Authoritarian Scum

[MechAg94]

No offense, but a lot of those "professionals" are idiots who couldn't teach a dog to drink.  Just because some idiot has an education degree does not make them a professional and it does not make them magically understand how to teach and manage kids.  I had teachers in school who had degrees.  Some of them were good, some of them weren't.  Talking about the magic word "professionals" doesn't change that.  I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering.  I guess that makes me a professional as well.    I know a lot of engineers that are good and bad also.  Some are good communicators, some are not. 

The other part of the equation that you are forgetting is that a home schooling parent can teach directly to their child.  They can focus on how their kid learns and make sure their kid understands each subject.  Teachers teaching 20 or more kids in class for an hour can't do that. 

One last thing, local towns and school districts can hire "professionals" as well to teach their kids.  There is really no good reason why it has to be controlled at the state and federal level. 

[Perd Hapley]

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.

If you can't see the difference between two totally different things, you may need some of that edukashun stuff.   

[Boomhauer]

I just got out of 12 years of public school a couple of years ago.

Believe me, homeschoolers are MUCH better off. I have a friend whose wife homeschools their children. They were having many problems with the school district, so they finally decided to give homeschooling a try. His two girls that are being homeschooled are sharp as tacks. At least, if a parent who is homeschooling comes across a subject they cannot teach, they can hire a private tutor to help with that issue.

No offense, but a lot of those "professionals" are idiots who couldn't teach a dog to drink.  Just because some idiot has an education degree does not make them a professional and it does not make them magically understand how to teach and manage kids.  I had teachers in school who had degrees.  Some of them were good, some of them weren't.  Talking about the magic word

I've seen plenty of "professional teachers" who aren't qualified to teach 2+2=4. I've seen teachers who have their own mental problems take it out on the class.

Out of many teachers I had in high school, only about 5 or 6 could actually teach. Some didn't have any business being anywhere near a classroom.

You want to know why private schools are successful? Because they take in students whose parents can cough up the money. The group that misbehaved at my schools were usually welfare babies- they knew that they were going to grow up and live on welfare, and that there was no reason for them to learn anything, so they figured they could disrupt school for the rest of us. And don't tell me it ain't so, cause I saw it with my own two eyes, every damn day, when I had to listen to the idiots running up and down the halls screaming.

[De Selby]

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.

If you can't see the difference between two totally different things, you may need some of that edukashun stuff.   

Got plenty-don't see how there's a big difference.

Parental judgment is already something that no one regards as absolute.  We don't let people stick their kids in dungeons for months at at a time even if the parent is a survivalist nut who sincerely believes he has a solemn duty to prepare his kids for torture at the hands of a UN invading army.  This has every bit as much to do with the psychological impact on the child as it does with the physical impact.

The fact of the matter is, we all already accept standards for educating children that exclude the obviously crazy ideas that fringe parents come up with.  It's really not that big of a step in principle to pass laws imposing something more stringent than a requirement that parents not raise their kids to speak only klingon and live in dungeons. 

The only argument I see here is about where the bar is placed for parents who want to teach their own kids, not whether there should be one, and as to the particular matters which regulation should address...ie, if it properly reaches those with religious motives.

[Perd Hapley]

Dungeons?  Is that the best you can do?  How is that even relevant?   

If you can't show why illiteracy is similar to real criminal neglect, just admit it.  Or go come up with some evidence.  But for Pete's sake don't bring up silly nonsense about Klingon dungeons.   

[Iain]

Believe me, homeschoolers are MUCH better off. I have a friend whose wife homeschools their children. They were having many problems with the school district, so they finally decided to give homeschooling a try. His two girls that are being homeschooled are sharp as tacks. At least, if a parent who is homeschooling comes across a subject they cannot teach, they can hire a private tutor to help with that issue.

Some of what we are talking about here is down to kids having parents that are interested and engaged in their child.

I went to state schools, but my parents also cared a great deal about my education and supplemented it with support, encouragement, museum visits and extra math (which I really needed). I knew kids at university who were home schooled and were bright, sociable and well educated. There wasn't a vast difference between them, the private school educated and the state educated where the parents took an active interest in the latters education.

There may exist those who take no real interest in their kids education, and choose to refer to their perpetual truant as being home-schooled. I doubt there are very many of those, and if this is the problem to which California is attempting to apply a solution - well, it's a steam hammer to crack a walnut.

[Sergeant Bob]

Some of what we are talking about here is down to kids have parents that are interested and engaged in their child.

There ya have it! It doesn't matter how much money or regulations the state throws at the education problem if the parents don't give a crap.

[Tuco]

Late into this one, but I will attempt to lay a formula that will illustrate an ignored party in this thread.

