Redstate

Are you saying the State should take no interest in the ability of parents to home school; regardless of whether they never finished high school, have no GED etc....

What is the justification for that position?

We can call it "The Department of Education" or something.

That way, we'll have a centralized government department in charge of education for the kids from all over the country. Sort of a "one-size-fits-all" thing to ensure that quality is high whether you live in the middle of Chappaqua or the middle of Watts.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I certainly don't think we need a bloated Dept of Education, but I certainly think it's in the national interest to ensure that kids in all parts of the country get a quality education. Our economic and national security will rely more and more on a highly educated populace. Do we really want local school boards to decide that they won't teach science or will have low standards for math achievement?

We all have to live on the same planet, after all.

I find it very offensive that there are countries that think that the year isn't 2008.

I look at these countries that say the year is 5769 or 1429 and think... "Why am I paying taxes?"

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

in China or India? I get your concern. I certainly think there is a fine line between having standards and having bureaucrats in Washington making all decisions on behalf of parents on education.

Either your Snark-O-Meter™ has run out of power or it's broken.

And Rightly So!

If a kid doesn't have an education they are more likely to become dependent on the state. Who picks up votes by having a constituency of dependents ?

You have to get rid of the welfare state before you can get rid of state education.

A goverment that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
Barry Goldwater

You can call this a lot of things, but libertarian it is not.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

absentee

I can't see where that guy gets off either.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

That at least the home schooling parent has a high school diploma or equivalency?

It takes a village to raise the little [redacteds] anyhow.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

Prudence, involves, among other things, discerning the extent (and there must be a limit) to which there can be individualized assessments, as to the quality of the education.

And it requires relying on generalizations. One general rule that I would rely on is--parents can be trusted more than bureaucrats.

Initially I was worried about parents "homeschooling" but basically just putting the TV on. The truth is, however, that if homeschooling parents have the simple obligation to register their children as homeschoolers, that little requirement, small as it is, will select out the vast majority of just lazy parents.

I think the scenario you're worried about would represent a small fraction of cases--where parents have the initiative and interest in educating their own children, but never had the initiative and interest in even getting a GED. Surely there are some instances of this, but such exceptional cases that they cannot be the basis for establishing a general rule.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

You can be a dedicated parent and not at all qualified to teach reading, writing and arthimatic - not to mention chemistry, physics and higher levels of high school math (pre-calculus).

As for your assertion that "to register their children as homeschoolers, that little requirement, small as it is, will select out the vast majority of just lazy parents"... why do you believe that to be the case?

We could have standardized examinations to determine a student's competence in various curricula, the purposes of placement, should a student later be returned to the public school system, or for assessing the quality of their education by a college or university. We could even use such a system to evaluate students transferring between schools or school systems, or graduates from the public school system attempting to secure admission to an institution of higher education.

I suppose I have a skewed perspective on this sort of thing. My parents are both engineers, and probably are qualified (if not certified) to teach mathematics and the physical sciences at an acceptable level. Even for parents without such a background, I'm pretty sure that textbooks on, e. g., trigonometry don't require a teaching cert to buy and read.

Don't we need some minimum standard to BEGIN the home schooling process?

Yes, your testing idea is good for the reasons you indicated; but what I am saying is that parents cannot register as home schooling their child unless they can evidence a minimum degree of competence.

registered Democrats should have to guess the number of M&Ms in a jar before being allowed to vote. That way, we wouldn't have unqualified voters.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

The part about testing was meant ironically. There are already plenty of standardized tests and examinations, and, it is my impression, that home-schooled students must take them for accreditation and graduation purposes, at least in some jurisdictions.

For instance, I believe there is a standard test for determining if one possesses knowledge equivalent to a public high school education, and we call the certification so obtained a GED. Likewise, there are standard exams used by college admissions (the SAT, SAT II and ACT), various school systems have placement exams for handling students transferring in from other school systems, and there are a variety of standardized achievement tests used to assess the quality of a school's instruction by surveying its students.

Given that we already have all these tools in place to guarantee, assess, and compare the quality of public school educations, where teachers are certified, I am wholly unconvinced that certification has bought us much except a stranglehold on the education system belonging to various teachers' unions. Certainly, it doesn't seem to do much to guarantee quality of instruction.

And am now in the top 20% my class and already have two degrees (I'll likely have a BA, MS, MD, MBA) when I'm done.

And as for certification, home school kids have the same assessments for class placement graduation and college as everyone else (at least in Colorado). Most of the kids I knew who did the same program as I did excelled at these tests. They also got much more education in less time. I completed two years of math and science material in one year of home schooling. Also I only did four hours of work four days a week. In my public school we worked very little going at the worst underachiever's pace. A lot of time is wasted on disruptions and drama, especially in middle school. Kids don't need to hone their sense of fashion, dating skills, or explicative language in school. They need to learn to read, write, multiply, make and intelligent argument. This is exactly what home schoolers get. They also largely avoid getting some other "education" about sex and drugs that many public schoolers become experts in through "experiential learning".

My kids will either go to a great private school, top in the state public school (98% graduation with 90% going to college and 0% getting pregnant) or be home schooled-government be damned!

The right of the parent to teach, influence, and determine the education of their child always supersedes the right of the state to do so. The states involvement should only begin at the point of criminal offense.

Plus who is to determine what it means to be educated? You...me...the government...the NEA?

People who want the state to be primarily responsible for setting the educational agenda: Karl Marx, Stalin, Lenin, etc. Get the picture?

Thomas Jefferson twice introduced in the Virginia legislature (and twice failed) a bill for free schools, and Benjamin Rush proposed a similar bill for Pennsylvania. But it wasn't until the Common School Reform Movement that the public school system came to dominate the North. It was the Whigs and progressive Protestantism who championed the idea that the towns should pay for free education. "From 1838 to 1853, most states in the Northeast (from Maine down the coast to Maryland) and the 'old' Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin) authorized the position of state school superintendent and required towns to provide totally free schools through property taxes. The South followed in the aftermath of the Civil War.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

and it wasn't until the middle of the 20th Century that free textbooks were provided - 1948 in Georgia. Where a majority of families were living in a subsistence agriculture economy, not providing the books was the same as not providing the school. Many whites, most in rural areas, and almost no blacks could afford them. And if anyone believes that the separate public schools were at all equal, let's talk about my bridge.

Actually, The South had a well-developed private academy system based around plantations and larger towns. My gg/grandfather was a teacher in a private academy established by one of the larger landowners in the area and as I understand it all the kids whose parents wanted, at least all the white ones, went for free or a nominal, usually bartered, fee.

In Vino Veritas

is not the same as mandating its use.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

We look forward to universal health insurance being made available to The Children.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

... State teaches it, so should parents get certified green? How about multi-culturalism? My children come home with Ancestry Prayers to burn to Eastern gods, Bindi on their foreheads in honor Hinduism.

Surely the state must make sure parents are suitably able to distribute the trappings of the Worlds' non-Christian, non-Jewish religions and traditions, as well as explain what is so admirable about them in contrast to Christianity or Judaism.

Not to mention, the state surely has the right to make sure parents who are homeschooling are not providing their children with soda, candybars, or other foods proscribed in the public education system.

Also, they should make them do their homeschooling at the schools. Oh, and they should have the school's teachers do the actual teaching. The State's children, after all, must be looked after.

absentee

Explain why having a high school diploma is too much of a burden on a parent in order to be qualified to home school.

That is the issue here.

Or do you believe it is unconstitutional to have such a requirement?

... why being certified green is too much of a burden. Is that so much to ask?

absentee

Being certified green I would argue is not an essential aspect of a high school or lower level (junior high, elementary school etc...) education.

How many high schools even offer certification on being green?

Hardly any and probably none.

As such, your point is not relevant to the discussion.

Whereas making sure a parent can read, write and add is ESSENTIAL to being able to educate a child and EVERY SCHOOL in the country teaches these skills.

Your turn.

You would argue it's not an essential aspect ... well bully. Now all we have to do is put you in charge of California and that will matter.

On the list of what is not relevant to the discussion, please add "making sure a parent can read, write and add" because that was not the issue either. "What's best for a child is to be taught by a credentialed teacher,"

Credentialed. Not literate. And what, I ask you, constitutes those credentials. State teaches environmentalism and multi-culturalism, do they not? Presumably, this falls under the credentials requirement then. What's the difference between environmentalism and math? That Werewolf of London doesn't think it's essential? Thousands of school districts don't agree with you, and aggressively teach it. What makes you think the ability to teach this won't be a required "credential"?

absentee

You still have not made the case that parents must demonstrate they can read in order to home school.

How can you expect that arguement to win the day. You really believe the state or citizens will stand by and let illiterate folks try to home school.

I know they won't.

your next door neighbor, Mother Hubbard, is an illiterate with the IQ of a grapefruit to boot. Also, let's assume she home schools all 17 of her kids. What is it exactly that you as a private citizen would do to her.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

"You still have not made the case that parents must demonstrate they can read in order to home school."

Indeed I have not. Was I supposed to be?

absentee

Dude, credentialed teachers in California cannot even meet that standard.

http://www.10news.com/news/15274005/detail.html

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

The flimsiest evidence possible.

Now if you have a study that shows an instiutional problem - that would be interesting

Do some research on this before pontificating.

There is no evidence that there are legions of illiterate parents out there trying to home school their children.

If there is a problem, it's urban school districts incapable of following up on truant kids whose parents have neglected them totally.

