A California Appeals Court just ruled that kids may be home schooled only if there is an accredited teacher tutoring them. Here is a link to the article describing the decision. This is bound to have HUGE repercussions in not only California, but across the nation eventually.

I used to home school my daughter because at the time she had special needs and this ruling wouldn't have effected me because I happen to have a California teaching certificate. I received this certificate by taking and passing a test and undergoing a background check, but it is going to impact the majority of current home schoolers who haven't done this. I know quite a few of them from my days of home schooling and there are some pretty good networks out there that can give kids a pretty darn good education at home. When I did enroll my daughter in public school at the 6th grade level, she scored in the 98th percentile in language and well above average in Math, Science and Social Studies in the California standardized exam (CSTAR). Not bad, not too bad at all.

So, my questions for debate are the following:

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

2. Do you agree with the California Appeals Court ruling in this case?


Aquilla

I believe the best response is "What a Crock!"
This ruling is to keep more parents from taking their children out of the failed California public schools. It is intended to keep federal dollars coming in, regardless of what's best for a child.


There is no restriction in the Constitution either. People have the right to see to the education of their children as they see fit.
This is response to the failure of public schools to hold a monopoly on teaching and the fact that the state is losing the ability to dictate what should be taught in schools and what social propaganda to enforce.
Homeschooling and private free market school ideas are critical to protect and encourage. Public schools for what ever the reason you may choose are simply failing to produce children with the skills and knowledge to compete and flourish in todays world.
This should be fought tooth and nail and if necessary voter initiatives started to prevent this kind of arrogance and violation of individual rights of parents in this country from encroachment and theft of parental rights.
Set up a program so the parents get a credentials? Would that solve the problem and discredit the line being used by the state?

There is a program to do exactly that, Christopher, although it's not designed for home schooling. Rather it is a program designed to enable people to become substitute teachers in public schools without having a degree in education. It's a four hour test consisting of two parts. One in math and the other an essay test for skills in English. If you pass both parts of that test then the next step is to go the local police station and get finger-printed so they can do a background check. When you clear that, you get an "Emergency teaching certificate" that allows you to work as a substitute teacher in any California Public School for a year. After that, you can renew the certificate each year simply by paying a renewal fee.


Aquilla

Wow. What a ridiculous ruling--part of why one homeschools is to get away from the "accreditted" teachers and the pablum they are taught to feed their charges.

1) We home school and use a home school academy, and know many others who do. By and large, home-schooled kids we know behave better than their peers (i.e., more like adults because they spend more time around adults and are not "raised" by their feckless peers); have a greater love of learning (as they are focusing on academics, not who has the latest cell phone, who has the new boyfriend); waste less time (when we traditionally schooled, we calcuated that almost 40% of the school day was consumed by transportation, idle time, and lunch); and get much more flexibility in curricula (my 8th grade homeschooler took highschool chemistry last year and loves the Singapore math curriculum she recently completed); get an entirely different set of extracurricular activities; and smoke the ITBS (both kids in 99th percentile);

Many of the homeschoolers I know have gone on to really distinguish themselves in college and in their early careers.

2) I'll read the ruling more carefully, but it seems the state's only legit complaint is whether the homeschooling process is actually teaching the 3Rs (The judges line about indoctrinating the kids is exactly why so many homeschoolers avoid the govt schools). So long as your kid is taking a correctly adminstered standardized test regularly and doing well on it, the state should be happy--the state STILL gets all of your tax dollars but has to devote none of those dollars molding your child into the secular, sex at 13, Prozac-chomping globalist they want your child to become (and I wish to avoid at all costs)!

Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

Home schooling is not a good idea, in most cases. However, if you happen to be unfortunate enough to live in an area where the public schools aren't educating children, it is the lesser of two evils.


Do you agree with the California Appeals Court ruling in this case?

Absolutely not. There are so many frustrated parents in California. The school system here is abominable. For those who cannot afford private school, what other choice do they have? They should not be forced to put their children into a system that does more harm than good, in many cases.

This would be a great issue for some politician with some integrity. I haven't seen any of them (esp. Hillary and Obama) discussing the horrendous impact that illegal immigration has on the public school system of California. They care more about garnering support from latinos than addressing the dire effects that illegal immigration is having on the California public school system.

I thought there might be in some places. The certification process here in AZ has been used to jam as many people as possible into our school system to deal with lack of available teachers in the past.

Certainly – esp. in CA which has some of the worst school systems in the country (and world for that matter)



No – this is no doubt a folding to the teachers Union. Certainly testing can verify that home schooling is effective.

I am curious as to why you don't think home schooling is a good idea. For many people, they seem to think otherwise. What has brought you to your conclusion?

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

Personally, I do not. The majority of parents who choose home schooling do so out of religious extremism, and the paranoid fear that their little darlings might be exposed to that scary outside (read: real) world. Home schooling amounts to little more than religious indoctrination with no outside influence.

2. Do you agree with the California Appeals Court ruling in this case?

From what I read in today’s LA Times, this ruling came about as a result of a physical abuse allegation by a mother with an 11th grade education home-schooling her 8 children. California evidently has had a very laissez-faire attitude toward home schooling, and it wasn’t even addressed in California law.

I wish parents would realize their offspring have minds of their own and exposure to more than just their parents, siblings and the narrow views within the four walls of their homes is not a bad thing. Like it or not, this is the world we have, and learning to live in it is essential. Sheltering kids from reality does them no favors.

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

I personally think it is a bad idea for mass consumption.

