Home Schooling

I just saw a report on CBS News tonight that just showed that few states require parents to be certified, be backgrounded checked, or even tell the authorities that their kids are being home schooled.

So how can we ensure that home schooled children are being taught well?

Especially when homeschoolers do better academically than their counterparts in the public schools?

...both are john hopkins talented youth scholars..in the top 99 percentile...terra nova test results: both in top 1% nationwide....and i am not a certified teacher...must be those inherited genes from the milkman :7

may you live your life in comfort knowing that your children will be in the forefront--hopefully., You are wonderful.

you've just done one of the most rewarding things you'll probably ever do....
I envy you.

The school system doesn't lack quality teachers...it suffers from inadequate management...to allow teachers to teach the way they want.

My 11 year old is not learning squat for the amount of time he spends in school....and the only way he "gets it" is to sit down with me and get the basics that he didn't get in school in the first place.

The cutsy math methods, the homework which leads them to burnout....may be screening the best....but its not bringing up the bottom.

I've never met a kid that was home schooled that didn't seem infinitely more calm, secure, and confident....and probably better equipped to take on the real world.....

For all intents and purposes, my Dad was home schooled on the farm....brought up in a school system with 6 grades in one classroom....so there was never a lot of schooling.....but he has that "old school" command of the basics that you just don't see these days...

...of exclusionary scoring or admittance. Hence the silly "Homeschoolers do so much better" nonsense.

While some parents may do a suitable job homeschooling, that can't be denied, a nation would be crippled by a mass movement toward homeschooling.

would a nation would be crippled by a mass movement toward homeschooling?

Which I might add is swell for some kids, I can accept that, but how could a mass movement not create severe problem both for the children taught by bad parents (No regulations, no standards, no help) and the millions of socially inept (Not all, but can you imagine if a majority of American children were taught that way? <shudders> ) children?

The country was founded by "home schoolers."

Public schooling is a relatively new phenomenon. The myth about homeschooled students suffering socially has been debunked.

I should know better than to open these threads. Homeschool bashing is rampant here among people who pride themselves on being better informed than freepers.

That's not the case on these threads. Educate yourself about home schooling. Please. There is a reason why the homeschool numbers are growing so fast. There is something fundamentally wrong with the public school system and it must be fixed by Democrats or it won't be fixed at all.

and so on. And many of them do very good jobs -- if the parent is well-educated, home-schooling provides a very good student/teacher ratio. Some parents don't want their kids educated in the cultural milieu of public school, reflecting the dominant culture. They may or may not do a good job. Some parents don't want their children exposed to alternate cultural influences, points of view other than the parents', anything (including science) that isn't in accord with their own religious bigotry. The kids are the victims then.

Yes, homeschooling might be OK for the left, if: (1) the leftists are also competent in teaching their kids; and (2) the kids are exposed to cultural diversity. But that is no answer for the nation -- it leaves the poor with less hope, it makes for a left further isolated from the rest of the population, and it weakens public schooling overall.

AS to our 'founding fathers,' they were part of a largely-agricultural society, and one in which trades were learned by apprenticeship. We live in a very-different society. And the sons (not daughters) of the FFs had a very good chance of going onto college: Harvard, University of Virginia, and so on. There, they learned how to be members of a ruling elite, quite apart from learning various academic subjects. In short, what the FFs did is no model at all for our current society.

century coincided with our progressive public education? I think not.

It won't shock me when we devolve into a banana state, either, when parents become the primary educators of our kids.

That might be OK if every society on Earth did this, but the enlightened ones know better.....

coincides with people making the ridiculous argument that because The Founding Fathers were "home-schooled", the same sort of education is all we need today, more than two hundred years ago?

I suggest the poster wash their clothes by rubbing them on a rock in a stream. That's how the American colonialists did it, so it should be good enough for us

What public school did the founding fathers attend?

Do tell. I'm waiting.

were going to school? I believe that was a relatively new concept. How you can compare the technical demands of the post-industrial population today with our agrarian society of 250 years ago is beyond me.

My kids are learning this in public schools....and how many parents understand this math? Or real science? I've got a college degree from a relatively prestigous liberal arts college (30 years ago) and I don't feel qualified to teach my kids. So what becomes the standards for accepting kids into higher education? Money? Connections? (That's the way education was handled back when our Founding Fathers were alive). Who are the certifiers?

I guarantee you that in 20 years, we will become a 3rd rate country because parents are not teachers, kids will learn less, or worse, they will learn biases that aren't truth. Our society will become one hugh State of Babel because we won't have a basis of agreed standards. We'll be a joke in the eyes of progressive countries.

But the Republicans love it. They'll have the money to get their kids educated and they won't have to pay taxes to support it for the rest of the society. And, of course, a democracy requires an educated population, so that will go too. In a few generations, we'll so be back to the good old days.....and our society will finally be getting the jobs that the Chinese will send us because we'll be well prepared for $1.00/day wages.

that kids don't learn biases that aren't the truth in public school? Because I would have to strongly disagree with that statement. Your kids may be lucky enough to go to a "good" public school. I wasn't. Let me give you a for example. We lived near an Indian Reservation. The school was mostly white, but there were a few NA kids. Those kids got called to the principal's office all the time for minor to non-existant infractions. The idea was to harrass them into "going back to the rez."