What is the "success rate" of the home schooled?
(i.e. not imprisoned, college educated/gainfully employed)  you know good solid American tax payer
Are there test that measure this?  ACT, GRE, 1040 etc.

Who is threatened by the success of students not educated by the public schools?
The schools who are funded through a per-student formula?  Maybe, but a school system can operate efficiently with less students by trimming costs -  e.g. less teachers, smaller buildings, less books.
An organization that obtains its lifeblood based on the number of teachers employed and uses a large portion of it's income (funded by said teachers) in lobbying efforts to ensure its survival?  AH HA!

And the name of the party that lobbies to great ends to eliminate Home Schooling is....

Any one

Bueller?


Okay another hint -
The LARGEST labor organization in the USA....


(waits for hands to pop up)



THE NEA!

NEA on Home Schooling
http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv040220.html

and to broaden the debate....

NEA on Charter Schools
http://www.nea.org/charter/index.html

Glad I could spell this out for you all. 

[Racehorse]

I agree with the previous post that it's the NEA that really cares about this. They don't want to lose their power.

I personally don't think public school is necessarily any worse or any better than homeschooling, although it can be. What really matters in children getting a quality education are the parents and the home environment. If the parents are invested, involved, and actually care about their kid's education, the kids will learn no matter where they're going. The big problem with public schools is that a lot of the parents who send their kids there don't care. They just drop them off and expect the edumacation to magically happen. They never check to see if they have homework, never make them do homework, and are then surprised when their kids don't learn.

[Rocketman56]

2CS:  I believe you've "uncovered" one of the hidden pillars in this confrontation..

Of course, there are others..  Having survived a California divorce and the resulting child raising debacle..
(The kids are fine, but it took a LOT of work, which was difficult from out of state.. My youngest is now
with me, and we're "finishing" her education where I live..)  Part of the problem is the extraordinary
zeal California CPS has for making sure kids are "in the system", for the mildest of reasons..  You see,
there are "bonuses" and other intangible benefits to their jobs by adding kids to the system..  Which
is the WRONG justification for their jobs..  (This came from a retired CPS worker, who couldn't stomach
the system after 3 years..  She found other ways to satisfy her need/desire to help/teach children, she's a teacher
in a private school..)

The CPS system is also how the younger children ended up with their own attorney's.. "Child Advocates"..
There are some really great attorney's who volunteer to do that, but I firmly believe from my experience that the
majority are in that business because it's an easy and quick way to make money and be a lawyer.. Again,
the system perpetuates itself..  (Sound familiar, DC?)

So that's 2 pillars to the confrontation, what's a 3rd??  Politician's who believe they know what children
require and are trying to force that on all children in their state to perpetuate the politician's belief systems, perhaps!?!
Not all politician's in CA are a member of that group, but.. it definitely exists..  (Counter-example, (sort of)
the Governor's office released a statement that blasted the court ruling..)  The cult of those politician's
is a BIG percentage of the reason I left the state in 1999.. (North San Diego County was a VERY nice
place to live, but it has grown unbelievably in the last 10 years.. All my wife's relatives bailed out,
shortly after we did..)

Hope this helps!
Steve

[Tallpine]

We home-schooled our daughters through grade 8.  When they entered public HS, they promptly went to the top of their class in every subject except PE (they were physically fit but just in more of a mountain climbing / horseback riding sort of way rather than ball-playing).

Their teachers said that they were doing college level work already, though by the end of their senior year they were quite bored and disgusted with the whole education process

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

BINGO!
and the nea folks make rush limbaugh look like abby hoffman
they are a labor union pretending to care about kids.
funny group incredibly lame in the nuts and bolts of their day to day operations but they don't care unlimited budget

[MechAg94]

As someone else mentioned above, if parental involvement is such an important part, why does the state need to pass new standards for parents who obviously are involved?  Don't the home schoolers pass the tests?  It would be pretty easy to check on them and make sure they are keeping up with other kids their age.  Honestly, until you get above grade 8 or more, there are almost no subjects that the average parent isn't smart enough to figure out how to teach. 

As far as disadvantaged kids go, I believe I have heard of private schools that have done well with even them.  However, if the public schools are burdened by those kids, that sounds like there are more regulations that need to be adjusted.

[Perd Hapley]

  It would be pretty easy to check on them and make sure they are keeping up with other kids their age. 

I think most states already require home-schooled students to pass the standardized achievement tests, or placement tests, whatever they call them.  And curriculums have to be approved, too, I think.  And guess what, California.  IT WORKS. 

[De Selby]

Dungeons?  Is that the best you can do?  How is that even relevant?   

If you can't show why illiteracy is similar to real criminal neglect, just admit it.  Or go come up with some evidence.  But for Pete's sake don't bring up silly nonsense about Klingon dungeons.   