The public schools provides something closer to a microcosm of society than a home school child will encounter. I don't think we teach children to cope in the real world when we shield them from it by home schooling or putting them in Christian schools, etc.

I have friends who lived in CA and left with their children because the schools stink. Its criminal haw bad they are and you are afraid of “religious indoctrination” – come on. What stops the parents, or ever will from doing this or any other teaching after school – nothing of course.

The fact that the teaches union “cheered” the decision tells us a lot. And CA is in for one hell of a fight as they try to drag all those kids back to the horrible schools.

So, my questions for debate are the following:

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?
Yes. Smaller class sizes, individualized attention, curriculum that's highly unlikely to cause friction between the parents and the instructors.
2. Do you agree with the California Appeals Court ruling in this case?
Based on my limited understanding of California law, maybe. The law in question is a very, very bad law, but, and this is the key, it may not be unconstitutional per the California constitution. It is contrary to my understanding of the fundamental classical democratic tradition. The same tradition says its the legislature's job to correct bad laws. Now, based on the general drift of California jurisprudence, this is a bad ruling, because it represents another instance of anti-religious bias.


This is the key problem I have with the ruling. Per the classical democratic tradition, anything that people are responsible for, they also have a right to do. Anything they can do themselves they are responsible to do themselves. , and anything they have a right to do they have a right to do in the fashion they choose as long as it doesn't harm others. The California laws makes a non-rebuttable assumption of harm. That is about as contrary to the principles in our Constitution as you can get.

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

I think it's a course of action that should be available to parents that desire it. Public schools are a government run institution, and as such they invariably attempt to teach the accepted government agenda. My experience with public schools left me with the notions that capitalism was by and large bad, and must be held in check by the state; that almost every good event that occurred in US history was government inspired or government sponsored; and that competition was a bad thing, becuase everybody is a winner! Unless things have drastically changed in the last few years, open a social studies textbook and see how fraudulent much of it is.

It wasn't until much later when I shook off the intellectual yoke and shackles placed on me from 12 years of government education, that I realized how many holes can be shot through the teachings of history, economics and philosophy in public schools. In many cases it is subtle, but evident. Public schooling is probably fine for my children from grades 1-3; my oldest attended half a year of first grade before moving and enrolling her in a Catholic school due to the poor quality of schools in that area. If we are able, depending on where I retire, my thought is to start a home school co-op with like minded parents and see how that works.

I am amused at the charges of anti-socialization, and sheltering from the 'real world' that comes about from these debates; I believe the decline of the public school system from its previous medicore position is but one of many factors that have led to the social problems we have today.

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

I think homeschooling is wonderful. My two oldest have graduated from homeschooling. The oldest has graduated from college and has his dream job. The second is a college sophomore with all As & one B for his first 2 years. My children actually know how to think and how to converse with adults. Virtually all the homeschooled children I know are better socialized.
2. Do you agree with the California Appeals Court ruling in this case?

I do not agree with the general ruling and I hope it gets depublished. However, it sounds like this family has some pretty serious problems. It is unfortunate that homeschooling in general is on trial because of one dysfunctional family. After my personal experience, I do not want to judge others. However, I have read enough about this family from sources that I trust to believe that there are serious issues here.

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

First off, I think it's very important to remember that the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Knowing some homeschooled children, or being one, that have done well and are normally socialised does not mean that all homeschooled children have the same experience.

So to answer the question, it depends. I have seen no properly collected statistics that show that home schooling is unequivocally better than either public or private schools in every instance (or even in most instances). All I've seen are anecdotes (here and elsewhere).

And they don't all support home schooling. Here in the UK home schooling is a lot rarer, for any number of reasons: from what I've seen our state schools are somewhat better for the most part than those in the USA; geographically we are much smaller and much more densely populated, so there are no arguments of remoteness to use; politically the state is much more pervasive here and, depsite some resentment at quite how pervasive the current government is, the population generally prefer a more active State than is the case in the USA.

The few cases I've heard of or read about have generally been horror stories of academic geniuses who have been raised in such a way as to be incapable of normal social functions; of child prodigies whose potential genuis is completely dissipated once, as adults, they move out from the shadow of domineering parents; or even of borderline child abuse.

I would no more suggest that this represents the norm in home schooling than I would jump over tall buildings in a single bound. But I find it hard to believe that the anecdotes being supplied here (and elsewhere) of how wonderful well-adjusted "everyone I know" is are the norm for the home schooled.

2. Do you agree with the California Appeals Court ruling in this case?

No. While I don't think home schooling is the elixir of excellence its proponents seem to think it is, I don't think it should be illegal either.



Why is it a good thing that kids behave like adults, rather than kids? (I can see how it would be a good thing if they don't behave like animals).



Hmm. This is one of the things I'm nervous about with home schooling (and, to a lesser extent, single-sex private schooling like I had). It's all very well being adacemically focused, but sooner or later most people, home schooled or not, will have to deal with people who ARE focused on "trivial things". And - let's be honest - there is nothing wrong with focusing on trivia as long as it does not completely dominate i.e. as long as people recognise that there are appropriate contexts for such things, and the workplace or classroom aren't usually among them.



Good for them, but again i draw you to the idea that the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Many of the state (and private) schoolers I know have gone on to distinguish themselves in college, university and their earlier (and later) careers. Many other have not. I don't know any home schoolers that have distinguished themselves - but this doesn't mean that none have done so. Just that I don't know everybody.