Some public schools are excellent. Some are terrible.

Us old folks have to be good for something, even if it's just being constantly annoying.

Yup, there are actually reasons for things like a public school system, amazing though this may seem to people who think and look only as far back as their own brief life experience, as far around them as their own family circle and as far ahead as, well, tomorrow morning.

What your school system has to look forward to is what happens to any publicly-supported and operated system for the provision of essential services when the élite choose, and are allowed, to withdraw their participation and support from it. It, and the people who depend on it, are left by the wayside. And ultimately, the society whose overall success depends on them begins that long slide, if a new set of reformers don't come along and succeed in reversing it. How wonderful it would be if occasionally the pseudo-reformers would just listen to the old reformers in the first place.

This is what happened to Britain's National Health Service in the latter part of the last century. The better-off were allowed to go outside it for superior service ... and guess what? They didn't want to keep paying for it, to keep sharing the burden with the people who needed the NHS. I spent a few hours in an NHS hospital 10 years ago with my injured mother, and I was frankly shocked. And this is what we in Canada refuse to let happen to our own health system.

Anybody remember life before mandatory-contribution public retirement schemes? Nobody who does would ever support going back to a society that relied on discretionary individual provision for old age.

The schools will be absolutely no different. Unless the burden of educating children is shared by everyone -- parents, non-parents, future parents, former parents -- it will fail those who depend on it. And the instant one class of those people, the (economically, socially, intellectually) advantaged parents who think their children deserve better than other people's children deserve, is allowed to leave that system in large numbers, let alone encouraged to leave it by having their contributions refunded, the system is doomed.

These issues are not simply matters of ideology, of collectivism vs. individualism. They are core issues for the economic success of a society. The good health and education of all members of the society, and their ability to feed and house themselves, are the minimum basic, crucial factors in any society's development. And a society that does not agree that the burdens and benefits will be shared equitably in at least those minimum respects will remain, or sink back into, underdevelopment.

Basic lessons of history. Like you say. So say it loud!

.

people who send children to public school pay to do so. People without children pay to send children to school. Rich people whose kids are in private school still pay into the public school coffers.

You sound like you're saying we should not only abolish home-schooling, but private schools as well. Screw that...

... how 'bout you not waste both our time "replying" to it, eh?

"people who send children to public school pay to do so. People without children pay to send children to school. Rich people whose kids are in private school still pay into the public school coffers.

Duh.

And the rest of it goes like this: many of them do not want to.

And my point was this: when publicly-funded and -operated systems for the provision of services to the public lose the allegiance of a large segment of the public, particularly one that tends to be influential in public policy-making, and they opt out of participation in it, they can be expected to demand the ability to opt out of paying for it.

And I illustrated the foreseeability of this happening by citing the example of the British health care system, in which the better off (and less sick?) were given the ability to opt out, and then contributed to the degradation of the public system by opting out of paying for it at the ballot box.

Your public educational system is already seriously underfunded. There are already large numbers of people opting out of that public educational system, whether their choice be private school or homeschooling. Damned if I don't see a connection between those facts -- and not the "it's so bad I have to abandon it" connection so many here claim. I see the "it's so bad BECAUSE they abandoned it" connection.

If you don't see that connection, or choose to say you don't see it, I don't really care.

"You sound like you're saying we should not only abolish home-schooling, but private schools as well. Screw that..."

That would indeed be my personal preference (and screw whatever you like). Unlike some people, I don't always or automatically propose that my personal preference be made into public policy, i.e. law. So when you say that I "sound like" that's what I'm saying, all I can say is that you might want to test out some hearing aids.

In fact, I didn't say anything about what public policy I would propose. If asked, I would reply that the best answer is probably to improve the public system immediately and significantly; funding for the public school system should be increased (and, as I understand that problems in the US, locally-based funding should be replaced by equitable, broader-based funding formulas), just for starters. Sometimes carrots are useful when sticks are not appropriate; carrots also often achieve an objective where sticks would be counterproductive.

Taking the horse's blinkers off is also almost always helpful. Perspective -- looking at the past, and the big wide present outside that narrow field of vision, and engaging in informed and good faith speculation about the future -- can do wonders for one's ability to make good choices in the here and now.

The UK national health system is an object lesson in what happens when essential public services, for which burden-sharing and benefit-sharing are essential if good-quality services are to be universally available, are converted into discretionary purchases subject to the buyer's ability to pay. That is: an example of what can be expected to happen if the public school system, in which the burdens and benefits of the essential service (and fundamental right) of education are shared, is similarly made subject to market forces.

Your own history will show you that a good quality public education system has been crucial to the success of your society.

And armed with this information, and of course good faith, a little speculation would lead you to anticipate what is likely to happen if a critical mass of parents withdraws its children from the public school system in the US.

