State Ruling Ciminalizes Home Schooling

What does children not being equal have to do with this conversation? The varying strengths and weaknesses of various children are not in question.

Again, age is not an issue in all this.

A child's potential to **** up his or her own life isn't relevant to this discussion either.

In fact, you have only really made one point, and that is that parents having their own ideas about the world and life and demanding that their children think and act exactly as they do is not only expected, but is also a rational parenting tool.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And religion doesn't count either. It's like anything else: advice not to use credit cards or drink and drive. The kid can hear it, know it's what the parents think, and after turning 18 then chooses whether or not they will go along with that line of thinking. But the parents still have every right to teach those ideas to the kids, as long as they are not illegal and harmful.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well that's more of an argument ti re-focus the aims of the school system.

It doesn't change the fact that there is a certain responsibility here to make sure children are properly taught and the only way to try and ensure that is to make sure they have credentialled teachers. If you do not ensure that then you will be actively conniving in denying some children an education- not just failing to give them one, actively making sure they do not. That's not acceptable.

Home schooling- ok. But it's not an excuse for the teacher- parent or otherwise- to be an amateur. Far too many kids will be hurt by that.

The SC has pretty much upheld that educational choice is okay as long as the state can implement state requirements. That seems fair enough to me.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Assuming you are correct about them not being worth much- which frankly, I would take issue with you about- then that's merely an argument to improve the standards of the teaching degree.

A child is not in a position to make such a choice, and desrves better than possibly being completely messed up by amateur teaching.

Compulsory education for all was a MAJOR break through in the civilised world. That is a concept that must be accompanied by a professional ethic.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Aye, but kids often don't know what they really want. The 12 year old could choose one parent (in the divorce court example) and then feel differently a few months down the road when daddy's house isn't any better than mommy's. Sure he gets to watch more TV than she'd let him, but then he has to do more chores. Or whatever. Then he decides to switch back, it's painful for everybody, and the fact is that he was given a choice that he wasn't mature enough to make anyway.

It's still 18.

I'm gonna put something out here, and it won't go over well, but it's the truth: Kids aren't equal.

They are people sure, with thoughts and hopes and dreams, and should be allowed to express themselves, but once they've been heard and if the parents want different..... that's it. They obey.

(I'm of course [b]Not talking about illegal, harmful, or dangerous activities or habits, so don't go there with that strawman.)

I tell the youth group I lead that all the time: I love you guys but you're not equal.

You're still learning. You're still in development, forming mindsets and attitudes, along with your personal standards and ideals which are still being forged, and coupled with raging hormones and changing physicality, sexuality, and identity, your not in any place to say what's best for you.

Those that are older, wiser, and have lived life are.

You may be smart, may have tons of knowledge, but there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. (knowing how to apply said knowledge in real life situations, due to experience)

And religion doesn't count either. It's like anything else: advice not to use credit cards or drink and drive. The kid can hear it, know it's what the parents think, and after turning 18 then chooses whether or not they will go along with that line of thinking. But the parents still have every right to teach those ideas to the kids, as long as they are not illegal and harmful. (and I mean things that are legally defined as such, not your "opinion" that religion can be harmful.)

*braces for flaming* [/B]

Kids, face it, you all can't be winners. The real world is not like that. Don't let idiot teachers and pricinpals and the like confuse you. You lose some and you win some. Life isn't fair. Life isn't equal.

That being said, from my own personal experience, there comes a time when a person does know indeed what is best for them. No later than the age of fifteen in my opinion. At fifteen at least, you have some sort of semblance for what is best for you and can start leaning off that dependency on the adult or other adults to make decisions for you. A time as to come when the parent can cast you out to sea and let you hook on the fish that you want to and not fear for they can always reel you back in and unhook you from that fish.

Originally posted by BigRed
A student can just as easily be "messed up" from an inexperienced or poor teacher in a public school setting as they can be by an amateur parent teaching in a home school setting.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, yes, you're a genius, you've said it repeatedly. Was it really necessary to say it once gain though?

WTF are you talking about? I was referring to the negative connotation that is given to "home-schoolers".