This raises an interesting point. Article from the Independent Newspaper The pertinent paragraph is this one:

As far as I know, this is taken advantage of by many parents in Sweden (and the author's reference to bastions of evil capitalism is sarcastic - Sweden would, by the standards of many Americans, count as a statist nightmare bordering on socialism). Also as far as I know, the Swedish government sets the academic standards which must be met, and runs recognisable state schools that would be familiar to both of us. However, more even than the voucher system, this ability of parents and teachers to set up schools in their own communities that meet their own needs seems like some kind of Holy Grail.

And, I'm guessing, the "home schooling academy" that you mentioned (pooled resources of many home-scholler parents in a community?) might be something similar, only without the ability to claim taxpayer funding that a voucher system provides. Heck, for all I know, the Swedish model might even allow "classic" home schooling parents to claim some the tax money allocated to their children's education themselves, negating your concerns about home schoolers paying for state education in their taxes but not getting any benefit from it.



I agree that this is a bad thing, generally. But I'd be just as concerned that anybody's education taught them that the state was at best a wasteful irrelevance, never achieved anyhting of lasting value, was something to be kept at bay as much as possible, etc. Clearly that isn't very likely in a state school, but given the strong streak of muscular libertarianism (some of which borders on anarchism) that drives some people's decisions to home school their children, this is disproportionately likely to be the case among home schoolers (please note I am not generalising that this happens in every case).

From the public policy perspective, I think the rights of the child not to be indoctrinated with arrant nonsense are as important as the rights of parents to home school, so this is one of the reasons I'm nervous and suspicious of the idea and much prefer the Swedish vouchers idea. I mentioned.



Can't say I disagree with you on the problem, but I don't think that giving up on the public school system altogether is a very sensible cure.

Most parents are simply not in the position to home school - many, if not most, couples both have full time jobs to pay the mortgage. Who teaches their kids? What about single parents (the vast majority of whom are not feckless sluts, but simply divorcees or both genders)? Who teaches their kids?

What about people who have themselves been poorly educated by the state system and know they are not themselves sufficiently educated to be able to teach their children anything worthwhile? Sure, they can and should educate themselves, but if they are in a position where - say - they can't themselves read & write, it's going to take them several years to get to a level where they might be in a position to teach their kids anything. Is the kid supposed to sit around at home twiddling their thumbs waithing for mom or dad to be ready to teach them anything?

The answer in such cases where the luxury of having one full-time equivalent parent (e.g. one at home all the time, or both sharing the responsibility through part time or shift working) at home all day is almost always going to be the State. If State education is already is such a bad way, then the solution on a public policy level is to do what it takes to fix it, not for the well off and influential (who are most likely to have the political will and clout to make change happen to the benefit of everyone) to withdraw from it.

Ok, my point is that the majority of parents, and therefore of children, are never going to be in a position to home school, and therefore - while the California judge may have been wrong to effectively outlaw the idea - it can never be a central plank of education policy. You, or others here, might be a Constitutional literalist who sees no need for the State to provide education at all. Fair enough, but realise that in a game of every man for himself, most people lose. Your kids might be winners within your country, but your country will be a loser in the world.



Anecdotes and evidence, again. I'm not saying you're wrong, because I haven't seen any properly collected and weighted statistics to prove anything about home schooling one way or the other. Does anyone have anything like this? I couldn't find anything on Google myself...



Careful, NebraskaMom. Your own experience might indicate that you should believe everything you read - I daresay some of the press coverage and comment of your own situation was unflattering to your own family. That doesn't make it true.

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

It completely depends on the circumstances. I would never home school in the area in which I am living right now. The schools are phenomenal. I've lived in areas where that definitely would have been the better choice in which case I would have home schooled (I actually taught in a school several years ago that I wouldn't have let my own children attend for a million dollars). There are success stories (my brother's kids are very advanced for their ages, and have been home schooled most of their lives), and some horror stories (I've seen several of those too).


2. Do you agree with the California Appeals Court ruling in this case?

Aquilla brought up emergency certification for teachers. I know that many states are granting emergency certification in the public schools and have been for many years. Individuals with an educational background in a hard science or math (or some other area with a critical shortage of instructors) can begin teaching in the public school system right away, without formal certification. Furthermore, teachers in state private schools throughout the nation are not necessarily required to obtain a teaching certificate at all (depends on the state I suppose). I wanted to see if this was the case in California too, and looky here:



Interesting. Apparently an uncertified teacher can teach a classroom full of students in a private institution, so long as she is a "person capable of teaching", but the same person cannot teach her own child at home. I think, therefore, this law is inconsistent. This ruling should be struck down. Either that, or California can attempt to provide a uniform policy (that would likely cause a temporary or long-term complete breakdown of the education system in California, and cost the taxpayers a lot of money).

Edited to add: I suppose a middle ground approach might be the best of both worlds. A brief course for private teachers, parents, and tutors alike to verify their "ability to teach" and suffice for state requirements for home schooling (or other teaching) would be reasonable I think.

Excellent point. I happen to know, from experience, that a large percentage of private school teachers are not credentialed. It doesn't necessarily mean they are not fine teachers, and in many cases, better than the ones who have credentials.

The problem in So-Cal, in particular, is that the huge majority of non-English speaking students who continuously flow into the system undermines the quality of education that is offered. Parents of those children have little involvement with progress of their children's education. The schools have become nothing more than a place to stick your kids while you go to work.