All I can do is point you to where to find the water. Can't take your blinkers off for you so you'd have to acknowledge seeing it, and can't make you drink it.

.

"And my point was this: when publicly-funded and -operated systems for the provision of services to the public lose the allegiance of a large segment of the public, particularly one that tends to be influential in public policy-making, and they opt out of participation in it, they can be expected to demand the ability to opt out of paying for it."

Tell that to people with no kids who have been paying to support the school system practically forever.

Supporting public education is not like buying a widget. I feel perfectly OK paying taxes for the education of other people's children. Frankly, I don't want to live in a country where educational opportunity is not available equally to all. (I know--it's not been perfect ever, but I believe it's fatal to give up on this ideal. I agree with Iverglas--totally. Only wish I could have expressed it as well. I especially agree that the funding should be not local, but at the state level, at least. It's obscene that suburban schools be like country clubs while inner city schools can hardly function for lack of funds. So in a way, this is like privatization. Those who could, withdrew and moved to the suburbs with the better schools, and stopped worrying about the city schools.)

I also think we need a national health system. Same reasons, plus the basic inhumanity of denying health care to those who fall through the cracks.

But as long as we're so big in the US on everybody going private and caring only for his/her own narrowly-conceived welfare, why stop with privatizing education and leaving health care in the mess it's in? Social security, medicare, prescription drugs, medicaid, aid to dependent children, even pensions for the military and government employees--why not scrap them all? And tell businesses they don't have to provide any of this either (except for the top execs, of course). Wouldn't that make for a lovely world? Everyone in their own private bunker.

Actually, my big gripe about taxes is all the money spent "defending" the US from imagined or self-created enemies. I wouldn't mind a modest military, but I do object to the public funding of the paranoid fantasies of neo-cons, hawks and others of their ilk. IMO, our security would be better served by spending most of the military budget on education instead (while doing a better job with diplomacy).

"Frankly, I don't want to live in a country where educational opportunity is not available equally to all."

So are you saying we should close all non-public schools?

What about specialized schools, like for the arts, or for the handicapped?

What ever happened to freedom of choice? If parents pay their share towards the public school system, but decide that they don't want to use it and instead want to pay more to send their kid elsewhere, why shouldn't they be able to? Or is it some kind of conscription idea, where everybody must be issued a public school "education, K-12, Mod. 0 Mark 1"?

iverglass has already made it clear that he is not promoting a policy to close all non-public schools. If you can't respond to the points that were actually made, maybe you could be as consistent about not responding to arguments that nobody made.

is that allowing students to opt out of the public school "experience" degrades that "experience" for those who don't opt out. She cites England's public health system as an example.

I don't have a problem with private schools or home schooling, as long as there are no decreases in public school revenues because of it. In fact, I'd ENCOURAGE home-schooling and private schooling, because it means a larger slice of the pie for the students that remain in the public school environment. If there are 5,000 school aged children in an area, and a thousand of them opt out, that means that there are only 4,000 students to be educated in public schools with the same amount of money.

You've did a crappy job interpreting Iverglas so far. Your latest effort is just as pitiful, as demonstrated by your use of the phrase "seems to be saying", when what you really meant was "seems TO ME to be saying"

IOW, your interpretation is more about your own (lack of) arguments, than what iverglas actually said.

Iverglas didn't say that sending your kid to a private school degrades the public schools system. S/He said that the decrease in the support for the taxes that pay for a public school system degrades the system.

"And my point was this: when publicly-funded and -operated systems for the provision of services to the public lose the allegiance of a large segment of the public, particularly one that tends to be influential in public policy-making, and they opt out of participation in it, they can be expected to demand the ability to opt out of paying for it."

This suggests that in order to keep these people from trying to opt out of paying for the system, you might want to make it so that they can't opt out of the system at all. She opposes people opting out of paying for the system

Tell me, SanghO, do you actually think mandatory inspections of the residences of home-schoolers without suspicions of criminal activity would come even CLOSE to passing constitutional muster in the US????

this time phrased as "This suggests"

This suggests that in order to keep these people from trying to opt out of paying for the system, you might want to make it so that they can't opt out of the system at all. She opposes people opting out of paying for the system

It suggests that only to those to unimaginative to come up with more than one possible course of action, or those too emotionally wedded to their politics to take an honest appraisal of ALL the available options.

Another suggestion is to make the public school system every bit as good as private schools, thereby eliminating the motivation for why so many choose to home school.

Tell me, SanghO, do you actually think mandatory inspections of the residences of home-schoolers without suspicions of criminal activity would come even CLOSE to passing constitutional muster in the US????

Compelling interests

any different from the state's compelling interest to apprehend criminals?

I don't have the time to explain the obvious (ie. the differences between criminal and civil law) to the oblivious

he wrote the posts you read.

not someone who goes on the Internet and pretends

how many Bars do I have to be a member of in order to become a "real lawyer"?

One real Bar

to fax you a copy of my State Bar card????

Heh...

