[heltduell]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Honestly, I'm surprised you don't see the similarity between the two bills.

Doesn't that bother you at all? None. Home schooling is still allowed if the parent is a qualified teacher and if they follow the state teaching curricula guide lines. No more skipping biology just because mom and dad are religious nutters.

[inve.tment]

So there are provisions whereby parents can take their kids out of school, put them into private schools, religious schools, or homeschools, as long as the person doing the instruction has been credentialled. The state has the ability to make requirements of those who are their employees. Why should the state dictate what private businesses choose to employ? BTW, the private schools do not require credentials, you can teach there without having the certificate.

I don't see why the parent should be required to be credentialled, when they have the primary responsibility to raise and teach their children. The state should make sure that they are doing a good job in their schools before they impose these changes on homeschoolers. Is the state going to pay them for going to school to get the credentials? Why should the state impose a tax on parents who are trying to raise and look after their children rather then dumping them on the teachers in public schools?

This should put an end to the "OMG, the state is trying to indoctrinate our kids" argument. BTW: What kind of pro-American indoctrination are you afraid of? Why are teachers afraid of what parents teach their children?

I have no problem with the content, but with the concept that the state should have control over the children. The state should be giving benefits to homeschoolers, and encouraging them to teach their children well. Failing that they should stay out of the way and let the children succeed if their parents wish to do so.

Enforced conformity serves no one, least of all the children.

[Susanleech]

:barf:

[somawaima]

People will just take their kids and move to a free state

[Blacksheepaalredy]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Is the state curricula considered to be a particularly rigorous educational standard? Unfortunately, in no small part to for Republican Governor Pet Wilson, the state's minimum standards are not very high though individual school districts can set the bar higher if they like. Just about every major school district other then LA and Oakland have moved the bar higher.

I personally wouldn't want to send a kid to either of those school districts but fortunately there are numerous magnet schools and the state also offers vouchers to help pay for private schools. Oakland and LA generally suck because the rich areas broke off and formed their own school districts while the ghettos basically had no choice but to stay.

[Michael-jeckson2]

My daughter has suffered from depression for the past 2 years. She's been hospitalized once. This winter a number of issues at school have been worsening her depression, so on the advice of her psychologist we've been homeschooling her for the past month. Actually it's more like we're cyber-schooling her, she's taking courses on her computer. I guess if we were living in California my only choice would be to send her to a residential psychiatric facility.

[sterofthemasteool]

I remember on the east coast back in the '70s all the excitement about forced bussing was going to solve all the race problems. They forced kids from wealthy areas of the city to go to school in the poor areas and visa versa. Well of course there was a stampede of wealthy families from the cities to the burbs. Not just wealthy whites either. The burbs developed like crazy and the cities got poor. I used to drive a private ambulance, had a run into Newark NJ once, pick up a patient in the tenements. Maybe 25 years ago or so. Got in and out of there before too many people gathered. They weren't nice, and we weren't armed... They lived in a war zone, the same ones they were trying to force wealthy kids to go to.

When I was in my late 20s a friend who was maybe 50 took his family and me (I was a friend to his son also) to Newark to drive by where he grew up. I was appalled, it was like hell. Gangs, drugs, raw garbage in the streets. I asked him if he grew up in such conditions? "No, back then it was really nice, before bussing."He moved out, everyone that could did. Americans don't like to be forced to do a wrong thing to their children.

So, now California is going to try to force kids out of their healthy home environment and into the public schools their parents wouldn't allow them to be exposed to in the first place.

Sounds familiar...

[fkjghfg]

What happens, happens, and qualifications for one might not be qualifications to another. What seems right to one might be onerous to someone else. Thankfully we here at Poly can only stomp, belch and howl at the moon and not much more.

I'm going to go swimming, float a bit and gather some rays and see if the world doesn't keep goin round.

[Lillie_Steins]

So... one can deduce from this thread that this decision means California are Nazis who intern kids in assylums to create giant slums. Not really, no. What we are both saying is that parents should not be forced to send their child to a school when they have a perfectly good situation at home. I don't see why homeschooling is so reviled? I know plenty of folks who do so and they are generally the salt of the earth, and I know lots of kids who I went to school that the only reason they got a meal is because the school offered one.

Why are parents who stay at home and teach their children irresponsible while those who dump their kids off at school are responsible?

Requiring that kids are tought by certified teachers simply means that putting your penis into some woman and impregnating her (or vice versa) doesn't equate to adequate training to educate a child. So you believe the state should look after all children? Good luck. They have a hard enough time with social services.

If a child doesn't have parents who are willing to look after them, then he is not likely to do well in this world, as good as the state does, it does a horrible job of making sure kids are well cared for.

You can still homeschool your child by gaining certification yourself, pay for a certified tutor, or you could enroll in private schools as well. Are homeschooled kids falling behind their peers in public schools? Every study I've seen shows just the opposite that homeschooled kids do better.

If I a parent has the time and is willing to teach their kids, why should the state care, beyond making sure that the kid can pass his exam at the end of grade 12? I mean, that's the point, to make sure that the kid is 'educated' and meets the standards of the state when he gets out.

