almost every class, it's has been pounded into our heads that, as a teacher, if you even suggest that a child needs to be put on medication, or is possibly ADHD, that is the quickest way to get fired. The reasoning they tell us is that if you suggest it as a teacher, the school is now on the hook for paying for at least part of it.

unlurking
03-08-2008, 09:49 AM
I haven't read the whole thread, but in case no one mentioned it, lowered educational standards are a good thing. No need to import a lower class from Mexico, let it come from Cali. (Although to be honest, I think I'd rather we just let Cali secede and annex Mexico.)

patteeu
03-08-2008, 10:06 AM
America is already trailing several other countries in education.

That's not a very good argument to use in favor of making sure even more kids participate in the public education system.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 10:26 AM
Dane, education problems exist in other countries too.

patteeu
03-08-2008, 10:57 AM
Nope. If public education were theoretically unavailable in some remote location, not that the parents are denying it, its just not there without paying a huge price, then obviously there is no question of whats in the "best interests of the child"....

One of the problems I have with your "best interests of the child" arguments is that you are extrapolating that concept from a courtroom situation where a fact set is being evaluated on a case by case basis to the broadbrushed generalization of legislation. Depending on what this certification entails, it's not at all clear that the best interests of the child are served in all or even in most cases by the legislation. If the certification amounts to little more than a registration with the state then it's probably not a problem, but if they are requiring a PhD in education (or even a BS) there are likely to be many children whose best interests are *not* served.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 11:09 AM
That's not a very good argument to use in favor of making sure even more kids participate in the public education system.

I think I've clearly stated my position in post 13:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4619290&postcount=13

California is the largest state in the Union according to population. The economy in California is the fifth largest in the world - larger than the country of France. Allowing anyone to home school without credentials in this state is tenuous at best.

America is already trailing several other countries in education. We're losing tech jobs and our science is no longer number one worldwide. And while I am usually against more government involvement, this actually makes sense on many levels.

The children of California public school are already behind in education due to the large illegal (and legal) Hispanic population. Mixed language classes tend to go much slower due to the language barrier. And while you might say "Hey, I'll just home-school", who's to say that the parent is actually qualified to home school?

I don't know what the solution for better education in America would be do I do think it's time for a National Language requirement. There are far, far too many organizations and government agencies that cater to Spanish speaking people. Not only is it slowing their development regarding education, but it's going to create a huge rift in this country in merely 20 years.

But "Home-School" educators should be required to pass certain tests or to have certain credentials. Otherwise, we're just further dumbing down the population.

banyon
03-08-2008, 11:33 AM
One of the problems I have with your "best interests of the child" arguments is that you are extrapolating that concept from a courtroom situation where a fact set is being evaluated on a case by case basis to the broadbrushed generalization of legislation. Depending on what this certification entails, it's not at all clear that the best interests of the child are served in all or even in most cases by the legislation. If the certification amounts to little more than a registration with the state then it's probably not a problem, but if they are requiring a PhD in education (or even a BS) there are likely to be many children whose best interests are *not* served.

Here's the actual case: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

And the Calif. Dept. of Ed's options available: (http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ps/cd/psfaq.asp)

It looks like the outrage at Lew Rockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut52.html) and Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/06/california-court-threatens-homeschoolers/) is misdirected.

The parents in this case were deadbeats with multiple investigations for abuse. The juvenile court attorneys moved to get a court order to compel the children into public school. The court refused sayingthe parents had a "Constitutional Right' to homeschooling. The court of appeals overturned saying there was no such right.

In other words, Taco, there was no attempt here to "punish all of the parents homeschooling". The same options that have always been available are still available. Hoewever, if you are a lousy parent, and the education is suspect, in a particular case a court should have the authority to order public schooling.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 11:40 AM
Allowing anyone to home school without credentials in this state is tenuous at best.
Why, when a private school is not subject to the same?

Why when HS results are, at least the same, and often better than the govt system?

And while I am usually against more government involvement, this actually makes sense on many levels.
Except home schooled kids are better educated, score higher and get accepted to college. It's the exception to the rule that it's otherwise.

There's NO probable cause here.

The children of California public school are already behind in education due to the large illegal (and legal) Hispanic population. Mixed language classes tend to go much slower due to the language barrier. And while you might say "Hey, I'll just home-school", who's to say that the parent is actually qualified to home school?
Except parental involvement is one of the biggest factors in academic success.
Homeschooling is all about parental involvement. You can't beat one on one.
Some of our greatest scientist and statemen were homeschooled.

Dane, you're talking about the kids of Cali's public schools that are behind, not the homeschoolers. Homeschoolers are not behind, they are ahead usually. They score at least the same but often better.

It seems to me that logic would tell us that the public system should be learning from the homeschoolers not the other way around.

But "Home-School" educators should be required to pass certain tests or to have certain credentials. Otherwise, we're just further dumbing down the population.
What is this based on?

If private schools don't have to do this why should a homeschool have to when that is just a type of private school?

I assure you that getting the govt more involved here is a big mistake if you want real education taking place.

I am in the midst of researching the SC cases on this, which they have been involved in as there are numerous cases on it apparently. This is an inalienable right and compelling state interest for a child to be educated does not supercede the manner in which a child is educated.

MEYER v. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390, 400 & 430 (1923) "The object is that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular manner or place."

htismaqe
03-08-2008, 11:41 AM
My kindergartener is getting a lecture from Happy Bear on March 18th. Happy Bear will be talking about good touches and bad touches. Use of the terms "penis" and "vagina" are prevalent in the presentation.

When I first objected, the school tried to tell me that I'm the ONLY parent with concerns and that my behavior is going to make my child feel "ostracized and alone".

When I continued to object, it was insinuated that my behavior might look very suspect to the State Department of Health and Human Services.

banyon
03-08-2008, 11:44 AM
And the requirements are fairly minimal (http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/CREDS/iMS.html):

Pass a teacher preparatory program & pass a basic education skills test (http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl667.pdf). You don't even have to have a B.A.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 11:45 AM
My kindergartener is getting a lecture from Happy Bear on March 18th. Happy Bear will be talking about good touches and bad touches. Use of the terms "penis" and "vagina" are prevalent in the presentation.

When I first objected, the school tried to tell me that I'm the ONLY parent with concerns and that my behavior is going to make my child feel "ostracized and alone".

When I continued to object, it was insinuated that my behavior might look very suspect to the State Department of Health and Human Services.

Another reason why there is an exodus out of the govt school system.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 11:54 AM
Why, when a private school is not subject to the same?

Why when HS results are, at least the same, and often better than the govt system?

Are you claiming that every one of the 166,000 home-schooled children is further along in his or hers development than the 10 million plus that are in public or private school?