I never asked for you to fax me anything. I already have plenty of mouse pads

Me: "And my point was this: when publicly-funded and -operated systems for the provision of services to the public lose the allegiance of a large segment of the public, particularly one that tends to be influential in public policy-making, and they opt out of participation in it, they can be expected to demand the ability to opt out of paying for it."

You: "This suggests that in order to keep these people from trying to opt out of paying for the system, you might want to make it so that they can't opt out of the system at all."

Of course the biggest reason for NOT saying that what I said "suggests" any such thing is that I HAVE SAID in response to that specific allegation that I DID NOT WANT TO "make" anything that way. Remember those carrots and sticks?

Keeping the quality of the public school system at such a level that most people want to keep their kids in it is the best way of preventing the kind of exodus that could be expected to undermine it to the point that it was no longer viable. Of course, doing that also protects the kids whose parents don't have options and ensures that they get decent educations and the all-round ability to be fulfilled and productive members of their society.

And it has all those wonderful fallout effects that have been mentioned in this subthread, like enhancing property values and quality of life for the entire community. Not to mention providing an educated electorate and labour force, thus enhancing the governance and economy of the society, and providing a larger and more stable income-tax base ... all the things that are the reason we have public schools in the first place.

It's really quite odd to interpret something that someone said as meaning something that it does not, on the face of it, mean ... and that s/he has already said it does not mean.

But hey, not unexpected.

.

... as you apparently are, I remain unsurprised at your allegations about what I "seem" to be saying.

"In fact, I'd ENCOURAGE home-schooling and private schooling, because it means a larger slice of the pie for the students that remain in the public school environment."

Yes indeed! That is EXACTLY how it worked when the UK allowed opting-out of the public health care system.

Thousands of patients opted out of the public pie, freeing up resources in that pie for the patients who remained. Patients who remained in the public system had quicker and easier access to doctors, beautiful new hospitals were built for patients in the public system, more staff were hired to provide care in those hospitals ...

NOT

Patients who remained in the NHS were left with hospitals like the one I took my mother to -- no ice to put on a head injury while waiting five hours to see a resident (and hell, no change so that I could buy cold Coke from the vending machine to put on her head, leaving me to bum spare change from the helpful but obviously poor folks in the waiting room -- except the ones arguing with themselves), no cleaning staff to remove the blood bled by ER patients on the floor and reception desk ... while my London friend's partner languished in a private hospital across town, with its sunny atrium and private rooms and posh catered menus.


What iverglas IS saying

is that allowing students to opt out of the public school SYSTEM can reasonably be expected to degrade that SYSTEM for those who don't opt out.

... not what you said I seemed to have said. Quelle surprise.


(omitted word inserted on edit)

.

"is that allowing students to opt out of the public school SYSTEM can reasonably be expected to degrade that SYSTEM for those who don't opt out."

You DO support banning the opting out of the public school system, right?

So...You DO support banning the opting out of the public school system, right?

Iverglas also said "In fact, I didn't say anything about what public policy I would propose. If asked, I would reply that the best answer is probably to improve the public system immediately and significantly; funding for the public school system should be increased (and, as I understand that problems in the US, locally-based funding should be replaced by equitable, broader-based funding formulas), just for starters. Sometimes carrots are useful when sticks are not appropriate; carrots also often achieve an objective where sticks would be counterproductive.

I'll make you a deal - Tell me which word you didn't understand, and I'll explain how to look it up in the dictionary

are speaking about.

I pay large amounts in property taxes that go into the public schools in my area. As a result, the public schools in my area are highly rated. People are climbing over each other trying to move into my neighborhood because of the schools. My property value has increased 4 times since I purchased, partially due to the public schools.

My property taxes have increased as a result of increased property values, but that money goes right back into the schools and again will increase my property value.

People without children in the public schools can benefit by paying for public education.

The problem with vouchers is that it takes the money I've paid into my neighborhood schools and gives it to private institutions which do nothing to add value to my home or community. Vouchers are a rip off to any non-parent paying for public education. (Got a little side tracked on vouchers, but it does fit with the discussion).

Vouchers are a repuke rip off scheme. Watch your property values plummet. Sorry, but I have no obligation to pay for a private or home school education for anyone. My civic responsibility is to pay for public education. In return for my participation, my property values increase.

Peace
Gina

I have NOT suggested vouchers are a good idea, in fact I've stated on another thread that I oppose vouchers. However, I have no problem with a person who wants to go ahead and pay taxes to support the school system then not sending their kids to those schools, and paying more money to send them to the private school of their choice, or to home-school their kids.

You completely failed to respond to the main point of Gina's post, which refuted your ridiculous claim that people with no children don't want to pay taxes for public education. Instead of acknowledging that your argument was blown apart, you used the distraction of vouchers to pretend that Gina didn't destroy your argument

such groups of people will periodically try to "opt out" of paying for the school system. They meet insurmountable resistance, and never win. This doesn't mean that they aren't out there.

As GIna made clear, many never try to "opt out" because they recognize that a public educational system benefits everyone, including those who have no children.

