Authoritarian Scum

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335808,00.html
Have they gone too far yet?  I don't even have kids, and this has me red in the face angry.

[Perd Hapley]

How is that different from truancy laws, in the first place?  The whole thing is ridiculous.

[keeleon]

Wow, this is amazing.  They are trying to punish the few people that care enough about their kids to NOT just drop them off at the all day babysitter (i.e. school), by forcing them to stop caring about them.  Is this because they think the kids will grow up to be stupid?  I'm sorry, but I would much rather have a society full of really nice people with good values, then a bunch of sociopaths that are good at algebra.  Of course, one of my biggest complaints with the Mexican culture in SoCal is the importance of "family" over "education" which cause them to not give a crap in the first place about their kid's being successful, so I am a bit hypocritical.  But  I do work in a an elementary school, AND was home schooled, so I can speak for both sides.

[De Selby]

The most interesting angle of this appears to be the religious freedom issue-other than that I'm not sure what the beef is.  States pass standards for raising children.  Not sure how much sense it makes to say that states are fine regulating neglect only if it's physical, but can't set any standards to prevent having a kid crippled by a non-education.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Right. Cause the state regulated public schools are doing such a good job.  Neglect is dropping your kid off at a government education camp every morning.

[De Selby]

Right. Cause the state regulated public schools are doing such a good job.  Neglect is dropping your kid off at a government education camp every morning.

I guess.  That doesn't really address the issue though, which is that this kind of regulation is not really different in principle from any other child protection law. 

I also think the hype about public schools is overdone; imho, a lot of the problem is the poor quality of the students that public schools are required to accept, not the public schools themselves.  Elite academies remain elite by denying entry to anyone they think won't perform.  It's a bit of an unfair comparison between those few private schools that are good, and the public schools, don't you think?

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

I also think the hype about public schools is overdone; imho, a lot of the problem is the poor quality of the students that public schools are required to accept, not the public schools themselves. 

Bull. Pucky.

[Edited for language...] 

[De Selby]

I also think the hype about public schools is overdone; imho, a lot of the problem is the poor quality of the students that public schools are required to accept, not the public schools themselves. 

Bull. Pucky.

Really? How do you think the laws that require public schools to take every single student within a certain geographical zone affect the educational achievements and classroom environment?

Private schools rely on selecting the best amongst a large pool of applicants.  A private school that takes anyone (and there are some) will not have a stellar reputation for much of anything, except perhaps being open-armed and easy to enter.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

So you're saying the main problem with public schools is that the kids are just too stupid.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

way more complicated. in some cases the kids are hungry or have a wide variety of home factors that affect them. take dc for example  go to a fifth grade class ask all the kids who have seen someone killed to raise their hands. its a twisted world

[mindwarp]

I don't get how anyone can suggest that the kids are to blame. And for what? Because they are of "poor quality"? I'm curious to hear according to which criteria you evaluate the "quality" (as a student) of a little kid who has been on Earth for a mere few years and has never seen an academic setting before.

Besides, I thought that one of the most fundamental underpinnings of the whole concept of public compulsory education was that every kid has potential, and that it is the job of schools and teachers to bring that out (note in this regard the etymology of "education", from the Latin "educere" meaning "to bring out"). That, at least, is the theory. When, in practice, schools and teachers fail to fulfill this role, turning to the kids and blaming them as the reason for such failure seems to me to be faulty reasoning, to put it as kindly as I humanly can. I would add that it seems akin to the mentality of a fundamentalist "true believer" who cannot accept any data which would contradict his deeply held beliefs about the world. The reason for the schooling system's shortcomings can lie anywhere, EXCEPT in the schooling system itself, right?

[Balog]

Neglect is dropping your kid off at a government education camp every morning.

Oh that's going in a sig line.


As for the "credential" part....... it's retarded. I have five brothers and sisters; we were all home schooled by my parents. Dad has either a 4th or 6th grade education, and Mom graduated high school. I'm the only one in the family that doesn't have a college degree of some type, and that's because I dropped out of college to enlist.

[drewtam]

Really, its both sides. Its not that the kids are stupid. Its that the parents don't care. The kids don't care. The teachers don't care. So it just turns into a well funded babysitting program.

For that reason it makes sense that homeschooling has all the statistics backing it as the method for achieving the highest quality students. They have parents who spend all day teaching and reinforcing. That level involvement with children will also have extracurricular benefits, like preventing drug use, and other moral causes.