There is no evidence of a problem.

This "regulate first, ask questions later" mentality has to go.

High School Diploma or Equivalence is not the issue here WOL.

The requirement is the issue...once a state creates a requirements for parents and any aspect of relationship with their children they have to create a beauracracy to manage it.

The second issue with the requirement is that it creates an industry for certification for home schooling. It creates an opportunity to collect fees from a parent to have the right to educate their children.

Where do we draw the line on what's considered "education"? What about trades passed on from a parent to a child?

There is no problem with requiring professionals and field workers to meet criteria and be credentialed...but when you start requiring parents to become certified then you're just asking for all sorts of infringements of personal freedom. What's next? California passes a law that parents have to become certified to have children?

The mentality that it takes a community to raise a child is a disease of the most ignominious form.

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison

You're assuming that certified teachers are qualified to teach chemistry, physics, etc.

That may not be as obviously correct as you think.

I personally am appalled by the number of college freshmen who can't add fractions.

But that should not be an excuse to allow unqualified parents to home school.

Do you really want to argue the state should not care if ANY parent is qualified to home school.

You've obviously never had to deal with ElEd majors.
But consider this, how many children does one unqualified teacher screw-up vs how many one set of parents.

Parents only screw up their own kids. Unqualified teachers (and there are plenty of them) screw up many more.

And before you start saying "there ought to be a law" maybe you should argue that it is a problem first.

Homeschoolers tend to do much better than the public schools when it comes to standardized tests. And there are states that require no qualifications for parents to teach their own children (not even notification).

So before you add the burden of having to prove to the state that one is qualified to teach one's own children, perhaps you should at least show that there is a problem.

See my post below; teachers are taught pedagogy in college, not subject matter.

In Vino Veritas

When did the state get the right to my kids and their education? I brought them into this world, I am paying for their upbringing and I am Homeschooling mine. Since when does a parent not have the right to keep their children from being indoctrinated into the homosexual agenda currently demanded in California Public Schools System? Why when our public education system is turning out far inferior product to what it did 40 years ago should the government have a say in my childrens lifes. Did you see the ruling was based somewhat on socialization. Who decides what needs to be indoctrinated or socialized into the kids. The government? The homosexuals? The pro choice, pro life, liberal, conservative, crowd? Give me a break. When public education is about education thats one thing, when it turns to social enginerring then it is in the wrong area and should'nt be supported.

My children are gifts from God. The government has no right or say in their upbringing. Please educate yourself about homeschooling, Homeschoolers perform better on standadized test then do public schoolers even though most homeschool parents aren't as you say "qualified to teach". In every one of the worries you and others in this thread have posted you ignore the fact that public schools are failing. That the ones who fall through homeschool cracks aren't in nearly the numbers of what falls through public school cracks each year. Put your wariness to good use and educate yourself about the facts instead of relying on your feelings.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

n/t

nt

Your confusing two primary points.

You have every right to not put your kids in the public school system if you don't like what the system provides.

No disagreement there.

What I am saying is that it is a very small requirement (that the high percentage of parents already meet) to ask parents to demonstrate basic educational skills in order to home school.

What I'm talking about here is a small number of folks who would need to do something to acquire that qualification.

What is so objectionable about requiring parents to demonstrate the ability to read, write, and add on a high school level. Seems like you are making a mountain out of an ant hill.

Given that I believe you probably have another reason for objecting to such a low level of qualification for home schooling. Could that reason be that you believe this requirement is a trojan horse that will lead to much steeper requirements that will eliminate many parents from being able to qualify as home schoolers?

1700's 1800's and 1900's and still children were taught and grew up to be industrious and created the America we live in today...because there parents taught them without any government inteference. Do you deny this great country was built on the backs of centuries of American's who did not have to prove they were "high school" educated? Why should it be different now.

Either our children belong to us or they don't....and if they don't than the government ought to get in the business of giving licenses to families to have children.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

That way, we can make sure that the wrong people aren't having kids.

And think of all of the jobs that would be created!

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

in...this peck peck peck at our rights is draining....lets give the government every damn right...yeah right...lets not and let people like Werewolf think we should...it must be draining to the other side that we continue to fight back.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Watch how fast they stop taking away our rights then.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

And women couldn't vote. Slavery was legal. Child labor was legal. There was no regulation on pollution.

Times change and so do standards.

The way things were cuts both ways.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

One, I think the government has no authority except that which is in the constitution and am unwilling to cave in any area no matter how small. You may say I'm afraid of a trojan horse, I say our founding fathers were very bright man and who really believes any of them would side with the California judge in this instance.

Two, the very small group you are talking about, the parents age 18 to 50 who have no High School diploma or GED, for the most part, they are products of the very system you want them to prove they are qualified to perform equally with. The were failed by the Public School system.

Let me assure you of this fact. Any parent concerned enough about their childs education to give up an income in order to stay at home and teach their children regardless of that parents level of education will produce better results than any system that teaches to the lowest denominator can produce.

So why don't conservatives argue that the State has no right to require children to be educated?

Isn't that law unconstitutional?

A growing number of conservatives are demanding that the government get out of education. Whether or not that includes an education mandate I'm not sure.

Government is like Midas. Everything it touches becomes non-functional and extremely expensive.

I fully support the Iraq mission.

Let us not compound a questionable decision (since when is truancy a federal matter?) with outright error.

the state does'nt have that right. Our country had no educational requirements in it's infancy and most of the problems associated with schooling today comes from the so called "right to an education". Let me say I find no right to an education in the constitution. If local state and federal governments deem it a good thing to have an educated population then provide schools and at the public expense give everyone the priviledge to obtain an education. If you opt out so be it the government has given you the equal oppurtunity it was required to give. On the other hand, if you opt in the government should stick to reading, writing , arithmatic, etc. and stay away from social engineering. If you opt in and then become a discipline problem, you have given up your privelidge to be educated at taxpayer expense. If you opt in and don't keep up you again lose your priviledge. The problem with public education today is it should be a priviledge, it was never a right.

Here in Florida, our homeschooled kids have to be tested each year. We've had our kids take the SATs and PSATs at the high school with kids 5-6 years older than they are. My 14 year-old got scores high enough to get into good colleges. My 17 yr old will have his AA from the community college when he graduates from high school. Yes, I have an MS and my wife a BS degree, but when you add love and concern into the education process, the results are improved tremendously.

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
-- imwithfred still --

The only person I can think of is a dedicated parent who at the same time does not realize how deficient the education they propose to give their children is--and who at the same time lives in a school district that is likely to provide such an education. I'm such people exist, but they are probably very rare.

For example, as to my school district: Honestly, I would rather have a single dedicated, high-school dropout tutor my children than have my kids endure the warehouses that are our local public schools.

The "lazy" self-selection process--case in point. My small city has HORRIBLE public schools, and one pretty darn good charter school. You would think that there would be a long waiting list to get in. Nope--the vast majority of the parents never bother to investigate. Sad but true.

I don't say this lightly--if I were still in California now, I would be looking for work elsewhere, as we're planning on homeschooling our kids.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

It comes down to who you trust. I trust parents a heck of a lot more then I trust the state.

It's really that simple. I think the state has shown its self to CLEARLY be incapable of maintaining any sort of standard that actually works. Why would I trust them more?

I was homeschooled till I entered college. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I am going to law school. Not Harvard or Yale, but it's in the top 100.

Could my parents have done a better job? Absolutely. Are there some folks who homeschool who are afraid-of-the-sun lunatics and neo-hippies who just want their kids to sing Kumbya? Certainly. But I'd trust even the worst parents to make that judgment before I'd trust the state.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Werewolf,

1) From your comments above and below, you clearly have no [REDACTED] clue what you are talking about. I do. I was homeschooled for six years (by a mom with one semester of college under her belt), vaped high school, and now attend one of the top three public universities in the nation. Your description of homeschooling families is insulting to the nth degress, and comes straight out of NEA agitprop talking points, and lead to question your sincerity on this thread, not to mention your intelligence. This is exactly the kind of prejudice and bigotry that homeschooing families have faced for decades. Get to know some homeschooling families, do some research about various laws on homeschooling around the country, and then get back to me.

2) Re Parental Qualification: In my mind, nutrition is just as important to the delvelopment of a child as education, if not more so. After all, proper nutrition is necessary for growth, good health, and brain development. Without, we risk illness, mental retardation, and even death! And yet, we leave the nutrition of our children in the hands of unqualified, uneducated parents who may not have even passed a high school health class! The solution, by your lights, and by the State of California's, is clear: it is the right of the state to ensure that all children receive three proper, nutritious meals at their local government nutrition center, until they are legally adults. If parents wish to feed their children at home, they must show the state that they, in fact, possess a degress in nutrition and are certified by the state medical board as qualified nutritionists. Only this way can we ensure that our children are receiving the proper nutrition they need.

If you can't see what's wrong with this picture, then I really don't know what you are doing here.

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi

Like I said - is requiring a high school diploma for the home schooling parent so extreme? Or requiring the home schooling parent pass a college level class in order to teach an AP class of the same topic.

I really do not think having such standards are "dangerous".

If the parent wants to home school so much then they should have no problem putting in the time to get a diploma or pass the required college level course. That is hardly a large burden to put on home schooling parents.

but my answer would be "No, it's not extreme". It's one thing when the "experts" tell us we don't know how to raise our own children, but it's another thing altogether when we start to agree with them.

