Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[Samson]

Samson, you should agree with me, because the facts are fairly clear.

If the findings, overall, were that Home Schooling was Great or Bad or In Between, I would accept that.

Because we don't have such studies, all I can rely on is what I witnessed for a number of years for a multi-demographic ISD of almost 5,000 students. Some of the home schooled that came into the system did well, but most had socialization problems from minor to major. The teachers repeatedly said that critically thinking was an issue for them, as it was for many of the public school students.

What "facts are fairly clear." We, as you suggest, don't have the comparative studies.

Why do you suppose that is true? I mean even if I go to the webpage for my state home schooling program, one will find NO comparison between home schooling and traditional programs. Why? certainly the data would be readily available to the state education agency? Why are there no "report cards" for the home schooling program other than a statement that 92% of parents are satisfied with the option?

 

[Foxfyre]

To say the SCOTUS is irrelevant is to say the Constitution is irrelevant, because the Supreme Court is the constitutional method by which it is determined what the Constitution means,

at such times as there arises a legal dispute over the Constitution's meaning.

To claim that there is no way to determine the Constitution's meaning is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless.

I did not say the SCOTUS was irrelevent. I said the opinion of SCOTUS was irrelevent to know/determine/discern what individual liberty is.

Do you look to SCOTUS or any other government entity to assign you your personal values? If so, you'll fit right in if we continue down this path toward throwing out entirely the Founders' intent that we be a free people. And the alternative is a government that will assign us the rights that we will have.

A government that can assign us the rights we will have is a government that can do anything to us it wants to do.

Now you're lying about what you said:

You said this:

The whole point of this discussion is whether the government will be given the ability to dictate what options you will have.

which means you were talking about the LAW.

I reference SCOTUS, which IS the LAW, and you said it was irrelevant.

You will find out how relevant SCOTUS and the law are if you decide to to break the law asserting what you think is an individual right...

...but the court doesn't.

Well, all I can say to this is that you must not have been home schooled. Otherwise your reading comprehension I believe would be much better and you would not be so misstating and/or mischaracterizing what I have posted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Home-Schooled Teens Ripe for College
Myths about unsocialized home-schoolers are false, and most are well prepped for college, experts say.

A Google for more of the same~

Not hard numbers.

What the fuck would be a "hard number?"

What in the article are you babbling about?

More than 2 million U.S. students in grades K-12 were home-schooled in 2010, accounting for nearly 4 percent of all school-aged children, according to the National Home Education Research Institute.

Hard numbers, stuff like 2+2=x, the stuff he has problems with.

 

[Erand7899]

Several years back, I was visiting Grand Junction, Colorado, a small city in the heartland. On local TV, the superintendent of Mesa County schools, was stating how proud he was that 76% of the third graders could read at grade level. Did the ass even realize that he was failing one fourth of his charges in the third grade?

A teacher friend of mine wrote, I and my teacher colleagues have no problem being "accountable," as long as you account for the number of special education students in our classes, students with chronic absences, students who move in, move out, don’t speak the language fluently, or any number of other reasons affecting student performance. . . .

The teachers I work with put in an average of two hours or more outside of their contract time every day. We must complete 100 hours of professional development for relicensure. We are observed and evaluated at least yearly.

Teachers are not the problem. They are the primary reason that things are not much worse.

Parents that don't care are why matters are so bad, not the teachers.

That is an excuse, not a reason. Those problems have existed since the dawn of time, and yet teachers have been able to overcome them until the last few decades. However, they would have to cut down on the picture coloring, the paste up to take home to mom, and much of the other babysitting, and return to actually teaching children the 3Rs.

 

[Samson]

They are useless?
Oh! This keeps getting better and better.
I have to go. I can't handle this much stupidity right now. Lol

Useless.

I can guarantee that anything you think you need fractions for can be done without them.

Want to take it to the bullpen and see if you can prove me wrong?

Problem: E=IR, Solve for "I" without using a fraction. Answer: I=E/R

For your information, a fraction is nothing more than an indication of division. It indicates that the denominator is divided into the numerator. One cannot do higher math without using complex fractions, and one cannot learn any engineering skill without knowing higher math.

The operation is called dividing.

One cannot do "higher math" without dividing.

Fractions are a numerical representation of a part of a whole number. This can be accomplished with decimals; e.g. 1/2 = 0.50

1/3 can be represented as 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, ad infinum.

Engineering is done with computers. Fractions are meaningless, but division is not, within digital computing. Thus fractions are meaningless for engineering, and quite frankly any other real-world purpose.

 

[PaulS1950]

It still stands that the federal government has only those powers expressly granted by the constitution. The do not have the power to educate our children - only to fund that education as we, the people or the States see fit.

For reference see the tenth amendment.

 

[Erand7899]

Samson, you should agree with me, because the facts are fairly clear.

If the findings, overall, were that Home Schooling was Great or Bad or In Between, I would accept that.