[De Selby]

So you're saying the main problem with public schools is that the kids are just too stupid.

No-I'm saying that's a large part of the reason for the disparity between public and private schools.  Good private schools just exclude people that will underperform.  Government schools don't have that option, so their average performance suffers.

That isn't blaming the kid; that's recognizing the obvious-schools with the power to select will have better average performance than schools that do not. 

Maybe you think that every child is equal and that all kids can be made into geniuses if just the right educational program is adopted; I don't think that's realistic, and bad parenting/home environments make the problem even worse.  A private school can simply reject that kid with emotional problems, a lack of support at home, and poor fundamental skills.  A public school can't.  So public schools always look worse on paper compared to a top tier private academy, but that doesn't mean the "government education camp" is actually all that poorly run or bad at teaching.

[De Selby]

I don't get how anyone can suggest that the kids are to blame. And for what? Because they are of "poor quality"? I'm curious to hear according to which criteria you evaluate the "quality" (as a student) of a little kid who has been on Earth for a mere few years and has never seen an academic setting before.

Lots of money has been spent to develop predictive tests for all levels of child.  Some schools are pretty good at excluding under performers based on test scores and evaluations.

Besides, I thought that one of the most fundamental underpinnings of the whole concept of public compulsory education was that every kid has potential, and that it is the job of schools and teachers to bring that out (note in this regard the etymology of "education", from the Latin "educere" meaning "to bring out"). That, at least, is the theory. When, in practice, schools and teachers fail to fulfill this role, turning to the kids and blaming them as the reason for such failure seems to me to be faulty reasoning, to put it as kindly as I humanly can. I would add that it seems akin to the mentality of a fundamentalist "true believer" who cannot accept any data which would contradict his deeply held beliefs about the world. The reason for the schooling system's shortcomings can lie anywhere, EXCEPT in the schooling system itself, right?

This is the public school system, where everyone has to be taken.  Private schools don't do that.  So it's unfair to compare the two and conclude that, based on the end product, public schools are all crap.  They are required to take the kids that private schools can reject.

I haven't seen the comparison done, but I strongly suspect that if you compare public schools to only private schools that accept any student and expel only for the same reasons government schools expel, you would find that public schools actually do slightly better on average at providing an education.

[Gewehr98]

It'd be interesting to find out how many little homicidal maniacs are home-schooled.   

[mindwarp]

shootinstudent:

I agree that the open door policy of public schools can subject them to the issue you're describing. I also agree that bad parenting and homeschooling situations where the education given is poor can potentially hurt more than help. This however doesn't mean that limiting the parents' freedom to homeschool will solve these problems. The kind of certification that is being required here puts many families in a position where homeschooling is no longer an option, or at least it would if the requirement were strictly enforced. I know many people in my area who have no teaching credentials, but they have degrees in or simply a strong passion for their chosen field of study, which has led them to become experts in it. These people give their time for free so that neighborhood kids and their friends' kids may get an education that isn't delivered with a side of authoritarian indoctrination and artificially subdivided into time slots and subjects that have nothing to do with each other. They do this out of the goodness of their hearts and the kids who attend those sessions will benefit from their generosity for the rest of their lives, certification or no certification.

Quality of schooling is not merely about "on paper", about test scores or official school rankings. The issue here is about the freedom to experiment with alternative philosophies of education and different paradigms of schooling altogether. Strict enforcement of requirements such as the one under discussion would severely cripple such freedom, making it less likely for humanity at large to one day develop a more enlightened, more liberating and more compassionate educational system. In exchange, it solidifies the monopoly of education as a highly industrialized process which strips kids out of their natural curiosity, replacing it with submission to authority and fear of failure.

[mindwarp]

I also haven't made the comparison with private schools. I take issue with the methods of schooling themselves and not on how well or badly somebody scores within the context of such methods, which in my estimation contain some serious flaws to begin with.

[Manedwolf]

You must not keep your children from socialist indoctrination, or you shall be punished. They must be shaped into pegs to fit holes.

[Matthew Carberry]

"We are opposed to state interference with parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children as an infringement of the fundamental Democratic doctrine that the largest individual liberty consistent with the rights of others insures the highest type of American citizenship and the best government."

-- Democratic National Platform (1892)

"Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in nursery."
-- Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister

"it is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent's refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Nitrogen]

As a spouse of a teacher, (isn't THAT a credential!) let me weigh in on this.

