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

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Wezil


No, and you aren't mine. My DL is much more well known.

AAHZ?!?!

[Ramo]

Sounds like a crappy decision. At least there should be a less onerous sort of credentialing process than a university certification.

[Lancer]

Another nail in the Cali coffin. I feel sorry for the people forced to sell their houses in this market however.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ramo
Sounds like a crappy decision. At least there should be a less onerous sort of credentialing process than a university certification.

Actually, there is!

California has a provisional credential. In times of severe teacher shortages, the school districts issue these to...IIRC...college graduates. This is all a bit hazy, but as I recall, the provisional teacher then had to get an actual creditial within X years.

I don't see why School Districts couldn't use provisional credentials as a way of permitting home schooling. There'd have to be some 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 was learning.

[Lancer]

If the kid isn't learning does that qualify then as a public school?

[Zkribbler]

Hey! I went to public schools. (Back in the day when they were adequately funded.)

[Lancer]

Ok, there's a success story. On the flip side I also went to a public school.

I think if the kid isn't learning, a pusher comes round and gives free drugs to get them hooked and a bully stops by and beats the daylights out of the kid then home schools should get federal funds to. I mean fair is fair.

[GePap]

Funding is only part of the problem. The unwillingess to create centralized nationawide curriculums, and to keep the untrained (ie Parents) away from creating curriculums is also a problem.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


What points?

Home schooling is a non-issue when it comes to providing education to tens of millions of citizens because it is not a viable method to provide education to the masses.

A better question is why so many other countries have effective public education and yet the US continues to fail.

I agree. I don't see why a huge wall needs to be put in place of homeschooling to mostly shut it down.

I am perfectly happy with lots of tests for homeschoolers, and making it illegal if the tests are failed.

JM

[Patroklos]

Oerdin, willing to foist substandard education on millions of children in order to stick it to a couple hundred creationists

I mean, just

Funding is only part of the problem. The unwillingess to create centralized nationawide curriculums, and to keep the untrained (ie Parents) away from creating curriculums is also a problem.

The problem is uncaring parents and thus uncaring students, and powerless teachers.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I agree. I don't see why a huge wall needs to be put in place of homeschooling to mostly shut it down.

I am perfectly happy with lots of tests for homeschoolers, and making it illegal if the tests are failed.

JM

Would public schools have to meet such standards? Think about it, there wouldn't BE any public schools.

The parents are better off just moving to a free state.

[Heraclitus]

psssh Don't spoil it with facts.

[Lancer]

Oh!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Wezil
I tried to find it on YouTube but couldn't find it.

She was quite irate that we would be busting children. Of course when informed of her error "Oh, that's different. Nevermind then."

Try Emily Littella. product of public school education.

Premise
Emily Litella was an elderly woman with a hearing problem seen on the op-ed Weekend Update segment in the late 1970s. Frumpily attired in a dress and a sweater, "Emily Litella" was introduced with professional dignity by the news anchor, who could sometimes be seen cringing slightly in anticipation of the faux pas which they knew would follow. She was succeeded by Gilda Radner's other character Roseanne Roseannadanna.
Radner's character peered through her glasses and read a prepared editorial addressing some public issue, becoming increasingly agitated as her statement progressed, only to discover in the middle of her report that she had misheard what the issue was. A typical example:
"What is all this fuss I hear about the Supreme Court decision on a "deaf" penalty? It's terrible! Deaf people have enough problems as it is!"
When the on-air reporter interrupted to point out her error (death vs. deaf), she would crinkle her nose, usually say, "Oh, that's very different...", and then humbly say to the audience, "Never mind." When Litella played against Chevy Chase he was somewhat sympathetic to her, but when Jane Curtin took over the anchor role, Jane's character would scold Emily on the air.
Other misunderstood phrases included Saving Soviet Jewelry ("Jewry"), Endangered Feces, Flea Erections in China, Making Puerto Rico a Steak ("..next thing you know, they'll want a baked potato with sour cream!"), Presidential Erections, Pouring Money into Canker Research, the Eagle Rights Amendment, Busting Children (bussing children), Conserving our Natural Racehorses, Youth in Asia (Euthanasia), and Sax and Violins (sex and violence) on Television.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

parents have a constitutional right to homeschool their children. The Court found no such right in the Constitution.

Not every single right a human has is delineated in the Constitution.

".....people have a right to breathe. The Court found no such right in the constitution."

If the constitution is silent on a topic, then that is taken to mean that it allows whatever falls under its ambit (within the limits, of course, of the other parts of the constitution). The "default" state of a right or freedom is that a person has it - the only curtailments are the ones explicitly defined. So just because a right is not mentioned explicitly in the constitution does not mean that the state or overreaching courts can take it away, it means that the individual has it by default.