Not that you'll ever admit your mistake. You'll just continue with the "Bring 'em on" approach

Zzzzzzzz...............

Facts are boring to some

and misinformed opinion at that...

I must have missed where you explained why rental properties are subject to different rules. Oh wait! Here it is!

"Rental properties are subject to different rules because rental properties are subject to different rules"

Brilliant!!!

coupled with little things like the ICC...

I thought it was unconstitutional to search someone's private property without a reasonable belief that a crime occurred? How come you didn't say anything about the ICC when you were trying to push the idea that searching the home of home-schoolers was unconstitutional? Could it be you know that educating our children might also fall under the ICC?

Nah! It would be dishonest of a lawyer like you to withold relevant legal facts.

"Could it be you know that educating our children might also fall under the ICC?"

That's the case where the Gun Free School Zone Act was struck down as unconstitutional because....well, you know. ;-)

Last time I checked, home-schooling wasn't considered to be "commerce".

Really? You wouldn't just be saying that in order to make a point that's not actually supported by any judicial decision, would you?

If not, can you cite the case where the courts found that home-schooling is NOT subject to the ICC?

Last time I checked, home-schooling wasn't considered to be "commerce".

And you wouldn't be ignoring the legal fact that the ICC is applicable to activities that aren't "commerce", would you? That would be dishonest for a lawyer to do that, wouldn't it?

and if you had read it, you'd see that you're going to need something considerably more than just saying home-schooling affects Interstate Commerce to get it to stick...

and now you're gonna try and switch the burden of proof onto me with the straw man that I'm "just saying home-schooling affects Interstate Commerce (in order) to get it to stick"

You've made the assertions (about the unconstitutionality of inspecting the homes of homeschoolers) and so the burden of proof is on you. Instead of deliberately distorting the facts --like saying that property rights brings privacy rights that prevent any searches of homes when you know there valid legal justifications for searches-- why don't you defend your positions? If you won't even defend your own opinions, why should anyone believe anything you have to say?

Why should anyone believe you when you falsely claim that homeschooling is NOT subject to the ICC, when you know that no court has ruled that to be true?

Why should anyone believe you when you falsely claimed that you "checked" the law, and homeschooling wasn't subject to regulation based on the ICC?

primarily, IMHO, because Lopez struck down the federal law banning possession of firearms on school property due to the fact that Congress's finding that such legislation was permissible under the ICC was absurd. If they can't pass legislation regulating guns on school property (which is generally publicly owned) as being detrimental to interstate commerce, what on EARTH would make you think that they could do so to mandate in-home inspections for home-schooling using the same rationale?

Last time I checked, home-schooling wasn't considered to be "commerce".

Could it be that you, a lawyer, don't know that it's unethical to claim to have "checked" and found that "home-schooling wasn't considered to be 'commerce'" when the truth is:

1) You didn't "check"
2) The courts haven't decided either way on this issue

they can't pass legislation regulating guns on school property

Could it be that you, a lawyer, don't know that Lopez wasn't about "regulating guns on school property"?

On school property, guns ARE regulated - specifically, they're prohibited.

you were neither paying me for legal advice nor a participant in a court case that I am involved with. In other words, please feel free to bite me. ;-)

Lopez was about extending the ICC to cover the regulation of conduct at schools, on the theory that education affects Interstate Commerce. It was held not to, which was an absolutely STUNNING reversal for the "expand the ICC" crowd, which had been growing in power since the days of FDR.

Lopez was NOT about "the regulation of conduct at schools". It was about the regulation of conduct NEAR schools"

that the ICC doesn't stretch that far?

And as a lawyer, which you claim to be, you should know that this issue hasn't been decided by the courts.

While there hasn't been a case "on the four corners", there has been a case which comes close (although there's much less of a fundamental liberty interest in public than in the privacy of your own home). I've pointed it out to you multiple times in this thread. In light of Lopez, you're absolutely, positively fucking DREAMING if you think the ICC could be extended to somehow be applicable to inspection of home-schoolers without totally gutting Lopez, something I don't see this court doing. Given the rationale behind Lopez, can you come up with ANY plausible way for the courts to rule the way you claim to think they should?

You nailed it. There's great benefit for people without children in the school system to financially support the schools. Right wing arguments conviently leave us out of the equation and discussion about schools. They talk alot about having parents decide, giving parents choices blah blah blah... These parents shouldn't get a choice about my tax dollars. Thanks again for pointing out that my post wasn't addressed.

Peace
Gina

Is that sending the kids to a private school is affordable, I don't mind contributing to our crumbling public school system even though we have absolutely no intention of using it.

... you can't opt out of the health care system you despise, ain't it?

.

Can't win 'em all

:-)

I am so surprised that people on this board seem so ignorant about home schooling. I think it is a great option for people on the left. The no regulations, no standards and no help are absolute lies. And if you met my five and seven year old children you would change your mind about the socially inept label.

>The no regulations, no standards and no help are absolute lies.<

Let's talk about our neighborhood, shall we?

There are several homeschoolers in our development. Here's how it goes.

