Loyalty to the State by canttakesky

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I would call educational neglect a type of abuse. So no I would not consider them two separate issue.

Thus I said:

Quote:
The "abuse" I was referring to (and thought you were referring to when you said "abusing homeschooling") is educational neglect. School teachers engage in this type of abuse all the time.

Since you seem to have trouble understanding what I wrote, I will restate it differently. The two issues are 1) to monitor for physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, and 2) to prevent educational neglect/abuse. Having a credentialed teacher addresses the 2nd issue, not the first. But it is an unfair solution. We do not disband most of schooling because *some* teachers engage in educational neglect. Similarly, we should not disband most of homeschooling because *some* homeschooling parents engage in educational neglect.

--------------------------
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.
--Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 4:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Since you seem to have trouble understanding what I wrote, I will restate it differently. The two issues are 1) to monitor for physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, and 2) to prevent educational neglect/abuse. Having a credentialed teacher addresses the 2nd issue, not the first. But it is an unfair solution. We do not disband most of schooling because *some* teachers engage in educational neglect. Similarly, we should not disband most of homeschooling because *some* homeschooling parents engage in educational neglect.

If a child must take his or her parents to court in order to seek regress for poor education, I think it's fair to say that there's a good chance no provision exists to monitor for educational neglect. That is not the case in public or private schools which are monitored for their degree of education by the state or a redundancy within a private system. A single parental household that receive neither monitoring by the state or some form of guidance or redundancy from an independence educational institutional has the potential be very damaging to a child's education without anyone ever knowing. Now I know you want to chalk this up to statistics, but I'm not as comfortable as you seem to be with hiding behind statistics, and so I say that the issue might need to be reviewed by the California legislators.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If a child must take his or her parents to court in order to seek regress for poor education...

This child was in court because of allegations of physical abuse, not educational neglect.

Quote:
... I think it's fair to say that there's a good chance no provision exists to monitor for educational neglect. That is not the case in public or private schools which are monitored for their degree of education by the state or a redundancy within a private system.

Yes, and yet the failure rate in the public and private school systems is equal to or higher than in homeschools. Which means all that monitoring doesn't do jack squat.

Besides, what does that mean, "redundancy in the private system"? Private schools can do whatever they want, evaluate however they want, and set whatever criteria they want for "success." Where is the monitoring there? In fact, I know that homeschools in CA and TX, for example, *are* private schools.

Quote:
A single parental household that receive neither monitoring by the state or some form of guidance or redundancy from an independence educational institutional has the potential be very damaging to a child's education without anyone ever knowing.

Sure, but schools ARE actually damaging to a child's education EVEN WITH all that monitoring and everyone knowing. In broad daylight, and under scrutiny--it still happens! You can't penalize an entire educational system because *some* abuses happen. This is not "statistics." It is logic--it's the principle of the thing.

It comes down to this. Educational neglect does not happen because no one caught it. Catching it, likewise, is not the solution. Educational neglect happens when the teacher DOESN'T CARE. The solution is to match students to teachers that CARE. Pay teachers a salary commensurate with being responsible for our children's MINDS, give them the societal respect that doctor's now get, and hire plenty so they don't get overworked. Recognize that no one cares more about their kids than parents who have decided to take on that responsibility themselves. Let people who CARE about kids do the job they WANT to do, without badgering them with suspicion.

I know there are some very rotten parents out there. There are also some very rotten teachers out there. However, by and large, parents and teachers are good folk who want what is good for their kids. Let them do their jobs and support them, not tie them to some bureaucratic criteria. Cause we all know the bureaucratic criteria don't work and turn kids into drones.

Quote:
Now I know you want to chalk this up to statistics, but I'm not as comfortable as you seem to be with hiding behind statistics,

I have no idea what this "hiding behind statistics" is that you keep talking about.

--------------------------
There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.
--Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have no idea what this "hiding behind statistics" is that you keep talking about.

It means using error in the system to ignore responsibility, which is kind of what you're doing. You're making up a lot of excuses, which aren't necessarily invalid, but they don't justify writing off children as some sort of acceptable loss without first making every effort to prevent that loss. Basically, you seem more interested in coming up with excuses to do nothing, then you are with improving the education system. Which is fine if that's your shtick, but it's not mine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I believe you are inappropriately framing this issue was one of property rights. The real issue is that children, by their very nature, are dependent and incapable of making decisions for themselves. The 'fight' is over who has the right to make decisions on their behalf. I believe that decision should be heavily weighted in favor of the biological parents, to the point that, unless outright abuse can be proven, there is no decision to be made. The parents win.

Hey Serg, you asked me to come over from the Serenity board and contribute, didn't you?

I can only talk about what the situation is here where I live (Australia) so don't know how relevant it is to US.

Under law in Australia, parents have no rights, they only have responsibilities. And those responsibilities are to ensure the care and welfare of their children, unless it can be proven they are unable/unwilling to do so. As part of providing for the welfare of children, parents must ensure they have access to a reasonable education, which is a child's right under the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child.

What this means is that parents have parental authority over children, who as Serg rightly points out are unable to fully care and make decisions for themselves. It doesn't mean that parents can deprive children of the right to a reasonable education, to socialising with other, to harming them in anyway, even if in it is the parents belief that these are all good ideas.

Homeschooling does not mean children will be denied education, but it might mean that if parents are incapable/or unwilling to provide an education that is comparable to a state education.

I think forcing all parents who homeschool to have a teaching qual is extreme, but I'm not against some checks and balances for those that choose do so.

I think what is often forgotten in all of this, before people went to school compulsorily, many parents didn't educate them because they couldn't afford it, couldn't afford them not to be working on the farm in the factory and basically most of the population was illiterate and trapped in poverty and ignorance for generations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 11:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Several years ago, I was talking with a co-worker about a grade-school shooting that had occurred in Chicago, I proposed the apparently outrageous notion that the child's parents should be held accountable, even to the point of criminal culpability. Of course he disagreed and, after some discussion, he settled on his principal objection to the idea: he didn't think parents could be held responsible because "you just can't control your kids". His view was, essentially, that "the village" was the responsible party. He cited the influence of the schools, the child's peers, even the television, as contributing factors outside his control. It didn't even dawn on him that he could, in fact, control these influences.

Control, eh? How much do you intend to control your child's television viewing, friendships, reading, computer use, casual contacts, education, diet etc? And at what point does social isolation become a cult? BTW- the Amish, who are viewed with nostalgia, have a rather horrific pattern of sexual abuse. http://modern-parables.blogspot.com/2007/01/sexual-abuse-amongst-amish
-and.html

I know that you're going to say that I'm purposefully misunderstanding you. I'm not. I think you have warm and fuzzy feeling about parental control because your personal experience is with a child whose major deviation from society is being precocious, and you're able to exert your "contnol" in a way that is benevolent to the child and which satisfies your anti-government stance.

