State Ruling Ciminalizes Home Schooling

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.

If you are proposing the same idea as the other dozen million people who say that, you are saying that you want these tests to be standardized by the state. But if you haven't noticed, state tests are a joke. My parrot could ace half of them (of course, you have to acknowledge my parrot is a lot smarter then some high school students but he's still just a parrot). If I were writing a plan to educate students in my state, I would only use a state accredited university.

It isn't uncommon for major departments of prestigious universities to outline how much a student has to learn clear from kindergarten to be ready to attend college by his mid teen years. Of course you can't get everything from one university because some departments are more cooperative than others. But when there is such a large list to choose from, it doesn't take more than some devoted searching to find education plans for individual subjects from state accredited universities.

That means they could have 3rd grade math tests from the math department of Bowdoin university and 5th grade science tests from Caltech. So I think the governments responsible for education should rely a lot more on universities to set their standards. If the students can't pass a test that is on the path to being in college, they should get extra training in the subject.

Children have a right to not be indoctrinated or otherwise assaulted by political propagandists in any educational setting. The purpose of education is to teach children how to think, not to learn what to think. It is questionable whether one who would remove a child from an educational setting for the sole purpose of limiting intellectual diversity has any business teaching a child at all.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Children have a right to not be indoctrinated

So when does a parent's desire to validate and indoctrinate take a back seat to the child's right to not have an unindoctrinated up-bringing?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The purpose of education is to teach children how to think, not to learn what to think.

while I agree with the intent of what you are saying, the systems of education that exist were established mainly to serve the interests of the ruling classes. Churches provided basic public education that allowed people to work for the elite class who had the money to go to the universities. The first public schools were established, largely, as a reaction to urbanization and lots of kids with nothing to do. Basically, public school was established to prevent youth crime.

Even today, most schools aren't interested in teaching children how to think. Thinking kids cause stress for the teacher and power struggles in the class, they disrupt and challenge, or they get bored with material that isn't engaging. Students who only know what to learn sit still for 6 consecutive hours and don't get into trouble. This isn't always the case, and I know I had some excellent teachers.

blah, education is weird, I'm sure this is totally unrelated to your point, but I think it bares mention. It is really idealistic to talk about education standards for home schooling when we don't really even have a coherent idea for how to educate in general.

So, how do we "teach" without indoctrinating?

you can't

even the concept we have as a modern western society of "open mindedness" or "new experiences" can be described as "indoctrination", depending on how you play with the word.

I'd rather look at what types of things work for various goals in society. And, then of course comes the moral issues of what goals is it appropriate for the education system to try and achieve. Like, in all honesty is it a bad idea to get kids off the street for the day if it really does prevent youth or gang crime? Even if for just that reason alone? I don't know, like I said, its weird, for me at least. I have very strong beliefs about most of the competing rights in this case.

Originally posted by inimalist
I have very strong beliefs about most of the competing rights in this case.

Expand on this more for me.

Hard to say.

Teach: "to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in"

Impart: "1. to make known; tell; relate; disclose
2. to give; bestow; communicate: to impart knowledge.
3. to grant a part or share of. "

Indoctrinate: "1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning."

Imbue: "impregnate or inspire, as with feelings, opinions, etc."

So really, they are the same only one is coming from a bias.

And that bias can be anything: Vegan food is what's best for you, Credit Cards are foolish, or there is a God.

Again, as long as it's not illegal or harmful, the parent really has all the rights here to teach or "indoctrinate" as they see fit. The child, once over 18 can decide to eat red meat or not, get a credit card and max it out or not, and follow God or not.

It's silly to pretend otherwise, this is one of a parent's basic rights and until the child is old and experienced enough (18 at least) to make their own responsible choices it's a moot point.

And if the parents want them taught at home to "indoctrinate" them, it's not much different from what the schools do, it just comes from a certain viewpoint.