Family #1: Four children under 10. Dad works unbelievably long hours. Mom "homeschools", which consists of no structured time whatsoever. How do I know this? I've heard the "honey, go upstairs and finish a page of your workbook," multiple times per week while Mom wants to tell me the latest neighborhood dirt on the phone after 9 PM. The kids are very bright to begin with, but they do not socialize at all with other children, so it's difficult for them to find playmates. Mom pulled out of the local homeschooling collective -- she thought the other moms were "snotty".

Family #2: Won't public school their kids because the school will not indoctrinate with their fundamental, far-right-wing beliefs. Mom's not happy; her husband is so controlling that he's sealed them off from the entire neighborhood. Gee, I wonder what's going on.

Family #3: Daughter has Down's Syndrome. Mother is functionally illiterate and "homeschooling," which consists of taking her shopping, out to lunch, etcetera. Daughter is virtually uncontrollable at 11 due to NO discipline or behavioral expectations. Our district, though small, has an outstanding special education program. Mom and Dad, though, are convinced that the only acceptable school is the local private one. The private school told them that they'd take the daughter, but it would cost double the normal fees. As a result, she's still being "homeschooled".

Family #4: Family's here on a work visa. They have two other children in local schools and doing well. Youngest son, 12, is being "homeschooled" by a mom who has not adjusted well to life in the USA, and made sure that he didn't, either. She kept him home most of the first year they lived here because she was "lonely". He's been in some fairly serious trouble with the law over the past two years, and been kicked out of school numerous times for fighting with other children. I have no idea whether or not she's doing a good job with homeschooling, but it's tough to teach anything when one spends most of one's time trying to get the other neighbors to "keep an eye" on one's kids while you are off at the local restaurant visiting with others from your home country...

We know ONE successful homeschooling family. The mother has a teaching certificate and is a reading specialist. Their daughter has scored in the 95th percentile of standardized tests given yearly to homeschoolers in our state for the past seven years. The mother has school from 8 AM to noon during the school year; everyone who knows them also knows that they are not to be disturbed during school hours. Interestingly enough, the daughter has been asking to go to public school over the past couple of years; they're now discussing whether or not they want to send her to the local Christian private high school. This young lady is a walking, talking ad for the concept of homeschooling. Her mom makes it look easy, but I know that it has been hard work and her mother's structure and expectations that has brought this kind of success.

To finally get to my point, after observing numerous "homeschoolers" in both this neighborhood and our former one, it's difficult to believe that there is adequate oversight at all. For every homeschooling National Merit Scholar, I'm willing to bet that there are two or three kids who are getting little or no instruction, with no structure and no real measurable results. I also worry about those kids in households like #2 above; the only people who might get any indication or proof that something might be wrong at home are teachers.

Julie

You are acting like there is a national standard. You cannot say that there are NO regulations, NO standards, and NO help unless you know something about what each state requires. The generalizations are so frustrating. I submit two portfolios a year and visit with a state rep once a year. We have regulations, standards and help if we need it.

I believe parents should be free to take their children out of schools and do as they wish; most homeschoolers are dissatisfied with the system in the schools, so I don't see why the system that they dislike should oversee them or require them to follow its own standards. They are taking on the responsibility to do what they think is best, rather than handing it off to the schools. Examples of people who don't educate their children well (and what is the standard? -- a good education could be something quite different from what is offered in public schools) don't mean homeschooling must be regulated. Our very regulated public schools often produce poorly educated children, and, in fact, use some unqualified and poorly qualified teachers in doing so. I think high quality in public schools AND the choice to homeschool according to one's own lights would be the best situation.

Worse yet, the vast majority of people posting about it here have NO interest in educating themselves about the truth of homeschooling--good and bad.

It's infuriating.

I feel totally shut out by the left every time this subject comes up on this board. It's as if my life experience has no merit whatsoever.

Home schooling is way to hard of a job for it to become a mass movement. Of course there is always the chance that some that should not home school do, but most parents want a good education for their kids and as long a public schools are there that's where the kid will go.

I could see home schooling morphing into private local education cooperatives where parents are involved at all levels once more people grow dissatisfied with public schools.

"millions of socially inept (Not all, but can you imagine if a majority of American children were taught that way? <shudders> ) children?"

You seem to be under the (incorrect) impression that home-schooled kids don't have social activities and don't spend time with other kids. Do you know any families that home-school? I do, and every single one of them participates in activities and schooling with other kids. In fact, the home-schooling families I know send their kids to more extra-curricular activies (like sports, art classes, music classes, etc) than the non-home schooled families I know.

The kids get social interaction in a variety of ways.
and my sister's 3 home schooled kids are spectacularly brilliant if I do say so.

They are mostly in loosely tied groups through the churches. They get together at one house or another and the parents divide the work. Lots of field trips and picnics. Plenty of socialization. Plenty of friends, but the parents choose who they socialize with.