But what could you do if your child's lack of "fit" was more serious? I know a mom quite well whose daughter is a habitual runaway. Now, the mom has fought just about everyone... the neighbors who were harboring her child, the man who sexually enticed her (or was it vice versa?), the sheriff's department that was apparently too busy to return a 14-year-old runaway home, the courts systems that allowed the girls' 40-year-old lover to file suit against the mom for slander... She has exerted more parental "control" than twenty parents put together. At this point, mom is happy that her daughter is locked up in Juvie. But everyone expects the girls to be back on the streets when she's 18, because she's run away during every furlough already. CLEARLY, "control" isn't working! What about the brain damaged kids whose parents "taser" them into compliance? At some point, "control" isn't the answer. In some cases, there is no answer.

Exceptional children aside, even in the case where I were raising my daughter in a hostile society (current Afghanistan, the USA) I cannot in good conscience isolate my child from that society. I have a responsibility to make sure that my child can function as an adult, and in order to do that you HAVE to give up some "control".

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 11:30 PM

HIXIE129

There is a magic quill in Hogwarts that records the birth of a magical child, and McGonagall checks it every year and sends owls to those magical children who are turning 11. So I believe that all children must attend either a magic school or a muggle school by age 11

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 11:38 PM

See, CTS, maybe what your missing is the dodge he keeps hiding behing - he adores The State, it's a freakin religion to him, so no amount of facts is gonna make a dent in his "faith" in The State and it's systems, thus leading to the "hiding behind statistics" commentary when you count off the facts.

What we're lookin at here, is a court system being pushed into deciding whether the Public School system is "broken", or Homeschooling is "broken" or whether their interpretation of what those terms ACTUALLY MEAN is screwed up.

Logically, the latter would seem to be the issue needing to be addressed, but once you get people in there who have that overriding faith in the State to do a better job of anything than even a childs own family, and they start pushing their agenda, that is where and when it gets messed up.

The fact that this whole issue was, without apparent cause or justification, dragged into an investigation of purely physical abuse, absolutely smacks of an agenda being present somewhere, and the conduct of the agents of the State since the introduction of that issue tells me exactly what it is - if the rat is missing and the snake has a bulge in it, I don't look under the bed for the rat, you understand ?

The idea of minimum standards is kinda asinine as well, cause anyone who CAN read, write and do simple math can teach another to do so, and from that point education is prettymuch DIY.

And that's the cutting edge here - something folks seem to be missing...

You can't hold a kid down and FORCE them to learn, they either will or they won't, you can guide them, encourage them, but if they flat will not do it... what then ?

And to be honest, that could be what happened here, when you dismiss all the agendas and red tape and bullshit - the kid might have refused to play ball and the parents decided to make them, and as with all aversarial parenting, it escalated, leading to a finding of abuse.

Should that be the case, and I ain't sayin it is, what exactly would the school have done about it, eh ?

I want you to think good and long on that one, and see the damned obvious problem looming there without me having to point it out for once.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...but they don't justify writing off children as some sort of acceptable loss without first making every effort to prevent that loss.

I have said absolutely NOTHING about "acceptable loss." I do not think the educational abuse / neglect is acceptable, nor have I ever said anything to that effect. I acknowledged the abuse in BOTH systems, and proposed a solution. Maybe you don't agree with my solution, but it could hardly be interpreted as accepting the problem and ignoring responsibility.

For the record, NO abuse or loss is ever acceptable. Clear enough for you?

--------------------------
There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
--Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You can't hold a kid down and FORCE them to learn, they either will or they won't, you can guide them, encourage them, but if they flat will not do it... what then ?

Thank you.

Some parents spank kids for not sitting down and doing their work. Some teachers WISH they could spank, and some other teachers DO. What is this "minimum education" worth? Children aren't trains that you have to move from point A to point B, whatever the cost.

The solution to educational neglect is not to catch it. Catching it, as a solution, misses the point of WHY they were neglected to begin with. A better solution would be encourage caring in teaching, establish a culture and mindset that celebrates a child's individuality and nurtures a child's innate desire to learn. This takes care of both the teachers'/parents' responsibility and the children's motivation.

Sure, this solution is not perfect and will no doubt miss some kids still. (And that is NOT acceptable.) But it will miss less kids than the current solution, which is to establish bureaucratic criteria enforced by self-righteous monitoring of a faceless state. And once we actually improve, we can start talking about fine-tuning this solution to have even less kids fall through the cracks.

As the saying goes, "Minds are not vessels to be filled, but fires to be lit." Our current educational system wants a quota of mind-filling, using people with "qualifications" to fill minds. Educational reform (which needs to include both schools and homeschools) would change the paradigm to lighting fires. Once the fires are lit, the minds will fill themselves.

--------------------------
Minds are not vessels to be filled, but fires to be lit.
--Plutarch

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Control, eh? How much do you intend to control your child's television viewing, friendships, reading, computer use, casual contacts, education, diet etc?

As little as possible.

Signy, I don't know whether it's intentional or not, but you're going off the deep end with your 'interpretation' again. I was in no way advocating isolation as a desirable parenting technique, and I'm not defending the parental rights of David Koresh. Once again you seem more interested in painting me into one of the stereotypes you are preoccupied with.

Quote:
...At some point, "control" isn't the answer. In some cases, there is no answer.

No shit. I'm not sure what you're going on about. I'm not trying to tell people how to raise their kids. I'm trying to point out that there are costs, subtle and longterm, to replacing the parent with the state as the 'decider' for what's best for children.

It'd be nice if you could stow your preconceived strawmen long enough to address that point.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Exceptional children aside, even in the case where I were raising my daughter in a hostile society (current Afghanistan, the USA) I cannot in good conscience isolate my child from that society. I have a responsibility to make sure that my child can function as an adult, and in order to do that you HAVE to give up some "control".

You know Sig, I couldn't find anyone (including SergeantX) advocating isolating children from society. You are extrapolating the word "control" to absurd extremes that no one here supports. So that point is neither here nor there.

You know, and everyone here knows, that Serg is not an authoritarian control freak, and yet that is how you chose to interpret his use of the word "control." Let's discuss the same issues without using that word, shall we?

As I read it, Sergeant is talking about empowering parents to provide the guidance, structure, and limits that are essential to learning self-discipline and independence. Right now, many parents feel powerless and helpless because they feel they lack the "authority" or qualifications to provide guidance and limits. Court rulings like the one in question reinforce that perception. Sergeant is saying parents need to be encouraged, rather than discouraged, that yes, they CAN do the job and do it better than the State or anyone else. This encouragement needs to come from both societal norms and laws. Parental confidence has been whittled down, and it is about time it is built back up.

Serg, if I misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me.

--------------------------
...and we'll never be under the heel of nobody ever again.
--Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Serg, if I misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me.