On top of that, the amount of homework that is given to students in public schools is astronomical. They are, in essence, making it the job of the student and/or parents to see that a large portion of their workload gets done outside of the school. In a way, kids are being partially home-schooled anyway, by virtue of the fact that a large portion of their schoolwork is done at home, ostensibly under the supervision of their parents.

I heard that there is an estimated 160,000 kids that are home-schooled in California. Worrying about whether or not they are being adequately educated is a joke, considering that millions upon millions of public school kids are simply NOT.

You are absolute correct about the anecdotes. However, research definitely supports that homeschoolers perform better academically.

Here is a website. It may be biased, but it does have various research links.
http://www.nheri.org/content/view/174/62/

I tried to find what was printed last Sunday in my local paper about homeschooling. I read that homeschoolers scored hirer than public school students on the ACT exam, the most widely used college entrance test in this region. The online archives only go 7 days and that was 8 days ago so I can't access it.

Our country was founded by people with a pioneering spirit. Many of those pioneer families rarely saw anyone outside their own family for years at a time. After reading various posts, I suspect that some people here would consider such isolation as bordering on abuse. However, it made our forefathers hardy, freedom-loving people. I have no personal desire to return to those days-I do enjoy my technology-however, I do think people have the right to chose their own destinies. That includes educating their own children. As was pointed out in another thread, children grow up and are free to choose a different lifestyle as adults if they so choose.

As long as we’re sharing anecdotes of how wonderful home schooling is and why every parent should be allowed to teach, let’s look at the other side of the coin with some anecdotes of less admirable home-schooled children and their parents/"teachers”.


(FYI, his 14 year old girlfriend was also home schooled)

Andrea Yates home schooled her children before murdering them.

Jon-Benet Ramsay was home schooled.

Marcus Wesson home schooled (and molested and murdered) his 16 kids.

Nearly all religious cults “home school” their children.

The folks at Ruby Ridge home schooled their kids.

Here is the very definition of irony:


There are unanswered questions about how much “safer” home schooled children are than if they went to public schools. As with any school, home schools can vary from the good to the very, very bad. Home schooling kids is no guarantee of their becoming well-educated, well-adjusted, positive contributers to society. So many home schoolers are of the type that are fanatical religious fundamentalists who believe in government conspiracies and don’t trust anyone outside their own small family units. Criticize the school system all you want, but they are far more likely to identify kids who have been abused, or are dangerous to themselves and/or others than the disturbed individuals raising and "educating" them.

If parents are allowed to home school their children, they should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other teacher. Operating in total isolation from society at large is unhealthy, and sometimes dangerous.

Your examples don't stand out as examples, DG. Most girls and women are raped/abused by someone they know. Stranger rapes are pretty rare. It would follow that when it comes to homeschooling, children are abused by people they know even though child kidnappings committed by people outside the family get the most media attention.

Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?
It would be a horrible idea for me if I had kids. I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to teach them. I'd probably stick to a lessen plan. Nope, I'd rather leave it up to someone who knows what they're doing.

The “cults” you speak of home school a tiny fraction of the total that are home schooled and you have to be kidding to bring up crime in schools – esp. in CA!




http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004314

“Experts perceive a direct correlation between teen misbehavior and the lack of a father in offenders' homes.
• Juvenile arrests for serious violent crimes rose 67 percent from 1986 to 1995.
• Arrests jumped 63 percent for robbery, 78 percent for aggravated assault and 90 percent for murder.
• More than half of all crimes against teenagers happen on or near school property.
• Almost one-fourth of all violent crimes against teens occur at school.
Sixth to 12th grade public school students are twice as likely to be worried about robbery, bullying or physical attack as those who attend private schools, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics. “http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/nov97b.html
<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=0cLOEVw8d0QC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=crime+in+us+public+schools&source=web&ots=w0B4GbCN9b&sig=IgcguT-

"1996-1997%20-%20m4,000%20rapes%20reported%20in%20public%20schools%20in%20the%20US".
PwyEmSKyJkWU2qu3M6KE&hl=en" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?id=0cLOEVw8d...3M6KE&hl=en</a>
"1996-1997 – 4,000 rapes reported in US public schools"!

http://books.google.com/books?id=0cLOEVw8d...3M6KE&hl=en


http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007302rev.pdf

Daffy:

Wait... WHAT?!
John Mark Karr -- the man who claimed to have murdered Jon Benet Ramsey -- taught public elementary school.

Oops! But thank you for making my point that public schools r teh suxorz.


So what's the connection? People who homeschool their kids do so only before they're going to kill them? That there's a link between spending excessive amounts of time teaching your kid how to read, write and do manth and... murdering them? What horsecrap. How about dressing your pre-teen daughter to look like and act like an elegant young women where pedophiles and sicko child-fantasy adults hang out and "judge" them?

Venus and Serena Williams - Tennis Champs - were homeschooled.

So was singer Leann Rimes.

James Taylor of the Miami Dolphins.

Golden Globe winner Jenna Malone.

Mark Twain and Charles Dickens.

Whoopi Goldberg

Jennifer Love Hewett

Photographer Ansel Adams

Oh Looky! John and Elizabeth Edwards homeschools their kids! (With necessary NEA Pandering near the end of the article)

If it's good enough for a lawyer gone politician, I should feel so lucky to be doing the same things as the rich!

And any kid prodigy in show business.

Child actors included.


Daffy:

By "disturbed individuals raising and "educated" them... you mean... the parents?

I don't get your entire post. You seem to have a serious disdain for parents who take the effort to do a really cool thing like homeschool, and show support for the broken school system when they realize that they're going to get stuck with problem kids with parents who really DON'T care, and ESL students.

