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

[Guynemer]

I have been less than impressed with those of my patients that are being homeschooled, FWIW.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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?

Who is saying you can't homeschool kids? Not the law, not the courts, not I.

The law says that you (or whoever is overseeing the education of the students) should have proper training to do so, and I agree.

So you believe the state should look after all children?

I think the state should watch out for the well-being of children, in case their parents fail to do so. Yes.

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.

Your point is?

The state should try to help even if it's not perfect. It's better than just abandoning these poor kids entirely.

Are homeschooled kids falling behind their peers in public schools? Every study I've seen shows just the opposite that homeschooled kids do better.

In specific cases there are homeschool kids who get **** for education. Standards are there to protect those kids being left behind.

The one's already getting a proper education can quite easily continue as you pointed out earlier in the thread before you went into bat**** insane mode.

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 care because waiting till someone is 18 to decide whether or not their education was adequate is too late to do anything about their k-12 education. I would hope the state would care as well.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

Standards applied early, to teachers and students, will catch the problems when they can be corrected, before they become insurmountable. Waiting until a child is 18 to judge whether they have access to proper education is stupid... mindbogglingly so.

You are essentially arguing against any state standards for education, or even for training of educators. It's not about where you are being taught, it's about who is teaching you.

Having standards for that is not outrageous. Not having standards for that is.

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.

It's very easy to understand why public schools fail when they do. (Some are very successful still of course.) Uninvolved parents, overcrowded classrooms, cultural issues, ect. It doesn't mean we should stop training teachers... that would only make things worse.

The education folks in California should get their own house in order before they start mucking around with other things.

The courts are not teachers anymore than Arny is Hitler, sorry BK.

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.

They aren't banning homeschooling. Get a grip on reality.

So you believe homeschooling a child is just as abusive as not feeding them?

I believe not giving your kids proper education is rather akin to malnurishment. I never said homeschooling was such. Obviously home schooling can provide a good education, and even private schools can provide poor education. Standards exist to try to eliminate the poor situations and promote the good ones.

Having qualified teachers is important. How you can even begin to argue against that is beyond me.

[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.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Aeson


California could use some less crowding...

Hopefully they'll stop running those ads asking people to come to California.

[notyoueither]

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.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by 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.

Private school, private tutor (must be a certified teacher though), or switching schools. Most school districts in California allow parents to choose any school in their district rather then get assigned the nearest one though if you want to get into the best schools is competitive (I.E. locals get in automatically but for the best schools normally more people want in then there is room so students with the best GPAs get the open spots).

[DinoDoc]

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 .

[Dinner]

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

See now there is where you are wrong. Some of them are among the best in the nation. A lot depends on where you live since the system is decentralized.

There is a big lesson here. In almost anything decentralized means worse results on average but usually wealthier areas do better often much better. Want everyone to do well? Centralize the standards and curricula.

[Dinner]

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who is saying you can't homeschool kids? Not the law, not the courts, not I.

The law says that you (or whoever is overseeing the education of the students) should have proper training to do so, and I agree.

Why is the proper training a teaching certificate. To use an example here, Doc Strangelove wouldn't be qualified to teach his daughter because he has the wrong degree. Same with me.

The issue I have is that the training (2 month certificate), is by no means indicative of skill or ability or even competency.

There are plenty of people without that specific training who can teach and who teach very well. To say otherwise is to state that teachers become magically qualified once they earn their certificate.

I think the state should watch out for the well-being of children, in case their parents fail to do so. Yes.

That's not the case here. They haven't been abandoned, and neither have their parents failed. Therefore the state has no cause to intervene.

The state should try to help even if it's not perfect. It's better than just abandoning these poor kids entirely.

Quite the opposite. Too many cooks spoil the broth. The homeschooled children are being adequately educated according to objective standards. Therefore the state has no cause to intervene.

In specific cases there are homeschool kids who get **** for education. Standards are there to protect those kids being left behind.

That's not what the law says. If the law said that homeschooled children that are falling behind can be required to return to normal school, I would agree with you.

However, this does nothing to address the problem. All it states is that homeschooling parents will be punished if they don't have a degree. In what way does this improve education for homeschool children, or prevent them from falling behind? A degree isn't magic.

I care because waiting till someone is 18 to decide whether or not their education was adequate is too late to do anything about their k-12 education. I would hope the state would care as well.

Well clearly they do. Have you looked at the competency ratings? What percentage of kids fail the system inside the public schools? Are not teachers themselves opposed to standardised testing because of other concerns?

Honestly, if the schools were sincerely concerned about failing students they would be encouraging homeschooling, since it is more successful at bringing students up to the expected norms.

You are essentially arguing against any state standards for education, or even for training of educators. It's not about where you are being taught, it's about who is teaching you.

I am arguing that competency trumps credentials. The important thing is the result, a student who is well educated. The method is less important so long as the results are there. If the one-on-one attention trumps the credentials, then yes, the system needs to be fixed.

As for state standards, I'm not against them. I am against holding homeschool kids to higher standards wrt to standardised testing then children in the public schools. Up here kids get tested once every three years. If that level of scrutiny is sufficient for children in the public school, then the same should apply to homeschooled children.

It's very easy to understand why public schools fail when they do. (Some are very successful still of course.) Uninvolved parents, overcrowded classrooms, cultural issues, ect. It doesn't mean we should stop training teachers... that would only make things worse.

We need all the teachers we can get. The solution isn't to muck about with homeschooling or to enforce unnecessary credentialism, but to get more teachers to teach in the public schools! All this heat and light is such a waste of time and money that could be better used to fix some of the major problems with the public system rather then making things worse.

I believe not giving your kids proper education is rather akin to malnurishment. I never said homeschooling was such. Obviously home schooling can provide a good education, and even private schools can provide poor education. Standards exist to try to eliminate the poor situations and promote the good ones.

Thank you. If homeschooling is providing higher standards then the public schools, then this credentialism is unnecessary.

Having qualified teachers is important. How you can even begin to argue against that is beyond me.

True, but credentials don't replace competency. If competency is there without the credentials, then why are we forcing people to take unnecessary credentials?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

[Dinner]

It's not outlawed as has been said several times in this thread. A parent would just have to get a teaching credential in each age category. Overall credential 2 year (comes with one age category) plus one year extra for each additional age category (there are 4 categories, pre-school, elementary, middle, high).

[Wezil]

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.

[Bosh]

What is interesting is that the biggest and most consistent factor in whether or not kids learn things depends on if they have one on one classes or not. The holy grail of educational theory is trying to figure out how to take the things that make one on one classes work without having it be inordinately expensive (obviously it would be unworkable for every class to be one on one).

Because of this kids tend to learn MUCH more when taught one on one (or even slightly bigger classes) by a committed but average parent then when a class of 20 that's taught by even an excellent teacher. Also in my personal experience as a teacher, having teacher training has ****-all to do with whether a teacher is good at their job.

What California is doing is rather silly from the perspective of getting kids to learn things.