Not at all. You've nailed it. Thank you.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...but they don't justify writing off children as some sort of acceptable loss without first making every effort to prevent that loss.
I have said absolutely NOTHING about "acceptable loss." I do not think the educational abuse / neglect is acceptable, nor have I ever said anything to that effect. I acknowledged the abuse in BOTH systems, and proposed a solution. Maybe you don't agree with my solution, but it could hardly be interpreted as accepting the problem and ignoring responsibility.

For the record, NO abuse or loss is ever acceptable. Clear enough for you?

Not really. Not after you spent all the other day talking about acceptable loss, it's just more difficult to figure out what your point is or even if you have one. Like this for instance:

"People abuse everything in the world. You can't penalize millions of legitimate homeschoolers because some people abuse homeschooling. Hell, more teachers abuse schooling than parents abuse homeschooling, and despite "attention drawn" to it, it keeps happening. Yet no one is calling for the end of public and private schools. Because the fact is, MOST schools do an adequate job despite the abusers."

Or this:

"The "abuse" I was referring to (and thought you were referring to when you said "abusing homeschooling") is educational neglect. School teachers engage in this type of abuse all the time. They are charged with providing a minimum education, and for whatever reason (hey, parents have excuses too), they fail. It gets in the news, we get all up in arms, and the govt passes some law or another to "draw attention" to it. And still children get "left behind." It happens. But the majority of schools do provide a minimum education, so millions of schooled children should not be penalized for the few credentialed educational abusers. By the same reasoning, most parents do an adequate job providing the same minimum education at homeschools, so millions of homeschooled children should not be penalized either."

Every post you've made has been based on the idea of some acceptable loss, but now you say that has nothing to do with your point. So what is your point? I propose that the California legislation needs to review the law and your response is a constant drum beat of why that's not necessary because one must simply accept that some teachers are bad or some parents are bad. It sounds to me like what you are suggesting is that we should just ignore the problem, continue with inadequate legal protection and an outright ban on homeschool and just ignore any and all problems. That just doesn't seem like a good approach to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 7:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You know Sig, I couldn't find anyone (including SergeantX) advocating isolating children from society. You are extrapolating the word "control" to absurd extremes that no one here supports.

No? Are you sure? I don't know anyone who'd take their kids out of country to prevent "interference" by "the authorities" in medical treatment, do you? Naaaah.... Or who'd stand in the door with a weapon to prevent their child from being contaminated by "The State"? Do you?

If I'm extrapolating to an absurd degree... and perhaps I am... then I suggest that you clarify the boudaries. Under what circumstances should parents give up "control", and how much should they give up? And perhaps more importantly, who gets to decides whether those boundaries have been crossed?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No? Are you sure? I don't know anyone who'd take their kids out of country to prevent "interference" by "the authorities" in medical treatment, do you?

What the fuck!!!?

I took my son to Peru because he gets better here. His allergic reactions are a fraction of what they are in the States. He can eat and he grows. It has nothing to do with preventing interference. You don't think I'd come back in a heartbeat if I could find a place in the States that he can be healthy in?

Fuck you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I propose that the California legislation needs to review the law and your response is a constant drum beat of why that's not necessary because one must simply accept that some teachers are bad or some parents are bad.

NO. NOT because one must simply accept that some teachers/parents are bad. Because it would be an unjust solution.

Quote:
It sounds to me like what you are suggesting is that we should just ignore the problem, continue with inadequate legal protection and an outright ban on homeschool and just ignore any and all problems.

I have described what I suggested as an alternative solution in detail TWICE. Scroll up and read. My alternative solution does not involve legislation. Scroll back and read it. In summary, it calls for educational reform that would increase both financial compensation and social status of teachers, encouragement and empowerment of parents, and a motivational approach to education. Disagreeing with YOUR solution is not the same thing as ignoring the problem. Disagreeing that more laws need to be passed is not the same thing as ignoring the problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 10:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I propose that the California legislation needs to review the law and your response is a constant drum beat of why that's not necessary because one must simply accept that some teachers are bad or some parents are bad.
NO. NOT because one must simply accept that some teachers/parents are bad. Because it would be an unjust solution.

That’s nonsense. There is nothing unjust about legislators reviewing law. It is done all the time - in fact it is the way the system has worked sense the Constitution was signed.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have described what I suggested as an alternative solution in detail TWICE. Scroll up and read. My alternative solution does not involve legislation.

Then it’s probably useless, unless you‘re in favor of banning homeschooling. Because California law has banned homeschooling since 1953 and that can only be rectified through legislation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Because California law has banned homeschooling since 1953 and that can only be rectified through legislation.

It doesn't need to be rectified if they allow private schools to hire whomever they want as teachers. And up to now, they did.

California homeschoolers are organized and fighting this ruling. I have every confidence it will get depublished, as it were, without further legislation.

I homeschool under TX law. There is no provision for homeschooling in TX either. Homeschools are private schools with no oversight by the state, very similar to those in CA.

--------------------------
It is the great triumph of compulsory, government monopoly mass-schooling that among even the best of my fellow teachers, and among even the best of my students' parents, only a small number can imagine a different way to do things
-- John Taylor Gatto

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Because California law has banned homeschooling since 1953 and that can only be rectified through legislation.
It doesn't need to be rectified if they allow private schools to hire whomever they want as teachers. And up to now, they did.

California homeschoolers are organized and fighting this ruling. I have every confidence it will get depublished, as it were, without further legislation.

Which puts California homeschoolers right back where they were before, waiting for the next court case to realize that the law effectively bans homeschooling. A half ass solution, at best. At the same time you call the only real solution, legislating provisions for homeschooling, “unjust,” whatever the hell that means. I don’t know what you‘re deal is, and I’m not even sure you know.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I homeschool under TX law. There is no provision for homeschooling in TX either. Homeschools are private schools with no oversight by the state, very similar to those in CA.

My understanding is that there is nothing similar between the two states with regard to homeschooling. Texas has one of the most lax homeschooling policies in the country while California has one of the most stringent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I homeschool under TX law. There is no provision for homeschooling in TX either. Homeschools are private schools with no oversight by the state, very similar to those in CA.

Kansas has a similar approach. It'll be interesting to see how, or if, this ruling spreads to other states. I'm not sure if Lawrence represents the rest of the state (in most other ways it certainly doesn't), but the school district there was very friendly to home schoolers offering mentoring and partial enrollment as options.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Texas has one of the most lax homeschooling policies in the country while California has one of the most stringent.

California homeschooling law was just fine the way it was. TX requires that private schools be able to produce a curriculum if asked, but says very little about what that curriculum should be. CA requires a Private School Affidavit to be filed. Other than that, private schools in both states pretty much have free reign.

Quote:
http://www.hsc.org/faqs.html

The California Education Code provides that "all children between the ages of 6 and 16 must attend a public full-time day school unless otherwise exempted." (section 48200) This "compulsory schooling law" has two statutory exemptions:

1. The private tutoring exemption (section 48224) for children who are instructed for at least three hours each day, 175 days a year by a teacher who holds a valid California teaching credential for the grade taught, and

2. The private school exemption (section 48222) for children who are enrolled in a full-time private school. There are no laws that establish the minimum standards for the teachers or curricula of private schools. The only legal requirement for private schools is that they file a Private School Affidavit (section 33190) with their local County Superintendent of Schools.

