I would argue that thr goverent doesn't get to decide how a child is educated any more than they get to decide what they eat or where they live. They have to be being given an education of some sort, they have to be fed something, and they have to live in safe dwellings, but beyond that, the specifics are none of their business. If someone believes s parent isn't doing their job, they can call CPS. That's the law.
So you agree that the government had a right to ensure that children are being given "some sort" of education.
Thus, the government can set minimum regulations and enforce them.
Wasn't this entire post started by an article about how the HSLDA strong arms politicians and keeps them from passing laws that would weaken the homeschooling lobby?
I mean really, isn't that what the WHOLE FUCKING ARTICLE WAS ABOUT?
Yes, but it doesn't address the countless court cases it wins. I get HSLDA magazine quarterly. You would be amazed at how much time they spend in the courts winning. So strong arm or not, the law is on their side and that is probably why do many lawmakers cave so eaily when that is pointed out to them.
Unless you think they are somehow able to strongarm the judges, too.
I would argue that thr goverent doesn't get to decide how a child is educated any more than they get to decide what they eat or where they live. They have to be being given an education of some sort, they have to be fed something, and they have to live in safe dwellings, but beyond that, the specifics are none of their business. If someone believes s parent isn't doing their job, they can call CPS. That's the law.
So you agree that the government had a right to ensure that children are being given "some sort" of education.
Thus, the government can set minimum regulations and enforce them.
Correct?
Nope. It's not the government's job to set the standards.
Post by laurenpetro on Aug 31, 2015 14:44:52 GMT -5
Just so I get this straight (since I did go to public school for a bit):
The homeschooling lobby is right because it conforms to the laws it pressured people to write. And they bully people out of writing laws protecting kids, thereby making sure homeschoolers conform to the law that lets them look the other way while kids are avoided. And this is OK because the constitution is wrong.
Because children are property, to do with as their caregivers see fit.
No no no Pixy. You don't understand. Children aren't property, we just don't have to care what happens to them.
Don't forget that we have to care about them before they are born but after birth, meh. Someone else's problem and they have no rights because they belong to their nutbar parents.
lucyhoneychurch The government can have a vested intetest in them, which is why CPS exists and people who are simply throwing bread and water at their kids can be prosecuted for neglect. But what constitutes an education is so subjective. Reading, writing, math - sure. Chemistry, history, art - are they necessary for everyone? Some would argue no. You mentioned yhe Amish, but I know plenty of non-Amish who live very simple lives and have no use for half of ehat is taught. Are they abusing their children if instead of teaching them Literature they decide to teach them farming skills or a trade at a young age?
HSLDA has fought this fight many times and won it, particularly for unschoolers. This is also why the Amish you mentioned can opt out of school after grade 8. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right of the government to decide WHAT constitutes adequate education for people outside of government schools or chartered private schools.
And I say this all as a parent who will not be opting out of subjects listed above and whose curricula are very similar to what is taught in gov schools. Just saying that thelaw is definitely on HSLDAs side whether or not we agree with it.
The reason the Amish won their court case is because they are an isolated community that has very little to do with society as a whole.
And yes, I think the farming family who doesn't teach their kids about literature and instead teaches them a trade is doing them a massive, MASSIVE disservice. A child of six does not know what he or she wants to do as an adult, and pigeonholing their education in one specific direction violates that CHILD's free exercise and right to pursuit of happiness.
You don't get to wave your Constitutional rights in people's faces and simultaneously advocate for the reduction of rights for children.
But then on the flip side there could be children eho feel like they were slighted because their parents forced them into a school that wasted their time on Literature when all they wanted to do was learn how to farm. In both cases a parent is determining lifestyle. And in both cases the child can choose to enhance thr education given to them as children to fit their own career choices. It's no different than an Amish kid deciding to leave the faith and having to continue their education as an adult. Once again, I'm not making the choice to teach farming to my kids over other subjects, but I support a parent's right to do so. And if my 16 year old decides he doesn't want to go into a math or science related career and he has basic math knowledge to survive in the world, I would totally support his right to skip math classes and spend HIS time studying something he finds useful. If we're truly concerned about what pur children want, then letting them deviate from ghe government curricula without repurcussion should be ALLOWED.
No no no Pixy. You don't understand. Children aren't property, we just don't have to care what happens to them.
Don't forget that we have to care about them before they are born but after birth, meh. Someone else's problem and they have no rights because they belong to their nutbar parents.
Which, in a nutshell, explains all the logical fallacy that is aw.
Did I just read that history is not a necessary subject???
Totally necessary. Just that a better non-white washed view of it is taught when you ditch the curricula offered by most schools and let your children read living books about history instead.