Because we don't have such studies, all I can rely on is what I witnessed for a number of years for a multi-demographic ISD of almost 5,000 students. Some of the home schooled that came into the system did well, but most had socialization problems from minor to major. The teachers repeatedly said that critically thinking was an issue for them, as it was for many of the public school students.

What "facts are fairly clear." We, as you suggest, don't have the comparative studies.

Why do you suppose that is true? I mean even if I go to the webpage for my state home schooling program, one will find NO comparison between home schooling and traditional programs. Why? certainly the data would be readily available to the state education agency? Why are there no "report cards" for the home schooling program other than a statement that 92% of parents are satisfied with the option?

K - 12 - FamilyEducation.com

 

[boedicca]

Not hard numbers.

What the fuck would be a "hard number?"

What in the article are you babbling about?

More than 2 million U.S. students in grades K-12 were home-schooled in 2010, accounting for nearly 4 percent of all school-aged children, according to the National Home Education Research Institute.

Hard numbers, stuff like 2+2=x, the stuff he has problems with.

Most lefties Phear Teh Math.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What you wrote was this:



Please note the lack of a question mark which normally follows a question... for example:

What are "Rgith wingers "?

Technically, there wouldnt be a question mark because what she wrote isnt a question. It's a command. Of course, a period would be appropriate. A Capital letter to start the sentence too. But she hasn't ever cared for grammar formalities. Most of us have weaknesses there, hers are just more frequent and obvious.

And she says she taught her kid to read at 4 yrs old! Lol! Poor kid!!

I was starting to read by 3, could read books by 4, and was reading at a 4th grade level at age 6. What's the problem?

Note: I'm still an avid reader.

 

[Contumacious]

Parents have the right to choose the alternatives provided by the legislation for schooling: public schools, charters schools, private schools, home schooling.

Parents do not have rights to exceed those limitations, such as to choose no schooling.

Comrade Starkey, isn't it a fact that from your standpoint , a child is well educated if he/she accepts government supremacy , socialism, and Diane Feinstein's disarmament?

.

.

 

[Erand7899]

The only people on the entire fracking planet that use fractions for anything are carpenters that don't use the metric system.

Anyone who studies and/or uses higher math, such as algebra, trig, etc. use fractions all of the time. And, since most engineering disciplines are learned through higher math, many people use fractions on a regular basis.

The primary purpose of a public school education is to equip future adults with the ability to learn on their own. That means reading, writing and arithmetic. Fractions are an important part of arithmetic

Not true. If you use higher math, and need to add 17/56 and 128/351 you do not go through a laborious process to find the LCD, you simply complete the the operation in the normal precedence and do the higher order division first, then you add them together. Working with fractions means you don't finish the math.

Higher math does not mean bigger numbers. It means algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus, etc. It means unknowns and formulas that contain fractions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Technically, there wouldnt be a question mark because what she wrote isnt a question. It's a command. Of course, a period would be appropriate. A Capital letter to start the sentence too. But she hasn't ever cared for grammar formalities. Most of us have weaknesses there, hers are just more frequent and obvious.

And she says she taught her kid to read at 4 yrs old! Lol! Poor kid!!

I was starting to read by 3, could read books by 4, and was reading at a 4th grade level at age 6. What's the problem?

Note: I'm still an avid reader.

The problem is some people might not know you're talking in dog years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Absolutely irrelevent as far as the subject of individual liberties is concerned. SCOTUS has gotten it wrong many times in the past, and we too often have had justices who didn't understand the Constitutional principles of freedom the Founders intended for this country.

The Founders intended the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and enforce just enough laws and regulation necessary to do that. Then they intended that the federal government would leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have. That was their definition of freedom.

Whether you are an American conservative or liberal all comes down to whether you believe government dictates how you will live your life to better advantage than you would choose for yourself or whether you are capable of making your own choices, spending your own money, and living your own life as you choose; i.e. whether you choose to be governed or you choose to be free.

To say the SCOTUS is irrelevant is to say the Constitution is irrelevant, because the Supreme Court is the constitutional method by which it is determined what the Constitution means,

at such times as there arises a legal dispute over the Constitution's meaning.

To claim that there is no way to determine the Constitution's meaning is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless.

Why do people who have no idea how the government works set themselves up as experts on how the government works? Tell me something, if the Supreme Court is the only way to determine what the Constitution means why is their jurisdiction limited by the Constitution?

How do you propose to determine the constitutionality of a law, in a manner that is legal and binding, without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review?

 

[Erand7899]

Useless.

I can guarantee that anything you think you need fractions for can be done without them.

Want to take it to the bullpen and see if you can prove me wrong?

Problem: E=IR, Solve for "I" without using a fraction. Answer: I=E/R

For your information, a fraction is nothing more than an indication of division. It indicates that the denominator is divided into the numerator. One cannot do higher math without using complex fractions, and one cannot learn any engineering skill without knowing higher math.