You can't afford the price of free corn.

who has any specialized subject matter education beyond high school and the minimal core components of math, history, English, etc. in college. Almost all of a teacher's education is in pedagogy, not subject matter, and that is especially true in the Master's level and continuing education classes most states require. Since most teachers are paid in a column and step scheme based on seniority and education, the colleges have happily ginned up all sorts of "Underwater Basket Weaving" style pedagogy classes so teachers can spend a little time in class in the summer and get paid more in the fall. Those masters and continuing education classes are also the reason for all the wierd curricula that get ginned up: somebody wants a masters so they do a thesis on something meaningless to get it, don't worry, they don't do much of that tough grading stuff in Ed School. Then somebody gins up a class in the new thing that "the research shows" and all the teachers take it in summer and get paid more in fall for inflicting it on the kids. Any time you hear an "educator" say "the research shows," your BS alarm should go off.

So maybe, a parent's not having a diploma or GED is some indication that they're really not home schooling but rather just not bothering with sending the kid to school, but don't delude yourself into thinking that the general run of teachers are well-educated in subject matter. From my experience, you couldn't buy an intelligent conversation in a faculty lounge.

Some states are changing their teacher education scheme to require a batchelors in subject matter and then laying a one or two year course of pedagogy to get past the fact that by the time you got to high school the teachers knew little more subject matter than the students.

In Vino Veritas

Either the children belong to the government, who may then regulate the manner in which they are raised and educated, or they are under the care of their parents who may raise them as they see fit. This includes education, discipline, etc. I agree that no standards does open the door for some parents to take advantage of homeschooling or for unqualified parents to teach, but the government has no perogative to interfere in a purely private family concern.

I was homeschooled for a few years, and my sisters for basically all of their schooling and we have done fine. My parents do both have advanced degrees, but not directly in the areas that they were teaching us. Because of my family's experiences, we know a lot of other homeschooling families, and I can't think of any who were unqualified. That doesn't mean that some aren't, but the public school systems certainly haven't been perfect models of education and discipline either.

Your argument would make sense if you were in favor of their being no laws requiring the education of children.

Is that your position?

While I am certainly not in favor of refusing an education to children, I do believe that the impetus and responsibility for that education belong to the parents, not the state.

Your position is perfectly consistent if you believe the state does not have the right to require education.

What possible reluctance could you have - other then it would be a tough sell in the political arena.

If it did, we could start using the failure to have the education mandated by Big Sibling as a crow bar to destroy all the other rights.

Can you really trust uneducated people to hold down jobs? Can you trust them to vote? God forbid either one of us gets caught driving while ignorant. You'd never let people without the state-approved education mandated by Big Sibling near that Internet thingy. The Chinese are absolutely right about that.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

And partly because we are all at least somewhat affected by the nanny state. If an education is not required, some children wouldn't get one at all, and I would hate to see that. On the other hand, one primary way conservatives differ from liberals is that we don't base our principles on emotional cases. The state does not have the power to require education, and the correct and necessary policy is to leave education to the parents.

In order for conservatives to argue that no demonstration of competence is required by home schooling parents to home school their children - conservatives will have to win the argument that the state does not have the power to compel the education fo children.

Because if the state does have the power to require education then the state has the power to determine what a minimally competent education is - and that allows the state to set requirements for home schooling parents.

And I have a hard time believing that any federal court in any state will say the state does not have the power to require the education of children.

Do you?

to control every thaught a citizen has in their brain. It saves them the money of investing in the harassment apparatus necessary to make sure that all home-schoolers educate in accordance with the latest politburo diktat.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

The reality is that the state says you must drive 55 but not what kind of car you have to use.

In the same way it is perfectly reasonable for the state to take the less intrusive position of requiring education without specifying either what that education should be or by leaving it as general as possible in order to avoid infringing significantly on the rights of parents.

All state involvement is infringment to some extent. Conservatives are generally not against infringment but against "unreasonable" or "overbearing" infringment.

that the government isn't omnipotent. But we all know that the courts are never wrong, never biased, and that they rule only by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution, right?

Since this is a state-originated credential (for students), this is the antecedent of my statement that the state has a legitimate interest over the curriculum to be followed to qualify the student for that diploma.

The state oversteps when it starts spelling out who can teach that curriculum.

We have a precedent (at least in California) which establishes passing of the bar exam as a requirement for a law license, but does not require that a student attend or complete a law school in order to sit for the bar. Now it's true that not many people pass the bar who don't attend law school, but they still do have the right to pursue an alternative path towards passing the bar.

It's the outcome that matters, not micromanagement of the process.

And Rightly So!

1. Congratulations on yet another Conservatives in the Mist diary. At least you tarted this one up with sort of an opinion of your own.

2. AP courses are certified by the College Board. That is a voluntary program which schools may or may not participate in. No one, as far as I can tell is saying that homeschool parents should be able to offer AB or IB courses at home.

3. College professors and TAs aren't certified to teach K-12. Why apply a higher standard to a homeschool parent than to a state university?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

1. I happen to be a moderate Republican who is genuinely interested in this issue and wanted to hear the board's opinions. The discussion has been very civil and very informative. And have you noticed that my blogs get TONS of attention and participation. Obviously I am raising interesting issues to discuss.

2. I agree with your points regarding AP classes.

3. I am not applying a higher standard. We know college profesors and TA's can read. We don't know that about home schooling parents. And what percentage won't meet the high school diploma standard. One percent? Less then one percent? Seems like most of the posters here are vociferously objecting to a standard that effects an EXTREMELY SMALL NUMBER of parents and imposes a standard that is a VERY EASY AND CHEAP to accomplish. So why such intense opposition?

it has been a slippery slope thus far and enough is enough.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

1. sez you.

2. Why did you bring it up as a point if you now agree that it really isn't an issue?

3. To be clear, the CA court specified a "certified teacher." Not a "person who can read." Certification has a very specific meaning. But that was a real cute strawman you just immolated.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

we now have Werewolf.

In Vino Veritas

Like I miss the gin hangover after the rugby party.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

He's going to have to polish up his routine quite a bit more to ascend the depths that BrooksRob reached.

And Rightly So!

Or what was the occasion for his departure?

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

And I must have been out of the loop during those days.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

after having been reinstated once already.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

I think he just went away or maybe assumed another identity. I know I don't miss him, but Werewolf is certainly providing a substitute for him. Makes you almost want to see more of flyerhawk. At least he was a genuine unabashed liberal.

In Vino Veritas

I just don't remember the exact violation that finally resulted in the axe falling after multiple warnings. It must be at least six months ago now.

And Rightly So!

Someone else here will have to recall the specific precipitating event.

BrooksRob is memorialized at RedState for his unequalled-to-date ability to find and split hairs at the fentometer-wide scale.

And Rightly So!

If we are going to keep pounding that we are a Republican website, then we ought to be able to have moderates and conservatives disagree without accusing folks of trolling around with sinister conservatives in the mist diaries. There are factions that genuinely disagree on certain areas, but I don't think its fair to call him out as a liberal. Certainly I had a lot of disagreement when I was more in tune with big government-infact I wrote a whole diary in support of NCLB without being accused of trolling. Of course I am a 2 and a half year member, but the point is we should be a bit more open to having intraparty debates IMHO.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

I love a good-faith argument with an informed liberal; did it for a living for most of my adult life. It is about hair-splitting, goal-changing, and argument for the sake of argument - sorta like BrooksRob.

In Vino Veritas

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

(assuming he actually does live in London). Also we're just past a new moon, so not action on that front.

Haven't heard anything from him in over an hour, so it looks like we're talking to ourselves.

And Rightly So!

In Vino Veritas

HOLY COW! Are you kidding me?

You said "If the parent wants to home school so much then they should have no problem putting in the time to get a diploma or pass the required college level course. That is hardly a large burden to put on home schooling parents."

I have a HUGE problem with that. First of all, my wife and I homeschool our 5 kids. (Mostly my wife does 'cause I'm out here in my office working and reading Redstate.) Not only is it a FULL TIME JOB, but it cost us several thousand dollars in books, supplies, field trips, and other materials. This is ON TOP of the several thousand dollars we are spending to "educate" our NEIGHBORS kids at the local government indoctrination center. So don't talk to me about adding more "burdens" to parents who are willing to sacrifice so much to make sure their kids get a real education instead of the BS they can get from the Gov't on MY FREAKIN' DIME.

at Redstate...life is good!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

n/t

n/t

If govt gets into regulating home schooling aren't they acknowledging it and then should provide tax breaks equivalent to the cost of education?

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

In fact, as a single w/ no kids that I know of ;), why am I paying for everyone elses kids to get educated? That burden should be on the parents shoulders.

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

The cost of education should be born by those being educated or their parents if the students are minors.

/sarcasm on/

Alternatively, we could have Education Insurance which would introduce a third party payer into the system.

/sarcasm off/

Seriously though, it's not as expensive to educate a child as you would think. We've become so accustomed to pouring millions of tax dollars into the modern temples of socialist indoctrination that we've lost sight of the fact that education is a natural process. A well thought out schedule, good books, information, explanations, experiences, and inquisitive minds are what it takes; not multi-million dollar building projects and agenda driven liberals armed with Algore DVDs.

I just stepped in the house and my children were gathered around my wife who was reading to them about William the Conqueror. Most days I wish I could just take off from work to sit and listen.