The hoopla in this case is that the child in question was enrolled in a Private School Independent Study Program (ISP). Many homeschoolers use this route, so the ruling may affect them. But the ruling should not affect those homeschooling under Private School provisions. [Edited to add: Actually it is unclear if this ruling would be upheld, and if it would apply to private schools or not.]

--------------------------
I am beginning to suspect all elaborate and special systems of education. They seem to me to be built upon the supposition that every child is a kind of idiot who must taught to think.
-- Anne Sullivan

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Wow... don't think I've ever been quoted this much before.

All I'm saying that I think it would be a mistake to shift the primary responsibility for the welfare of our children from the parents to the state. And if you give the state the ultimate say in what's good for the child by default, that's exactly what you're doing. In my opinion, strengthening a parents role in the equation is far more practical and more likely to promote the welfare of children on the whole.
Rock

I guess the issue comes down to rights in a way. Do parents hold total rights and authority over their children? They did in Roman times, well at least the father did. You could murder your child or sell them as a slave if they displeased you.

I'd hope that we would all think that none of us support absolute authority like that, that there are limits to what a parent can do with their child, and that usually comes down to harm.

I guess the question is 'what constitutes harm?' I happen to think that not providing an education at all (and calling it homeschooling) or teaching your kids that the world is flat probably constitutes harm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Texas has one of the most lax homeschooling policies in the country while California has one of the most stringent.
California homeschooling law was just fine the way it was. TX requires that private schools be able to produce a curriculum if asked, but says very little about what that curriculum should be. CA requires a Private School Affidavit to be filed. Other than that, private schools in both states pretty much have free reign.

No, it wasn’t just fine. It is illegal under California law for a parent without a teaching credential to establish themselves as a private school, regardless of whether they signed a California Private school Affidavit or not. It has been certainly since 1953. That the law has been ignored in many cases does not make it “just fine.” What it means is that California homeschoolers must go to the Legislators and get the law defined instead of looking for excuses and loopholes to get around the law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I guess the question is 'what constitutes harm?' I happen to think that not providing an education at all (and calling it homeschooling) or teaching your kids that the world is flat probably constitutes harm.

And Richard Dawkins thinks that indoctrinating kids with obviously false religious beliefs should be considered child abuse. If teaching kids that the world is flat is abuse, what about teaching them things in conflict with current law? (teaching them that the war on drugs is a load of shit, for example). The issue is whether the decision of how I raise my children is, in general, subject to majority rule, or is it a private matter, to be interfered with only when tangible neglect or abuse is suspected. When we start trying to use politics to decide how everyone should raise their kids, I think we've taken majority rule too far.

The aspect that does clearly split us into two camps on this issue is the question of burden of proof. Should the state's involvement occur only after a parent is suspected of neglect or abuse, or can the state pass laws that preemptively require parents to answer to the state as a matter of course.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:00 PM

Looks like Sarge beat me to the punch here - cause that is what I was about to say.

The presumtion of good parenting should rest with the parents, until solidly proven otherwise.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:33 PM

ANTIMASON

unfortunately there will always be a degree of indoctrination in American public schools, so long as we refuse to recognize the influence of secular humanism on the youth. i suspect we will continue to see traditional structures such as the family and community break down, before we finally acknowledge what moral relativism does to a society. its for this reason that anarchy will never work, absent established moral absolutes by which to self govern by(ie libertarianism). why not call anarchy what it is: the law of the jungle? it surprises me that anyone would find anarchy viable... other then in the event of a complete global social meltdown, and even then it is less an ideology, and more a protective instinct to survive

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 3:16 PM

Um, no offense there Antimason, but as someone with secular humanist leanings and an anarchist philosophical outlook...

You quite literally have no idea what you are talking about.

To a humanist-anarchist, as most Kropotkinists are, Family and Community are MORE important, not less, than they are within our current state of affairs, because those are the bonds and the framework by which human interaction functions, and it is only by the willful erosion of them by the State, in hopes of reducing human loyalty to anything but itself, that those bonds are sundered and broken.

You know, kind of like the church does in the name of religion, poisons all bonds not to itself, demeans them and seeks to destroy them.

Matthew 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

I know that book better than most believers, considering that is what turned me against them and the vicious soul sucking monster they call God.

Humanist-Anarchists place thier faith in the people they know, love and trust, in spite of their personal differences, acting on mutual respect...

While religious zealots shun and despise all who do not believe as they do, even within the same family, often destroying it.

You don't disagree with indoctrination in public schools at all, you just disagree with the fact that it ISN'T YOURS.

Shovel another load, and I'll force feed that one back to you too.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 3:36 PM

FREDGIBLET

@Frem

The following quote is in regards to the evolution/creation "debate", which anti falls on the creation side of.

"What’s scary is, most of the creationists aren’t fighting to accomplish this for reasons of sheer personal power, but because they place their faith above any other loyalty, and their faith is profoundly self-serving and irrational. In other words, they aren’t wolves, we can understand and deal with wolves. Instead, they are demented sheep. MUCH harder to deal with."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What the fuck!!!? I took my son to Peru because he gets better here. His allergic reactions are a fraction of what they are in the States.

Ummm, as I recall your son was allergic to most proteins, which cause severe underweight/ malnutrition. The doctors recommended that you feed him a balanced mix of pure amino acids which would provide him with the building blocks to make brain, muscle, skin, and organs while "real" foods were slowly introduced. But because of the expense, and because you didn't want to be "dependent" on modern medicine you decided to take him someplace else and feed him "real foods" and practice homeopathy.

You say your son is doing well, but I'm under the impression that you isolate your children from mainstream doctors, teachers, television, the internet, and possibly even children their own age, preferring them to see only people who feel as you do (homeopaths, other homeschooling parents etc.) It may be a seriously flawed impression on my part, and if it is I most humbly apologize.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But because of the expense, and because you didn't want to be "dependent" on modern medicine you decided to take him someplace else and feed him "real foods" and practice homeopathy.

Expense is not an issue. Dependence is an issue, and the reason why I investigated alternative medicines like homeopathy. But it was not the reason why I decided to take him someplace else.

We originally took him to South America to spend a few months at the beach, at the recommendation of our MD family physician. While here, I discovered accidentally that his health improved tremendously in Peru. We did a few months trial in Peru, and his weight shot up. It was the same way when he traveled to Africa for 2 months. But everytime we returned to the States, his health would deteriorate again. So we decided to move to Peru for a couple of years and let him heal. Here, he can eat things that he cannot eat in the States. It's the weirdest thing. I can go into more detail about it, but suffice it to say, we are here for his health--not because we want to take him away from his doctors. Everyone in the family is making tremendous sacrifices to live here, and none of us would do it if his health weren't at stake.