And it's the right of every parent to execute , if they so choose. (it's not like "the world" has got it all figured out anyway. Anybody know anybody out there who's got it all explained and under control?)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Expand on this more for me.

alright...

It's kinda campy, but I really think education is the key to the future. Science, technology, social understanding, all of these things are byproducts of a society with high educational standards. I feel education is in the security interests of the western world, crucial to maintaining at least a military balance with oppressive nations who might, MIGHT, want to take our freedoms. I honestly believe (and there are some studies that support this) that a multi-ethnic schoolroom, where students participate and especially problem solve with people of other cultures is the single best way to eliminate prejudice. So, I feel very strongly that all children deserve the ability to benefit from a good education. I think it is criminal to deny this to your child and tantamount to abuse (my moral opinion, not legalistic) to indoctrinate children with provably wrong nonsense and hate.

However, I also see no reason, from a legal perspective, why the government should have any specific right to ban it. The legal tradition in the west is that children are property of their parents. Circumcision is a perfect example of this. A parent is allowed to have a part of the child's penis cut off. While this is a salient example, to me at least, we have to remember that rights aren't just something to be thrown about. While clearly only specific rights could be given at specific time, we must recognize that children in many ways are incapable of making proper decisions all the time, and there must be some form of control and discipline

That being said, my relationship with my mother was ruined because of constant fighting and power struggles over, at least in my opinion, me asserting my independence and autonomy. There is clearly a point where parental "ownership" of a child does not work.

This isn't to say homeschooling can't work. If your father is Carl Sagan, why would you go to school? Not even that, any competent teacher is going to be 30000 times more effective in a one on one environment (or however many siblings) than in a class like my cousin's, which is a grade 6/7 split with 1 teacher for over 30 kids. So, for that reason, the whole idea of restricting homeschooling, to me, seems daft. It seems almost more appealing, although there is the trade off. While for some people it will be far more rewarding, some people loose out, imho, too badly.

But then this brings up the whole idea of school as a system of control. I am very much against the idea of the government being able to set a curriculum, which is essentially giving the government the right to decide what the people in the society think is true. Certain text book companies have ties with religious or political groups, and economic interests largely dominate which books children get, and not quality.

Then there is the content of the education. Even at my university, I feel mostly like stuff is being spoon fed to me, and pretty much any prof I have talked to about the issue (from a good variety of fields) seems to agree that this is the trend. My girlfriend goes to a school with probably 10 times the student population, and she says that it is different there, so it is very possible that the size of my school plays a role, but many articles are being written, especially in conservative publications, about this being a trend across North America.

.
.
.

so I hope that is moderately coherent...

Originally posted by sithsaber408
decide to eat red meat or not

you don't think it would be foolish for a parent to try and control their child's eating habits?

you don't think it could be potentially harmful, say to girls, for them to say, have food issues?

You don't think it would be foolish for the state to try and control the child's eating habits?

This is goofy man. 😛

Parents tell the kids what to eat all time. And they should!

We're not talking about whackos making kids eat paste, or people who are wrongfully and willingly let an alergic child eat something he shouldn't, but instead a parent doing what they believe is best for their kid.

That's still the right of every parent, isn't it?

Really, out of that whole post I'm surprised you would pick that small part.

Back to the main issue, home schooling is the right of every parent, and the only ones who want to stop it are those that want to stop parents from contradicting the TRUE indoctrination of increasingly secular progressive public schools with the way that they believe.

If the kids can meet all educational requirements in all subjects, then this idea that homeschool parents must be certified is complete nonsense. Educationally, they are fine.

It's people that want to promote abortion, evolution, and other theories as truth and stop people from thinking any other way that really would want homeschooling so severly restricted as to make it almost unavailable to parents.

Originally posted by inimalist
alright...