Did I just read that history is not a necessary subject???
Totally necessary. Just that a better non-white washed view of it is taught when you ditch the curricula offered by most schools and let your children read living books about history instead.
Yes, but it doesn't address the countless court cases it wins. I get HSLDA magazine quarterly. You would be amazed at how much time they spend in the courts winning. So strong arm or not, the law is on their side and that is probably why do many lawmakers cave so eaily when that is pointed out to them.
Unless you think they are somehow able to strongarm the judges, too.
That you expect this publication to be objective is a little alarming.
That you expect a quantitative list of court cases won per quarter not to be objective is also a little alarming.
Yes, but it doesn't address the countless court cases it wins. I get HSLDA magazine quarterly. You would be amazed at how much time they spend in the courts winning. So strong arm or not, the law is on their side and that is probably why do many lawmakers cave so eaily when that is pointed out to them.
Unless you think they are somehow able to strongarm the judges, too.
That you expect this publication to be objective is a little alarming.
As is her lack of understanding that judges base decisions on existing laws rather what the legislature wants to pass but is pressured out of presenting.
Did I just read that history is not a necessary subject???
Totally necessary. Just that a better non-white washed view of it is taught when you ditch the curricula offered by most schools and let your children read living books about history instead.
Totally necessary. Just that a better non-white washed view of it is taught when you ditch the curricula offered by most schools and let your children read living books about history instead.
Chemistry, history, art - are they necessary for everyone? Some would argue no.
And this isn't a pile-on. I find that deeply troubling.
FPS. I just chose subjects at random. But OK, I'll play along. Does a child living in America necessarily need to learn Asian history to survive and thrive in America? South Americam history? To be 100% honest, I learned nothing about either of those cultures growing up despite graduating with a government issued diploma. Are those subjects that would gave enhanced my education and made me more well-rounded? Absolutely. (Which is why my boys spent the last year studying the history, geography, and current events if Africa and will move to Asia this year). Are kids who don't learn those things being neglected? No.
So you agree that the government had a right to ensure that children are being given "some sort" of education.
Thus, the government can set minimum regulations and enforce them.
Correct?
Nope. It's not the government's job to set the standards.
How can you say that the government has a right to ensure children are being given an education, but no right to define what constitutes an education?
That's essentially like saying the government has a right to ensure that children aren't starving, but parents get to decide what counts as starvation.
And this isn't a pile-on. I find that deeply troubling.
FPS. I just chose subjects at random. But OK, I'll play along. Does a child living in America necessarily need to learn Asian history to survive and thrive in America? South Americam history? To be 100% honest, I learned nothing about either of those cultures growing up despite graduating with a government issued diploma. Are those subjects that would gave enhanced my education and made me more well-rounded? Absolutely. (Which is why my boys spent the last year studying the history, geography, and current events if Africa and will move to Asia this year). Are kids who don't learn those things being neglected? No.
And this isn't a pile-on. I find that deeply troubling.
FPS. I just chose subjects at random. But OK, I'll play along. Does a child living in America necessarily need to learn Asian history to survive and thrive in America? South Americam history?
Yes, they do. Especially if they want to understand the immigration problem in America.
FPS. I just chose subjects at random. But OK, I'll play along. Does a child living in America necessarily need to learn Asian history to survive and thrive in America? South Americam history? To be 100% honest, I learned nothing about either of those cultures growing up despite graduating with a government issued diploma. Are those subjects that would gave enhanced my education and made me more well-rounded? Absolutely. (Which is why my boys spent the last year studying the history, geography, and current events if Africa and will move to Asia this year). Are kids who don't learn those things being neglected? No.
Are kids who don't learn American history neglected? Do you support the rights of parents not to teach American history?
I support their right to teach whatever and however they want. Period. I can't inagine American history not coming up even in unschooling homes. Rote memorization of dates and wars, maybe not (the average American adult can't even remember that info they were previously taught), but the overall history isn't hard to pick up organically.
Are kids who don't learn American history neglected? Do you support the rights of parents not to teach American history?
I support their right to teach whatever and however they want. Period. I can't inagine American history not coming up even in unschooling homes. Rote memorization of dates and wars, maybe not (the average American adult can't even remember that info they were previously taught), but the overall history isn't hard to pick up organically.
Yes it is. That's one reason it's a great idea to have a curriculum; it ensures that you don't have glaring holes in historical education. As a society, we've agreed that certain information should be shared knowledge among all educated adults; we don't want students to "skip" the Great Depression because they just found it too depressing, or never learned that the Civil War was about slavery because it didn't come up organically.