PS -- we are not homeschooling our own little one.

than can be found at public school. Many parents buy curriculum's for their children.....Not many go cold turkey. Socialization for home schoolers is often created by a group that does outings and educational activities together, also many are also enrolled in other activities like gymnastics, art, music etc. Your child can get a much better education and more fulfilling socialization in a homeschooling situation. I think the curriculum and socialization in public school is inferior especially in regards to curriculum and the socialization that occurs in a group at school may not be what alot of parents want. I have homeschooled 4 children up to about age 9 for some of them I think it went very well and in some ways not so well for others.....but that may well have been the case in a public school as well. I have a 3 year old that I do not plan on going to public school ever and will be homeschooled a good portion of his life. YOu ever here of a book called the "dumbing of america" by (some New York teacher of the year.) I can't remember his name right now. an eye opener.. Also evolution's end by Joseph chilton Pearce. is a good one though not primarily anti-school.

No body "home schooled" The kids worked in the fields or around the house and did not get any schooling. Why would it be different now if there were no requirements? It is a race to the bottom if you ask me.

When public education is dismantled, we are on our way to 3rd world status.

I know there are good, motivated parents who have chosen to teach their kids at home. Some have done well, some haven't. Most don't get the socialization skills needed.

Make this the law of the land and watch this society go pfffft...

Most don't get the socialization skills needed.

I am the parent of a home-schooled child and your assertion is exactly the opposite of my firsthand experience.

Your lack of tolerance and your ignorance is astounding.

I would have to say that you point of view is the STRONGEST argument for homeschooling I can think of.

Think on this for a second:

Homeschoolers pay taxes. Their children do not attend school -- so public education has MORE money for FEWER kids.

Modern education is really miseducation.

Those IN education KNOW that it is now almost ALL about George Dubya Bush's standardized testing and TRACKING for the whole population (just like Nazi Germany). EVERY CHILD left behind and EVERY child tracked and recruited into the New World Order.

UNSchooling is the wave of the future.

Teaching children to teach themselves EVERYTHING so they do not really NEED schools but can learn by DOING and studying what they want and need to know. The WHOLE WORLD becomes their school, yo.

Homeschooling HELPS reduce the stress on schools AND helps reduce the dependence of our children on a defunct and corrupt system.

YOU MUST be a public school miseducated individual. Otherwise your intolerance would not be so severe and you so uninformed

I thinking people learning independently is great. Given the internet, homeschooling is a better option for students in the 21st century than the old 19th century factory model. Homeschooling is more interactive than sitting silently behind a desk for 8 hours, students have more information at their disposal, and students don't have the violence problems, bullying, et cetera, that are rampant in the public schools.

Its interacting with others, school doesnt only teach you like facts and theories it teaches you how to work with others.

People have to raise their hands to speak, or even go to the bathroom in the public schools. Crikey! Public schools are clearly based on the old 19th century factory idea.

Ummm in public school there is class discussion you know. I don't generally mean socialization but working with people, you know like people skills that may help you out. The first public schools really started in the 1600's in New England I believe and it was Jefferson I think who supported a public school system.

Students have to raise their hands to speak in our system. How is that "socialization?"

I am a student so dont tell me about what schools are like when I experience them daily. Actually we are allowed to have pretty open topics. I am not just talking socialization here.

Your language betrays you. :evilgrin:

Besides imo you are sounding elitist just like Ive seen my private school friends act. Just because you had an awful time I see you mentioned doesnt mean everyone else is.

Why is that? Could it be that you go to a public school? ;-)

as I'm sure the spelling errors in Kleeb's post were done in jest (his other posts are much cleaner). I'da thunk the " ;-) " would have indicated that....

but he is easily one of the brightest people and clearest thinkers on the DU boards. He could be a wonderful political writer with the right editor.

He never fails to astonish me with his intelligence; he's a perfect example of why the voting age should be lowered AGAIN.

and besides I dont write like that always, just quick talk. So to speak.

I took your spelling to be a joke, and not to be just typos, based upon your previous erudite posts. That's why I responded the way I did, with another joke post...

I was just saying when I take my time, I can be pretty good at writing. No offense taken what so ever, I just dont like elitist shit being thrown at me, and you werent the one who mocked it, it appears konig did hopefully he was joking but some of the stuff said like "factory model" reminded me of what pissed me off so dearly the night my friends who are privately school bred insulted public school people. Its ok really. "ya" that was a quickie and a fool around. I am not that formal in my speak.

eom

Yes I have and I could qualify as a child myself, I am only 16, I know people who go to private, public, and are homeschooled. I've seen smart and dumb out of all.

it was in 1619 in Massachusetts - first universal public schooling legislation.

her house was supposed to be the 1st actual public school in America, I think.

It was Danial Webster's 1st school anyway and I think he's the father of the public education movement.

involve the teacher and the more extroverted kids.
The quieter kids, get intimidated, if they have trouble speaking or reading in a group, they risk humilitation. Homeschooling can give a child an chance to develop comfidence in there skills. If they are inclined to be that quieter kids, they can get neglected in a public school. Also is a child has a learning difficulty public schools do not always have the resources to help that child.

