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

[Lancer]

:barf:

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Is the state curricula considered to be a particularly rigorous educational standard?

The best students can and will continue to learn more outside of class rather then inside. The best parents will participate in their child's education by ensuring that they are well informed despite the educational system.

The state should get out of the way and stop throwing roadblacks in the way of getting an education. Honestly, it shouldn't matter how the child learns, what is important is that the child does receive an education. I would have benefitted from staying at home, would have finished several years early rather then sitting around waiting for everyone else.

However, I had to fight to be included in a regular school in regular classes. So I never had the privilege of being able to do what was best for me, I had to do what I could to show people what could be done.

[Lancer]

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

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lancer
People will just take their kids and move to a free state

California could use some less crowding...

[Dinner]

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.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Aeson


California could use some less crowding...

...and less taxpayers to pay for their sillyness.

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

[snip irrelevant partisan crap]
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.

Then why are they attacking parents who generally have higher standards. If the schools are terrible, I as a parent would consider it my obligation to help them get an education even if I had to teach them at home.

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.

Then why don't they offer vouchers to parents to homeschool their children, to give them an incentive to do so. I understand the concerns about quality education, but it's not as if the education is particularly good in California. It seems to me that parents have been trying to improve things and this takes away one tool they have to help their kids.

[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. 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...

[Aeson]

So... one can deduce from this thread that this decision means California are Nazis who intern kids in assylums to create giant slums.

You guys are overreacting.

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. You can still homeschool your child by gaining certification yourself, pay for a certified tutor, or you could enroll in private schools as well. (And cali will help pay for at least some of those options, and specifically in Dr's case, is almost sure to pay for the tutor/special needs private school of whatever sort. We are in fact, bleeding hearts remember.)

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?

Next we'll have to tell parents they can't feed their kids cardboard instead of real food. (AND OMFG I bet HITLER fed his kids real food and not cardboard!)

[Lancer]

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.

[snoopy369]

The state mandates education because it is considered essential to the development of a child to be properly educated. It is considered effectively child abuse to NOT properly educate a child, because that is causing a child to fail before he or she is adequately grown to make such choices for his or herself.

The state does NOT mandate that students be educated BY the state, simply at the minimum level the state requires. This is not particularly demanding, as typically this level is quite low; nor is it terribly specific, as it does not forbid any particular subject be taught (ie, religion).

All the state requires is that students reach a certain level of education prior to turning 18 (and generally, certain levels prior to this, so as to benchmark the student's progress). Further, it requires that students be taught by teachers or tutors that are certified by the state (which is not a particularly difficult process) so to ensure that those teaching children are appropriately educated themselves; not an unusual request.

I'm of two very different minds about home-schooling. On the one hand, certainly it should be acceptable for parents to home school their children. It would significantly infringe on the rights of the parent to decide how to raise their children to do otherwise.

However, on the other hand are the rights of the child himself. 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. 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. I'm not entirely sure how, other than by use of standardized tests - which most home-schoolers have simlar objections to as school itself - and even those are pitifully poor at identifying poorly educated students. Imagine if Kevin Federline were to home-school his children?

I don't know what the ultimate decision should be on the matter, but it's certainly a complex issue, even for a conservative.

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

[MJW]

CA public schools are so bad that you would learn more if you where taught by K-Fed.

[Lancer]

'Making *****es Preggo 101'