I find it horrific that such measures would be deemed too onerous by any parent. This is the well-being of your child for God's sake. And you can't be arsed to provide a qualified teacher for them? Again, are there serious problems with homeschooling? No. The results are better then the public school. You should be asking yourself why qualified teachers are doing a worse job then parents without a degree at home.

The education folks in California should get their own house in order before they start mucking around with other things. I honestly believe that they are worried about the erosion of funding as more people check out of public schools, and by banning homeschooling, this is their way to fight back. If you can't beat 'em, squash em.

Next we'll have to tell parents they can't feed their kids cardboard instead of real food. So you believe homeschooling a child is just as abusive as not feeding them?

[yarita]

'Making *****es Preggo 101'

[daguy]

However, on the other hand are the rights of the child himself. Good question. What rights does a child have?

One of the obligations of the state is to ensure that children are appropriately educated, as described above, so as to ensure they are able to function as adults. No, that is not an obligation of the state. That is an obligation of the parents. The state can no more educate a child without parents, then they can raise a child without parents.

Every child has parents, and it is their obligation to raise their child as they see fit NOT the state.

While generally I would argue that the State has an obligation to stay out of the way until and unless they are aware of an actually inadequately educated child, similarly to a child abuse victim, in the case of education that would be very hard to do. Considering the quality of the students that get churned out every year from the public schools, I would guess the state would really care that the students they have can function out in the real world.

Think of it this way. Parents who are motivated to teach their kids are going to do a better job then an overstressed teacher who has 30 kids to chase after. They have the opportunity to go at their own pace, they have access to many quality teaching materials. Honestly, I don't see why it would be so difficult to get your hands on great materials to teach your kids.

Look at English for example. All you need are age specific books that would work and interest your child. Get them to write, you don't need to have a class of 30 students to teach them how to read and write. People have been doing that for centuries.

For other subjects, the sciences are harder. Physics and Chemistry would require access to books, as well as a curriculum that would help the students along. If parents don't have a background in those subjects, then they can get outside help. There are lots and lots of books as well as other people who are willing to come in and help who do know.

Heck, I would bet if I asked a math question here, within 24 hours I'd get a full answer, as well as kibbitzing. It happens all the time.

I'm not entirely sure how, other than by use of standardized tests If the schools are using standardised tests for their students, then how hard is it to mail the same exams to the school. How hard is it to get the student to come in and write their SATs?

Imagine if Kevin Federline were to home-school his children? Imagine Kevin Federline hiring a tutor for his kids.

Honestly, I don't think his kids are going to be badly off, they have the money to get what they want.

The issue isn't people like K-Fed, but the folks that Lancer is talking about. These people work hard, and why should they have to go back to school to get a degree when they are perfectly able to teach their child by themselves.

Things have changed. It's way easier to homeschool now then previous. When I was in highschool, I tried distance education to get my Biology in (because I couldn't fit it in my schedule), and now, the resources available are 10x what they were.

[23tommy]

Ben, the State has an obligation to protect the rights of those citizens unable to fend for themselves - namely, children. In most cases, it does so by assigning the rights of the child to the parents; however, in some cases it must overrule parents, such as in the case of the Britney-KFed children.

You can debate at what point the State should intervene, but it's not reasonable to debate whether they will, ultimately, or not. This is the sole reason we have a state (to intervene in cases of rights in conflict) and so you would have to be an anarchist to deny this, in principle.

[Pippoles]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Ben, the State has an obligation to protect the rights of those citizens unable to fend for themselves - namely, children. In most cases, it does so by assigning the rights of the child to the parents; however, in some cases it must overrule parents, such as in the case of the Britney-KFed children.

You can debate at what point the State should intervene, but it's not reasonable to debate whether they will, ultimately, or not. This is the sole reason we have a state (to intervene in cases of rights in conflict) and so you would have to be an anarchist to deny this, in principle. Yes, however, who should the state trust most with the welfare of children? Parents, or civil servants?

The assumption has to be with parents.

Demonstrate incompetence, or maleficence, and then act on that case. Outlawing a path that would be preferable to many public school classrooms is not the way to go.

[realfan87]

Originally posted by Darius871
Considering Zkribbler inadvertently demolished your own arguments, why does he get the ? You'd think I'd be the one to give him the .

[DevaRextusidis]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You'd think I'd be the one to give him the . Except, as Darius pointed out, the original claim didn't happen.

[ardsdelinq]

Demonstrate incompetence, or maleficence, and then act on that case. Outlawing a path that would be preferable to many public school classrooms is not the way to go. Well said NYE.

[BEyng6hj]

Originally posted by Lancer
I remember on the east coast back in the '70s all the excitement about forced bussing was going to solve all the race problems...
Sounds familiar... I remember Anna Rosanna Dana saying it was wrong to "bust" children.


wrt the topic - Can I safely assume CA teachers are unionized? I see a teacher union involved in this and I know the kid's best interests are NEVER what these groups have in mind.