It's kinda campy, but I really think education is the key to the future. Science, technology, social understanding, all of these things are byproducts of a society with high educational standards. I feel education is in the security interests of the western world, crucial to maintaining at least a military balance with oppressive nations who might, MIGHT, want to take our freedoms. I honestly believe (and there are some studies that support this) that a multi-ethnic schoolroom, where students participate and especially problem solve with people of other cultures is the single best way to eliminate prejudice. So, I feel very strongly that all children deserve the ability to benefit from a good education. I think it is criminal to deny this to your child and tantamount to abuse (my moral opinion, not legalistic) to indoctrinate children with provably wrong nonsense and hate.

However, I also see no reason, from a legal perspective, why the government should have any specific right to ban it. The legal tradition in the west is that children are property of their parents. Circumcision is a perfect example of this. A parent is allowed to have a part of the child's penis cut off. While this is a salient example, to me at least, we have to remember that rights aren't just something to be thrown about. While clearly only specific rights could be given at specific time, we must recognize that children in many ways are incapable of making proper decisions all the time, and there must be some form of control and discipline

That being said, my relationship with my mother was ruined because of constant fighting and power struggles over, at least in my opinion, me asserting my independence and autonomy. There is clearly a point where parental "ownership" of a child does not work.

This isn't to say homeschooling can't work. If your father is Carl Sagan, why would you go to school? Not even that, any competent teacher is going to be 30000 times more effective in a one on one environment (or however many siblings) than in a class like my cousin's, which is a grade 6/7 split with 1 teacher for over 30 kids. So, for that reason, the whole idea of restricting homeschooling, to me, seems daft. It seems almost more appealing, although there is the trade off. While for some people it will be far more rewarding, some people loose out, imho, too badly.

But then this brings up the whole idea of school as a system of control. I am very much against the idea of the government being able to set a curriculum, which is essentially giving the government the right to decide what the people in the society think is true. Certain text book companies have ties with religious or political groups, and economic interests largely dominate which books children get, and not quality.

Then there is the content of the education. Even at my university, I feel mostly like stuff is being spoon fed to me, and pretty much any prof I have talked to about the issue (from a good variety of fields) seems to agree that this is the trend. My girlfriend goes to a school with probably 10 times the student population, and she says that it is different there, so it is very possible that the size of my school plays a role, but many articles are being written, especially in conservative publications, about this being a trend across North America.

.
.
.

so I hope that is moderately coherent...

Yes, that puts into perspective for me a lot better.

Your post reminds me of something....

Why do we say things likes "can we teach without indoctrinating?"(my thoughts and I believe DK's thoughts) Where do we draw the line at speculating too much? Is not our species survival based on a complex social system that is passed down from generation to generation with a teaching-learning relationship?

We learn mostly from our mother's in the beginning. I don't think it is necessary, or rather, we shouldn't worry about indoctrinating or social/behavioral ideals because that is what we are programmed to do. Is that not part of what makes the human species such a success?

Our simple inquisitiveness allows our to discard what we perceive as negative ideals. That is the beauty of being human!!!!!

If a child, by the time they are 18, cannot decide that their extremist parents were wrong in "imprisoning" their children, then they deserve their fate...they deserve their "enslavement of the mind". They are their parents drones. However, we see less and less of this "drone" mentality because of the great information revolution. I wish there was a way that the peskier drone's could die off via a natural selection process. Maybe there will come a time for that when it becomes necessary to have your children "built" genetically. The drones, or the conservatives, will die out or be forced to adapt.

To get back on track...you are absolutely right about the one-on-one statement. I was relegated to a failure and a waste of effort by the public school system and my mother rescued me from that ignorant judgment.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You don't think it would be foolish for the state to try and control the child's eating habits?

This is goofy man. 😛

Parents tell the kids what to eat all time. And they should!

We're not talking about whackos making kids eat paste, or people who are wrongfully and willingly let an alergic child eat something he shouldn't, but instead a parent doing what they believe is best for their kid.

That's still the right of every parent, isn't it?

Really, out of that whole post I'm surprised you would pick that small part.

here is the thing, it is completely relevant, because it is discussing control on children by the parent.