Quote:
You say your son is doing well, but I'm under the impression that you isolate your children from mainstream doctors, teachers, television, the internet, and possibly even children their own age, preferring them to see only people who feel as you do (homeopaths, other homeschooling parents etc.)

I don't deliberately isolate them from doctors. I use them when necessary--it is just that I don't find them necessary very often. They don't see school teachers, but they do see other teachers. In the States, I took my daughter to gymnastics classes, dance classes, science museum classes, etc. They watch plenty of TV, though I prefer DVDs without advertisements. And when they are not watching TV, they are on the internet or playing some computer game. I take them to parks, beaches, pools and public venues as often as I can--cause like all kids, they get bored in the house.

Quote:
It may be a seriously flawed impression on my part, and if it is I most humbly apologize.

Thanks, Sig. I, too, apologize for flying off the handle there. I am sorry. It is VERY hard to split the family apart geographically and live here in Peru, and I wouldn't do it if my son's health weren't at stake. Feeling accused of isolating my kids and going through all this trouble for some ideological agenda just pushed a button.

The good news is I heard of a place in the States where my son might be able to thrive. We're planning to try it out for a few days when we return for a visit in September. If it works, we'll be back.

--------------------------
When you can't run, you crawl. And when you can't crawl, when you can't do that...
... you find someone to carry you.
--Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I know that book better than most believers, considering that is what turned me against them and the vicious soul sucking monster they call God.

Hahaha. Reminds me of this quotation: "What the world needs is not dogma but an attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer." --Bertrand Russell

I know you probably have no use for religious philosophy, but you might like the writings of a Jesuit priest named Anthony de Mello. Of course, the Catholic church has issued some warning letter against him, that he doesn't represent church teachings, but that is probably a plus in your book.

--------------------------
"I wish to become a teacher of the Truth."
"Are you prepared to be ridiculed, ignored and starving till you are forty-five?"
"I am. But tell me: What will happen after I am forty-five?"
"You will have grown accustomed to it."
--Anthony de Mello, S.J.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No, it wasn't just fine. It is illegal under California law for a parent without a teaching credential to establish themselves as a private school, ...

Can you back this up? Cause, you know, it isn't exactly what I'm reading.

Quote:
Teachers in private schools do not need to hold state teaching credentials, even though many state officials seem to think they do. The
statute is very clear on this point. §48222 requires that the teachers be "capable of teaching," but this phrase is not explained or defined. We believe most people who can speak and read competently in English generally
could be capable.

http://www.hsc.org/legalprivateschooloption.html

There you have it. "Capable of teaching" is vaguely worded enough that a judge (as in this instance) can interpret it to mean credentials, and another judge can interpret it to mean something else. The point it, no one else has interpreted it as requiring credentials up to now. I'll grant that the wording can be better defined to explicitly require no credentials, but otherwise, the law is just fine.

I'll also grant that record keeping for private schools in CA requires a lot more paperwork than in TX. We don't have to do squat in TX other than have a curriculum. But once the record-keeping is accomplished, the effect remains the same. In both states, you can do whatever you want and set whatever standards you want with no state oversight. There is no "minimum" educational standard to be supervised by the state, and no mechanism to make sure homeschoolingis not "abused." And that is just fine with me.

--------------------------
Children require guidance and sympathy far more than instruction.
-- Anne Sullivan

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
And Richard Dawkins thinks that indoctrinating kids with obviously false religious beliefs should be considered child abuse. If teaching kids that the world is flat is abuse, what about teaching them things in conflict with current law? (teaching them that the war on drugs is a load of shit, for example). The issue is whether the decision of how I raise my children is, in general, subject to majority rule, or is it a private matter, to be interfered with only when tangible neglect or abuse is suspected. When we start trying to use politics to decide how everyone should raise their kids, I think we've taken majority rule too far.

The aspect that does clearly split us into two camps on this issue is the question of burden of proof. Should the state's involvement occur only after a parent is suspected of neglect or abuse, or can the state pass laws that preemptively require parents to answer to the state as a matter of course.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Dawkins says that kids should not be called "Muslim" or "Christian" until they are old enough to define that in themself. Until then, they are children of Christians or Muslims.

A lot of this boils down to a definition of harm. You say harm is being physically, sexually abused and proven. On that matter alone I could discuss for several pages, because its incredibly hard to prove that within in afamily environment. But I won't

I would say that children who are denied access to a reasonable education are harmed. Reasonable education means that should be basically able to keep up with state standards, which shouldn't be too hard if your education system is as crap as you all seem to make it out to be.

Without that, kids will face real disadvantages as adults in the job market and unless you are rich enough that it doesn't matter, most of us need to face that world.

So, yes, there will be parents who are able to do it, and there will be parents who cannot. How can you ensure that kids are not being just left to rot under the guise of homeschooling?

Rights becomes a dodgier issue when they are rights over someone else, rather than our rights as an individual. Hence, the idea that we no longer have rights over our children, but responsibilities...to care and provide for them (and that includes access to education).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There you have it. "Capable of teaching" is vaguely worded enough that a judge (as in this instance) can interpret it to mean credentials, and another judge can interpret it to mean something else. The point it, no one else has interpreted it as requiring credentials up to now. I'll grant that the wording can be better defined to explicitly require no credentials, but otherwise, the law is just fine.

It doesn’t make any difference what some home schooling site claims. Their opinion of the law means nothing. The 1953 People v. Turner concluded that a teaching credential is required for any tutorial setting, which means that no parent can declare themselves a private school without a credential teacher. So absence legislation to refine what “capable of teaching” means, you’re out of an argument and most homeschooling in California is illegal without a credentialed tutor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The 1953 People v. Turner concluded that a teaching credential is required for any tutorial setting, which means that no parent can declare themselves a private school without a credential teacher.

That is not statute. But this is not my dispute anyway. I don't have a problem refining the definition to explicitly include non-credentialed teachers in the statute.

My dispute with you is your recommendation to "review the law," as you call it, to monitor homeschoolers and prevent "homeschooling abuse" (educational neglect). My point is the current standards in the law (including the allowance of non-credentialed teachers) are adequate and do not need to be augmented. We do not need MORE bureaucratic hoops to jump through to prove we can and are teaching our kids.

--------------------------
Before there were television and video games, kids used to play outdoors, entertain themselves and work around the house in the afternoons. Kids don't choose television over people. They choose television because of lack of people interaction.
-- Brook Noel

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So, yes, there will be parents who are able to do it, and there will be parents who cannot. How can you ensure that kids are not being just left to rot under the guise of homeschooling?

Well, how do you answer this question when it comes to providing a nutritious diet? Some parents are able to do it, and there will be parents who cannot. How do you ensure that kids are not being left to rot malnourished on junk food?

Ideally, a concerned community will catch this and put pressure to bear on the parents to provide more nutritious meals. If the malnutrition is severe enough to constitute criminal neglect, the police and court will intervene.