Except home schooled kids are better educated, score higher and get accepted to college. It's the exception to the rule that it's otherwise.

There's NO probable cause here.


Except parental involvement is one of the biggest factors in academic success.
Homeschooling is all about parental involvement. You can't beat one on one.
Some of our greatest scientist and statemen were homeschooled.

Dane, you're talking about the kids of Cali's public schools that are behind, not the homeschoolers. Homeschoolers are not behind, they are ahead usually. They score at least the same but often better.

It seems to me that logic would tell us that the public system should be learning from the homeschoolers not the other way around.


What is this based on?

If private schools don't have to do this why should a homeschool have to when that is just a type of private school?

I assure you that getting the govt more involved here is a big mistake if you want real education taking place.

I am in the midst of researching the SC cases on this, which they have been involved in as there are numerous cases on it apparently. This is an inalienable right and compelling state interest for a child to be educated does not supercede the manner in which a child is educated.

MEYER v. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390, 400 & 430 (1923) "The object is that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular manner or place."

You know, this argument that you all are making is fine and well if you're applying it to White, English speaking people only.

This country is quickly becoming a two language country and that's only going to continue. Referencing the past is no longer valid, especially rulings that are nearly 100 years old. The USA is a much different place than it was in 1923.

Spanish speaking people will soon outnumber English speaking people in California. Additionally, are you claiming that each of the 166,000 California home-schooled children is further along in development than the other 10 million-plus that are in public and private school?

What about those Hispanic families and communities that decide to home-school their children but choose to teach them Spanish only? Have you thought about the consequences of such a decision without a state mandate?

I can ask just as many questions regarding the opposition of this ruling. Personally, I think that the state should mandate requirements for home-schooled children, especially given the growing division between English-speaking and Spanish-speaking people in this state.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 11:56 AM
Another reason why there is an exodus out of the govt school system.

C'mon, give me a break. Exodus?

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 11:59 AM
My kindergartener is getting a lecture from Happy Bear on March 18th. Happy Bear will be talking about good touches and bad touches. Use of the terms "penis" and "vagina" are prevalent in the presentation.

When I first objected, the school tried to tell me that I'm the ONLY parent with concerns and that my behavior is going to make my child feel "ostracized and alone".

When I continued to object, it was insinuated that my behavior might look very suspect to the State Department of Health and Human Services.

Considering the world we currently live in, I think that using medical terms to describe genitalia in a school setting should be appropriate and necessary because too many parents are uncomfortable using those terms with their children.

While a majority of the parents that are members of Chiefsplanet appear to be good and responsible parents, that relatively small percentage shouldn't be extrapolated and multiplied to include the entire U.S. because that's just not the case.

banyon
03-08-2008, 12:00 PM
I am in the midst of researching the SC cases on this, which they have been involved in as there are numerous cases on it apparently. This is an inalienable right and compelling state interest for a child to be educated does not supercede the manner in which a child is educated.

Grammatically, the bolded part doesn't make sense, but what I think is trying to be asserted here is that BEP wants to have some sort of Federal Constitutional right to homeschool that would overturn California's ability to govern its own affairs (and the Calif. Constitution which guarantees kids a decent education), despite the fact that 99% of the time she rails against enlargement of federal vs. state power and that we should adopt a strict constructionist view of the (federal) Constitution. It's just another hairpin turn on the rollercoaster of ideological rigidity to fit her own life experiences I guess.


MEYER v. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390, 400 & 430 (1923) "The object is that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular manner or place."

No surprise here that this is totally taken out of context in a case that is actually famous for upholding (and not overturning) compulsory education laws. Mainly it's about allowing kids under a certain age to learn German. When the Court made the statement quoted above, the context was that a state couldn't arbitraily have a law prohibiting kids from learning German without a good reason. it wasn't that it couldn't compel them to go (for which there is a good public policy reason).

But here's another quote:

"The power of the state to compel attendance at some school and to make reasonable regulations for all schools, including a requirement that they shall give instructions in English, is not questioned."

Not only that, but the California Court in this case actually takes the above quote in Meyer as proof of the fact that compulsory education laws are not unconstitutional.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:02 PM
Btw folks, accountability is required for use of public funds and for public institutions. Even the federal NCLB recognizes that accountability applies to public funds, not private schools or home schools. Home education does not use public funds. Section 9506 prohibits states from using the act to require testing of homeschoolers or oversight of HS curriculum.

Also, laws identify prohibitive behavior and penalties for violation. But they don't institute controls that assume everyone will be a violator. Govt has to have probable cause. To do otherwise is police state mentality.

Apparently our Federal SC has defined parents' right to direct the education of their children as an inalienable and fundamental like speech and religion.

PAUL v. DAVIS, 424 U.S. 693,713 (1976), stated that the
Constitutional right to privacy includes, "matters relating to marriage, procreation, conception, family relationships, and
child rearing and education."

WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) the court stated, "...the history of the western civilization reflects a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents
in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."

PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, 531 (1925) the courts declared, "The child is not the mere create of the state; those that nurture him and direct his destiny, have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for added obligations."

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 158-178 (1944) it was upheld that, "the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the states by the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. (1972) the court laid out parental rights to educate in no uncertain terms.
"A state's interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not totally free from the balancing process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of the parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children so long as they, in the words of Pierce, 'preparing them for additional obligations.' We can accept it as settled, therefore, that however strong the state's compelling interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion of subordination of all other interest."

MILLER v. U.S., F 486 AT 489, the court said that, "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

The situation, as the court sees it, then, is that parents have the primary interest in the education of their children which supercedes any "compelling" interest of the state. The state should be in the position of encouraging and supporting parents in their role and decisions of education.
http://www.mtche.org/mchegen.htm#legal

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:03 PM
C'mon, give me a break. Exodus?

Yup! There's been a steady trend out of the govt schools. I mean HS was once the domain of religious right folks but is now making inroads into the mainstream.

htismaqe
03-08-2008, 12:05 PM
Considering the world we currently live in, I think that using medical terms to describe genitalia in a school setting should be appropriate and necessary because too many parents are uncomfortable using those terms with their children.

While a majority of the parents that are members of Chiefsplanet appear to be good and responsible parents, that relatively small percentage shouldn't be extrapolated and multiplied to include the entire U.S. because that's just not the case.

It doesn't MATTER how many good and bad parents there are. Or how appropriate it is for kindergartners.

That wasn't the point of the post.

The point was that I objected to my child being there, because I feel that is something best left for ME to explain to her. The school first tried to make me feel guilty and then subtley THREATENED me if she wasn't there.

