California court strikes a blow for children; homeschooling virtually outlawed.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Regarding standards, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all have requirements that students pass tests in order to continue to be home schooled. If California is concerned about the quality of education received by home schoolers, would this be better for California than requiring that all home school teachers be credentialed?

I agree but that is up to the state Legislature, with the Governor, to write such a law while this was the court system saying the current home school system without any standards does not meet the state laws for compulsory education.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
so outside of LA and the like the schools remain very good to great.

So far all we have is your claim. Put up some evidence.

[Zkribbler]

REHEARING

I heard on the radio this morning, that the Court of Appeal has set this case down for a re-hearing.

This is an unusual step.

[Ben Kenobi]

Excellent news.

[Dinner]

Bad news for children though.

[Zkribbler]

As I said in my earlier posts, it's not up to the courts to ignore or rewrite the law; it is up to the Legislature to amend the law.

IMHO, I think we should have voluntary homeschooling, but with be some governmental oversight, e.g. initial testing of the parent to see if the parent know the subjects and regular testing of the kid to make sure the kid iss learning.

[Jon Miller]

Why should the parent be tested if the kid is learning?

JM

[Zkribbler]

Test the parent *prior* to see if (s)he is qualified to teach.

Test the kid *after* to see if (s)he is learning.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Test the parent *prior* to see if (s)he is qualified to teach.

Test the kid *after* to see if (s)he is learning.

To be honest, the teachers I had pre-college (and often had college) had very little to do with whether I learned or not.

In fact, some of them made it more difficult.

A person or parent doesn't need to be an expert at geography to teach their kid geography, or an expert at geometry to teach their kid geometry. With the books/etc available, then they and their kid should be able to discover the wonders of geometry together just fine.

The only issue is if the kid has troubles learning a given subject. There, as in the normal classroom, the parent would need to go seek outside help. This is needed in a standard classroom, and I don't see why the parent should be held to a higher standard.

The main thing that the parent needs is the dedication and desire to help their child do succeed in education. They don't actually need to know all that much. (although obviously the ability to read is required)

Jon Miller

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Test the parent *prior* to see if (s)he is qualified to teach.

Test the kid *after* to see if (s)he is learning.

QFT.

[Jon Miller]

Teachers like to make it seem as if they need to know and understand a lot in order to do so. They don't, in fact, I often knew (and understood) more then my teachers. Teachers need skills to deal with large classrooms of kids who don't want to learn. However, going 1-1 as a parentwould normally do with their kid, those skills aren't necessary.

The other thing teachers need is the passion and interest to keep with the often times unrewarding job. This would relate to the dedication of the parent, which is hard to test for in a parent just like it is hard to test for in the teacher.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I don't see why you two want to get in the way of kids education.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Give one good reason why, if the chlid is learning, that the parents qualification to teach matters one bit?

Jon Miller
(in a homeschool environment)

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
As I said in my earlier posts, it's not up to the courts to ignore or rewrite the law; it is up to the Legislature to amend the law.

IMHO, I think we should have voluntary homeschooling, but with be some governmental oversight, e.g. initial testing of the parent to see if the parent know the subjects and regular testing of the kid to make sure the kid iss learning.

I'm fairly sure John Jay would disagree with you on the first part there

I agree on both parts, though, to be honest. You should be allowed to homeschool your kid without extensive training, but you should have some training and/or ability and/or knowledge, and the kid should be required to pass some tests to prove that they're learning the basic things that kids should know.

The big issue there would be things like evolution, that most would say 'a kid should know' but a significant minority would disagree with. I personally think that it should be required for the kid to know 'of' the theory of evolution, and what it entails, but it should be up to the parent whether they teach it as the one and only or not. (I certainly would teach it as the one and only, except mentioning creationism so they have awareness of the other beliefs out there, but I don't think we could or should force that on everyone.) I'm sure a forethinking state like California would work out those issues though

[Jon Miller]

Parents and churchs can already mention creationism or ID. Students should have to know evolutionary theory I agree (it should be part of their highschool science tests, based on when I remember learning anything of import about it in school), but to tell their parents what they can't teach their kids is beyond outrage.

Jon Miller