The operation is called dividing.

One cannot do "higher math" without dividing.

Fractions are a numerical representation of a part of a whole number. This can be accomplished with decimals; e.g. 1/2 = 0.50

1/3 can be represented as 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, ad infinum.

Engineering is done with computers. Fractions are meaningless, but division is not, within digital computing. Thus fractions are meaningless for engineering, and quite frankly any other real-world purpose.

You failed your own challenge, Dumbass. You cannot solve for I without using a fraction. Nor, can you convert a fraction into a decimal equivalent without dividing the demominator into the numerator.

Your grade school definition of a fraction applies to all fractions, but does not explain to you that fractions can exist with unknowns as part of the fraction. There is no way to convert them to a decimal notation because you do not know the unknown quantity.

All engineering is not done with a computer, and you do not learn engineering through the computer. To fully understand the theory of electricity, an electrical technician or an electrical engineer has to know ohm's law throughly, and that means he has to know how to solve those equations. In addition, those computers didn't just automatically begin solving complex equations, they had to be programmed by people who understood the math involved.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And she says she taught her kid to read at 4 yrs old! Lol! Poor kid!!

I was starting to read by 3, could read books by 4, and was reading at a 4th grade level at age 6. What's the problem?

Note: I'm still an avid reader.

The problem is some people might not know you're talking in dog years.

Please do not post until 48 hours after your last bong hit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone who studies and/or uses higher math, such as algebra, trig, etc. use fractions all of the time. And, since most engineering disciplines are learned through higher math, many people use fractions on a regular basis.

The primary purpose of a public school education is to equip future adults with the ability to learn on their own. That means reading, writing and arithmetic. Fractions are an important part of arithmetic

Not true. If you use higher math, and need to add 17/56 and 128/351 you do not go through a laborious process to find the LCD, you simply complete the the operation in the normal precedence and do the higher order division first, then you add them together. Working with fractions means you don't finish the math.

Higher math does not mean bigger numbers. It means algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus, etc. It means unknowns and formulas that contain fractions.

It is amazing the ability some people have at missing the point. Fractions, as they are taught in school, are archaic and useless. If you are solving an algebraic equation on paper you might write it in the form of a fraction, or you might not, What you will not do is present the answer in the form of a fraction because that is not an answer, that is an intermediate step on the way to the answer.

 

[Contumacious]

To say the SCOTUS is irrelevant is to say the Constitution is irrelevant, because the Supreme Court is the constitutional method by which it is determined what the Constitution means,

at such times as there arises a legal dispute over the Constitution's meaning.

To claim that there is no way to determine the Constitution's meaning is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless.

Why do people who have no idea how the government works set themselves up as experts on how the government works? Tell me something, if the Supreme Court is the only way to determine what the Constitution means why is their jurisdiction limited by the Constitution?

How do you propose to determine the constitutionality of a law, in a manner that is legal and binding, without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review?

I can not believe that the zombified believes that the Supreme Court actually conducts "judicial reviews" -

the scumbags recently AMENDED the 4th Amendment by incorporating the canine exception to an amendment which has been decimated by the police state.

The level of retardation is astounding.

.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It still stands that the federal government has only those powers expressly granted by the constitution. The do not have the power to educate our children - only to fund that education as we, the people or the States see fit.

For reference see the tenth amendment.

The great conservative Barry Goldwater said that no powers were given the federal government regarding education,

and that accordingly, SCOTUS should not have ruled against state sanctioned/mandated racial segregation in schools.

Do you agree with that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To say the SCOTUS is irrelevant is to say the Constitution is irrelevant, because the Supreme Court is the constitutional method by which it is determined what the Constitution means,

at such times as there arises a legal dispute over the Constitution's meaning.

To claim that there is no way to determine the Constitution's meaning is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless.

Why do people who have no idea how the government works set themselves up as experts on how the government works? Tell me something, if the Supreme Court is the only way to determine what the Constitution means why is their jurisdiction limited by the Constitution?

How do you propose to determine the constitutionality of a law, in a manner that is legal and binding, without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review?

By using my own judgement, just like any other intelligent person, including the nine people who currently get paid to do exactly that. There are laws that Congress writes that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the court, which means they are not subject to judicial review. You might not like it, but them's the facts.

 

[Contumacious]

Why do people who have no idea how the government works set themselves up as experts on how the government works? Tell me something, if the Supreme Court is the only way to determine what the Constitution means why is their jurisdiction limited by the Constitution?

How do you propose to determine the constitutionality of a law, in a manner that is legal and binding, without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review?

By using my own judgement, just like any other intelligent person, including the nine people who currently get paid to do exactly that. There are laws that Congress writes that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the court, which means they are not subject to judicial review. You might not like it, but them's the facts.

Oh lord have mercy.

That is another reason Americans, who want to preserve Liberty, must hold to to their assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

.