My child has 3 months left in Kindergarten and is reading at a 2nd-grade level. She can already do multiplication and division at a late 1st-grade level as well. She got ALL of that at home. What she gets at school is 2
hours a day of the programs like the one I referenced above.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 12:08 PM
Yup! There's been a steady trend out of the govt schools. I mean HS was once the domain of religious right folks but is now making inroads into the mainstream.

Well, I can certainly tell that trend hasn't happened in Los Angeles. All of the local private schools (Los Feliz, Silverlake, Hancock Park, Santa Monica, BH) START at $18,000 per year, per high school student, with many of them as high as $30,000 per year.

While there are several thousand families that can afford to pay those fees for private education, the other 19,900,000 people in Los Angeles can't.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 12:10 PM
It doesn't MATTER how many good and bad parents there are. Or how appropriate it is for kindergartners.

That wasn't the point of the post.

The point was that I objected to my child being there, because I feel that is something best left for ME to explain to her. The school first tried to make me feel guilty and then subtley THREATENED me if she wasn't there.

My child has 3 months left in Kindergarten and is reading at a 2nd-grade level. She can already do multiplication and division at a late 1st-grade level as well. She got ALL of that at home. What she gets at school is 2
hours a day of the programs like the one I referenced above.

I'm not trying to offend you or question your child rearing decisions or skills.

Were the parents notified that such a demonstration would be taking place?

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:11 PM
You know, this argument that you all are making is fine and well if you're applying it to White, English speaking people only.

This country is quickly becoming a two language country and that's only going to continue. Referencing the past is no longer valid, especially rulings that are nearly 100 years old. The USA is a much different place than it was in 1923.

Spanish speaking people will soon outnumber English speaking people in California. Additionally, are you claiming that each of the 166,000 California home-schooled children is further along in development than the other 10 million-plus that are in public and private school?

What about those Hispanic families and communities that decide to home-school their children but choose to teach them Spanish only? Have you thought about the consequences of such a decision without a state mandate?

I can ask just as many questions regarding the opposition of this ruling. Personally, I think that the state should mandate requirements for home-schooled children, especially given the growing division between English-speaking and Spanish-speaking people in this state.
I asked question to provide facts that are not being considered, such as private schools not being subjected to the same credentials. Accreditation is done by private groups too.

I also don't know that the past does away with basic rights or that it validates educational fads or trends, particularly the govt schools. I think cause and effect shows the more govt involvement here, the worse education has gotten. In fact it can be statistically shown. Most of the reform we get makes things worse too. More govt is not the solution, its the problem.

The language problem is not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing if it ain't broke don't fix it.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 12:12 PM
one step closer to a police state.

Great input :rolleyes:


If you have a better solution for governing over 40 million people in the state of California, with so many large ethnic groups, each with their own agenda, by all means, let's hear it.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:13 PM
Well, I can certainly tell that trend hasn't happened in Los Angeles. All of the local private schools (Los Feliz, Silverlake, Hancock Park, Santa Monica, BH) START at $18,000 per year, per high school student, with many of them as high as $30,000 per year.

While there are several thousand families that can afford to pay those fees for private education, the other 19,900,000 people in Los Angeles can't.

I was talking nationally. But I'm sure that there has been some trend in Cali because I hear about the battles HS'ing is having out there. But affordability is another reason why more are doing it. I'm considering it for my own daughter to get her through high school by the time she's 16 for early college enrollment. So I can save my private tuition bill from elementary school through middle at $9k per year.

htismaqe
03-08-2008, 12:16 PM
I'm not trying to offend you or question your child rearing decisions or skills.

Were the parents notified that such a demonstration would be taking place?

Did you even read my posts?

Yes, they were notified. The conversations with the school took place when I suggested that I would be keeping my daughter at home that day.

Of course, 2 days after those conversations, we were notified via a note in my daughter's backpack that a couple of books that were considered "prerequisite reading" for the Happy Bear assembly had ALREADY been read, and they just wanted us to know.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 12:19 PM
I asked question to provide facts that are not being considered, such as private schools not being subjected to the same credentials. Accreditation is done by private groups too.

I also don't know that the past does away with basic rights or that it validates educational fads or trends, particularly the govt schools. I think cause and effect shows the more govt involvement here, the worse education has gotten. In fact it can be statistically shown. Most of the reform we get makes things worse too. More govt is not the solution, its the problem.

The language problem is not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing if it ain't broke don't fix it.

The language "problem" is the hidden agenda of such a ruling.

Do you know that every freakin' time the people of this state vote to make this state "English-only", that try to do away with "rights" for Spanish-speaking people, a lawyer that represents those interest groups goes to a Hispanic judge, who then overturns the vote of the people? Or the proposition? Or anything relating to these issues?

Additionally, there are 40 million legal citizens in California. Not 4 million, not 6 million, no 10 million. 40 million. I'm sorry that you can't understand this state government's responsibility to set guidelines for home-schooled children in the 21st century.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:21 PM
BTW homeschoolers tend to be white and non-Hispanic.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 12:22 PM
I was talking nationally. But I'm sure that there has been some trend in Cali because I hear about the battles HS'ing is having out there. But affordability is another reason why more are doing it. I'm considering it for my own daughter to get her through high school by the time she's 16 for early college enrollment. So I can save my private tuition bill from elementary school through middle at $9k per year.

I would never home-school a child. That's just me.

There's too much socialization, too many contacts, too many areas to bond, so on and so forth, that are all lost when children are home schooled. I couldn't even imagine not participating in student government, the junior high and high school newspaper (where I was Sports Editor of both), sports, pep rallies and all the fun (and not so fun) aspects of elementary, junior high and high school.

I would feel like I lost out on my childhood.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 12:22 PM
BTW homeschoolers tend to be white and non-Hispanic.

Currently.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:25 PM
I'm sorry that you can't understand this state government's responsibility to set guidelines for home-schooled children in the 21st century.
I'm sorry that most of the assumptions about homeschooling are based on just that: assumptions with few facts.

Most people know little about the homeschooling movement, SC rulings on the right of parents to do it without a teaching cert, or that accreditation is done privately or that other private schools don't have the same rules.

BTW I just checked it's growth: it's 10-20% per year. Trends out of public schools to private schools is another in the whole picture.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:28 PM
BTW I didn't say I was against guidelines, many states have those. I was referring to a parent having to have a teaching degree or cert.
I stated specific guidelines earlier.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:29 PM
Currently.

Obviously.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:33 PM
I would never home-school a child. That's just me.

There's too much socialization, too many contacts, too many areas to bond, so on and so forth, that are all lost when children are home schooled. I couldn't even imagine not participating in student government, the junior high and high school newspaper (where I was Sports Editor of both), sports, pep rallies and all the fun (and not so fun) aspects of elementary, junior high and high school.