But if you want to take it that direction..What do these things mean to you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I had severe learning problems in school because I was worse than a text book example of the type 1 ADHD

Originally posted by dadudemon
even the average child can adapt and learn quickly.

I was and still am at a disadvantage to someone like you. My point wasn't to say "OMG look at me...". It was to show the merits of homeschooling even on a significantly learning disabled child.

Just think of the progress an AVERAGE person could have made in the same environment. With proper refinements, someone like you could have been done with high school by 11. THAT was more or less my underlying point. Homeschooling can be very successful and sometimes, it is one of the best options. (Depending on the parents.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
No they really can't. In public school you will have multiple teachers and at least SOME of them will be decent. If your parent sucks though, that's the only perspective you get.

While also true as you and others have eluded to, it could be disasterous and detrimental to the child in the long-term.

But I still think the freedom to decide is perfectly okay. No educational system has been proven to be effective full-proof.

I don't know who said it ...but I agree with the person who mentioned regulating or standardizing even homeschoolers. (I think it was Ush.)

I believe that once a year-public, private, and home schoolers-should be subjected to a national standardized test. This happens already, for the most part, but I don't think homeschoolers are included.

Like I said, I think a child should have to take a test proving they cannot be provided for by the public school system. If they get the correct scores THEN they can be homeschooled.

IMO it is inexcusable that Christian parents should be able to pull their kids out of school just to try and get them away from opposing viewpoints.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Like I said, I think a child should have to take a test proving they cannot be provided for by the public school system. If they get the correct scores THEN they can be homeschooled.

IMO it is inexcusable that Christian parents should be able to pull their kids out of school just to try and get them away from opposing viewpoints.

Oh, was that you who mentioned testing homeschoolers?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Like I said, I think a child should have to take a test proving they cannot be provided for by the public school system. If they get the correct scores THEN they can be homeschooled.

IMO it is inexcusable that Christian parents should be able to pull their kids out of school just to try and get them away from opposing viewpoints.

There definitely are some kinks that need to be worked out on a state to state basis.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, was that you who mentioned testing homeschoolers?

Originally posted by BigRed
That is one thing that bothers me. If you've seen Jesus Camp , you'll know why. They basically brainwash their children on everything they believe. I think that is repulsive personally. That definitely is problematic.

There definitely are some kinks that need to be worked out on a state to state basis.

Where I come from, there were about two hardcore, right-wing, Jesus-freak type kids in my class. I made a school message board with a religion forum, and immediately started arguing with them. I whooped their ass, they were so uninformed and I think she got humiliated in front of everyone for her inability to form a coherent argument. I think her parents ended up pulling her out for homeschooling because they knew I was poking holes in her ideology every day.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You need A-Cs in English and Maths and if you are going to teach a particular subject, much higher in that subject.

Home schooling at Secondary school age is not easy because of the specialisation required. It's very hard for a parent to be able to cover the whole curriculum competently, and so again that is simply removing any attempt to achieve standards for the child.

We cannot gain-say this argument by assuming the public/state school system doesn't work. As I say, that can only be an argument for improving the system. Throwing it out to the amateur world is NOT a general solution.

''For applicants who may have left formal education some time ago, extensive relevant knowledge and experience and, normally at least one good pass at A-level or two good AS-levels, an Access or other equivalent qualification will be required.'' - Nottingham Trent.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160 '' Plymouth. (A D is 60 points).

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160'' - Leeds Metropoliton.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 180'' Newman University College.

All for teaching degrees.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
''For applicants who may have left formal education some time ago, extensive relevant knowledge and experience and, normally at least one good pass at A-level or two good AS-levels, an Access or other equivalent qualification will be required.'' - Nottingham Trent.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160 '' Plymouth. (A D is 60 points).

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160'' - Leeds Metropoliton.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 180'' Newman University College.

All for teaching degrees.

This is for UK schools, right?

I get the general idea, but translate for me.

What is A-level? I hear that in talk of British education and sports.

A levels are what we do after secondary school, which we finish after our GCSEs at the age of 16. They're completely voluntary and are necessary to get into university (A levels). You usually take three or four subjects, it stands for Advanced Level.

