Speaking of homeschooling...

[il Padrino Ute]

A California appellate court has ruled that homeschooling is illegal in California if neither of the parents are certified teachers.

http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-homesc...,1110544.story

The judge who wrote the opinion is quoted as saying that parents don't have a constitutional right to home school their children.

Thoughts?

Sounds like another nanny state deal to me.

[MikeWaters]

question: should it be the parents right to not have school of any sort given to their children?

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

question: should it be the parents right to not have school of any sort given to their children?

It was this way in the US up until 1852. The first compulsory education law was passed by MA in 1852.

From a national standpoint I say, "leave it up to the States".
From a state standpoint I say, "leave it up to local school boards".
From my local school board standpoint I say, "yes, it should be the parents right to not have school of any sort given to their children".
In my family I would say to my kids, "get your ass to school - you have no choice".

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

It was this way in the US up until 1852. The first compulsory education law was passed by MA in 1852.

From a national standpoint I say, "leave it up to the States".
From a state standpoint I say, "leave it up to local school boards".
From my local school board standpoint I say, "yes, it should be the parents right to not have school of any sort given to their children".
In my family I would say to my kids, "get your ass to school - you have no choice".

It's probably the socialist in me that doesn't like the idea of kids working in the fields or in the family business, never learning to read or write. I like compulsory education, because I don't think society can function without it.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

question: should it be the parents right to not have school of any sort given to their children?

Well - and I am not a proponent of homeschooling - parents should have the right to raise their children without interference from the government.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Well - and I am not a proponent of homeschooling - parents should have the right to raise their children without interference from the government.

Can parents kill their children?

Can they mistreat them? Physically or sexually abuse them?

Imprison them in cages?

Withhold nutrition, stunting their growth?

Withhold lifesaving medical care?

Give them illicit drugs?

All these things happen to children all the time. Should the govt. interfere?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Can parents kill their children?

Can they mistreat them? Physically or sexually abuse them?

Imprison them in cages?

Withhold nutrition, stunting their growth?

Withhold lifesaving medical care?

Give them illicit drugs?

All these things happen to children all the time. Should the govt. interfere?

Irrelevant to the question of whether parents should be able to school their children at home even if they aren't certified, unless you equate a non-public school education with these things. Or you must just assume that all home schooling is substandard and therefore "harms" the children just like killing them or giving them drugs does. Rhetorical hyperbole at its best/worst.

Why shouldn't parents be able to school their kids at home if they think it is what's best for their children? You think the state should question a parent's judgment on that?

And that public education is important for society generally says nothing about whether a subset of parents should be able to educate their kids at home.

I wonder if you'd feel differently if you lived in downtown Oakland, and yet weren't wealthy enough to send your kids to private school, and you weren't certified to teach school either. Even if you still wanted your kids to go to the Oakland public school, wouldn't you wish you had the choice to school your kids at home?

Is anyone surprised about the group most happy about the California ruling? The Teacher's union.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Levin

Irrelevant to the question of whether parents should be able to school their children at home even if they aren't certified.

Why shouldn't parents be able to school their kids at home if they think it is what's best for their children? You think the state should question a parent's judgment on that?

And that public education is important for society generally says nothing about whether a subset of parents should be able to educate their kids at home.

I wonder if you'd feel differently if you lived in downtown Oakland, and yet weren't wealthy enough to send your kids to private school, and you weren't certified to teach school. Even if you still wanted your kids to go to the Oakland public school, wouldn't you wish you had the choice to school your kids at home?

The real question is "where do we draw the line?". It seems that society has decided that education should be compulsory, but we let parents be the providers if they want. The question is, who decides if they are doing an adequate job, and what set of criteria should be used? That's a tough call.

As to the question of "Should parents be allowed to withhold life-saving medical care, that is a timely topic in Utah. A few years ago there was a boy in Utah (Parker Jensen?) who had cancer but the parents refused to allow the hospital to administer chemotherapy, claiming that they didn't believe he had cancer and that the chemo would do more damage than good. The doctors claimed that his odds of surviving without the treatment were very slim. It sparked a huge public debate, with most of the sympathy going to the parents (that's how I saw it, anyway), and the parents won out in the end. The parents seemed kind of like wackos, so I was siding with the hospital at the time. But there was a follow-up article the other day and the parents say that the kid is doing fine. No sign of cancer.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Can parents kill their children?

Can they mistreat them? Physically or sexually abuse them?

Imprison them in cages?

Withhold nutrition, stunting their growth?

Withhold lifesaving medical care?

Give them illicit drugs?

All these things happen to children all the time. Should the govt. interfere?

How about teaching them crazy superstitions like how a guy was killed and rose from the dead and will atone for all our sins? Or that a 14 year old boy had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ?

It's a slippery slope ...

[BigFatMeanie]

Drawing the line is the crux of the problem. If compulsory elementary and high school education is good then why not compulsory secondary education? Wouldn't it make society better as a whole? If compulsory secondary eduction is good then why not compulsory post-secondary eduction?

Same goes for medical care as well as a wide range of other topics. If states can specify and enforce that parents must give their kids medical care then why not specify and enforce what parents feed their children in order to prevent childhood obesity? Heck, why not specify and enforce what adults eat in order to prevent adult diseases and increased medical costs to society?

Society will always struggle to find the right balance of power, the right place to draw the line, between "individual freedom" and "benefit to society as a whole".

I don't have all the answers but I generally lean towards the "individual freedom" side of things. Maybe that's just because I'm stubborn and don't like people telling me what to do.