Similarly, friends and family will know something is wrong when parents don't provide adequate education. If the educational neglect is severe enough, the police can intervene. The court can then review the individual case and order remediation.

There does not need to be a test for every family to screen for educational neglect, anymore than there is a test for every family to screen for nutritional neglect. The law does not need to assume potential guilt for everyone until proven innocent once a year. That is not the role of law.

--------------------------
An orchestra requires men with different talents and, within limits, different tastes; if all men insisted upon playing the trombone, orchestral music would be impossible. Social co-operation, in like manner, requires differences of taste and aptitude, which are less likely to exist if all children are exposed to the same influences than if parental differences are allowed to affect them
-- Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:17 PM

Scuse me MAGONSDAUGHTER, imma deconstruct that a bit and offer some perceptions, your mileage my vary of course, this is just opinion and admittedly a somewhat biased one given my own experiences.

Quote:
Dawkins says that kids should not be called "Muslim" or "Christian" until they are old enough to define that in themself. Until then, they are children of Christians or Muslims.

Fair enough, one of the oddities of my own family is the specific lack of any formal religious instruction, each to their own path has always been our way, both for most families their morality is in some way tied to their beliefs, and they are only passing down what they know - most folks don't really know hardly anything outside their own belief system in any kind of detail to talk about, so as a device for passing on basic moral standards, any religion will do as a background in how morality and faith work in general.

My sister is agnostic, half brother follows santeria, my father a deist, his wife evangenlical and sisters ex-husband and family are baptist, and yet all of them shared a basic christian instruction to start with, so that one I'll give you, however one must remember Dawkins has an agenda, and an axe to grind with religion as a concept, thus as with any known bias, skepticism should be encouraged.

Quote:
I would say that children who are denied access to a reasonable education are harmed. Reasonable education means that should be basically able to keep up with state standards, which shouldn't be too hard if your education system is as crap as you all seem to make it out to be.

With respect, it is not the place of the State to make those decisions, as stated before, once a person can read, write and do simple math - everything past that is DIY, and neither the State, nor well meaning parents, can force a child to learn if they flat dig in their heels and refuse to do so.

Conversely, there is NO effective means of denying a child education even if you really mean to do it, the curiosity of children knows no bounds, and as a rule they are quite good at subverting attempts to cut them off from information, especially in the internet age, but even before that - case in point the abysmal sex education that's been the case in the US for many years, one way or another, in spite of all the barriers raised against them, they DID learn.

In fact that issue is one where the State standards are so abysmally far below even basic self-protective necessity that it borders on the outright harm that you speak of, giving lie to the ridiculous idea that somehow the State standards are in any way better than the ones set by homeschooling folk - the fact is that the child themself sets the standards, by deciding on their own how much effort they wanna put into their own education, and while they can be encouraged or discouraged, what they cannot be, is forced - that decision is entirely their own, and attempting to take it from them is as impossible as it is ludicrous.

Quote:
Without that, kids will face real disadvantages as adults in the job market and unless you are rich enough that it doesn't matter, most of us need to face that world.

Tell it to Brian, who wound up pumping gas because that degree he worked so hard for made him too expensive to hire - yes, companies put a lot of stock in that paper, but all the paper really tells anyone is how compliant you are and how much crap you'll take to obtain a State seal of approval on your efforts.

Lets take the A+ certification, for example, cause it's something I know in intimate detail - it looks nice, and it's supposed to mean something, but most of the "education" involved is rote memorisation of sales floor buzzwords, and information favorable to a particular manufacturer (some of which, I might add, is untrue), but not one whit of actual functional ability to repair a damaged PC is tested, nor is there any hands on requirement, which results in "certified" technicians who've never even popped a case or handled a screwdriver in their lives devaluing the knowledge of those who do know what they are doing, but were not willing to shell out for what truly amounts to a "join the club fee" as a cost of doing business.

As for a high school diploma, that involves putting kids in an environment so traumatic and hostile (see above comments Re: Penal System) that it's a surprise to me they learn anything at all within it, on top of ever changing standards, and radically increasing workloads caused by running off those who could truly inspire learning, and going to a brute force metholodology instead, trying to ram so much information down on a kid in hopes of them retaining some, causing ever increasing resistance which causes ever increasing workload - along with the stresses of a social and structural environment absolutely proven to be downright hostile to anything human, combined with a deliberately fostered atmosphere of fear, paranoia and constant surveillence to keep them all turned against each other instead of the administration that is mistreating them.

If a PARENT treated their own children the way the State does via the public education system here in the US, you could indeed make a damned solid case for abuse, so you can imagine I don't have much respect for the State as partains to educational ability or excellence.

In fact, I would submit to you, that in a friendly and secure environment, with some encouragement and motivation, an average child could obtain the bare minimum qualifications for a high school diploma by the age of 13-16.

I cite personal experience in that cause most of my own education was DIY, and from about 14 years on, I wasn't "learning" anything in school anymore but hatred for the folk who ran it, and at the earliest legal moment when I become 16, took the GED*, hammering their "six hour" test in 90 minutes flat WITH a 20 minute lunch break, for 287/300 (764/800 scored modernly).

And STILL had to dodge truant officers on the way to work at the local shopping mall, since legally you had to attend high school in that state till you were 18, and once even got caught and dragged back, only to wind up in a tug of war when the school was accusing me of trespassing and trying to throw me off the property and the truant officer was trying to force me to be there.

In my case, the public school system was at best an unhealthy annoyance, and at it's worst an active hinderance to both education and career.

Quote:
So, yes, there will be parents who are able to do it, and there will be parents who cannot. How can you ensure that kids are not being just left to rot under the guise of homeschooling?

I would say, ask the kid!

That seems anethma to the State however, who sees them as so far below subhuman that it offers more legal protection for pets than children.
(Here in the US, I mean, this is a touchy issue for me as well, so we will leave it at that.)

If they can read, write, and do simple math, I'd say leave it alone, cause as repeatedly stated, the person it is up to at THAT point, is the kid.

-Frem
*GED = General Educational Development Testing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GED

Originally conceived as a measure to assist WWII veterans, this became my manner of optioning out of an educational system that was simply wasting my time and forcing me to spend countless hours in a hostile environment bordering on outright incarceration.

And for the record, I paid for the fees out of my own pocket, from gainful employment obtained in spite of rather than because of, the public school system.
(EDIT)
Oh yeah, this..
The GED Tests are not administered to candidates who are enrolled in an accredited high school, including those accredited by regional accrediting bodies and also those approved by jurisdiction department/ministry of education.

I actually had to FORCE the school to expel me, on top of everything else, and they were very reluctant to do so given my plans, and thus a spectacle of epic proportions occured that day, including but not limited to: smoking in the classroom, violation of the dress code, misuse of school property (toilet paper), vandalism (using said toilet paper on the landscaping), general classroom disruption (reciting quotes from the founding fathers), running in the halls, and the one over the top clincher... theft of school property, one 1968 Silver Burdett Social Studies Textbook, Second Edition.