Clearly, you do not believe that a parent has the right to harm their child. Let me assure you, there are things parents can do with the best interests of their child in mind that have extremely negative consequences.

Controlling what, how, what time, etc of the food your child eats can lead to control issues over food. In girls mostly, but sometimes in boys, this can manifest as psychological issues surrounding food, and in many cases, eating disorders.

Considering eating disorders are a silent epidemic affecting young girls, one would think you would support actions that reduce the prevalence of these conditions.

Much like with education, restrictions and control on the part of the parent can have massive negative consequences to the child.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, that puts into perspective for me a lot better.

Your post reminds me of something....

Why do we say things likes "can we teach without indoctrinating?"(my thoughts and I believe DK's thoughts) Where do we draw the line at speculating too much? Is not our species survival based on a complex social system that is passed down from generation to generation with a teaching-learning relationship?

We learn mostly from our mother's in the beginning. I don't think it is necessary, or rather, we shouldn't worry about indoctrinating or social/behavioral ideals because that is what we are programmed to do. Is that not part of what makes the human species such a success?

Our simple inquisitiveness allows our to discard what we perceive as negative ideals. That is the beauty of being human!!!!!

If a child, by the time they are 18, cannot decide that their extremist parents were wrong in "imprisoning" their children, then they deserve their fate...they deserve their "enslavement of the mind". They are their parents drones. However, we see less and less of this "drone" mentality because of the great information revolution. I wish there was a way that the peskier drone's could die off via a natural selection process. Maybe there will come a time for that when it becomes necessary to have your children "built" genetically. The drones, or the conservatives, will die out or be forced to adapt.

I don't know much about the more sci-fi stuff you got into at the end, but I do mostly agree with you. It isn't entirely negative that we are programmed to quickly absorb social influence as a child, rather, we should take advantage of it. And even writing that makes me feel like a fascist, because I know that indoctrinating a child from a young age like that, into anything, is brain washing...

I digress. My only concern is that much of what you think is the rational choice of the 18 year old to determine their beliefs is not. Hatred can be passed easily, ignorance can be passed easily.

And if I can speak idealistically, a perfect education system, ignoring the political implications of public education, would be so good that the advantages of homeschooling wouldn't be there. It would be individualized and adaptive to engage students. It would be relevant and personal.

As far as curriculum, I also have to disagree with homeschooling in some cases. The religious people that do it specifically to keep their children away from science are doing a disservice to the nation they belong to. They are traitors, plain and simple, because they are making the next generation less capable of dealing with the real problems of the world, and weakening their contry's international standing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To get back on track...you are absolutely right about the one-on-one statement. I was relegated to a failure and a waste of effort by the public school system and my mother rescued me from that ignorant judgment.

The smartest people I know aren't in school. They work at pizza shops or making glass bongs or doing labour. They are more well read, engaged with issues and the world, interested in science, whatever. We don't agree on lots of things, and we have great discussions.

The system fails many, many people, and as a result, fails everyone.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Children have a right to not be indoctrinated or otherwise assaulted by political propagandists in any educational setting. The purpose of education is to teach children how to think, not to learn what to think. It is questionable whether one who would remove a child from an educational setting for the sole purpose of limiting intellectual diversity has any business teaching a child at all.

Everything is a sort of "brain washing."

As aforementioned, this is about making sure they will teach kids how to think and not necessarily making them bright individuals.

It's nothing but a difference in micro and macro management.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
the TRUE indoctrination of increasingly secular

FAIL.

Originally posted by chithappens

Hell, most people don't leave high school with great understandings of math and science (which I would guess is the biggest concern).

Define Basic ?

Even that is streaching it.

Funny enough, the episode of Home Improvement came on where Brad was in a realtionship with some girl only because she was doing his homework, then Tim tried to help him multiply complex fractions and he couldn't do it.

Originally posted by grey fox
Define Basic ?