It's so easy to pin homeschool on people who YOU CLAIM are afraid, rather than most parents who do it for the sole reason that they believe that they can do a better job than a teacher who has to teach 40+ kids in a single room without a cigarette break.

I WILL criticize the school system all I want.

They can't even weed out teachers and staff members who are molesters. In fact, as they "transfer" to a new school district, they get glowing reviews from the previous employer. It's called Passing the Trash and before you dismiss homeschoolers as goofy, consider the public government agencies that would put a suspected molester in your kids school so that they don't have to get involved in the lawsuit for termination. And yes, it happens so frequently, they coined a phrase for it.

Two years ago, my kid didn't even get a desk, and was missing two books because there wasn't enough to go around. The illegal's kids had equal footing in the schools, so of course, they got English and Science books. Even though they couldn't read English. For my kid being there, the school was paid $8274.00 in taxpayer money, and graduated 8th grade not knowing pre-algebra.

We took the $8274.00 that would have gone wasted at a public school and enrolled him in an accredited program where his classroom is via the internet. He got all his books mailed to him, and to boot, got a school computer to use for the year, and he emails his teachers, does over the net white board work, and actually has a teacher one-on-one at almost any given part of the day. His tests are done online, and his scores are out of the park. And he's done with Algebra this year already.

As far as activities, kids who are a part of the cirriculum locally meet up weekly at the swimming pool, and monthly at the bowling alley - and naturally, as parents and kids want to get together. There are class trips where socializing happens, and an internet board (moderated) where they can talk amongst each other about class. I guess this isn't quite as "cool" as hanging out at the mall making fun of rent-a-cops, but spending time with my kid is pretty important, and he doesn't seem to mind the attention.

The kids down the street he used to hang with were just arrested last month for graffitti'ing the park and smashing a picnic table. A felony and misdemeanor for them both.

Their parents are completely uninvolved, their kids "can do no wrong", and they're failing out of school.

So go ahead, Daffygirl. Tell me that homeschooling is for crazy religious nuts, and you can think it all you want. I'm going to assume you:

1) don't have kids
2) haven't seen the school system from an adult's eyes
3) haven't dealt with the administration lately

But when you do, I'm glad to know that you'll be there, shaping things up so that your kids can learn.

And god forbid, they show any kind of creativity, ingenuity or individualism that requires a little extra effort on the teacher's part, that you will be asked to have them checked for ADHD and to "please stick them on Ritalin" for being "too mentally active".

California schools are completely failed.

Further, WTH is this about the school board deciding that parents were fit to teach. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

This - from a school system who couldn't find a way to get my kid a Science book - wants to criticize me when I buy him one from Border's Bookstore.

My $8000.+ of taxpayer allotted money is going to good use. I hope everyone has the opportunity if they want it. I've found it to be completely satisfying and worthwhile.

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

From the evidence presented here, it is neither a good nor a bad idea.

2. Do you agree with the California Appeals Court ruling in this case?

Sounds like getting accredited in California is about as tough as getting a driver's license. In Minnesota you had to have a 4-year degree in education, some kind of sports coaching ability, and do a 6-month internship. Otherwise you'd never get a job in teaching.

That's why I dropped the idea and went into computers, eventually. Coaching debate wasn't an option. Nobody thought that archery was a sport. I was really bad at football.

But you might want to consider the general intelligence of the average person, which consitutes the majority of parents. And you might want to consider that most parents are also working full time. Seems to me that when these facts are considered, a broad statement would be justified as follows:

Home schooling is impossible for most parents to do successfully.

Then consider another fact of life: If a person wants to learn, that person will learn despite the environment. However, certain things need to be available. Among those are quiet places for study and reflection, books (libraries), Internet, periodicals, and the tools of learning, whatever form that takes. You'd probably want a calculator for physics and chemistry. I kinda miss the slide rule. What a brilliant and simple invention that was.

I got a kick out of your answer.

Let me answer you this way. If you were building a wooden boat, would you put it in the lake before or after you applied sealer to the wood?

Today, we send our kids into a social milieu in which they are exposed to the most graphic language, sexual activity, drug use and violence by the fifth or sixth grade--or even earlier. No 11 or 12 year old is ready--morally, physically, socially, or developmentally--for all of this crap. Also, when the hormones kick in, they are dealing with powerful chemicals and need wisdom and guidance to put these changes into context.

I taught my kids about sex earlier than most, but I did it in a way that puts sex in a positive light--but in its correct social and religious context--which I would be happy to share some time. But, the point is, when my kids must inevitably face the difficult temptations and choices in life (the "real" world, as you call it--and isn't it sad that we adults have allowed reality to be so depraved?), they will be ready to face them and make correct choices.

Based upon our astronomical pregnancy rates, drug use rates, and incarceration rates for juveniles, I think many other young men and women are in the water before the planks have been sealed...and they sink....

I don’t have a problem with all the fine people who have found a great school system, or are happy with the public school institution in general. I have a problem [and I’m sure I’m in the minority] with money that I earned being taken to support a government institution whether or not I have children; and that it’s an institution that many people would make compulsory if they had their way. When did we go from the belief that every child had a right to an education, to the belief that every child should be educated in a government institution?

Have we travelled so far from our roots of liberty and freedom that we should be forced to send our children off for government education like draftees into the military? The state of Oregon passed a law in November 1922, which outlawed private and home schools and compelled all children to attend public school. The law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1925 (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925). The Court declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State,” and asserted that the Oregon law clashed with the “fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose.”