Yes, there are some kids who are "so dumb" that they can't learn what most of us do.  These kids are usually handicapped in some way. These kids get special classes to make sure they learn enough, in a way that's meaningful to them, so they can function their best in society.  They learn how to go to the grocery store, count money, read a bus schedule, etc.
These classes are called "Life Education" and specialized teachers usually need to teach them.

You also have other learning disabled kids, like autistic kids (my wife's specialty), reading disabilities, math disabilities, etc.

Teachers are professionals, much like architects, computer programmers, construction contractors, and the like.  They are required to stay abreast of all sorts of studies, techniques, and take workshops to learn the best way to teach your children.
You know what happens when you have a crappy architect design something? You get a tacoma-narrows bridge.
You know what happens when you have a crappy computer programmer? You get Windows. (har!)
Would you want your house worked on by just anyone?  Or would you hire a professional?

Wouldn't you want your child taught by a professional?  Don't you care enough about your child to give him or her the very best?

I know that if/when I have a child, I want that child educated by a professional, not someone who'se faking it (like I would be.)

If for whatever reason I did not trust the public education system, I would find some way to afford to pay to send them to a private school. 

Anything less is criminal for my child.

Now having said all that, I agree with the fact that requiring a teaching cert for homeshcooling parents is overstepping the bounds.

I'd think that any good parent would DEMAND that anyone teaching their children be professional teachers, even if it was themselves.

[Matthew Carberry]

Have to disagree with you.  For special needs kids?  maybe

But I guarantee I could teach my own child to above the standards of any current public school curriculum in 2/3 of the time. 

Once they can read, the teaching of which isn't rocket science, it's mostly a matter of presenting them with diverse material and walking them through assimilating and thinking about it. 

Teaching at home has numerous advantages in terms of making every waking moment a learning opportunity of one kind or another.

I'll grant a professional could do a job better than many individuals, but that's my call to make as a parent.  I know enough to know which topics (upper level math I haven't studied since high school for example) I need to bring a pro in for.

Remember, society has produced both geniuses and adequate thinkers long before formalized education (a recent invention) was introduced.  To demand "certification" is to perpetuate the presumption that the state knows best.

Which is balderdash and hooey.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

was a professional who told edisons mom he was retarded and she home schooled him to some good effect

[grampster]

Regarding what nitrogen just posted:

Everything you said makes sense.  The problem is that the decisions on what and how to teach children is NOT made by the professional.  It is made by bureaucrats in the state and federal government.  That is why home schooling turns out well educated kids.  They don't have to abide by rules made by statists.

Public school curricula should be put together by local public school boards without any interference by state or federal legislators that are controlled by bureaucrats; funded by state taxes only with no strings attached.

Until the general population wakes up enough to begin to understand how the education of their children is being manipulated public schools will continue to decline.  That is why the Schools of Choice issue needs to continue to gather steam.

Of course the other complication is the breakdown in the family unit, which is the support system for education.  Families civilize kids and schools educate them.  Without the civilizing aspect that stable families bring to the table the education part is a broken wheel.

To support what carebear just said, the old saw that "reading is fundamental" has and always will be one of the foundation stones of education.  If a kid can't read he will have a much harder time assimilating information.

[Nitrogen]

I'll grant a professional could do a job better than many individuals, but that's my call to make as a parent.  I know enough to know which topics (upper level math I haven't studied since high school for example) I need to bring a pro in for.

I'll agree that it's your call to make as a parent.
Being a teacher though isn't just about knowing your subject; it's about knowing HOW to teach your subject in the best way.  Some people are naturals at it, some people need to be taught how.

I personally think it's a good idea for anyone teaching to receive some education, in err, education.

EDITED TO ADD:

Public school curricula should be put together by local public school boards without any interference by state or federal legislators that are controlled by bureaucrats; funded by state taxes only with no strings attached.

Until the general population wakes up enough to begin to understand how the education of their children is being manipulated public schools will continue to decline.  That is why the Schools of Choice issue needs to continue to gather steam.

Agree 200% with most of this.  Getting into how SCHOOLS are run gets into why I know many people would rather homeschool their kids or send them to private schools, which I'm all for.

My only point being that there's more to education than just knowing your subjects.   There's a lot more to it than that, and I see it every day.  My main point being, is that if you wanted to teach your kids at home, you'd want to look into what it takes to get certified, and probably see what the classes have to offer.  You never know, you might learn something, and your child might be better off for it.

Let me reiterate that I DO think the requirement for certification goes overboard.