I'm sure your home schooling is much less expensive than public education. There should be an opt out on funding public education for home schoolers and people w/ no children. It would raise accountability in a hurry when the real costs of public education fall onto the parents who send their kids to public school. Probably a few riots which might be warranted ;)

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

Don't you want an educated person who can take your order at Starbucks, and get it right? And give the right change?

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?

Very much agreed. This follows on the heels of a study a while back that said most preschool kids are left in the care of "unqualified" people like grandmothers, etc, while the mother is at work. The study concluded that these children were at risk because they weren't in the care of certified childcare professionals. Well, I wonder who else in the average child's life is not a "certified childcare professional".

You can't afford the price of free corn.

One of the judges said "home-schooling is not a Constitutional Right".

I can only imagine how he'd respond to the argument that Liberty must be presumed for the citizenry.

Would he conceed the point but go on to argue that this is an issue that needs to be left up to the States rather than the Federal Government?

Would he argue that Libertines are used to finding all sorts of rights in the Constitution emanating from various penumbras?

Would he talk about the importance of The Children?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

You should stop blithering and just accept your overlords. Rights are dangerous, Bird. You could make the wrong choice, and no one would be there to guaruntee your children a positive educational outcome. We are all entitled to equality of result. Just ask all the children who get cracker-jack edumacashuns in the Baltimore Public Schools.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

Than the one that says "The State *OUGHT* to have as much power as it's exercising here, it just *OUGHT* to be exercising it differently."

Perhaps, with different politicians in charge, it would work the way it ought, no?

Surely it will work next time.

We just need different people in charge.

And more funding.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I was thinking about taking that funding away from you for your own good.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

And Rightly So!

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

n/t

Lemme guess... it's right next to your "right" to abortion, gay marriage, or to grow marijuana?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

And the presumption of a government that is not a Leviathan with tendrils in every aspect of your life makes "penumbra" something that the government has to prove it has... "the emanations from this penumbra means that we have the right to meddle and legislate this portion of your life" rather than our having to prove that, yes, this portion is something that should be left up to The People.

Unfortunately "The People" is a phrase no longer in fashion.

It's been replaced by "The Children".

The secret that no one likes to talk about is how each phrase refers to the exact same group of individuals.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

If education isn't covered by "General Welfare", I don't know what would be!

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

education as even a state responsibility post dates the Constitution by about half century, I think you are sliding into the realm of penumbras and emanations.

On the other hand there is a very strong religious freedom case to be made in defense of homeschooling. Religious freedom is in one of those amendment thingies I'm pretty sure.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

that President Obama wouldn't change?

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

It is the judge who said "there is no right to home school" and now it is the opposition arguing that there are rights that exist that are not explicitly enumerated.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

and if that doesn't cover and individuals right to the freedom to educate their children (posterity) than the "General Welfare" section does not cover the right for the state to take away your right to educate......you can't just pick and choose your constitutional clauses.....of course they found a "right" to kill said children in the constitution so maybe you will be found to be "right".....I though think not.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I may not be following what you are saying, but it sounds like you are saying that providing for the general welfare is the same thing as imposing requirements of general welfare on individuals.

Would we then be obligated to provide Health Care, food and shelter? Whether or not you think general welfare means public education must be provided, it doesn't stand to reason that citizens must be forced to take advantage of it.

absentee

Let's try 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' for starters (I would be extremely happy to be left alone by the state to homeschool my children)?

I don't recall education of all citizens being mandated by the constitution. How 'bout you find me where that is first?

'mispellers of the world, untie!'

I thought that that was written in the Declaration of Independence.

Incidentally, I've had it said to me, on this very board, that the author of the document you're quoting, Thomas Jefferson, was about as Conservative as Marx.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I got the two documents mixed up. Anyway, I'm not going to defend Jefferson or any other person here (except myself of course).

The constitution does not entitle you to an education any more than it entitles me to a $1 million/yr salary. Our current society has made education a valuable commodity, but no where does it say 'all citizens of the United States must have a high school/college education'. Nor does it say 'the states shall have the power to mandate education'. It's one of those non-enumerated powers/issues. And that's where it should stay.

I homeschool because: 1) I find the public education system wanting in the extreme. And 2) I don't want my children to be taught the current liberal views on morals and ethics. Many other people have felt the same way and have worked through the legislative system so I can educate my children at home. Now, through a single court decision made by a judge accountable to no one, what has been fought and worked for for over 20 years is in serious jeopardy.

'mispellers of the world, untie!'

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

--------------------------------------
GOP McCain for President, 2008

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The powers ... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And it's the state of California, not the Feds, exercising its power to require children get an education. So what's your Constitutional objection?

I think California's law requiring a teaching credential for home schoolers is excessive, but any Californian who has a problem with that law needs to take it up in the democratic process, rather than ask the courts to hallucinate some penumbra containing a Consitutional right to home school. Based on what California law says according the story linked in the OP, the court would have been lawlessly activist to rule any other way:

Unlike at least 30 other states, home schooling is not specifically addressed in California law. Under the state education code, students must be enrolled in a public or private school, or can be taught at home by a credentialed tutor.

The California Department of Education currently allows home schooling as long as parents file paperwork with the state establishing themselves as small private schools, hire credentialed tutors or enroll their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts while still teaching at home.

I think the home schoolers have a reasonable argument that an education credential should not be required. (In fact I'd like to loosen the credentialling for public schools too.) The way to do that is to convince and/or elect legislators to change the law; or collect signatures and pass a referendum. But like many leftists, these plaintiffs prefer to circumvent democracy.

There can be no Constitutional right to home school without regulation, unless there's some penumbra saying the State of California isn't allowed to require that a child receive education if the child's parents prefer he stay illiterate. Assuming a state is in fact allowed to democratically enact laws requiring education, the laws would be meaningless if the state wasn't allowed to enforce the laws standards of what kind of education is required. I think California's standards are wrong, but that's for the legislature to decide, not the courts.

a question of the rights of the people who have consented to a law that requires education in a certain form. Many of us may not like the law, but it is not for the court, any court, to decide.

In Vino Veritas

Germany has essentially outlawed homeschooling on the grounds that the children's education is the province of the state, not the parents.

Several families of homeschoolers have had the state terminate their parental rights and forcibly remove their children from the parents' custody. I don't recall if parents have been jailed, but several families have fled the country to prevent these things from happening.

If you google on |Germany homeschooling| you will find numerous links to such cases.

And Rightly So!

This paragraph from the article:

"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the district court. "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

That's exactly the backward thinking that needs defeated. We are not subjects of the state except where granted a special exemption by the Constitution. That interpretation of our system of government is expressly refuted by the 9th and 10th amendments.

I reject that court ruling. It is wrong. It is not valid. I do not respect it and I give it no weight.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

If you allow for this "right" to exist without being explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, there will be many more "rights" found there.

I'm 100% in agreement with this view of yours, by the way.

I just want you to know that the presumption of Liberty has a slippery slope.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Again, I'm not defining a new right. I'm challenging the authority of the government to do this.

We are not British. We are not under the thumb of an all-powerful Parliament which can do what it wants, when it wants, except when traditnion deigns to grant us a right otherwise.

Our government has limits. And this goes over the line.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

If you agree that the government has the right to define "marriage", you cannot be surprised that the government finds itself meddling with what entails "parenting"... no?

There are a lot of slippery slopes out there.

This is the natural result of going down that way instead of one of the others.

We even have judges reading the Constitution and not seeing a right to Home School. Do you not hear echoes in that argument?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Marriage is all about governmental recognition, especially now. It directly involves the government, so they have to have some say.

Education has no such requirement.

Heterosexual. Why? "Because children need two parents."

Why stop with two parents? Why not have parenthood itself certified in some form? You know. To make sure that mom and dad know the tune to the "ABC" song.

It's for The Children, you see.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I hate it when a court takes it upon itself to force compulsory recognition of a new definition of marriage upon the American people.

I hate it when a court takes it upon itself to force compulsory government-credentialed education upon the American people.

And anyway, I file 'echoes' with 'penumbras,' sorry.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Of what? A tax break? Inheritance issues? Hospital visitation?

The things you have the power to regulate are only things that you have the power to withhold.

The government is not God. Saying "if Dude A dies without a will, Dude B is the primary beneficiary of Dude A's estate" is *NOT* absolutely *NOT* in *ANY* way forcing recognition of a new definition of marriage on The People.

But this is one heck of a threadjack.

I should open a diary on the whole Libertarian thing... maybe this weekend.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Marriage is not an assortment of legal goodies, although it may end out with that result. It is government recognition and implicit approval of the union.

However, you are right. It is a massive threadjack.

The 9th and 10th Amendments would come into play here. From your examples above, growing marijuana would be in the same ballpark. Abortion would not.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Why I still do.

I see this ruling by this court as tyranny.

I am not a good enough person to be able to resist using arguments given against me for many of my positions against though offended by this court decision, though.

But I'm trying to get better.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Amen!

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

..to how parents should be allowed to raise their children?

From a pure libertarian perspective it's simple, of course. But then you have to think about what rights the child might have. If we take your example of a child raised by under a Scientologist doctine (or purely from the works of OBN or whatever example is not to your tase) , at what age would the child have the right to choose to enroll in a school against his parents wishes?

And no longer considered dependent minors. To answer your first question, no there is not any limit on how parents should be allowed to rasie thei children. If I want to go the toher way and rasie my children only on reading Rainbow socially awareness books, that too is my right as an American citizen. The courts and the government have no business in interfering with what I do in my family. That is tyranny of the government.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

not those of an adult certainly, (and no I'm not heading off into hippy territory, not by a long chalk) but if you're pro-life you will have acknowledged at least one right.

