1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI wasn't really addressing whodey's post as I'm somewhat uninterested in whether home schooled kids score as high as non-home schooled kids on standardized tests. Whether they score higher, about the same or lower isn't really relevant to the point I am making.
I am merely pointing out that the studies whodey mentions have little bearing on the claim shavixmir was making, specifically that homeschool kids may not be well-adjusted. The ability to score highly on a basic academic skills test is hardly an indication of social adjustment. In fact, I see counterexamples everyday among my colleagues.
On the subjec ...[text shortened]... at most of these kids end up down the road at Liberty University or a similar religious college.
That point is whether it should be society's business to insure that children are "well socialized" at the point of a (proverbial) gun. What are your thoughts on this?
6 edits
Originally posted by telerionBefore we can answer this question we must first come up with some criteria for being "well socialized". Does this mean having friends, not being able to function at a university, or does it mean winding up in jail etc.? My sense is that your main objection is that home schooled kids are ill equiped to compete at the university level. Also compounding the issue are children who are both home schooled and also sent to public/private schools.
[b]The criticism that was laid forth was that homeschooled children are not well socialized. ]
Edit; Just as a side note, I know of a home school child who scored well enough on his SAT's to get a free ride through college. However, once in college he began having a greater interest in socialization than academics and ended up neglecting his academics and thus lost his scholarship. However, the parents then learned from this mistake and had their next child attend a school shortly before attending college and she did just fine. As for the child who lost his scholarship, even though he goofed up his free ride through college I can ssure you he is well adjusted and has lots of friends and is a fine young man. He simply took a wrong turn in life is all. I would just like to say that becoming a decent human being if of far greater value than failing to make great sums of money later on in life. I feel that if you did some digging you would find that home schooled kids are probably of greater character on average than their counterparts. I say this because on average I feel that home schooled parents take a greater interest in both their childrens education and development. Make no mistake about it, those who are neglected are at a greater disadvantage over those who are not. Statistically neglect is the worst form of child abuse.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't see how they could be. After all, they wear those silly costumes and don't seek higher education. Therefore, they are of little value to society and should be both shuned and ridiculed.
[b]Are the Amish "well socialized"?
Edit: Its just a good thing there are'nt any Amish in California. Only the cool/progressive people live there.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's actually the question I am still struggling with. After all, don't we still have a hard time with religious parents who allow their children to die rather than have basic medical operations? Certainly homeschooling, even if it is horribly deficient, can't be as harmful as that. I do find the wording you cited from the judges opinion surprising, assuming that it is within the context of the opinion.
I wasn't really addressing whodey's post as I'm somewhat uninterested in whether home schooled kids score as high as non-home schooled kids on standardized tests. Whether they score higher, about the same or lower isn't really relevant to the point I am making.
That point is whether it should be society's business to insure that children are "well socialized" at the point of a (proverbial) gun. What are your thoughts on this?
Is it your estimation as a legal expert that the ruling is poor?
Originally posted by whodeyA lot of us make that mistake at some point in our education. 🙂
Before we can answer this question we must first come up with some criteria for being "well socialized". Does this mean having friends, not being able to function at a university, or does it mean winding up in jail etc.? My sense is that your main objection is that home schooled kids are ill equiped to compete at the university level. Also compounding the ...[text shortened]... mistake about it, those who are neglected have a greater disadvantage over those who are not.
Originally posted by telerionMy estimation is that the ruling is correct based on California law. But I'm not sure that mandatory schooling backed by criminal or other sanctions (like removing kids from the parent's custody) is consistent with Natural Rights theory.
That's actually the question I am still struggling with. After all, don't we still have a hard time with religious parents who allow their children to die rather than have basic medical operations? Certainly homeschooling, even if it is horribly deficient, can't be as harmful as that. I do find the wording you cited from the judges opinion surprising, as ...[text shortened]... e context of the opinion.
Is it your estimation as a legal expert that the ruling is poor?
Originally posted by pawnhandlerI did not mean to imply that all teachers feel threatened by home schooled children. However, the fact remains that if no children attended public schools you would be out of a job and the fewer kids in public schools means fewer governmental dollars flowing into the school system. The same can be said for private schools.
Bull. I'm currently a teacher in a public school, and taught for many years in Catholic schools. I care that all children have the opportunity to be well educated. This means that they have the opportunity to be whatever they want to be when they grow up as long as it is legal and they're self-supporting. I don't care what educational route they foll ...[text shortened]... ooling parents any more than dentists feel threatened by patients with good oral hygeine.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is one thing to think this way but to actually admit it is the reason for banning home schools is just mind boggling to me. They are basically making my arguement for me.
"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," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL
😲
Originally posted by whodeyI don't blame the teachers' unions in California one bit for wanting this. But I do blame the citizens there for putting up with these types of insane laws and court rulings. My only conclusion is that either the people there are sheep, or they're as insane as the California politicians and bureaucrats. Or maybe a little of both.
Did anyone here about this? Apparently California has banned homeschools unless the teacher has a teaching license. If not, the minor must either attend public or private schools. I thought that all home schooled students had to take annual profeciency tests to assess if they are being taught what they need to learn. If so, why is this not good enough fo ...[text shortened]... gressive courts in California have just ruled on this. Oh hail Big Brother. Show us the way!!!
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI would just like to follow up with what the rest should say.
[b]"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," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.
"We would also like to encourage the euginic production of blond haired, blue eyes children to serve the California fatherland. Through good genetics coupled with an evironment that embraces serving the state through hard work we will build a better world for us to live in. We are quite confidnet that erradicating home schools and instituting compulsary public schools is a step in this right direction."
1 edit
Originally posted by Mad RookWhat would you like them to do, vote them out? If I am not mistaken, these judges are appointed, not voted in. Therefore, they are untouchable in many respects.
I don't blame the teachers' unions in California one bit for wanting this. But I do blame the citizens there for putting up with these types of insane laws and court rulings. My only conclusion is that either the people there are sheep, or they're as insane as the California politicians and bureaucrats. Or maybe a little of both.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThere's no use bitching about the judges; the California statute, passed by the legislature long ago, is explicit. It they didn't follow the law, right wingers would whine and cry about that.
What would you like them to do, vote them out? If I am not mistaken, these judges are appointed, not voted in. Therefore, they are untouchable in many respects.
Here's the case: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF
BTW, I think you're wrong; I think California judges are elected but I'll look it up.
EDIT: Neither of us is 100% accurate:
Each division has one Presiding Justice and two or more associate justices, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The appointments are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms. Vote "Yes" to confirm each of the following justices; vote "No" to oppose confirmation.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/11/05/ca/state/race/appct3/
So the voters get to decide whether they stay judges though they are initially appointed.
Originally posted by no1marauderI did not say a significant percentage or any percentage. I say what is based on my experience of picking up the pieces as well as what is reported in the newspaper after some child has been abused to the point of death or near death and no one outside the family knew because the parents claimed to the school that the child was being homeschooled. It's quite possible that the percentage is very small. But it can't be removed from the claim that homeschooling is a great thing or should be unregulated. It can be a good thing in some cases but not as a blanket policy.
Do you have any research to support the idea that some significant percentage of children who are home schooled are as neglected as you are implying?
Originally posted by whodeyI've had lots of jobs. I would no longer be a classroom teacher if the schools closed. I'd find some other way to help children want to reach their potential. But I have heard homeschool parents claim that teachers feel threatened, which is bogus.
I did not mean to imply that all teachers feel threatened by home schooled children. However, the fact remains that if no children attended public schools you would be out of a job and the fewer kids in public schools means fewer governmental dollars flowing into the school system. The same can be said for private schools.