Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[Foxfyre]

And that is the PARENTS' RESPONSIBILITY.

We are spending a gazillions dollars in education.

And what the fuck do we have?

A bankrupt welfare/warfare state.

.

The fact is, the public schools are not educating a lot of kids. The last statistics I saw are that one out of four kids does not graduate at all, and a too high percentage of those who do graduate are deficient in reading, writing, and math skills. (No, I don't have time to look all that up again this morning so will leave it as my opinion that those are the facts.)

Parochial and private schools have a much better record and homeschooled kids have an almost 100% graduation rate and are far more likely to be ready for college without any remedial work necessary.

If we as a nation were smart and truly did care about the kids, we would be encouraging a lot more homeschooling, would be demanding vouchers or elimination of school taxes for those attending private schools, and then we could focus all public resources on the kids who did go to public schools.

Wouldn't that make more sense than continuing to hang on to the herd mentality that the one-size-fits-all government solution ever really works for much of anything?

You are Preaching to the choir.

.

I know. If only we could teach everybody to sing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All of which are typically quite subjective...as they must be to avoid Constitutional challenges.

Homeschooling is just a form of private schooling. Private schools are held to state standards, so should homeschools.

It's common for public school districts to have people employed, at taxpayer expense, just for the purpose of working with homeschoolers to help and assure that they are getting the job done.

Again, I sincerely believe that you will be happier in Cuba, Venezuela and other tyrannical regimes.


Esther La Vista, dude.

.

If I'm willing to stipulate that you do not have anything intelligent to add to this discussion, will you stop trying to convince me?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Any reasonable person could see a rationale for periodic testing regardless of where or how a child is educated.
?

And that is the PARENTS' RESPONSIBILITY.

We are spending a gazillions dollars in education.

And what the fuck do we have?

A bankrupt welfare/warfare state.

.

The fact is, the public schools are not educating a lot of kids. The last statistics I saw are that one out of four kids does not graduate at all, and a too high percentage of those who do graduate are deficient in reading, writing, and math skills. (No, I don't have time to look all that up again this morning so will leave it as my opinion that those are the facts.)

Parochial and private schools have a much better record and homeschooled kids have an almost 100% graduation rate and are far more likely to be ready for college without any remedial work necessary.

If we as a nation were smart and truly did care about the kids, we would be encouraging a lot more homeschooling, would be demanding vouchers or elimination of school taxes for those attending private schools, and then we could focus all public resources on the kids who did go to public schools.

Wouldn't that make more sense than continuing to hang on to the herd mentality that the one-size-fits-all government solution ever really works for much of anything?

Those are the worst ideas you've ever had, and that bar was already pretty high.

 

[bendog]

I query whether those championing the oppressed Germans would support amnest for a Norwegian couple, whose country has an official state religion called Lutheran, to home school their kids to be athiests.

 

[eots]

Many peoples choice to home school has nothing to do with religion or politics

 

[legaleagle_45]

I query whether those championing the oppressed Germans would support amnest for a Norwegian couple, whose country has an official state religion called Lutheran, to home school their kids to be athiests.

I would. But then you would probably guess that I would.

Hi Bendog!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I query whether those championing the oppressed Germans would support amnest for a Norwegian couple, whose country has an official state religion called Lutheran, to home school their kids to be athiests.

I wonder if they'd give asylum to people in countries where the fundamental right to abortion is denied.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

State civil servant educators know what the kiddies need to be learning. After political correctness, sex ed, bullying, diversity, racial sensitivity, socialism, homo awareness, and global warming there might even be time for math, english, science and some revisionist america is evil "history"

 

[Foxfyre]

And that is the PARENTS' RESPONSIBILITY.

We are spending a gazillions dollars in education.

And what the fuck do we have?

A bankrupt welfare/warfare state.

.

The fact is, the public schools are not educating a lot of kids. The last statistics I saw are that one out of four kids does not graduate at all, and a too high percentage of those who do graduate are deficient in reading, writing, and math skills. (No, I don't have time to look all that up again this morning so will leave it as my opinion that those are the facts.)

Parochial and private schools have a much better record and homeschooled kids have an almost 100% graduation rate and are far more likely to be ready for college without any remedial work necessary.

If we as a nation were smart and truly did care about the kids, we would be encouraging a lot more homeschooling, would be demanding vouchers or elimination of school taxes for those attending private schools, and then we could focus all public resources on the kids who did go to public schools.

Wouldn't that make more sense than continuing to hang on to the herd mentality that the one-size-fits-all government solution ever really works for much of anything?

Those are the worst ideas you've ever had, and that bar was already pretty high.

Well, my ideas would better educate children. Would you say that it is less important to educate children well than it is to give government total control over the education they will receive?

 

[Samson]

The fact is, the public schools are not educating a lot of kids. The last statistics I saw are that one out of four kids does not graduate at all, and a too high percentage of those who do graduate are deficient in reading, writing, and math skills. (No, I don't have time to look all that up again this morning so will leave it as my opinion that those are the facts.)

Parochial and private schools have a much better record and homeschooled kids have an almost 100% graduation rate and are far more likely to be ready for college without any remedial work necessary.

If we as a nation were smart and truly did care about the kids, we would be encouraging a lot more homeschooling, would be demanding vouchers or elimination of school taxes for those attending private schools, and then we could focus all public resources on the kids who did go to public schools.

Wouldn't that make more sense than continuing to hang on to the herd mentality that the one-size-fits-all government solution ever really works for much of anything?