Beyond the obvious, I would feel comfortable with the idea that a child accrues more rights as an individual progressively and if we had a test case where a 13-year old attempted to take his parents to court because of their limiting his education, by choice, or by competence, how would your imagine the ruling would ultimately go?

As for your other point, given today's climate, the Courts would almost 95 percent sure side with the kid over the parents. Maybe not the SCOTUS, which is where it would end up, but there is certainly not constitutional right to what kind of education should be provided, and certainly if a child is not able to provide for themselves in any other capacity, why is a child allowed to decide their educational fate. Lots of kids hate their schools. Most learn to deal with it,and move on in life.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

How would it divided on whether a 13yo could be denied any education at his parent's will? Who would be on either side of the split? I don't see it falling for the parents at the limit, if we don't make any presumptions about the two parties.

Laws regarding willful negligence come to mind. Malnutrition doesn't sound like a "parental right". It seems like sitting them in front of GameBox 8 hours a day instead of teaching them to read or sending them somewhere else to get the job done is also a kind of willful neglect - it isn't a matter of a disagreement as to the flavor of education, but that there is no education occurring whatsoever.

But who are we to say a given parent cannot determine that what is best for their child is to learn plumbing from an early age, focus on that, and then pursue it as an adult? Child may disagree at the age of emancipation and then they can do whatever they want from there, but let's face it, not every kid is a potential rocket scientist, and most parents can discern the relative strengths and weaknesses of their own offspring (though some also unwisely fool themselves).

But I find your appeals to how I need to have empathy and pity for "The Children" completely unmoving.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

Standardized tests to ensure that a minimal level of education is being set certainly satisfies the need to ensure that the home schooling child is getting an adequate education.

My only issue is do we want a parent who can barely read or add to even BEGIN the home schooling process.

Some here are arguing that it does not matter - which is really the heart of the matter. Does the state have the right to impose a threshold level of competence to begin home schooling? And if it does - how high can that threshold level be?

1) If a parent is able to present a teaching program that will pass muster with the involved school district, the very act of doing so should be proof enough that the parent has a threshold level of competence.

2) Moreover, the follow-up requirement provide a second level of protection in case something goes wrong in the teaching process.

About credentials:

1) There are not enough programs to accomodate all homeschooling parents in addition to those taking the courses to teach in public/private schools - and the state already has a teacher shortage.

2) The program time and expense would price almost everyone except the wealthiest parents out of teaching. Not to mention that parents will have to plan ahead of time to home-school and incur the cost with an uncertainty as to whether it will work for their kids. Plus those who start with their children in school and then decide to homeschool because their children encounter problems in their local schools would be unable to do so because of the time lag for programs.

3) The courses and skills taught by credential programs are mostly immaterial to the needs of homeschool parents, as they are geared towards teaching groups. Not to mention the classroom internship requirements.

4) Even so, credentials are specialized: elementary education credential does not qualify you to teach high school and vice-versa, for instance, not to mention that at higher level credentials are by subject. So how many credentials would a homeschool parent be required to hold?

These are just some of the arguments that would indicate the inappropriateness of a credential requirement in today's environment.

Even arguendo that the state has a valid interest in licensing parents, this decision goes strongly against the long-standing legal principles of crafting the remedy to the problem in the least restrictive manner.

The sledgehammer prescription of the court it would essentially prevent most or all parents from homeschooling, which is totally unreasonable in the absence of documentation of a widespread crisis that creates such a compelling state action. Plus, since the court identified the problem was at the school district's lack of supervision, then the remedy should be directed at the district misconduct, not at law-abiding parents.

And Rightly So!

Bcause once the state has the right to compel education - then regulation of education will also be within the power of the state.

Personally, I think middle ground can be reached.

And that middle ground is a minimal demonstration of educational competence by the home schooling parent - like a high school diploma.

I understand the concerns of folks who believe if the state has ANY right to regulate that that fact opens to door to more and burdensome regulations - and I agree with those concerns and find them to be totally valid.

On the other hand - to argue the state has no right to compel education will be a loser in the courts and in the political arena. A big time loser.

I'd say, given the fact that the argument that the state does not have a right compel education is a political and judicial loser that it's better to work for legislation that sets an easy to reach standard for home schooling parents.

... it's better to work for legislation that sets an easy to reach standard for home schooling parents

Actually, I'd say it's better to work for legislation that says parents can educate their children in whatever manner they prefer. There are other many things the government can worry about, lets relieve its burden a little more by taking this one off its plate.

Practically speaking there does need to be some definition of child neglect that includes a failure to provide an adequate form of education geared towards enabling the child to survive and compete in the world. But that would be handled the same way general child neglect is now - which doesn't involve government pre-qualification for the parent.

A kid could go all the way until he is 18 and not be educated and then we're going to apply a child neglect law to the parent who didn't bother to educate the "home schooled" kid?

Not very practical.

And you can work for any legislation you want, but I don't see any state GOP committee willing to go to war on the issue that the state has no right to compel education.

Same argument applies to a neglectful levels of nutrition... we're going to have woefully underdeveloped 18 year olds come to light and then go back and prosecute the parents who didn't bother to feed them? Oh no! Parental credentialing, stat!

Whats not very practical is going at this problem with the assumption that all parents are incapable of homeschooling unless proven otherwise. So we end up with some new (and probably highly politicized) government department full of bureaucrats deciding how they're going to certify whether a parent can homeschool their kid, and which serves no other purpose than to throw out bits of paper that confirm the general assumption that the great majority of parents who actually want to homeschool are capable of doing so.

Better that we allow the already existing government structure that works to combat, punish, and rectify child neglect to handle those few cases where it is necessary to, well, evidently force the parents to seek a third party to educate their kid.

I don't see any state GOP committee willing to go to war on the issue that the state has no right to compel education.

Always on about what "right" the state has - which is none. A state has only that authority what is bestowed upon it by the people (and it's often difficult to get it back, once given). What you're really asking is whether there's a State GOP committee willing to go to war on the issue that the state shouldn't expand and add parental education credentialing to its already bloated bevy of functions.

In the post-NCLB days, I don't know if there is, but I'd sure hope so.

Even with truancy laws there have been alternatives for education such as private schooling, boarding schools, home schooling etc. As long as kids in these settings can pass the same tests as their public school counterparts (and I assure you they can) the government has no right interfering as these children are obviously getting educated (and thus not truants). As for curriculum, allowing the stare to write the tests and set grade objectives is more than sufficient. They shouldn't be able to set curriculum specifics. For example, a kid may have to know about evolution, and that there are Hindus in India, and that babies come from sex--but the context all these topics are presented in should be left to the sole discretion of parents.

Totally agree with your curriculum point.

But you did not address the THRESHOLD issue regarding home schooling. And that is the ability of the parent to educate their children.

Where do you come down on the threshold question?

If, at the end of the day, the child learns what they're supposed to learn, what matters the parent's level of education or certification? And, if the child does not learn, in what way would the certification have helped? People have gotten teaching certifications and credentials without being able to read or write, you know.

It's about what WILL HAPPEN to the child - not what happens at the end of the day.

Just because a few bad apples slipped in the cracks and got teacher certification is no reason to condemn the entire process. Should we shut down NASA because a couple of rockets exploded on lift off?

The fact is that the better educated the parent is the more likely the child will be educated properly. And I don't see it as an imposition on a home schooling parent to prove they can read and add numbers. Especially if the level of proof is something as easy to obtain as a high school diploma or a GED.

The home schoolers will lose the political debate if they demand that they don't have to demonstrate ANY competence to teach children how to read and write.

As I said, if the child learns how to read, 'rite, and do 'rithmatic as well as his peers, who cares if his mother or father has a high school diploma or equivalent? And, if we don't care if they're 'qualified' if the kid is learning, I don't see how it matters if the kid isn't learning.

This isn't about demonstrating competence to teach. This is about whether the state has a vested interest in and the ability to determine who is allowed to teach children. In particular, it is unlikely that it would be just a high school diploma or GED. Sooner or later, some enterprising soul will, with the best of intentions, observe that almost everyone has such a piece of paper, and that surely they can't all be qualified to be teachers. Then, there will be a suggestion that we rely on a certifying authority such as the NEA. And then it's over, and we lost.

The home schoolers will lose the political debate if they demand that they don't have to demonstrate ANY competence to teach children how to read and write.

I doubt that. I believe the trend has been towards less regulation, not more. And of the people who care, Homeschoolers vote.

Besides I'm really not sure what to think of this decision, CA has maintained that it is illegal to homeschool in CA for some time. The way it's done is parents establish a private school (there are also other options) and the requirement there is the "ability to teach".

PA requires a high school diploma. PA is also the most difficult state to homeschool in.

There is virtually nothing a student or parent can’t get from a book. A requirement for passing grade level tests is really all that is needed to ensure a child is receiving the necessary education. For example, I know a few Christian couples who only have HS diplomas who have taught kids who went on to be stockbrokers, doctors, accountants, scientists etc. The student need only meet testing--which really isn't that hard, especially if you cut the social drama crud out of Junior High and High School.

Like I said in my previous post, most homeschoolers in the program I was in only worked 4 hours a day 4 days a week during Junior high and only a few hours more in high school, and many of them graduated early and were way ahead of grade level, because they were working at their own pace and got concentrated instruction on what they needed. They didn't waste time on social drama (which is hazardous to teens anyway-suicide, pregnancy, drugs), and they didn't have to wait up for underachievers or class clown disruptions.