I would feel like I lost out on my childhood.
She's head of student council now.

HS are linked up with other HS and there is a network for that. Here, they can also participate in the HS sports and use the labs too. They're supportiveof HS here, and particularly in my district. There are some curriculum minimums that have to be met but not much else.

She doesn't want to go to public school HS. She thinks most of them are dumb and unethical. Based on what I hear these days it doesn't sound like she'll miss much. Too much has changed. And it's not definite either...as I may need to work for to get reading for college.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 12:33 PM
I'm sorry that most of the assumptions about homeschooling are based on just that: assumptions with few facts.

Most people know little about the homeschooling movement, SC rulings on the right of parents to do it without a teaching cert, or that accreditation is done privately or that other private schools don't have the same rules.

BTW I just checked it's growth: it's 10-20% per year. Trends out of public schools to private schools is another in the whole picture.

Okay, let's say that figure is correct. If 10-20% of California's children are home-schooled, we're now talking about a number in the millions, not just 166,000.

If that's the case and several million children are home-schooled, don't you think that there should be certifications required? We're talking millions. If not, wouldn't there be a chance that a large majority of these children face the notion of being under-educated?

banyon
03-08-2008, 12:35 PM
Btw folks, accountability is required for use of public funds and for public institutions. Even the federal NCLB recognizes that accountability applies to public funds, not private schools or home schools. Home education does not use public funds. Section 9506 prohibits states from using the act to require testing of homeschoolers or oversight of HS curriculum.

Also, laws identify prohibitive behavior and penalties for violation. But they don't institute controls that assume everyone will be a violator. Govt has to have probable cause. To do otherwise is police state mentality.

Apparently our Federal SC has defined parents' right to direct the education of their children as an inalienable and fundamental like speech and religion.[/b]

Yes, apparently, were one to cut and paste the first thing that they googled and looked friendly to their position, it might look that way. I don't dispute that it is a right, but like speech, it is also subject to regulations (often for time place or manner, like speech) in many instances. In NO case cited below is it asserted as "inalienable". Just like the right to bear arms, if you are unqualified (like a felon), then the right maybe taken away.

PAUL v. DAVIS, 424 U.S. 693,713 (1976), stated that the
Constitutional right to privacy includes, "matters relating to marriage, procreation, conception, family relationships, and
child rearing and education."

The above quote is just a reference to show that in general, there are several rights that are fundamental that aren't explicit in the Bill of Rights (has much more to do with Federalism than compulsory attendance laws).

WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) the court stated, "...the history of the western civilization reflects a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents
in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."

The fact that this case is cited is absurd. It is one of the most famous cases in Sup. Ct. history and specifallly for holding that the state of Wisconsin could compel children to attend through eight grade, but because of the Amish's countervailing importance in maintaining their religious (competing 1st amendment value) and established lifestyle, Amish school children could not be compelled to attend afterthe eighth grade.

PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, 531 (1925) the courts declared, "The child is not the mere create of the state; those that nurture him and direct his destiny, have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for added obligations."

This case is actually cited again by the California Court because it also holds:

‘No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.’

The case essentially upholds the right of religious schools to operate. It doesn't say that they don't have to be credentialied.


GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 158-178 (1944) it was upheld that, "the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the states by the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

Another famous case that has little to do with the topic at hand and one quote was cherry picked out of it. Griswold is a case about whether or not a state could prohibit the distribution of contraceptives by a statute. The above quote is just a reference to show that in general, there are severalrightsthat are fundamental that aren't explicit in the Bill of Rights.

WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. (1972) the court laid out parental rights to educate in no uncertain terms.
"A state's interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not totally free from the balancing process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of the parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children so long as they, in the words of Pierce, 'preparing them for additional obligations.' We can accept it as settled, therefore, that however strong the state's compelling interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion of subordination of all other interest."

Addressed above. I don't know why they quoted it twice in different places. It seems disorganized.

MILLER v. U.S., F 486 AT 489, the court said that, "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

This case is rather obscure, asthere are many more "Miller v. U.S.'s" more famous in jurisprudence. But I'll assume unless proven otherwise that it out of context and misapplied like the others unless shown otherwise.

The situation, as the court sees it, then, is that parents have the primary interest in the education of their children which supercedes any "compelling" interest of the state. The state should be in the position of encouraging and supporting parents in their role and decisions of education.
http://www.mtche.org/mchegen.htm#legal

Fortunately, our Supreme Court jurisprudence consists of more than just cherry-picking some quotes and drawing preferred conclusions from them. In nearly every case, even from the ones your googled "source" cherry-picked (was this what you meant by "I'm going to research this issue?" I hope not) each Court found that thestate has a compelling interest in enacting compulsory attendance laws and that regulations to ensure that it is followed are allowed so long as they are necessary to achieve that end.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:39 PM
Okay, let's say that figure is correct. If 10-20% of California's children are home-schooled, we're now talking about a number in the millions, not just 166,000.

If that's the case and several million children are home-schooled, don't you think that there should be certifications required? We're talking millions. If not, wouldn't there be a chance that a large majority of these children face the notion of being under-educated?

That's nationally. I don't know how that falls out in Cali or if it's higher in one area. But there has been a trend out of the public schools with homeschooling being used as one choice.

Certifications? What kind? For teaching—no. See my earlier posts. I posted extensively here. I'm not certified and I teach college pt. I get good reviews and my students say they learn a lot. I also taught my daughter to read at age 4 before she started K. Her K teacher was impressed...only my daughter was bored and too far ahead I had to find another school that could work with her individually. Her current teacher isn't certified either. She has been an awesome influence on my daughter who as a real desire to be well educated and capable. She's smart lady and an excellent teacher. Older.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 12:46 PM
Dane you're assuming that a teacher having a cert can teach or does a good job. That's not the case. Some are some aren't. It just gives those who hire them a piece of paper to fall on instead of observation and results.

“Some of the worst teachers I’ve ever seen are highly certified. Look at our public schools. They’re full of certified teachers. What kind of magic is that accomplishing? But I can take you to the best teachers I’ve ever seen, and most of them are uncertified.... We don’t have evidence at all that what we do in schools of education makes much difference in teacher competence.”1

—Dr. Donald Ericksen, UCLA

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-08-2008, 12:50 PM
Why, when a private school is not subject to the same?
Why when HS results are, at least the same, and often better than the govt system?


Except home schooled kids are better educated, score higher and get accepted to college. It's the exception to the rule that it's otherwise.

There's NO probable cause here.