That being why I hope to hell that school never finds out who my Niece is related to... that incident has NEVER been forgotten.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The 1953 People v. Turner concluded that a teaching credential is required for any tutorial setting, which means that no parent can declare themselves a private school without a credential teacher.
That is not statute. But this is not my dispute anyway. I don't have a problem refining the definition to explicitly include non-credentialed teachers in the statute.

My dispute with you is your recommendation to "review the law," as you call it,

Yes, “review the law” as I call it, which means for the legislators to “review” or reexamine the “law” or language in the California code to make homeschooling legal. Don’t tell me you just wasted the last two days of my time because you don’t understand what “review the law” means?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 10:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma: however one must remember Dawkins has an agenda, and an axe to grind with religion as a concept, thus as with any known bias, skepticism should be encouraged.

I was actually replying to Serg who said that Dawkins claims that religious education is child abuse. I don't disagree that Dawkins has an agenda. I doubt he'd disagree either.

Quote:
With respect, it is not the place of the State to make those decisions, as stated before, once a person can read, write and do simple math - everything past that is DIY, and neither the State, nor well meaning parents, can force a child to learn if they flat dig in their heels and refuse to do so.

it's not about whether a child can learn or not, its about how you define harm. I believe that the state does have a role in stepping in if a child is being harmed. I suppose what we are disagreeing on is 'what is harm?' and 'when should the state intervene?' I'll grant you these are very difficult questions.

I'm not against homeschooling per se, but I don't have a problem with a few checks on homeschooling parents, just like there are checks on teachers and schools.

Quote:
Conversely, there is NO effective means of denying a child education even if you really mean to do it, the curiosity of children knows no bounds, and as a rule they are quite good at subverting attempts to cut them off from information, especially in the internet age, but even before that - case in point the abysmal sex education that's been the case in the US for many years, one way or another, in spite of all the barriers raised against them, they DID learn.

I disagree. Places without formal, compulsory education have high degrees of illiteracy, poverty and poor quality of life in general. Children do learn naturally, but they need guidance, resources and good teaching to achieve their potential. Children who are not taught to read, generally never learn. reading and writing are not hardwired skills, like language is.

Quote:
Tell it to Brian, who wound up pumping gas because that degree he worked so hard for made him too expensive to hire - yes, companies put a lot of stock in that paper, but all the paper really tells anyone is how compliant you are and how much crap you'll take to obtain a State seal of approval on your efforts.

Yeah, I can't common on that. I can't say that graduates don't pump gas here, I'm sure some do, but it'd probably be through choice rather than design.
I'm not saying that you have to get schooled to a degree level to get a good job. Tradesmen earn a fortune here, but they need good skills and a good standard of literacy, maths, mechanics etc etc...they would definitely not get work if they couldn't read, write or do maths and a heap of other skills.

As for the rest of your post regarding schooling, I'd say that the fact that your schools appear to suck doesn't really contribute to the argument as to whether the state has any right to regulate homeschooling. It just means that your school system needs to be fixed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:22 AM

I'm all for that, M'lady - just sayin that is why some folks are so desperate to have homeschooling as a potential alternative.

And yeah, resources are very important, nowadays internet access is a significant boon to learning, but I don't think that absolves our social responsibility to have a decent system of libraries - which are being shut down and closed at an alarming rate for lack of funding.

The problem with americans facing up to the inherent problems of our educational system as a whole, is that they don't like the answers to the problem, and so they sit there and deny a problem exists while making all manner of excuses for it, and then get angry when folks sidestep the process they have invested so much effort in defending, see ?

I ran into that myself, at the tail end of my school days, which is why it took a really outrageous amount of stuff to force em to boot me, they just didn't care for the idea of someone sidestepping the process and took it as an insult to their imagined authority.

I prolly woulda done a heck of a lot better homeschooling, given that I was already studying far past their curriculum on my own, having "borrowed" (I did return those!) much of the teaching materials either without their knowledge, or a blind eye from some of the more understanding teachers.

That bein said, sure, there's a case for State intervention due to neglect or incompetence on behalf of parents who will not, or can not, effectively make an effort to educate their kid, but in all honesty it's a rare thing, and the first response of the State should be to try to find a family member capable and willing to resolve that problem.

I think we oughta really streamline the process for basic teaching certification, it's a pretty ridiculous amount of credential at this time, and by eliminating a lot of the crap tacked on just to pad the tuition cost, you could make a difference right there.

Also, I would not mind subsidising teacher education, same as I would not mind doing so for doctors - heaven knows we need them more than bombs and guns, but that's another subject.

Also helpful would be offering more independance to those with teaching cred, if they wanna hold class in the middle of a forest, let em... they wanna set their class size, let em, if they wanna offer an impromtu hour long class on economics in the park cause someone was interested, let em.

I think we're too attached to the systems, and not attached enough to education, come to think of it.

I appreciate you taking that as the perspective it was meant to be instead of as an argument, as well - believe me, this is an issue I would like solved as much as anyone, and more input on the process and potential solutions means more chances of gettin it done.

I may have my biases, but I put em out in the open, and no way would I reject a solution that would WORK cause I didn't like how it did.

I wouldn't mind being a teacher, well... officially, that is - I do a lot of it just whenever the rugrats of my social circle get together and start askin questions, which they do cause I treat em like people instead of talkin down at em, and actually listen to what they're sayin to me.

Strange thing come out of that, kids have things to teach us too... would that we would learn some of em.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes, “review the law” as I call it, which means for the legislators to “review” or reexamine the “law” or language in the California code to make homeschooling legal.

And as I said, I don't have a problem with making homeschool "legal" (if in fact it needs to be made "legal"). It is your assertion that part of this "legality" requires some minimum standard and monitoring for homeschooling abuses that I have a problem with. If "legality" comes with more bureaucratic hoops, then I prefer the current vague wording with no strings attached, to a precise definition with strings, you see?

Here is an example of what I mean. Lay midwifery is illegal in some states, outright. In other states, there is no law making it illegal, but there is no law making it legal either--they call that alegal. Outside the law, but not against the law. There, as long as midwives practice safely and without incident, nobody gives a hoot. However, there is a threat of prosecution looming over their heads all the time. In the rest of the states, midwifery is legal and regulated by the state. Midwives in these states have to complete certain training requirements, complete certain state-mandated procedures, and fill out state-mandated forms. They can still be prosecuted if something goes wrong, but there is a little bit more protection under "standard of care."

Now you'd think that midwives would all want every state to make midwifery legal. But many midwives prefer the alegal status. It gives them more freedom in their practice and leeway in their judgment calls. They are not restrained by the state to conform to standards they don't believe in.

Similarly, if it came down to a choice between alegal homeschooling with no requirements and legal homeschooling with prescribed standards, I prefer the alegal status. However, since CA is not alegal, that is really neither here nor there. CA already has the ideal scenario where homeschooling is legal AND requires no minimum standard. Granted their language can be more precise, but that can be easily fixed without making changes in the rest of the law.