People exhibit a range of abilities when it comes to "book learning." Some are quite capable of mastering new concepts from reading materials, but not all. Had I been home-schooled, my parents would not have been able to help me with Trig, Calculus, Physics, etc. even if they had read a book or two. As things were, I struggled at times and needed help from people who really understood the material (teachers and friends).

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

I have worked in schools where the math teachers could not have helped you with trig or calc.

P.S. According to the National Council for History Education well over 70% of history teachers do not have an academic background in history, and over 80% of Physics teachers do not have a background in Physics.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

My teachers didn't help me at all. I was too far ahead of my class--who were still mastering basic operations in the 6th grade!! I had to ask the teacher if I could go to the library and teach myself and just turn in homework and tests to him. He agreed. By the end of the year I and six other students had taught ourselves algebra and some basic trig--the rest of the class was just starting algebra. I got ahead one whole year because I was taught by a book and not a teacher. A book gives a student information he needs when he needs it. In many public schools teachers are forced to cater to the lowest common denominator, while more aspiring students either have to burn time or skip a grade-putting them in a socially awkward position. This is not the case with home and cottage schooling.

It's wrong to assume that (all) parents lack the ability to be an effective teacher. But it's also wrong to assume the opposite - that (all) parents will be effective teachers (in all subjects).

And I'm sure you would agree that not everyone can learn easily just by reading books. The jump between factual knowledge and conceptual knowledge sometimes requires outside help.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

Many homeschool situations rely on multiple mentors with the parents safeguarding the material and the qualifications of the teaching team. Home school may use resources from a large bank of services and as others have cited must have their students stand for certain standardized tests to ensure others of their competency. This is a no brainer and even Arnold can see that CA nees to overturn this verdict. I would not expect everyone to be an expert teacher in all subjects, and the idea that a credential somehow warrents this is silly. Our son needed help in Japanese, neither my wife or myself had a prayer of teaching this language, and neither did his teacher in public school, so we hired a tutor. Problem solved. The question about home schooling really amounts to the sincerity and acceptance of the education responsibility. And how is this court decision going to judge this?

My home school did involve other trusted adults to help fill in gaps in my parent’s knowledge base, such as English composition (both my parents are scientists). There were resources for parents in our cottage school organization who were uncomfortable teaching a given subject. The key point however was that parent’s retained control over what their children were learning. They chose who their children learned from and what their children learned. For example, sex ed was done in a Bible study format at a home schoolers retreat. We learned what sex was, what the Bible said about it, and how to deal with pressure from peers who don't subscribe to the same morality we do. We were inoculated against the moral and sexual relativism of pop culture and learned a parentally approved, biblically appropriate sex Ed.

I wouldn't mind hearing arguments put forth for that.

For those with a penchant for supporting certain arrangements for the sake of centuries long tradition that helped build civilization to this point, it would be hard to argue against.

On the affirmative side, there's a case to be made that there is much work that is education, in a very practical sense of the word. Probably a great way to learn a trade skill, if you can work alongside a parent or close relative.

And even getting ordered around all day to bring your father another beer is going to eventually teach you that your dad is a jerk!

You demonstrated certain metal capcity to get certified in the first place.

And that is what is at issue here. Do parents have the ability to educate in the first place. Or, alternatively, does the state have the right to even require ANY level of competence.

If you knew some of the insurance agents that I know, mental capacity would not be one of your first thoughts (at least not in the positive respect).

I say, honestly, that any idiot can pass the test to sell insurance or even investments. I would say the same about teaching. My wife is a teacher, so I walk a thin line here, but there are some genuinely stupid people that graduated from a four year university with my wife (actually a five year program that included getting a Masters of Arts in Education).

The bigger demonstration is the willingness to take the time and the money involved in becoming certified.

"You demonstrated certain metal capcity to get certified in the first place."

Wow!!! You know nothing about teacher preparation programs.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

these days, at least a degree not in math, engineering, the hard sciences, etc., is that your parents had the money or credit to pay for it and that you were willing to sit in the chair for four or five years and spit back the BS. I guess that ability says something, particularly if you're looking for a nice, docile, unthinking workforce.

In Vino Veritas

a teacher ed program in college with a 3.0, you must be dumber than a bag of rocks.
College is just a means to an end for most.

from the Executive Branch in the mid-nineties and worked for the Legislature during its 120 day session. In another time those on the outs with the King took to the monastery, these days they go to the university, so I went back to school for the first time in thirty years. I took a full load for five sememsters, a lot of it in directed study working on a book, the rest in regular old undergraduate courses. I learned that all the bad things I'd thought about public education were wrong: it was far worse than I thought! The students were appallingly ignorant and lazy, most of the professors little better. There was no lively inquiry, no discussion, almost never a question and if one were posed rarely a real answer. Other than my directed study work, I never hit a lick beyond the strict requirements and stayed on the Chancellor's List for four of the five semesters and the Dean's List for the fifth one. That semester I ran into a throwback Logic professor with a Ph.D in Philosophy and a Jesuit J.D. who gave me the only B I ever got. His idea of a good question for a final was to take about 1500 words of John Marshall's baroque prose in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, have you distill it, identify all the syllogisms, and examine them for logical validity. Then there was the 100 other questions about syllogisms and fallacies and the like. Unfortunately, it was spring semester and finals coincided with the Legislature's adjournment, so I was working about 50 hours a day, so I got a B. He's actually a great friend now, but he's no longer a professor. He was too hard and the kiddies didn't like him.

In Vino Veritas

If I wasn't 100% certain that the surest way not to get quality is have our government mandate it and then do the checking.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

This is a gift to the NEA.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

not owned by CCPOA are the sovereign territory of the NEA.

In Vino Veritas

It wouldn't surprise me if we were the only state in the union where that corrections officers union is so involved in activism that they're in the news regularly.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

They're very active in most of the deep Blue states. Interestingly, here they're the only union that openly leans Republican and endorsed Palin for example. Full disclosure, they're Republican enough that I do a good bit of work for them.

In Vino Veritas

Liberal executive = empty prisons.

soli Deo gloria

in all the appointee slots.

In Vino Veritas

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

both as a strictly fraternal organization where cops can't unionize and as a union where they can. I've not dealt with them directly though I think our State Troopers were affiliated with them some years back for their AFL-CIO tie. AFL affiliation gives you protection from raiding by other AFL unions. Raiding is far easier than organizing and thus a favorite sport.

Cop unions tend to be seperate and somewhat more conservative. Some of that comes from the tradition recognized by the NLRA of separate "guards" units that couldn't have members that did anything else or be affiliated with unions that did. The NLRA doesn't apply in the public sector, but the tradition sorta does.

While they don't play politics the way that SEIU or AFSCME do, cops' real power is the arrest they didn't make and the picture they have in the safe, so they play hardball. Add that to the fact that most cop management is former cops, so the Blue Wall of Silence is a powerful factor.

Especially where they are prohibited from striking and have interest arbitration, cops can be very, very avaricious. In the unionized states they are usually the most secure and best paid public employees. They know it, and they work really hard to keep it that way.

Cops deal with really bad people and know how bad people work. Nothing is worse to deal with than a cop gone bad; they're usually at least fair to middlin' smart, know the rules, and are at least somewhat protected by their supervisors. They also get one Helluva lot of deference from arbitrators and judges, so it is really, really hard to rein in a cop gone bad.

I rearranged the career plans of quite a few and can tell cop stories for days, but I probably shouldn't on a public forum. I actually like dealing with them, but you'd best pack a lunch; they play hard.

In Vino Veritas

Unless they can manage to agree upon a way to divy up the loot, the gambling interests and NEA and CCPOA are heading for a confrontation as to who owns the state.

And Rightly So!

private Christian school for 3 years. It is a DOD school in fact. Bottom line, I hate it. My son is not challenged and my middle school daughter is being exposed to all kinds of trash. Only my 5th grader is happy. And she is in a class with mainstream gifted kids and a teacher that challenges her to the max.
I am a public school teacher, although my certificate expired 10 years ago. I have always been in favor of school choice, but not too big on homeschooling. I can tell you that I am about 80% sure I will home school my oldest next year. God help me, algebra and all. If I can not get my son into a German immersion class, he will most likely be home as well.
I dare someone to tell me I can't.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Do you have a problem with a state requiring a home schooling parent to either produce a high school diploma or take a proficiency exam to demonstrate that they have a basic understanding of english and math in order to be a home school parent?

...required to do so.

Please defend that, WWoL.

I'd like to evidence of it.

Got a link?

It is common knowledge that teachers' unions, especially NEA, have opposed every attempt at teacher testing and certification nationwide. They've sued over them on gender and race lines alleging disparate treatment. They've questioned the business utility of the tests as that relates to discrimination. They've used the whole bag of tricks and when forced to live with them have delayed, stymied, and sabotaged in hopes of getting a nice friendly Democrat Administration to come along and deliver them.