It's easy to score higher when you use selection bias to accumulate your scores. Once again, though, this argument is not about the people who are homeschooled by competent parents. It's about protecting them from the incompetent.

Do you object to driver's license tests? Bar exams? College accreditation? Or are you just using this to jump on your soapbox and rave like a goddamned lunatic yet again?

banyon
03-08-2008, 12:50 PM
Why does he have to assume that? Why not just assume that a group of credentialed teachers will perform better than a group of uncredentialed teachers.

This "I home schooled, so everyone else should be able to also" is just contrary to common sense.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 12:52 PM
Why does he have to assume that? Why not just assume that a group of credentialed teachers will perform better than a group of uncredentialed teachers.

This "I home schooled, so everyone else should be able to also" is just contrary to common sense.

QFT

banyon
03-08-2008, 12:56 PM
Uncertified teachers rock:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yKFVxy0uu_o"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yKFVxy0uu_o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 12:59 PM
Dane you're assuming that a teacher having a cert can teach or does a good job. That's not the case. Some are some aren't. It just gives those who hire them a piece of paper to fall on instead of
observation and results.

The quote you've provided doesn't account for the students that those teachers are teaching.

Let's say that more than half of the students in those classrooms are Spanish-speaking only. That is a gigantic problem in the LA Unified school district. So what happens is the best teachers become frustrated very quickly because they can't teach due to the language barrier. So, the best teachers end up in the private schools. Those left teach under very difficult circumstances and as I mentioned previously, the rate of schooling is much slower because so many children can't speak English.

Quoting one person or providing nationwide statistics don't account for the problems that are currently unique to California.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 01:01 PM
The Myth of Teacher Qualifications (http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000002/00000214.asp)

Most education officials publicly claim that teachers need special “qualifications” in order to be effective.
As a result, public education organizations often promote legislation or an interpretation of the law which would require home school parents to have one of three qualifications:

1) a teacher certificate
2) a college degree
3) pass a “teacher’s exam.

Although this seems reasonable on the surface, such requirements not only violate the right of parents to teach their children as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but virtually all academic research documents that there is no positive correlation between teacher qualifications (especially teacher certification requirements) and student performance.

It also seems apparent that Americans in general are seeing through the “smoke screen” of teacher qualifications. On July 23, 1991, the results of a public opinion poll were released by the Washington-based Belden and Russonello public opinion research firm. It found that three out of four Americans disagreed with the notion that teacher certification requirements in public schools assure high-quality teachers. The poll also found that 71 percent do not believe that the lack of teacher certification in private schools means that their teachers are less qualified than public school teachers.

Only the National Education Association and some of the other members of the educational establishment continue to defend teacher certification and high qualification standards for homeschoolers, in spite of the overwhelming research against the need for such teaching standards. Their vested interest in certified teachers may explain their blindness to the facts.

Well, looky who's behind this teacher cert business: The NEA!!

Notice how it's usually competitors that resort to legislation to drive out their competitors?

I have talked with hundreds of school officials who cannot understand how a “mere mother” with a high school diploma could possibly teach her own children. These officials literally take offense that parents would try to teach their children and actually think that they will do as well as teachers in the public school who have at least four years and sometimes seven years of higher education. [Elitist snobbery! Instead of the market.]

Unfortunately, critics in the media have also believed this myth and will question the validity of home schooling by asking, “But are the parents qualified?” What is so laughable about this belief in teacher qualifications by public school authorities are the statistics which show the appalling decline in competency among certified public school teachers and the failure of the teacher colleges. [I've said teacher colleges need their own reform overhaul before.]

Since 1983, Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has been battling teacher qualifications for homeschool parents in the legal arena. I have fought hundreds of school districts which have misapplied the laws in states such as Alabama, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, California, and South Carolina.

These school districts often used the vagueness of the law to impose college degree or certification requirements on homeschool parents, which, if successful, would shut down over half of all homeschools. [That's the idea!]

As of October 2006, the battles have been won in most of these states, either in the courts or in the legislature. Other states such as Iowa, North Dakota, Michigan, Florida, Virginia, and Washington applied more explicit laws requiring homeschoolers to be certified teachers. Most of these laws were finally defeated or repealed, but many families ended up in court in the process. For a period of 10 years, virtually every HSLDA member family that was discovered by a school district in North Dakota was taken to court for not being certified. [Sounds like China!]

Homeschoolers need to remain constantly informed. For example, a few years ago the Kansas School Board Association made an unsuccessful attempt to get House Bill 2392 passed which would have required homeschoolers to be certified. Homeschoolers, as a result of these continuing attacks by school officials, lobbyists, and the media, need to be familiar with the statistics in this report in order to expose the “myth of teacher qualifications” so that no qualifications will be placed on homeschool parents.

This report summarizes research and opinions of professional educators, confirming the absence of a positive correlation between teacher qualifications and student performance. There is also a clear trend in the legislatures and the courts away from enacting or enforcing certification and other teaching standards to restrict homeschoolers. [Yippee! The forces of freedom are winning.]

If ya have time read all the studies on teacher certification correlated with results. They're not there.

BTW Dane, you should know that education is controlled by leftists in this country. They've owned every state legislature lock-stock-and-barrel for years. Most of their money goes to the Dems. This is one reason why kids learn so much left wing politics and political correctness. They are the ones dumbing down today's kids. Not the homeschoolers. HS'ers are trying to escape this stuff. But the left uses coercian and force (law) to try to destroy any competition.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 01:02 PM
The quote you've provided doesn't account for the students that those teachers are teaching.
That quote is based on the lack of results found in students.
Certs focus on teachers not students or results.
Language in Cali is a problem for Cali.

banyon
03-08-2008, 01:07 PM
And the requirements are fairly minimal (http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/CREDS/iMS.html):

Pass a teacher preparatory program & pass a basic education skills test (http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl667.pdf). You don't even have to have a B.A.

I'll post these again. But basically what's being advocated is that people who can't pass or can't be bothered to pass a "basic education skills test" that even these terrible public school teachers can pass should be allowed to do whatever they want and that the State of California shouldn't beable to do a damn thing about it because she wants judicial activism (which is only in this instance and never again) from the U.S. Courts to strike down the Calif. law.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-08-2008, 01:07 PM
BEP,

You've still never responded to my questions about other forms of certification.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 01:11 PM
It's easy to score higher when you use selection bias to accumulate your scores. Once again, though, this argument is not about the people who are homeschooled by competent parents. It's about protecting them from the incompetent.
I actually posted to some of your concerns earlier in depth, but I've had trouble with the software. It got lost. It never posted for some reason.
I just wish I had used Word first so I coulda save it and then transferred it.

But the same thing is done by teaching to standardized test these days too.