Are you serious? Not teaching the kid to read, when there's a perfectly good opportunity for him to learn to at least read in the state's education system?

The exampleof dungeons was about degrees of harm and the principle of restricting parental rights even where parents sincerely believe the kid needs some particular kind of education.  Failing to teach a kid a basic skill that he will likely go hungry without (reading) isn't as extreme as prepping him for WWIII via the dungeon treatment, but it's certainly something I don't think a reasonable person would consider within the bounds of parental judgment.

Maybe you don't think failing to teach a kid to read for no reason  is criminal neglect, but I'm quite confident that you are in the minority on that one.  There are fringe minorities who contest every standard set by the government. 

[De Selby]

There may exist those who take no real interest in their kids education, and choose to refer to their perpetual truant as being home-schooled. I doubt there are very many of those, and if this is the problem to which California is attempting to apply a solution - well, it's a steam hammer to crack a walnut.

I think this the most accurate criticism of the affair-it's not that regulating education is bad, it's unreasonable regulation that is bad.  You probably don't need to require a full on teaching credential to ensure that parents are doing what they are supposed to with regards to children. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

my kids in public school  through good luck shes gotten a teacher who is like the stepford wives of educators. a true gem of a teacher as well as the kinda rolemodel you want morally.
i have no delusions i will stay that lucky. so i bought a program to homeschool her as well. its set up to follow state guidlines and allows her to go as fast or as slow as she needs to and adjusts what she does to work on her weaknesses.  if at some point i decide public school sucks i can pull the plug.

[Perd Hapley]

Maybe you don't think failing to teach a kid to read for no reason  is criminal neglect, but I'm quite confident that you are in the minority on that one.   

No kidding.  I'm under no delusions about that.  You're not implying the majority is always right, are you?

Are you serious? 

That question should be directed to you, sir.  Are seriously trying to tell me that I had a right to expect an education from my parents, so that I wouldn't starve?  What else will you require of them?  That they teach me a good work ethic?  That they spank me when I'm naughty, so I'll learn some manners?  That they be married, or stay married, so that I won't be screwed up?  All of those things are just as important as education.  They're a lot cheaper and easier, to boot.  Education should be no different from the hundreds of other things parents should instill in their children, so that they are successful.  But regulating such things by law is silly, statist, and wrong. 


On second thought, laws limiting divorce are probably a good idea.  But that's a much different issue, of course. 

[De Selby]

No kidding.  I'm under no delusions about that.  You're not implying the majority is always right, are you?

No, just that consensus as to what is a crime makes the fringe opposition irrelevant.  The majority isn't always right on these issues, but absent some compelling reasoning, it doesn't make sense to abandon a consensus position as to what is or is not criminal just because "the majority isn't always right."

Are seriously trying to tell me that I had a right to expect an education from my parents, so that I wouldn't starve?

Yes.

All of those things are just as important as education. 

Agreed-that's why clear and gross failures to do those things usually results in sanctions for the parents.  That's why we have child protection laws-because as far as is possible, we try to protect children from the negligence of their parents.  Of course no one would argue that child protection laws are the most efficient method of doing this, but all of those important things you listed are factors that weigh in on whether or not parents can keep their kids.  Usually an extreme failure in most of the areas you listed is required to warrant state action, but they are covered by regulation.

But regulating such things by law is silly, statist, and wrong

They already are regulated by law-it's just that you apparently don't (or do? not sure) disagree with most of the regulation, or don't recognize it as regulation because it addresses things that you agree are criminal.  Nevertheless, your disagreement that complete failure to educate is criminal doesn't change the fact that all of these important areas are regulated, to a lesser or greater extent.

The difference between criminal neglect and a substandard education is one of degree, not principle.  Maybe you don't agree with child protection laws of any kind, but again...disagreement with the clear majority belief that parental treatment of children is subject to review by the state, and that at some point parental neglect is criminal, doesn't make your disagreement right.

How exactly is a law limiting divorce not statist and wrong, but laws restricting neglect of children are "silly, statist, and wrong"?

[Perd Hapley]

Since none of your comments cohere, I'll have to break them up.

No, just that consensus as to what is a crime makes the fringe opposition irrelevant. 

In terms of legal realities, yes.  Of course.  That was never under discussion.  Why do you keep going on about that?  Did you think I expected the law to change, just because I disagree with it? 

The majority isn't always right on these issues, but absent some compelling reasoning, it doesn't make sense to abandon a consensus position as to what is or is not criminal just because "the majority isn't always right."

Who was arguing for that?    The consensus should be abandoned because it is bankrupt and, well, authoritarian. 

All of those things are just as important as education. 