Although the ruling was 86 years ago, I think the basis holds true today. The right of parents to decide the form and format of education for their children should be on par with the right and access to a free press. Parents who opt for private or home schooling already acknowledge that they must shoulder a double burden; the taking of earned wages as levy for the government school system, and the out of pocket expense for the form of education that they wish for their child. Childless adults are forced to subsidize families with children, which increases with each additional child. How dare other citizens and groups such as the NEA call for mandatory indoctrination on top of that. If the system was as good as they wish to portray, they wouldn’t need to call for compulsion; home schooling wouldn’t have the draw that it does.

The fact that some home schooled children are going to reach adulthood with a narrow view of civics or a lack of socialization pales in regards to distance away from liberty that banning home schooling will take us. And the efficiency and quality of the government education institution only bolsters that case.

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

I think home schooling can be an excellent idea if utilized properly. The government has zero... and I vehemently stress zero right to order kids to go to school. Its the antithesis of liberty. Any argument to the contrary is based on some incredibly flawed logic dealing with socialization or what constitutes education (as if such a thing is objectively verifiable). Parents should have the ability to educate their children in any way that they see fit. If they fail to educate their kids properly then that is just the way things are. How would it be any differently from sending them to a poor public school where they learn nothing?

2. Do you agree with the California Appeals Court ruling in this case?

It is a terrible decision. Education is not a fundamental right. It is a service, just like medical care or your car's tune up. that must be provided by a third party. If a parent honestly believes that homeschooling is the best option for their child, then it is none of my business. People should stop worrying about other people's kids and begin to worry about their own.

I think a bunch of you missed the whole point of my post. Many were holding up personal anecdotes as "proof" that home schooling was better. I posted similar, albeit negative, anecdotes to prove that - well, anecdotes don't PROVE anything! For every shining star who was home schooled, there are others who shine ...er, not so bright. I'll prove it further by saying that while I was not home schooled, I was imprisoned (tongue in cheek, here, ok, all you literal folks??) 9 years in a parochial school. I may have also received a good education in the "3 R's", but the religious indoctrination was insidious and pervasive. I learned to think for myself when I "escaped" into a public high school. Was the curriculum as good as the private school in the core courses? Of course not. Did I finally learn about the outside world? Hell yah. Does it prove that all kids who got a parochial school education were religiously brainwashed? Nope.

The whole POINT is, there is no yardstick by which to measure whether home schools are better or worse than public schools. If some of you had taken the time to take a gander at the links, you might have seen there are others who wonder about that very thing.

As for the horrible, wretched schools in California, yah yah blah blah, heard it all before, and we ain't the only state with that claim to fame. Heck, we have 14 states and the District of Columbia below us according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, so please quit beating that dead and rotting equine.

Oh, and as long as we're being so completely and utterly literal, I don't build boats, thank yew very much.

I got your point and don’t agree. And you make the case. The parochial school you went to was better you admit. CA schools stink and so some other states – ok so choice is good for parents – who you would think would not be home schooling at extra time and expense if the public schools were acceptable.

The grim reality is that city public schools are generally horrible and have been for decades and I blame the states, the teachers Union and parents who fair to demand decent schools for their kids.

You say that you hated the indoctrination in the parochial school but that may not be the case today. In my state Mass. – you cannot get in a parochial school because they are all FULL – and they even have many Protestants and Jews in the schools fleeing the crappy schools we have here. And you can opt out of all of the religious classes and “indoctrination” if you like. Not sure about other states but I suspect it is the same.

The bottom line is people have a right to good education for their kids – if the cities provide it fine – if not they should be allowed to home school. This ruling is a travesty and imo will not stand.

Yes, your earlier post made it quite obvious that you are not aware of how to keep something afloat.

Sorry you had such a tough time at parochial school. I never cared much for them, either, but it is nice to have the choice, and that ultimately is what this is all about--freedom.


And you wonder why some of us homeschool:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_he_me/teen_stds

If this is the "real" world, then, yes, I guess I want my kids to grow up well-grounded before they have to make their way in such a sewer....

That's fine. No one says you have to.

You guys are getting tiresome. Yes, better in SOME ways, far worse in others. As for changes, don't make me laugh. My nephew went through the same indoctrination (with the extra bonus of being told how to tell his parents to vote) in Lutheran school.

Here's an example of one of those awful California schools: Moorpark High Wins Academic Decathalon. And I don't think it's the first time they've won.

You're really intent on making this a flame war, aren't you?

I don't give a rat's backside if parents want to home school their little brats. As long as they are teacher-certified, and follow accepted curricula, they can knock themselves out. If they are mouth-breathing high school dropouts, they aren't doing society any favors by trying to edgumacate anyone.

Hey, no one is addressing the 14 states that rank lower than California. What's wrong with you guys? C'mon, let's bag on Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas and the rest of 'em!

Read my post just above--all of it--and then respond again.

And, I would assume from your "little brats" comment that you have no children. If not, then I think it would be very difficult for you to understand anything about the substance of this thread. By the way, if you raise you kids in the homeschool fashion, they generally do not behave like little brats, as that is behavior learned from their peers--in school.

It wouldn't offend me if we passed a Const Am permitting only those owning property and having children to vote....

You over simplify quick. Much of a child's core personality, including a tendency to "brattiness" develop before a child starts formal education.

How many times have I seen parents bring unruly preschoolers into the tax offices where I have worked. While it is true that kids learn from other kids, it simply builds on what was already there.