Any school selects it's own testing because every school has a different educational mission with a different curriculum. It should be that way. Because the best education is tailored to the individual. You'd want to measure what you're trying to teach. It's no different anyplace else. Testing is only one tool anyway.

Homeschoolers still have to take SATs and ACTs and they do well on them generally.

Do you object to driver's license tests? Bar exams? College accreditation? Or are you just using this to jump on your soapbox and rave like a goddamned lunatic yet again?
Those are apples to oranges—not the same category of thing. Driver liscenses are because people drive on publically funded roads. Certification is for publically funded schools. Lawyers are agents of the state. A person can represent themself without having the same needed. I know lawyers cringe over it but that right exists. So HS's have their own means of testing and guides. There is nothing wrong with that since most states have some minimal curriculum guides.

A better comparison question would be: Should every parent have to get a cert to parent too?

Believe or not that's coming down the road too.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 01:15 PM
BEP,

You've still never responded to my questions about other forms of certification.

Geezus, I can only think and write so fast especially with two conversations.

Your cert thingy, regarding taco earlier did not recognize that the market does that with private accreditation of private schools—not govt mandated certification of private schools. TJ said he'd prefer to use an accreditated school. Such a choice is considered the market.

I mean look at the Underwriter's Laboratory seal that is so highly sought by manufacturers and which tells people if it passes certain standards.

Anyhow, the ruling in Cali didn't mandate a teacher cert afterall.

banyon
03-08-2008, 01:19 PM
Those are apples to oranges—not the same category of thing. Driver liscenses are because people drive on publically funded roads. Certification is for publically funded schools. Lawyers are agents of the state. A person can represent themself without having the same needed. I know lawyers cringe over it but that right exists. So HS's have their own means of testing and guides. There is nothing wrong with that since most states have some minimal curriculum guides.

Heh, a little cheap shot when you aren't able to argue on the merits.

To the contrary, I love it when people are dumb enough to represent themselves in court. It's usually a guaranteed victory.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-08-2008, 01:20 PM
I actually posted to some of your concerns earlier in depth, but I've had trouble with the software. It got lost. It never posted for some reason.
I just wish I had used Word first so I coulda save it and then transferred it.

But the same thing is done by teaching to standardized test these days too.

Any school selects it's own testing because every school has a different educational mission with a different curriculum. It should be that way. Because the best education is tailored to the individual. You'd want to measure what you're trying to teach. It's no different anyplace else. Testing is only one tool anyway.

Homeschoolers still have to take SATs and ACTs and they do well on them generally.


Those are apples to oranges—not the same category of thing. Driver liscenses are because people drive on publically funded roads. Certification is for publically funded schools. Lawyers are agents of the state. A person can represent themself without having the same needed. I know lawyers cringe over it but that right exists. So HS's have their own means of testing and guides. There is nothing wrong with that since most states have some minimal curriculum guides.

A better comparison question would be: Should every parent have to get a cert to parent too?

Believe or not that's coming down the road too.

You're missing the point. I don't know if it is deliberately or not. What do those certifications exist for? What does a B.A./B.S. imply when someone applies for a job at a private school? Is that not a form of certification, in and of itself? What does the conferral of a D.O. or M.D. say?

If you are as strident in asserting sources in real life as you are on this board, couldn't one reasonably argue that the certification process for parents acts as a citation of their ability to at least comprehend that which they are going to teach? It seems that you're overlooking a glaring contradiction.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 01:29 PM
Originally Posted by banyon
Why does he have to assume that? Why not just assume that a group of credentialed teachers will perform better than a group of uncredentialed teachers.

This "I home schooled, so everyone else should be able to also" is just contrary to common sense.
QFT
LOL! Do you know if that's true though?

Should be quoted for "Not Based on Fact" instead of truth.
If results of our current ed system is done by credentialed teachers and we have the poor results we have....logic would lead one to conclude it has nothing to do with that certificate. Or that it's teacher training that may be part of the problem. It's just rank authoritarianism.

The only way to evaluate the situation is that we haven't gotten the right causes. Because if we did, we wouldn't be getting worsening results. That's common sense. Not assumptions based on authority says it so because someone has a piece of paper and some letters after their name.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 01:32 PM
That quote is based on the lack of results found in students.
Certs focus on teachers not students or results.
Language in Cali is a problem for Cali.


Okay, then are you advocating no certs?

There is no doubt that many teachers suck. But there's no doubt that many lawyers, accountants, computer programmers and engineers suck, too. That doesn't mean that there should be no accreditation required because some of the people who have careers in those fields are better than others.

California has ALWAYS been a model for the rest of the United States. The language issue is coming to a town or county or state near you in the next 20 years, which is why I advocate a National Language Bill.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking that the problem is and always will be contained to California.

banyon
03-08-2008, 01:35 PM
LOL! Do you know if that's true though?

Should be quoted for "Not Based on Fact" instead of truth.
If results of our current ed system is done by credentialed teachers and we have the poor results we have....logic would lead one to conclude it has nothing to do with that certificate. Or that it's teacher training that may be part of the problem. It's just rank authoritarianism.

The only way to evaluate the situation is that we haven't gotten the right causes. Because if we did, we wouldn't be getting worsening results. That's common sense. Not assumptions based on authority says it so because someone has a piece of paper and some letters after their name.

LOL at the logic of this post.

Essentially, it's "We haven't identified the cause of our declining educational performances, so it should be safe to let uncredentialed people teach without worsening those results."

That's like saying "well the check engine light is on in my car and it seems to be slowing down, but there's no evidence that my tires are affecting the performance, so I'll just go ahead and puncture them and there's no evidence it will have any impact."

It's a conflation of unknown variables with well-established ones.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 01:41 PM
You're missing the point. I don't know if it is deliberately or not. What do those certifications exist for? What does a B.A./B.S. imply when someone applies for a job at a private school? Is that not a form of certification, in and of itself? What does the conferral of a D.O. or M.D. say?
No the point is that most people will choose such without the state passing a law telling them to. It's market driven as is the desire for private schools to choose such teachers as well. Not all of them do. I gave examples earlier.

I pointed out to TJ that I choose a non-accredited school that actually retrains and trains from scratch their own teachers. They don't all have those letters after their names. That's my right. They have their own internal standards though. It is considered one of the top schools in this country as well. I wouldn't do as TJ did because I don't agree with the standards of those accreditation systems. I feel mine is higher.

The colleges who have hired me have done similarly.

So my point is that if you think it's important then you'll choose accordingly.

If you are as strident in asserting sources in real life as you are on this board, couldn't one reasonably argue that the certification process for parents acts as a citation of their ability to at least comprehend that which they are going to teach? It seems that you're overlooking a glaring contradiction.
Strident? Do you project much? I like to research the facts.