Agreed-that's why clear and gross failures to do those things usually results in sanctions for the parents.... all of those important things you listed are factors that weigh in on whether or not parents can keep their kids.  Usually an extreme failure in most of the areas you listed is required to warrant state action, but they are covered by regulation.

In what universe?  Let's look at the things I brought up.

good work ethic

punishment for bad behavior

instruction in manners

requirement that parents be married

And you're trying to tell me that the state is inspecting to ensure that parents do those things?  You make less and less sense, the further we go with this. 

[De Selby]

Who was arguing for that?    The consensus should be abandoned because it is bankrupt and, well, authoritarian. 

Well, now that "bankrupt" and "authoritarian" have been cited, we should just undo all that legal reality.  Or not.

And you're trying to tell me that the state is inspecting to ensure that parents do those things?  You make less and less sense, the further we go with this. 

Yes, and obviously so.  It is carried out by law to a different degree for each, of course.

Divorce-not favored.  There is no reason why it has to be as costly and difficult to go through a divorce as it is; divorce is disfavored in almost every jurisdiction by law, and in divorce, guess what happens to parental authority? It comes squarely within judicial oversight.  So yeah, I'd say that barriers to divorce and the conduct of divorce proceedings are a very good example of the kind of regulation mentioned in the OP.

As for these:

good work ethic

punishment for bad behavior

instruction in manners

There are a range of government regulations designed to hit these points squarely.  For one, education standards-already existing to some degree, and proposed ones like in the OP.  Punishment for bad behavior and poor manners is effected through laws that impose responsibility on parents for misdeeds of children, and criminal neglect laws-if your kid is acting out all the time, you can bet someone will take a hard look at your parenting and possibly invoke any of the laundry list of child protection options (that was the genesis of the current home school case, it seems.)

I notice that you don't explain how laws discouraging divorce are somehow not "bankrupt and authoritarian."  I think the fact that you are reduced here to one line declarations in place of reasoned argument has something to do with it.

[Paddy]

Illiterate parents raise illiterate children. Then the rest of us have to support them.  Of course, illiterate teachers also produce illiterate children.   But Bush did say 'our childrens are learning' so I'm much relieved.

[Firethorn]

Hmm...

As others have noted:

Public school:  The common denominator.  Required, more or less, to take everyone.  Though I'll note that many 'public' schools have rather easy paths towards kicking out 'problem' kids in some areas.
Private school:  At least indicates that the parents are involved enough to be spending thousands of dollars or at least petitioning for grants and such to send their kids to a 'better' school.  More discretion in taking good, non-disruptive students.  Sometimes smaller class sizes.
Home/Private tutoring:  Most involved parents, plus, perhaps more importantly, individual instruction. 

Even if Mom is doing the home schooling and only has a HS diploma, if she puts real effort into it(like reading next week's material before hand), she should be able to keep up enough to keep the instruction up.  In addition, even if we assume that she's not as good of an instructor in any given subject, the simple fact of the matter is that she only has to worry about ~6 kids at most, more likely 2-3.  Meanwhile a public teacher is trying to teach 30-40 kids per class, 6 classes a day, per semester.  In most schools, any given teacher will, at most, see a kid for one period a day for one year.  Meanwhile mom has worked with her kids from before day 1, so to speak.

Not having to work with the common denominator, she can move the lessons along as fast or slow as her kid can handle it.  Good at math, poor at history?  She can put more effort/tutoring into history while still getting her child into college level maths when he or she would still be in 'junior high'.

[jrfoxx]

Maybe you don't think failing to teach a kid to read for no reason  is criminal neglect, but I'm quite confident that you are in the minority on that one.

My question is, if this is true, why are no criminal charges, or even admnistartive sanctions/punishments filed when ac hild makes it through the legally required yeas in pubic school, and yet a still lacks basic reading, or math, or writing skils? I have cetainly read more than a few articles about children graduating public school who cant read beyond a 3rd grade (or obviously substandard)  level, or who cant perform simple addition, subtracton, multipliction, etc., and there was never any mention of any teachers, admnistartors, etc being charged with neglect, or punished in any way.If its criminal for a parent to not teach their child these things (or not teach them "adequatley" by state standards), then the same should go for the public school and it's teachers/administrators,that the child was requird by law to attend (yes, I know private schools/tutors fullfil the law too, but the children I'm talking abou here dont come from families with the money to afford that, so it's moot).If its a crime of neglect, it's a crime of neglect, regardless of whether its the parents neglecting their "duty" by state standards, or the state (and its schools, teachers and administrators) itself. More equal animals again I guess...

[Paddy]

Under the uber expensive school system today, the one that is both and federally governed, young people 'graduate' with diplomas they can't even read.

Public education is an abject failure.