In Vino Veritas

in AR and TX over "teacher testing". The NEA was all over that.
They also hate tying a teacher's pay to student performance.

among a bunch of putative conservatives and say I don't like so-called merit pay either. My objection isn't philosophical but rather practical. Merit pay systems simply cannot be made to work in government and especially in unionized government. First, teachers have far too little control over student performance to be held strictly accountable for it. Hold them accountable for adhering to the curriculum and the lesson plans, assigning the requisite amount of homework and giving meaningful tests graded objectively, communicating with parents, etc. That you can hold them accountable for but the teacher has almost no control over whether Johnny studies and does his homework beyond giving him a failing grade for not doing so. Perhaps teachers should be expected to be motivators that can raise expectations and build enthusiams, but many, many of them teach to kids from cultures that simply do not value education and whose kids are there only because the law requires them to be or because the school is a cheap babysitter. There's not much you can do to motivate that student if the parents simply don't care.

When I first started employer side labor relations, we had "merit pay" steps nominally tied to performance evaluations insofar as you had to demonstrate "acceptable" or better to get the step, around 3%. Of course, as soon as collective bargaining came in, the unions contracted to be able to contest the evaluation. The State sorta held its ground and would only allow the union to challenge the factual accuracy of the evaluation, not the rating per se. Even the little bit of controversy that cause was enough to cause supervisors to start rating 99.99% of employees "Acceptable" or better and ultimately it became a lot like grad school; Bs were Fs and anyone who wasn't "Outstanding" was failing. When I was director, I finally just abandoned the link between evaluations and step increases - serve the time get the pay. If you were still working, you must have been satisfying somebody. Even where you don't have that dynamic, government being government, who you know or blow is likely to have far more to do with your perceived merit than your actual performance at your job.

Basically, if you want to be paid based on your merit to the enterprise, you need to work in the private sector. I'm not really so sure that merit has all that much to do with employee pay in the private sector - unless you're talking people who work on commission or for a piece of the action - but at least in the private sector, it's the company's own money they're using to give somebody's "friend" a raise.

In Vino Veritas

Tying a teacher's salary to student performance is patently ridiculous. I don't need to repeat what you have said. I basically agree with it all.

And I would love to be some kind of merit pay to rewrd teachers for good work. What other job rewards you for your ability to survive another year, but not whether your performance was any good or not. Granted, I have not served in a classroom yet, as I'm going to be teaching high school and my mother advised me to work for the administration which I'm doing until there is a greater age difference between me and the high school girls. But where is the incentive to beomce a better teacher if you know you are going to get the raise anyway. As to your point that you must be satisfying someone, I disagree. The teachers unions are all about job and self preservation, and they will go to war to defend every last crappy teacher thats in the system. Yeah, the parents are not always into the system, but if it was supposed to be easy, they wouldn't call it teaching. Part of our job is to overcome adversity in and outside of the classroom to reach the kids. I have seen teachers and principals take less money, less discertionary funds, in the inner city and outscore the affluent suburbs, so it can be done, its just whether we are willing to do the work to get the scores where they should be.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

accessing merit within government as per student performance, the only incentive that would really work is an age old one

shame from professional peers that CARE

we need for social shame (requiring a recognition o good and bad) to make a comeback in many areas of life.

Even in a school choice situation, which would be infinitely better, you would still need this shame factor.

BR, it may be that God calls you lead a shame movement.

courage

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

neighborhood.
I taught, no kidding, three children who had parents in jail. One boy's mom was an accessory to the rape and murder of a white girl on New Years eve. She and another woman poured bleach and all kinds of stuff on the poor girl after each brother raped her. When they had their fill, they shot her in the head and dumped her on the side of the road. The lead guy was in the Navy. All were black and wrote a manifesto about how a white woman had to pay for all their years of oppression. The second boy's mother's live in accidentally killed his drinking buddy by punching him so hard on the face that he snapped his neck. The live in found the buddy in bed with the 12 year old daughter after a night of drinking. The third little boy's daddy, uncle, and grandfather were all in jail for being major drug dealers. There could have been others, but those were the ones I knew about.

Two of the three boys were relatively bright kids. But they just couldn't succeed in school. No matter how well I did my job, I couldn't undo all the bad at home. While these are extreme examples, I coudl tell you of at least 10 per year where the kids just didn't have a chance. Life just wasn't going to let them succeed in school. Why should I make less because of this?

All I could do was love them while I had them, encourage them, and give them all the tools I had at my disposal. And pray that someway, somehow, I actually made a difference, academic or not. How do you place a price on that?

But you make me feel like your my RS mom :;smiles::. I agree with you, that there is no price on what we do. I also agree with GC, that we might beed a shaming of our peers. I also know that in Inglewood, Chicago's most gang infested crime ridden area of the city, we have a school that has outscored the rest of the city for the last 5 years. I believe that we must help our kids every single way that we can, and really what it comes down to for me, is how can we teach without that compassion and love that you showed as a teacher. Many teachers that I talk to have given up on the kids before they have walked in the door in August. I don't know if merit pay is the answer, but I want something to get teachers to care again, something to get them off their butts and give the kids an alternative, something like love and a kick in the rear. Part of my plan is to recruit some of these troubled kids onto the fotoball team, which I'm planning on coaching at least as an assistant. We can't just teach from 8-3, and I think that we are called to be more than just a presence inside the classroom. I understand the family situation can be very ugly, but we have to work around it to the best of our abilities.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

to go. There are far too many variables out of a teacher's control.

And with that, I bid you all a good night. It is almost 1 AM and I am sleepy.

And Rightly So!

It's rather impossible to strictly tie inputs to outcome. Lots of external factors (primarily family/socio-economic) as well as the student's own ganas figure into performance.

Tough to balance how to sort out bad apples from incentivizing the wrong behaviors. Merit pay, though, either emphasizes the wrong factors or turns into a political football.

And Rightly So!

one man can make a difference and you can

and will

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

and God Bless those kids

while I absolutely loved teaching/working in my kids' upscale, private, Christian school for the last three years, I loved Midland Park Elementary more. I still think about those kids and I haven't worked there in almost 12 years.
Some of their questions will haunt me forever.
I hope and pray that someway, somehow, they all knew just how much I loved themand wanted them to succeed.
Good night, ya'll.

What you really want is a fully privatized and free market education system wherein education providers that are not the leaves of some massive government bureaucra-tree have the flexibility and freedom to make hiring, firing, and pay decisions all on their own.

Were it possible in the sort of top-down multi-level public education system we have, rewards in the form of cash bonus or discretionary power for administrators to set varying salaries based on the sensible factors cited by Achance would be just fine too. But as an arm of the government - and therefore subject to politicization - it's a bad idea.

But Achance is dead on that tying pay or even firing teachers on the basis of student performance is a non-starter. It'd be like the government stepping in and fining dentists or firing them based on cavity and gingivitis incidence rates in their patients.

Come back and talk to me about it in about ten years. It will take fundamental changes in the structure, processes, and management of public schools to change anything about their p**s poor performance - and I'd say that even without the unions; the unions just mirror the culture.

In Vino Veritas

I disagree a little. Teachers unions are infested with ideologues. They force changes in the culture. They do not reflect present culture, but the culture indoctrinated unto them in academia. They take their vision and try to change mainstream culture by infecting the children with a secular, relativist, victmi based, global worldview.

they reflect the educrat/educator culture, which itself has more than a fair share of those ideologues. You won't change the system without a thorough reorganization of its structure, processes, and management schemes.

In Vino Veritas

Very well said.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

No, I don't have a problem with that. Proficiency exam? Bah. My proficiency exam I had to take before I could be certified was a joke. It was a 9th grade level proficiency for math, reading and writing.
Do I have a problem with them requiring certification? Absolutely.

Between providing a diploma (which you have to pass tests to obtain) and taking a test to determine you can read and add well enough to home school a child?

Most proficiency exams are not as strong as a diploma. IOW, they are a joke. A diploma or GED basically says the same thing.

High school diploma. College grad. Pro football player. Can't read.

google it, or follow the link.

I wonder what the ratio is of public school grads who can't read English compared to the number of home school parents without high school diplomas.

You can't afford the price of free corn.

But Germany essentially outlaws homeschooling for German citizens at least, as I've pointed out in my comment above.

Hopefully as an American military family stationed in Germany you aren't subject to these laws and will be able to homeschool if you choose to.

And Rightly So!

here. The Germans have no jurisdiction over us at all in the matter of education. We are free to go to our neighborhood German school if we want and we know folks that do send their kids. We actually considered it for my youngest, but our Bavarian neighbor strongly recommended we not. She feels the schools around here are inferior to American schools. And she is a teacher at one of the DOD elementary schools.

Don't even get me started about the German nanny state.

Homeschooling here in Florida in a town with an AFB (Patrick) has really opened my eyes to how many military families homeschool. The numbers are quite large, and should be no surprise. Imagine changing schools every two or three years (if that long)? These families give their lives for our freedom, and they don't even get any benefit from the education system that they are defending our freedom to have.

Also, most folks likely don't know that Tim Tebow, Florida Gator quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner, was homeschooled here in Florida througg high school. Here in Florida, homeschooled students have th right to participate in their local public school's extracurricular programs, like sports, band, and the like. Alabama is trying to pass the Tebow Bill to give its homeschooled students the same opportunities.

A friend keeps suggesting to me every August that everyone with kids that go to private school or home school should show up and register their kids at public school at the start of the school year. This would just be an indicator to the education system of the real cost they would have if they wanted to pay to educate all the kids.

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?

I will not tell you you can't. :)

In fact--I think the vast majority of parents CAN do it. We're gonna try a little pre-school homeschool next year, and may continue it indefinitely.

Honestly, there is so much time wasted in generic schools--the time to quiet the kids, move them from class to class, deal with disciplinary problems for so many kids etc. What percentage of the day actually consists in genuine learning?