Those are the worst ideas you've ever had, and that bar was already pretty high.

Well, my ideas would better educate children. Would you say that it is less important to educate children well than it is to give government total control over the education they will receive?

The question confuses me.





Probably a result of my poor education

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I see this as being a natural corollary to the Abortion debate. If the government can step in "for the good of the child" to force you to carry to term, then they can step in to make sure "for the good of the child" that the child is getting a proper education, as the law defines it.

If the government can't step in even to force someone to carry to term, then no, it makes absolutely zero sense for the government to then claim they can step in to supervise the child's education.

 

[Samson]

I see this as being a natural corollary to the Abortion debate. If the government can step in "for the good of the child" to force you to carry to term, then they can step in to make sure "for the good of the child" that the child is getting a proper education, as the law defines it.

If the government can't step in even to force someone to carry to term, then no, it makes absolutely zero sense for the government to then claim they can step in to supervise the child's education.

Thus the option of home schooling or private schooling, both of which we have.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those are the worst ideas you've ever had, and that bar was already pretty high.

Well, my ideas would better educate children. Would you say that it is less important to educate children well than it is to give government total control over the education they will receive?

The question confuses me.





Probably a result of my poor education

It's okay. I can use shorter words and sentences.

My observation is that homeschooled kids, parochial schooled kids, and private schooled kids are fairly consistently getting a better education than are public schooled kids.

Therefore, if we want our kids to receive the best education. . . .

. . . .does it not make sense to encourage homeschooling and attendance at parochial and/or other private schools?

That is my best idea for how to better educate kids.

Our esteemed friend, NYcarbineer, seems to think that is a terrible idea even as he has failed to show that government schools are doing a better job.

Conclusion: NYcarbineer seems to put less importance on the education that the children receive and puts more importance on giving all the power and control to the government despite its really poor track record.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I see this as being a natural corollary to the Abortion debate. If the government can step in "for the good of the child" to force you to carry to term, then they can step in to make sure "for the good of the child" that the child is getting a proper education, as the law defines it.

If the government can't step in even to force someone to carry to term, then no, it makes absolutely zero sense for the government to then claim they can step in to supervise the child's education.

Thus the option of home schooling or private schooling, both of which we have.

And I am totally on board with. I myself went to Public schools, but with the local quality of public school I'll be going with a private religious school.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

My observation is that homeschooled kids, parochial schooled kids, and private schooled kids are fairly consistently getting a better education than are public schooled kids.

This by the way is a false comparison, as you are comparing two things that are incomparible. The public schools MUST take all students of age, where the Parochial, Private, and even Homeschools can be selective and therefore get better results from a better pool of students.

Plus, you're making a false claim on homeschooling. The successful homeschooled children do well, but there are many many stories out there for parents trying it for a few years and dumping the kids back into the private schools only to find out their precious children are now grade levels behind their peers. It turns out, not everyone is capable of actually teaching. I still don't understand why people assume just anyone can teach.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fact is, the public schools are not educating a lot of kids. The last statistics I saw are that one out of four kids does not graduate at all, and a too high percentage of those who do graduate are deficient in reading, writing, and math skills. (No, I don't have time to look all that up again this morning so will leave it as my opinion that those are the facts.)

Parochial and private schools have a much better record and homeschooled kids have an almost 100% graduation rate and are far more likely to be ready for college without any remedial work necessary.

If we as a nation were smart and truly did care about the kids, we would be encouraging a lot more homeschooling, would be demanding vouchers or elimination of school taxes for those attending private schools, and then we could focus all public resources on the kids who did go to public schools.

Wouldn't that make more sense than continuing to hang on to the herd mentality that the one-size-fits-all government solution ever really works for much of anything?

Those are the worst ideas you've ever had, and that bar was already pretty high.

Well, my ideas would better educate children. Would you say that it is less important to educate children well than it is to give government total control over the education they will receive?

You want a new government program to use taxpayer money to pay parents to send their kids to private schools?

lol.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The law is the source of legal protections for rights.

You can get nourishment from a potato, but you can't get nourishment from the idea of a potato. There is a difference between having a right that you can legally exercise, and having a right that you think you ought to be able to exercise.

How profound.

I can exercise all my rights, even if the law says otherwise, that is part of what makes them rights. On the other hand, there are things that the law says are rights that I cannot do if the law is not there to create them, which is why voting never occurs in nature.

No that's part of what makes them someone's idea of what rights might be.

Tell me something, if you are in Mexico, and they throw you in jail and let you starve to death, were they right or wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I query whether those championing the oppressed Germans would support amnest for a Norwegian couple, whose country has an official state religion called Lutheran, to home school their kids to be athiests.

I wonder if they'd give asylum to people in countries where the fundamental right to abortion is denied.

There is no fundamental right to abortion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I query whether those championing the oppressed Germans would support amnest for a Norwegian couple, whose country has an official state religion called Lutheran, to home school their kids to be athiests.

I wonder if they'd give asylum to people in countries where the fundamental right to abortion is denied.

There is no fundamental right to abortion.

Sure there is. By your own definition of rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How profound.

I can exercise all my rights, even if the law says otherwise, that is part of what makes them rights. On the other hand, there are things that the law says are rights that I cannot do if the law is not there to create them, which is why voting never occurs in nature.

No that's part of what makes them someone's idea of what rights might be.

Tell me something, if you are in Mexico, and they throw you in jail and let you starve to death, were they right or wrong?

What is wrong with you exactly?