To suggest isolating kids from certain elements - and that seems to me to be the real reason for homeschooling - is like sticking one 's head in the sand and rear end in the air. It's the ostrich theory come to full fruition.



http://anthro.palomar.edu/social/soc_3.htm

BoF, whether or not this information is true or not is immaterial. If the parents believe that they are able to educate their child better than the state run school system or even a privately run school system who are you or I to object? Would you like it if the government told you how to feed your kids? Or perhaps how to clothe them? Maybe you are letting them watch too much television or maybe even not enough. Let the parents do the parenting and keep the government out.

What have you added leder other than another dose of libertarian drivel with nothing but your opinion and current ideological fad to back it up?

I think limited homeschooling, where the child is having difficulty in the public schools and the parents are capable of delivering services is ok. But such homeschooling should be limited and tightly controlled. It should not be used as a shield to protect children from the real world. They wil have to cope with reality sooner or later.

It seems some, like John Gatto, mentioned in another thread would think nothing of tearing down several centuries of public education

History of Public Education

BTW: The feeding analogy is crap. When has the government sent someone into dining rooms and kitchens eequivalent to the magnitude of public education?

You are missing the entire point BoF. Facts to back up whether or not homeschooling is beneficial makes no difference. Thats not the right question for debate. The right question for debate is who has ultimate control over the education of children, the state or the parents?



And how exactly is this your business? These four sentences are full of baseless assumptions and logical distortions. Some parents believe that they can better educate their children than the public or even private sector. I apologize if you find such a notion abhorrent but it is (nor should it be) your decision to make. As I mentioned earlier, people should worry about their own kids before they go about criticizing other parents.



Is it? Support Grows for Restrictions on Sale of Junk Food to Students. I am sorry, but I believe that parents know whats better for their children than bureaucrats in Washington.

Read your own link leder. Congress is not proposing going into someone's homes, but the schools. Believe me, vending machines in schools promote unhealthy choices and are a headache. If parents want their children eating Twinkies, they can always send a brown bag.

Don't try to narrow the focus of this thread. It's been all over the lot.


Facts don't make a difference. Now that's substituting an ideological answer for scholarship and intellect.

BTW: I like your avatar - brings back memories of the late, great Tom Landry .

I guess I don't understand why allowing parents to make the ultimate decision in their own children's education to be such a bad thing. Why is it that so many people have such a need to rely on the government to make decisions for families? In this situation, like all others, I think our country would be in a much better place if we just let individuals make decisions for themselves, and hold people to their individual responsibilities. If they choose to fail, let them. If you give people the chance to succeed on their own, they will. Trying to hold their hand in every aspect of their lives, only holds them back. It might be just my opinion, though. Personal responsibility is all but non-existence. What a sad day in our history.

What empirical data do you have to support this notion?

Why not just give the kids a trigonometry book and let them teach themselves?

Such as? “Indoctrination"? Gee better education, low to no crime, lower drug us, little chance of being raped- how horrible.





Such as? “Indoctrination? Gee better education, low to no crime, lower drug us, - how horrible.



My impression was they were controlled in that the kids had to pass tests that verify they learned the required subjects. Is this not correct?



But it should be used and not restricted to shield kids from horrible, crime and drug ridden, schools with little or no academic standards, poor staff etc.. This crap is NOT the real world.

How about the failure of the current system as proof governmental control isn't always the right answer? How well are those California public schools doing, anyway?

I will ignore your second statement as you appear to only be looking to stoke a fire that does not need to be started.

Why not let parents make decisions on their own without governmental intervention? Are they not qualified to make decisions on their own?

You said this, scubtim.


And I said this.


Then you wrote.


I think my statement was a natural end-game for your original absurd statement. Remember, Abe Lincoln was self-taught.


Yet another statement of opinion with zilch to back it up. There are 50 state school systems in this country and countless local districts within the states. Define failure. Give me some specific data on how many which ones are failing according to your count. If you want to know about California schools, don’t ask me. Look it up yourself.


It sounds pretty real to me. A solution you’ve pretty much dismissed is alternative schools.

1. Do you think home schooling is a good idea or not? Why?

I think it can be a good idea. I remember being a little envious of the pair of home schooled kids that I was friends with growing up. I have seen some rather disturbing instances of home schooling indoctrination documented in films like Jesus Camp, however. The idea is sound, the practice - as with most things - can be not so good.

2. Do you agree with the California Appeals Court ruling in this case?


The Supreme Court has stated that parents have the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." So, the State can't ban home schooling. Does this mean that the State can't require that parents or the tutors have the credentials to show that they can educate the child outside a public or private school system? No, I don't believe so.

BOF said:

Alternative schools in California in the 80's were known to have the best drugs. No, really.

Today's "Alternative" schools are a mixture of problem kids, mentally challenged kids and overactive kids. Even I look at No Child Left Behind as a huge failure, but it was bad even before then, and now it's worse.


Ted said:

See, I completely agree with that.

Of course it's no secret that the presence of crime, drug use, and chances of being sexually assaulted are indeed high during the course of a lifetime.

I see the point that Daffygirl was making, was that exposure to that is going to eventually happen. My kid is going to interact with people who use drugs, do criminal activities, and be involved in various forms of sexuality. The point I would argue is this: "At what age do you willingly expose your kids to sex, drugs and crime"?

I'm sure Daffygirl would argue that if they're exposed early on to the worlds "sins" (or whatever), the culture shock would be less than taking a kid from a bubble and dropping the world on him or her all at once. And she's probably right - IF that was the case, she's right.