No it's not a contradiction. That's your opinion.

It does not mean they comprehend what they are teaching either. It sounds good on the surface. Most teaching degrees today focus less on knowing their subject and more on psychology and socialization of the child. Then they get some methods.

It's mostly opinion and authoritarianism. If it ain't broke it don't need fixin' is my philosophy. I know you think HS tests are flawed but I don't. Freedom is a little messy. Besides it's a right.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 01:48 PM
Okay, then are you advocating no certs?

There is no doubt that many teachers suck. But there's no doubt that many lawyers, accountants, computer programmers and engineers suck, too. That doesn't mean that there should be no accreditation required because some of the people who have careers in those fields are better than others.

California has ALWAYS been a model for the rest of the United States. The language issue is coming to a town or county or state near you in the next 20 years, which is why I advocate a National Language Bill.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking that the problem is and always will be contained to California.

I advocate no govt coerced or mandated by law certification of a homeschooling mom. It won't ever win either as it violates parental rights as you can see from the SC cases I posted. It will be fought legally. It's the parents right to direct the child's education and there is no compelling state interest in saying how it has to be done.

Private certification or public schools wanting certified teachers is their right.

Yes Cali is a bellweather state for the country. But that's not always a good thing...it's bad sometimes.

You do know, unless you didn't read the thread, that this case was misreported by the LA Times and that NO cert was ever mandated. The only requirements were that they pass a criminal background check ( which I agree with) and that they couldn't be incompetent in general. ( whichI also agree wiht). If they want mininum curriculum requirements fine. That's enough.


Like I said: it ain't broke...so they've earned to right to be left alone.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 01:53 PM
There is no doubt that many teachers suck. But there's no doubt that many lawyers, accountants, computer programmers and engineers suck, too. That doesn't mean that there should be no accreditation required because some of the people who have careers in those fields are better than others.

That's true but it does not apply here. We're talking about a child's mother or father which the SC recognizes as being in charge of the child including directing their education. ( Did you see the cases?) I have more faith and trust that parents have the child's best interests more at heart than some state mandate because they love them. I know I can't help my kid with math, so I don't. I have someone else do it. Should she be HS for just a short time even, I'd hire a tutor for what I couldn't do. Believe it or not I know a LOT of HS'ers and that's what they do but supervise it.

They also take trips across the country which is a really cool way to learn history and geography. You can't beat one on one.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 01:58 PM
That's true but it does not apply here. We're talking about a child's mother or father which the SC recognizes as being in charge of the child including directing their education. ( Did you see the cases?) I have more faith and trust that parents have the child's best interests more at heart than some state mandate because they love them. I know I can't help my kid with math, so I don't. I have someone else do it. Should she be HS for just a short time even, I'd hire a tutor for what I couldn't do. Believe it or not I know a LOT of HS'ers and that's what they do but supervise it.

They also take trips across the country which is a really cool way to learn history and geography. You can't beat one on one.

I don't think there's anything wrong with home-schooling, if that's best for an individual or family, but I do think there should be guidelines in place.

Gee, imagine that. The LA Times misinterpreting something. There's a reason why I don't subscribe to that rag, even after 15 years of residence.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 02:01 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with home-schooling, if that's best for an individual or family, but I do think there should be guidelines in place.
Well there are. But really, the places that need real reform, not window dressing, are the govt schools. Including the teacher colleges.
HS is a solution out of that maze for many parents. Schools aren't like they were when we went to school.

Gee, imagine that. The LA Times misinterpreting something. There's a reason why I don't subscribe to that rag, even after 15 years of residence.
Well I had posted that earlier. Think post #147. But I only put the link up. I think most missed it.

And whatever you do with that new bundle coming your way, take some time to research phonics systems for a good start.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-08-2008, 02:04 PM
No the point is that most people will choose such without the state passing a law telling them to. It's market driven as is the desire for private schools to choose such teachers as well. Not all of them do. I gave examples earlier.

I pointed out to TJ that I choose a non-accredited school that actually retrains and trains from scratch their own teachers. They don't all have those letters after their names. That's my right. They have their own internal standards though. It is considered one of the top schools in this country as well. I wouldn't do as TJ did because I don't agree with the standards of those accreditation systems. I feel mine is higher.

The colleges who have hired me have done similarly.

So my point is that if you think it's important then you'll choose accordingly.


Strident? Do you project much? I like to research the facts.

No it's not a contradiction. That's your opinion.

It does not mean they comprehend what they are teaching either. It sounds good on the surface. Most teaching degrees today focus less on knowing their subject and more on psychology and socialization of the child. Then they get some methods.

It's mostly opinion and authoritarianism. If it ain't broke it don't need fixin' is my philosophy. I know you think HS tests are flawed but I don't. Freedom is a little messy. Besides it's a right.

You didn't even attempt to address the question at hand. Instead you went on a long-winded harangue. Stay on topic, please. You aren't Roy Jones circa 1994. You don't dodge well.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 02:07 PM
You didn't even attempt to address the question at hand. Instead you went on a long-winded harangue. Stay on topic, please. You aren't Roy Jones circa 1994. You don't dodge well.

I did answer it. You either did not accept it, or want a yes or no, straightjacket inside-the-box response which I refuse to give as it boxes me into B&W 2-valued logic and/or perhaps you need to reword it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-08-2008, 02:14 PM
I did answer it. You either did not accept it, or want a yes or no, straightjacket inside-the-box response which I refuse to give as it boxes me into B&W 2-valued logic and/or perhaps you need to reword it.

That's a pathetic cop out.

I asked you what the conferral of degrees says about the individual. I've asked numerous times. You've never answered it.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 02:20 PM
Oh quit being accusative and use communication.

I don't think a degree means much of anything per se. Not automatically anyway.
And I don't think a lack of a degree means a person knows less automatically.
I think its authoritarianism to say degrees do either.

In fact I would say a person too long in school knows less rather than more.
They're just more schooled. LOL!

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 02:24 PM
In other words I think there's a lot of bullshit conferred on academia.
They're just full of themselves.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-08-2008, 02:31 PM
Oh quit being accusative and use communication.

I don't think a degree means much of anything per se. Not automatically anyway.
And I don't think a lack of a degree means a person knows less automatically.
I think its authoritarianism to say degrees do either.

In fact I would say a person too long in school knows less rather than more.
They're just more schooled. LOL!

Since you don't want to answer the question, a degree is proof that someone has actually received training and has passed tests that at the very least attempt to examine their competence.