BTW, you're starting to get snarky, Finn. If you can't debate the issues without getting petty, we're done, OK?

--------------------------
I would say that my position is not too far from that of Ayn Rand's; that I would like to see government reduced to no more than internal police and courts, external armed forces - with the other matters handled otherwise. I'm sick of the way the government sticks its nose into everything, now.
--Robert Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:17 AM

ANTIMASON

Frem- no offense, but you took both of those quotes far out of context. what are the ten commandments? among them, Jesus says the most important is to love God above all others, and love your neighbor as yourself. how can you love everyone unconditionally if you hate or despise God and what he stands for? that is the meaning of this verse

Matthew 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

as a humanist, how do you get around the fact that your beliefs are based, and rely solely on your knowledge, logic and reason, and nothing absolute transcendent of man? for example, how do you practice love, and this responsibility of community, when you are dependent on the knowledge and reason of your subjects? by what means does this education come in an anarchist society?

ephesian 6 : "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

this verse is important, because it emphasizes the premise of the entire book. God is our government, without which we can(and will) only be governed by tyrants(William Penn). this rosy scenario of an atheistic anarchist society is quixotic if you cant see that human nature is inherently sinful, and needs correction.. not vice versa. the contempt around here for religion suggests you believe the opposite, that religion is the culprit, in which case i ask the purpose of the bill of rights and constitution referencing a Creator?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I think we oughta really streamline the process for basic teaching certification, it's a pretty ridiculous amount of credential at this time, and by eliminating a lot of the crap tacked on just to pad the tuition cost, you could make a difference right there.

Education reform needs to do more than streamline the credentialing process. Because that process currently has nothing to do with learning to teach, and everything to do with learning to indoctrinate.

It is true, more often than should be, that those who can't do, teach. The Bachelor's degree in education is comprised of the lowest standards in general knowledge. They spent the bulk of their time learning "how to teach"--as in memorizing methods and theory. That is all screwed up. In the end, what do they know more than noncredentialed parents? Not general knowledge. They have memorized the approved procedures for teaching, the same ones that are messing up kids in schools.

What the teacher credentialing process should be is the equivalent of a liberal arts major--a generalist expertise on literature, science, history, economics, politics, mathematics, and arts. Forget spending four years learning HOW to teach. Spend the four years learning WHAT to teach. The teacher should be the modern Renaissance man, who knows a little about everything to guide children wherever their interests may lie.

This is especially true for high school teachers, where a math teacher should have majored in Math, instead of Education. They need to have majored in the fields they are teaching. The entire education field is a load of crap for people who don't want to learn real knowledge. There is nothing so sacred in the educational process that can't be supplemented in a few professional workshops, or summarized into one or two elective college classes.

--------------------------
It is the great triumph of compulsory, government monopoly mass-schooling that among even the best of my fellow teachers, and among even the best of my students' parents, only a small number can imagine a different way to do things
-- John Taylor Gatto

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm not against homeschooling per se, but I don't have a problem with a few checks on homeschooling parents, just like there are checks on teachers and schools.

Let's draw that analogy to food again, shall we?

If you cook at home, the state is not looking over your shoulder with a "few checks" to make sure your meals are sanitary and nutritious for your kids. The default assumption is, you're innocent unless proven guilty, and that you love your kids enough to give them clean, nutritious meals (unless proven otherwise). However, a restaurant is subject to state inspections and standards. But just because they are, doesn't mean parents cooking at home has to be, you see? You can extend this analogy with other businesses as well. When you fix your own car, there is no oversight, while businesses that fix cars are required to meet certain standards. When you do your own taxes, you supervise yourself. Businesses that do taxes have to have credentialed supervision. And so forth.

There is nothing magical about education that it requires only professionals or professional supervision. Really. Teaching your kids is like cooking meals, fixing cars, and doing taxes. You can do it yourself.

Quote:
I disagree. Places without formal, compulsory education have high degrees of illiteracy, poverty and poor quality of life in general.

Places without formal, compulsory education also have major socio-political problems that prevent DIY education. You can't assume it is the absence of compulsory education that is the cause of illiteracy and poverty--more often than not, it is something else that is causing it.

However, I will agree that children do need guidance and resources to learn. Just how much guidance is needed, and how should that guidance be presented is entirely debatable. I submit though, that the guidance currently offered by professional teachers is only one of many effective ways, and is by no means the ONLY effective way, as those professionals like to claim.

--------------------------
It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiousity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom.
-- Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:37 AM

Anti, I don't love hardly no one, I don't even LIKE people, never have.

What I don't do, is hate people I don't consider a direct threat to me or my personhood, barring that one simple, yet not so simple, thing - imma live and let live kinda guy.

You also didn't seem to catch the fact that politically, I am a humanist.

Spiritually, I won't share, not unless theres somehow a downright pressing need to do so, and that's pretty rare.

I will say unto you, "By their fruits you shall know them" - and what has your belief ever offered to my people but ignorance, persecution, inquisitions, murder, strife, violence, intolerence and hate ?

Your own holy book is pages and pages full of that kind of conduct, and all A-ok done in it's name, no matter how horrible.

I don't care what you believe, I care what you do, and the history of your people and their conduct makes them as a whole a threat, and individually suspect till proven otherwise.

And no, human nature is not as wicked as it's made out to be, that is an age old scare tactic to convince people to hand over the reins of their lives to a leader, often one claiming divine guidance or provenence, who means selfishly to use that for their own gain, it's the same logic being thrown at us today to frighten us into handing over even more of our lives, our privacy, our sovereign rights - and no more true now than it ever was.

Humans get along just fine, Governments and Religions are notoriously dangerous, and lead people who would otherwise have neither reason nor excuse into committing horrors upon each other.

How else to explain a man taking up arms against another man he doesn't even know, and shooting him dead, without even the evil of personal gain ?

I refuse to wait for some all powerful imaginary friend to come save us from ourselves - I think WE should do it, grow up, quit making excuses and shirking our responsibility, and actively work to evolve in a social and emotional aspect to the point where Government is rendered an unnecessary relic of a bygone age.

Did you ever stop to think, that in the terms in which it is described, that mankind outgrowing and finally doing away with earthly governments is exactly what is meant by the destruction and elevation within Revelations ?

Maybe you should stop looking for a solution externally, and start lookin internally...

Just a thought,

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I refuse to wait for some all powerful imaginary friend to come save us from ourselves - I think WE should do it, grow up, quit making excuses and shirking our responsibility, and actively work to evolve in a social and emotional aspect to the point where Government is rendered an unnecessary relic of a bygone age.

One of Anthony de Mello's stories goes like this.

I walked by the poor and hungry and downtrodden and cried to God, "God, why don't you do something?!"

God said, "I did. I made YOU."

--------------------------
It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.
--Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:50 AM