I have taught at a pretty darn good college--and we have had many homeschooled students. By and large, VERY good students.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

spend watching movies.
My oldest watches movies at least 2-3 times a week in her 7th gr. Geography class. Titles have included, An Inconvient Truth, some Katrina documentary that went on for three days and kept repeatedly asking how the gov't could have helped more, and just last week, one on Rosa Parks that she watched not once, but twice, so they could check their answers. AGH!!!!!!!!
She has also watched the Wizard of Oz, the Wiz, and several other musicals the past month in her choir elective. Unbeknownst to us parents, the teacher had open heart surgery and so the kids have had random subs. I'm going to pull her from choir next week and put her back in PE.
And, she has tons of homework. Makes me wonder what the hell they do all day.
She went to bed puny tonight after a three hour gym session (she is making up sessions missed during basketball tournament week), her homework didn't get done and her piano and flute didn't get practiced. Her throat is sore and we are heading to Garmisch to ski for the weekend. So, I'm being a rebellious mom and letting her stay home tomorrow to sleep, practice, work on homework, and prepare to ski. How warped is that?

I was in an "Accelerated" program back in the 70's. My school district had one designated portion of the newest, most progressive elementary school set aside just for the "Gifted." For my fourth and fifth grade years, we had enough kids (40 to 50) to fill two classes. Every class, every day it was just us without the "normal" kids (700+ in my Senior HS class) to slow us down.

Well there was a teacher's strike, inflation was rising, and enough parents complained about paying for a special program that didn't benefit their kids that the school district shut it down. In my seventh grade year, we were broken-up and mixed in with the eighth grade class. And that's they way things stayed until graduation.

In the end I survived, but I must say there was a noticable difference between the two settings -- the gifted classroom was more intellectually competitive and challenging, whereas the older classroom was more socially competitive and challenging. Looking back, I can honestly say we would have been (individually) better served had they kept the Accelerated program. I can also say that, economically, we were a diverse bunch - some households were pulling in over $100,000 year (in 1983) while a few others were living in government housing. Had we to pay for "special" education, maybe half the kids would have been left out (including myself). And my parents, bless their hearts, didn't have the abilities to teach someone like myself.

So what's the answer? I don't know - but I really don't like the idea of not teaching up to a kid's potential - such a waste.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

that I'm not working for little more than the minimum wage at some chicken plant in Georgia is National Defense Education Act enrichment programs in the early '60s. This was back before it became politically unacceptable to track kids, so those of us who scored highest on the standardized tests were segregated and given a much different educational experience. The segregation continued through high school but in the form of a three track curriculum: College Prep, General, and Vocational. The CP was damned demanding; two years of Latin AND a foreign language, math through Calculus, Biology, Physics and of course English and History for all four years. The last two quarters of my senior American Government class were going through the Constitution line by line. It was a Helluva lot more demanding than a 400 level Con Law class I took later. I was tired of all the work and had other interests (girls and playing in a band) so I ditched the CP electives in my junior year and took stuff like Auto Shop, Woodworking, and Typing, much to the chagrin of my parents, teachers, and counselors. Those classes, especially the typing, probably were worth as much in my later life as some of the more "academic" classes, e.g., I've never used even a scintilla of the higher math for any reason other than being lazy; why climb up and measure a roof when you if you know the length, width, and roof pitch, you can do the Pythagorian Theorum and know exactly how many squares of shingles to buy.

When I finally gave up on being a working class hero and moved into the white collar/management world, men who could type were rare and it was a matter of honor for many that if they could they wouldn't. Well, computers were coming along, I knew a little about them, and could type Hellishly fast by male standards; ergo, I was a phenomenally productive employee. Things work out.

In Vino Veritas

how easy it is to get jobs if you can type and use a computer, and just how easy it is to master the pc.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

at least in terms of my later earning power, in my education were all those mean old grayhaired English teachers who tortured me and learning to ten finger type in high school.

In Vino Veritas

Well... some folks believe rapists and pedaphiles should be castrated.

And other folks believe illiterates should not be able to be home schooled.

You can't afford the price of free corn.

And other folks believe illiterates should not be able to be home schooled.

I think you meant "illiterates should not be able to home school their kids."

It's still a red herring, since illiterates simply do not home school. People without HS diplomas also do not home school.

You are presupposing State ownership of "our kids". They are not "our kids". They are the children of individuals, not some State resource.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

They hire credentialed teachers part time to spend a session a month with homeschooled kids to make sure that the parents are using accepted texts and so forth but they don't spend time verifying whether the kids are learning at an approved rate or what they are learning.

If the kids want to receive credentials, they have to stand for certain standardized tests, and likewise to get into college. Generally, homeschooled kids do better than regular school because their parents ususally know what they are doing (otherwise why would they homeschool?) and because the regular schools spend a lot of wasteful time.

IMO the requirement of the court is simply to back up the teacher's union on what they consider a loss of ADA (money) for the public schools. They also put in their comments where charter schools are concerned.

BTW, I have a credential and have been in the union. I would not be in favor of requiring a parent to have certification (which amounts to a few psych classes) to teach their own kids, but could agree if the parent participates in teaching other families kids -- something that does happen in homeschooling where different parents have different qualifications.

I cannot be far out of the homeschooling parent majority in actually appreciating periodic standardized test results for our children, because they can provide additional data about what subjects/areas, if any, need more work than others. Given that something like 90% of homeschooled students score above the 50th percentile of students nationwide, and states which set a minimum required score tend to set it much lower (e.g. NY, more restrictive than many states, stipulates a probationary period only if student falls below the 33rd percentile), very few homeschoolers are at risk of being unduly affected by such testing.

Rather, the galling aspect of the CA regulation is its implicit attribution of doofusness to parents. After all, if the NEA has done its alleged job, shouldn't the parents be perfectly equipped to spit back out every factoid stuffed into their maws as younguns? The case proves too much.

As for the

well known possible problems about a child not learning how to deal with others when it comes to relationships, competition, and leadership

I must really ask you to do the research on this, Doc. Having heard these charges scores of times, I could go on at length about how unfounded they are, but this is not the appropriate forum; suffice it to say that I believe that any positive preparation for life which may be gleaned from sitting among 30 indistinguishable peers under intense scrutiny is no match for the breathtaking array of true life in which the homeschooled student is free to move.

And don't even think of getting this old TULIP-breeder started on "self esteem"! Hasn't that been the only unchanged core curriculum for the last 40 years? I'm sure it shaped at least one of the current presidential precontenders.

soli Deo gloria

but in a way, that is my point. I am sure you feel you offer a unique perspective, a unique set of skills. Can you say all home teachers do this? Can you say they all are qualified to handle educating their children? What if the Children are way above average, or even well below?

I know some that consider themselves teachers, some that actually run a self styled "school", that are not exactly Mensa candidates. I don't mean to be unkind here, I know you do not have to be a genius to teach. Yet you imply if someone can pass high school, they can teach all the grades they passed, that is not logical. Certainly there are teaching skills not taught to every student.

My concern here is for the student. Every student should have the RIGHT to the best primary education they can get. What I mean is, it would be a crime for a parent to hold back a child because the parent incorrectly judged his own abilities to teach.

Furthermore, I believe it is a plus when a student is exposed to many different teachers. Who among us would have preferred one teacher for all subjects? Who among us did not like the challenge of a teacher that they did not agree with?

You mention self esteem, you must have my opinion all wrong. I am not talking the false self esteem that the left wants to bestow on all. I am talking about the self esteem that is earned by handiling tough situations and coming out the better for it.

This is a free country. To each his own. I know I would have never wanted to be home schooled. I know that I can not blame a single teacher for any educational failures I might have had. In fact, the teachers I agreed with all the time are the least memorable, I loved arguing with, challenging, and being challenged by liberal history teachers etc. YMMV

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Seeing Whitehorse's upthread phrase "People don't homeschool on a lark" I hasten to add that our own decision to homeschool had been preceded by many months of consideration, dialog, and several years of watching family and church friends who were the real pioneers. My point was merely that it took an incipient crisis to actually start doing rather than merely talking.

soli Deo gloria

If a parent chooses to educate their child and they have no high school diploma what business is that of the state to interfere with their rights as a parent. Sure their kid may not be as educated as a public school person, but maybe that's what they want for their child. Maybe they value other things besides just a good academic education and they want to teach their children these things. I would argue that as a parent they are much more qualified to teach these personal values than the public system. There is more to life than having a great education!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Cross over onto their turf and be prepared for a stern lecture on the kinds of decisions that should be reserved to "professional educators." I've bargained with them from time to time, the State employed a few teachers. The NEA really isn't used to an employer that acts like an employer, much prefering their bought and paid for School Boards and SD management comprised of teachers who decided they didn't want to be around kids or who couldn't teach but were well connected. They were hard to put up with because you had to listen to their whining and sniveling left wing crap, but when it came to bargaining strategy, they came to a battle of wits unarmed.

Everybody in America complains about the stranglehold that the NEA has on education, but it is a political stranglehold based largely on the fact that school boards are elected in local elections held on the first Tuesday after the third full moon when Jupiter is in Mars, and nobody but public employees and people with their hooves in the trough turn out. If any community in America wanted to organize to put a reform minded board in place, they could kick NEA to the curb without breaking a sweat. Hell, even as much as I like money, if some board would assure me of their absolute support, I'd do it for them for free; I need another head on my wall.

In Vino Veritas

We've got enough Californication here already.

In Vino Veritas