The fallacy in that argument is that most homeschool parents don't keep their kids in a bubble, but they DO offer a more concentrated development on school studies that traditional public schools are not able to.

The possible exception is whatever "Jesus Camps" are, and parents who are insanely overprotective. Truthfully, I've never come across a homeschool parent who was like that. But judging by their overprotiveness and reclusiveness I've seen them painted as, how would I have? But that's the exception, not the majority.

The whole concept of parenting is to guide your kid down the path you think will bring out the most opportunities for them, and bring out a positive character that others will respect and want to be around. The expectation that kids will find that on their own is noble, but unrealistic. The fact that the parent is involved in their kids' life (and in our case, it's a sacrifice of time, but a sacrifice well worth it) only increases the chance of that child's success.

That said, I find it extremely hard to criticize a parent who drops their kid off at school and hopes for the best. It's not like two parent families are prelavent, and parents are left trying to stay afloat. I try not to judge people. But the evidence is common sense: Growing generations of latchkey and parent-less kids growing up alone, or on television, or with limited parental involvement, have generated very few entrepreneurs.

As a result, the public school system is forced to deal with parents (and students) who either don't care, or have pressing issues going on otherwise. And the more parents who don't care, and the more kids who don't HAVE to care, makes a very unproductive environment. That's where I think I can do better.

Teacher's certificate or not.

I don't think I ever said self taught, did I? In my school district, there is a very well organized home-schooling program that includes regular progress tests, assistance with lesson plans and organized group activities. If the student wants to participate in either extra-curricular activities or advanced classes, they can attend those specific classes. Families are encouraged to form group studies at each other's homes so those parents with more knowledge in a specific area can teach the children of those that are not as strong in those areas, and in turn, other parents help in other areas. I guess I thought most school districts did this. But you want to take it to some extravagant level of self teaching, which I might have missed it, but where has anyone brought this up?


Look what up? All of the posts in this thread? How many people have stated that the California system is trash? If you want to argue that point and think that it isn't a failed system, what is your reasoning that it isn't broken. Do you have any statistics of extremely high graduation rates? Extremely high test scores? You want evidence that our system is failing our children? Ok. How about this study?



Maybe the term 'alternative school' refers to something else in your district, but here, alternative schools are for those that have been kicked out of other schools for behavioral problems, crimes etc. How is sending them to alternative schools going to protect them from more crime etc?

Let me see: I am raising two kids and we homeschool; I have been exposed to literally dozens of homeschoolers, and dozens of kids who attend public or private schools. I do not have to Google studies and opinions--I see, live it, every day.

What you forget is that a vast number of kids start "formal" education at several months of age when they first attend day care so momma can go back to work. Their 12 waking hours are spent 8 or 9 in day care, 3 or 4 with Momma, and the rest asleep. By the time they hit first grade, they have quite literally been raised by their peers and by a day car worker whose main job is to keep the kids reasonably safe during they day, and maybe teach a little color and shape recognition. They do little to steer behavior--indeed, they are generally restricted from doing so. At about 4 or 5, the kids may learn some reading and other formal subjects, but they've had several years of "peer training" by then....

Homeschooling is not for everyone, but this is a blanket statement I can make, based on about 100 individual cases: Homeschooled kids, boys and girls, are more at ease around adults; can express themselves better around adults (and don't use "like" as an expletive repeatedly!); and behave more like "little" adults rather than "brats"; then any formal school kids I know, public or private. While many kids and parents shouldn't homeschool, it should never be outlawed.

As far as your ill-considered "ostrich" comment, well, if my kids have to wait a few more years before they get exposed to hummers in the back of the school bus, or STDs at 14, well, I'll be okay with that. I mean, I wouldn't advise a 12 year old to play tackle football with a 17 year old, either. We recognize the differences physically, but just don't when it comes to emotional development and maturity. When my kids do have to confront what we adults sadly have let the "real" world become, they will be ready....

Are you making an argument in favor of increasing union membership? Arguing in favor of families being able to live on a single income so Dadda or Momma can stay home with the kids?

If not, this is as on topic as your post about girls and STDs. But people who dislike the concept of homeschooling are the only ones throwing meaningless shots around here.

Yeah.

Why would you assume the bolded portion of your statement? How do you know there was "no crime", etc.? I can tell you that several of the graduates of my school went on to become drug addicts, criminals, and several became pregnant and/or committed suicide. Just like in any school - how about that. My brother popped his cherry at that school with the preacher's 13 year old daughter. There was corporal punishment - today it definitely be considered perverted - where little girls pulled up their skirts and little boys pulled down their pants and got paddled on their backsides while bent over the principal's lap. Yep, 100% wholesome environment there. The indoctrination came in the form of Bible-thumping and telling children as young as 5 they would go to hell for any number of reasons. The one I remember best is that listening to the "devil's music" (i.e. rock and roll) would send you directly to hell. These are just the things I remember; I've blocked a lot of it out. I lived in fear for 9 years at that school and bear the emotional scars to this day. I wouldn't put any child through that just to get a better education.

Are you confusing homeschooling with private schools?


Too bad they thumped it more than they read it. Or taught from it.

I'm assuming this Catholic school forgot about such other concepts, like forgiveness, grace and mercy.

Too bad. They're wrecking Christian concepts in the name of harsh discipline. A pox on them.

My sympathies to you, tho. Sounds like a perverted version of 'discipline' if I ever heard one.