Reply With Quote
Lighten up, Francis. It'll either go up the next level in the courts or a new law will come into being.
P.S. Big Brother, if you're reading this, come and get me, you son of a .
Lighten up, Francis. It'll either go up the next level in the courts or a new law will come into being.
Well, have fun with that...
Myself, I won't become concerned until the ruling is based on some U. S. Cons utional principal and not confined to an enforcement of Kalifornia law.
So is the reason for compulsory attendance "to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state", that "students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting", or both?
"Credentialed Teachers" teaching "Patriotism"?
Counterproductive.
I always knew this was true...but never knew anyone had come out and said it. Seriously, screw California."A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,"
I'd have to see what in context that quote from 1961 was used.
Looks like it was just thrown in with all the other kind of vague musings from the past. It will be interesting to see what new specifics are developed as a result of this ruling.
What exactly do those credentials provide? My two best HS teachers had a PhD in Geophysics and a MS in Mathematics, respectively. I lucked out as I attended what was not exactly a wealthy school district (but not a poor one). These were just individuals who apparently felt compelled to public service. I'm not sure that the level of instruction would have been any better if I had been taught by someone who only earned a BA in math and science education or whatever and was certified by the state. Or better yet, a football coach teaching a couple courses as filler during the day.
About the only rationale I see as somewhat compelling against homeschooling (though I do believe it should be legal) is the socialization argument. It is forced, of course.
It's called indoctrination and,...
"...good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation..."
...is defined by those in control of the educational system. Right now, that Left-wing liberal academia and the teachers' unions.
I don't like the ruling...but to teach his own.
I usually roll my eyes when I read the Michael Reagans of the world who try to tell me how Christians are sooooooo persecuted in the United States. Having secularists call us mean names is not persecution (when Jesus instructed his listeners to "turn the other cheek," it is exactly such insults and slanders he was referring to, so that insults would not escalate into violence). Not allowing Bibles to be displayed at City Hall is not persecution (not allowing Bibles in private homes, a la Saudi Arabia, is persecution).
However, using the coercive power of the state to prevent parents from teaching their children a Christian value system is bona fide persecution. I have no intention of genuflecting on that even a bit. That's where I sell my cloak to go buy a sword.
I don't think it will come anywhere close to that, because let's face it, the vast majority of liberals are of the moderate-left live-and-let-live variety, but sometimes the more aggressive secularists need to be reminded that their actions may have unpleasant personal consequences for them. There is a breaking point where people stop submitting to the rule of law.
Free exercise clause.
And the radical-secularist argument of course is that conservative Christianity is inimical to good citizenship.
What if this occurred in, say, Mississippi? Would not an ability to opt out of the public schools full of the spawn of fundamentalists be appealing to the secularists?
Also, is it not interesting that apparently a goal of public education in California is to inculcate allegiance to the state and promote patriotism in the children of illegal immigrants?
Further, does not homeschooling further exacerbate growing distinctions of class in this country? Do we live in an America in which we expect to find in the average public elementary school the children of doctors, lawyers, business owners, cops, factory workers, and secretaries all in the same classroom?
Then, of course, we have examples such as Louisiana in which the white response to integration was simply to send their children to private schools, a practice that seems to be ongoing.
Mississippi probably goes too far the other way. Parents can home-school their children there with essentially no accountability or standards. The only requirement is that parents not claim to be home-schooling their children solely as a ruse to cir vent truancy laws.
Of course, we want to see the children of this country ultimately forced to attend public schools due to their overwhelming success as of late.
What? No, since residential areas are generally segregated by socioeconomic status because of the affordability of the homes, and since the typical model for elementary school distribution is that individual schools serve their local neighboorhoods, I would surmise that elementary schools are stratified by class.
America has taken great strides in eliminating or at least reducing the vestiges of racism and sexism, certainly among the young. But in its place has arisen class and wealth.
Last edited by Holt's Cat; 03-07-2008 at 12:29 PM.
How about in an urban area in which young professionals live in the same school district as the proletariat? Of course, they could (and do) send their children to private schools. Homeschooling is just another option.
On average, homeschooled children meet or exceed the achievement levels of public-schooled children. However, one could argue that the lack of minimum standards allows for some homeschooled children to receive little or no education whatsoever. I question that prevalence of that situation, however, and would suggest that in the few cases it does exist, even many of those would involve membership in a fringe religious group that shuns the value of education. Existing case law sides with the fringe religious groups. I believe the definitive case involved an Amish family in Wisconsin whose homeschooling regimen omitted most modern knowledge.
So, on the merits of the educational system, the argument that homeschooling as an ins ution should be done away with on behalf of a miniscule fraction of children whose education does not reach minimum standards, does not stand, given how many students in the public system likewise fail to meet minimum standards and/or drop out altogether.
But you and I both know that the opposition to homeschooling has much more to do with the funding that is lost because of the head that doesn't get counted, and with the liberal-left values that don't get inculcated in the children.
In its place? When in American history has society not been stratified by class and wealth?
Do you have school-age children yet? I think you're overlooking the near-universal phenomenon where young urban professionals move to the suburbs so their kids can go to better schools.
Well, the second example in the article quoted at the start of the thread mentions an attorney who is homeschooling her children. A professional with the appropriate motivation (educating her own children should be sufficient) would probably do a superior job to that of what someone who majored in education could do who had responsibility for the education of 30 other children every day.
Of course, is the typical homeschooling arrangement Jethro attempting to teach 'ritin and 'rithmetilk to his offspring in his doublewide? Or is there even a typical homeschooling situation?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