That's all anyone wants to do here. Prove you have some training and competence. If you can do that, then teach your child. But if you can't, improve yourself so you don't wreck your kid.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 02:44 PM
I asked you what the conferral of degrees says about the individual. I've asked numerous times. You've never answered it.
I did. You're just pulling a penchief.


Since you don't want to answer the question, a degree is proof that someone has actually received training and has passed tests that at the very least attempt to examine their competence.
That does not mean they can teach successfully.
That does not mean that training gets results.

That's all anyone wants to do here. Prove you have some training and competence. If you can do that, then teach your child. But if you can't, improve yourself so you don't wreck your kid.
You're talking about a mother, who by Cali law here, only has to prove she's not an incompetent person or is a criminal.

You're talking about passing a law for requiring a cert on the unproven basis, and no probable cause she will wreck her kid when the same thing is done routinely by certified teachers.—when HS'ers have a good track record. If it ain't broke don't fix it. LOL! Back to square one.

We're never going to agree Hamas,

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-08-2008, 02:59 PM
Therefore because it's not a 100% certainty, we should not require any form of certification for someone to try and prove their competence?

How does this help the homeschooled children being "trained" by imbeciles?

There is a chance that a certified person can't teach, but there is a much greater risk that a person who can't pass a basic certification and education test can't.

It's basic utilitarian philosophy. The law exists to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. It doesn't require a change in any of the curriculum that you would argue works. None

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 03:05 PM
And whatever you do with that new bundle coming your way, take some time to research phonics systems for a good start.

My wife speaks five languages, we've got a Spanish/English nanny/helper in place so she'll most certainly be bilingual, if not multilingual.

I'm the one who need to do the phonics system. The white guy from Kansas.

Taco John
03-08-2008, 03:36 PM
Therefore because it's not a 100% certainty, we should not require any form of certification for someone to try and prove their competence?

Prove it to who?

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 03:53 PM
Therefore because it's not a 100% certainty, we should not require any form of certification for someone to try and prove their competence?
That's right. Seems Cali has some standard since they have to show the mom as incompetent.
Like TJ has asked prove it to who? Is the mom selling her services to another? They don't have to prove anything beyond the having a general competency. HS network provides tools, and tutoring of parents to assist them. It's working.

How does this help the homeschooled children being "trained" by imbeciles?
If govt can't help govt school children from being "trained" by imbeciles, why would one assume it can be done here.
But HS children are not being trained by imbeciles. That's the point.

There is a chance that a certified person can't teach, but there is a much greater risk that a person who can't pass a basic certification and education test can't.
Because this is theoretical, and not based on any probable cause or that it's going in, in a widespread manner.
In fact the opposite is going on. You don't fix something that isn't broke. You look at the record. You don't use govt for the sake of using govt. You use it when there is a widespread problem. That's not the case here.

It's basic utilitarian philosophy. The law exists to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. It doesn't require a change in any of the curriculum that you would argue works. None
It isn't utilitarian at all. It's inspection before the fact. Passing laws for a non-existent problem. That usually wrecks things when the facts show it's not necessary or warranted. So it is not the greatest good for the greatest number. It's just getting rid of any competition and freedom.

The general record in this area is that the govt has wrecked education. The facts speak for themselves. HS is an escape from that failure, and the assault of family values that is affordable. If the govt interferes too much here, that is likely to be the same result. Besides it's a natural, inalienable and Constitutional right.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 04:01 PM
My wife speaks five languages, we've got a Spanish/English nanny/helper in place so she'll most certainly be bilingual, if not multilingual.

I'm the one who need to do the phonics system. The white guy from Kansas.

I only had some phonics. I was daunted at first but a friend of mine who taught all his kids to read said it was the easiest thing in the world.
And guess what? It really is. I cannot understand why the schools have so much trouble. Oh well I do as I've sat in and I swear it's their methods.

So I watched my daughter's first tutor when she first learned to read at age 4. I had to repeat the lesson at home, which was easy. Then I picked up some phonics books and applied the rest of the sounds to myself whereby I learned it for the first time. I learned a lot for the first time while I taught her at the same time.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2008, 04:52 PM
I only had some phonics. I was daunted at first but a friend of mine who taught all his kids to read said it was the easiest thing in the world.
And guess what? It really is. I cannot understand why the schools have so much trouble. Oh well I do as I've sat in and I swear it's their methods.

So I watched my daughter's first tutor when she first learned to read at age 4. I had to repeat the lesson at home, which was easy. Then I picked up some phonics books and applied the rest of the sounds to myself whereby I learned it for the first time. I learned a lot for the first time while I taught her at the same time.

For me, it's nothing more than finding the time. I haven't even finished reading the requisite baby books (which I must do soon or endure a furious wrath).

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-08-2008, 05:22 PM
That's right.

Thank you for taking what was a use of hyperbole on my part to make your argument look even more hollow than it previously was. Follow your logic to its conclusion here.



Seems Cali has some standard since they have to show the mom as incompetent.Like TJ has asked prove it to who? Is the mom selling her services to another? They don't have to prove anything beyond the having a general competency. HS network provides tools, and tutoring of parents to assist them. It's working.



Thanks again for proving my point. Those certs can establish competency (beyond whether or not you are batshit crazy which seems to be your preferred use of the word here) and taking and passing them is proof of that.

Are the parents required to use these networks? Tutoring? Are the children required to take tests to measure their achievement? No. How then, can you monitor the child's progress if the parent isn't involved? You seem to take your one view of "well my hs experience worked" and then you extrapolate it everyone else. This argument isn't about the homeschooling that has worked for children. It's about attempting to lesson the homeschooled kids who are ignored or taught by complete f*cktards.

Newsflash, genious: a lot of parents aren't responsible. I saw a kid climb a 10 foot stocking ladder at a Wal-Mart yesterday while his parents stood around with their thumbs up their asses.

If govt can't help govt school children from being "trained" by imbeciles, why would one assume it can be done here.
But HS children are not being trained by imbeciles. That's the point.


So now we've jumped to the conclusion that the products of the schools where you teach are imbeciles. Since you teach college, and all. Nice job impugning yourself.


Because this is theoretical, and not based on any probable cause or that it's going in, in a widespread manner.
In fact the opposite is going on. You don't fix something that isn't broke. You look at the record. You don't use govt for the sake of using govt. You use it when there is a widespread problem. That's not the case here.
.

They aren't changing anything about the curriculum, the method or manner of instruction, the support networks, nor have they ever claimed to. You aren't even dealing with reality here. You're just misinterpreting (I think purposely) so that you can go on another anti-government diatribe.

You aren't even a functioning human being. You're Teddy Ruxpin--Lew Rockwell version.

You're truly a one-trick pony.