They're not particularly hard, just bloody boring while you're doing them.

ah, I got ya. cheers.

Originally posted by BigRed
That is one thing that bothers me. If you've seen Jesus Camp , you'll know why. They basically brainwash their children on everything they believe. I think that is repulsive personally. That definitely is problematic.

There definitely are some kinks that need to be worked out on a state to state basis.

Even as a committed Christian in full-time ministry that works for my church, I agree with you on the Jesus Camp deal. That type of indoctrination isn't right. (From my perspective, it isn't even necessary, as God will reveal Himself to the kids on a much more easy, sunday-school type level)

(open question to all):

Counterpoint: Telling parents that they can't "pull their kids out of school just to try and get them away from opposing viewpoints" as King Kandy said, is basically forcing indoctrination upon the kids by putting them in an abortion approving, evolution theory pushing, "we as humans were just accidents" mentality that many parents don't agree with or approve of.

Is that not just as bad?

Or because it's not religion, then you think forcing a viewpoint on them different than that of what the family wants is okay?

Originally posted by Devil King
What does children not being equal have to do with this conversation? The varying strengths and weaknesses of various children are not in question.

Again, age is not an issue in all this.

A child's potential to **** up his or her own life isn't relevant to this discussion either.

In fact, you have only really made one point, and that is that parents having their own ideas about the world and life and demanding that their children think and act exactly as they do is not only expected, but is also a rational parenting tool.

Kids as a whole don't know what the heck they are doing, and only have a semblance of what TRUE wisdom is. So the whole mindset of "breaking free of the indoctrination of the parents" is nonsense to me, because as I said, unless it's illegal or harmful, then the kid doesn't have anything better anyway. Just some ideas, some blind stabs in the dark, but he doesn't know better than his parents.

Thousands of years of generations have thought so, and by and large, they get around 24, 25 and realize that 'ol mom and pop did know a thing or two.

The idea of "breaking free" of what they try to impart as values is just flight of fancy emotionalism, and except for certain dangerous, illegal situations, not grounded or based in any concrete reason to NOT do what they say, or take on what they believe, and based more on silly teenage rebelliousness.

As the individual matures and grows, they may have other experiences, beliefs may differ, etc...but until the thought police come, it's still up to the parents to train up the kids in the way that they feel they should go, and no teenage impulsive, selfish "I want it now!" thinking should even be considered or discussed in the fashion of "...when is it viable, and can override what the parents want them to do."

That answer it a little more clearly?

Thread topic: It's ridiculous. Parents can homeschool children if they wish. As long as the kids are able to pass age-required material in all subjects, I don't see what the issue is. Parents don't help hardly ANY kids past 8th grade, and what they learn, in school or at home, is up to their personal discipline, study habits, and so on. (special needs kids, however, unless cared for by a trained specialist or parent who is such, should be in a school to help them through their developmental delays or other issues.)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Was attempting to answer you. There is no point where a kid can break free of what his parents want him to be, until age 18. (or legal emancipation)

Which begs the logical next question to my statements. At what point does it become the job of the government to step in and mandate how you raise your kids? At what point does society step in and say that a child should be exposed to a variety of ideas as opposed to the dogmatic (and varied) up-bringing of their parents? When does the village raise the child? I think the over all question involved in this judgement is that of a child's right v. a parent's. It isn't about kids being too stupid or a prents engrained ideology that they want to pass on to another generation. (Which is what you're saying is totally legitimate...but it ignores progress)

I think a lot of it has to do with these parents wanting to validate their own outlook by assuring that their children subscribe to the same ideas, religion or social understanding.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Meanwhile,,, I find it hard to objct to parents wanting to homeschool having to be actually qualified to do it, because otherwise the risk is that the child suffers, and the childs cannot do anything about it. There is nothing wrong with professionalising a sector. And yes, you can have a phD and be a lousy teacher.

In case you haven't noticed, there are plenty of people with teaching degrees who are lousy teachers as well. But how often do you come across a lousy teacher who is a PHD who wants to educate his kids himself?