I was a quiet kid, during class discussion I was so stressed worrying about being picked on and speaking in front of a class that pick on me, I learnt very little.
I wish I had good Homeschooling, public schooling is agreat thing but for a child it can also be hell day in day out.

n/t

soccer....dance ....arts, enviromental and acedemic camps of all stripes...networking with homeschooling group in your area re: science fairs and field trips....helping in local soup kitchens...food pantry...and community service...many places to learn social skills and working with others :7

but not everyone is going to volunteer. I dont have a problem with home schooling though, I think public education although it needs work is a good system.

Most of this "Homeschoolers do so much better" bullcrap comes from the same loony fundy right-wingers who think somebody with a 10th grade education is qualified to homeschool because she's the kids' mom.

I have two BS degrees, and I have reservations about it.

There are homeschoolers that do better academically than public school students.

There are public school students that do better than homeschoolers.

To assume that all homeschoolers do better than []all public school students is hogwash.

No one, even freepers, say *all* homeschoolers do better than *all* public school students. This is a strawman.

It's all a question of what conclusions one draws from the statistics, isn't it? And of course, of whether what one is comparing is two outcomes in which all other things are equal. Which they aren't when we compare the success rates of black and white students. And which they aren't when we compare the success rates of children educated at home and in the public schools.

Regardless of where a student is schooled, it is common knowledge that one of the best, if not the best, predictor of academic success is parental commitment to the child's schooling.

It might just be possible that the average homeschooling parent is more committed than the average non-homeschooling parent to the child's schooling. It just might be that the attitude of the parent, not the venue of the schooling, is key in that success.

There is also the obvious fact that children who are homeschooled tend *not* to have parents who are illiterate or unable to speak the dominant language of their society. The children who do have those parents -- who will obviously be lacking at least some elements of the crucial parental involvement in their education -- are pretty much all in the public schools. Skewing the success levels up for homeschooling, and down for public schooling -- because the comparison is made where all other things are not equal.

There is every reason to believe, from the available information and studies, that those children would do as well in the regular school system as they do in homeschooling, given the parents' commitment to their success and engagement with their education.

It's just amazing what ya can do with statistics when you try ... and especially when you start out by comparing populations where the results are largely pre-determined by bloody definition.

Hell -- with literate parents, who were fluent in the dominant language and committed to their children's academic success, who knows how much better those homeschoolees could have done in the public schools than stuck in that homeschooling backwater??

.

Homeschooling can be the way to go for some families but the state has to protect all of its citizens, including children. In WI parents sign a sheet of paper saying that they will be respondsible for their children's education and that is it. I personally know a family that was 'homeschooling' because they were too lazy to get the kids off to school in the morning - there was no educating going on.
Child molesters and abusers also will sign their kids up for homeschooling to hide their dirty secret.

... in the lives of children, to be sure they are not being starved and beaten and locked in closets, for example. And we all have an interest in maintaining as high an educaton level in the U.S. as possible, for a lot of reasons.

The high academic achievements of home schooled children are based on the achievements before home schooling became a fad of the VRWC. It used to be the case that parents who home schooled were mostly exceptional, well-educated people.

In recent years. however, the religious right has brainwashed families into believing that no good Christian parent sends a child to public school. So these days parents who are barely literate themselves are home schooling.

You cannot tell me that barely educated, ignorant parents can properly teach their children. For these parents, the reason to keep their kids out of schools is not to educate them, but to keep them from being exposed to secular society.

Also, there is a concern that home schooling with no oversight at all could become an easy dodge for abusive parents to keep teachers from noticing their kids' bruises, broken bones, and malnutrition.

Oversight is required.

that don't involve trampling on civil rights. One such example would be pupil testing on an annual basis OUTSIDE of the home.

to be sure they are not being starved and beaten and locked in closets

What kind of test can determine if a child has been locked in a closet?

I was referring to a test to determine if the child was learning in accordance with accepted norms....

maha plainly and clearly spoke of inspections in order to check for child abuse/neglect. In response, you suggested a test, and once again you will prove yourself unwilling and/or unable to respond to the point that was actually made, and instead, post about irrelevancies no one made any mention of.

"The state has an interest in the lives of children, to be sure they are not being starved and beaten and locked in closets, for example. And we all have an interest in maintaining as high an educaton level in the U.S. as possible, for a lot of reasons."

Maha's point #1: The state has an interest in seeing that children are not physically abused.

With me so far? OK, if we're looking at the State's interest that children not be abused, then why not mandatory visits for ALL families with abusable-aged children? Oh, yeah....no probable cause, and all those silly Constitutional protections...

Maha's point #2: The State has an interest in seeing that education levels are maintained.

Fair enough. In that case, give them tests once a year.

as is typical, you pretend to address the poster's main point by distraction and evasions. In this case, you raise the straw man argument of "mandatory visits for ALL families with abusable-aged children" which no one but you raised and is irrelevant to this issue. There's no need to inspect the homes of public school students because the students are accessible for inspection every school day.

"There's no need to inspect the homes of public school students because the students are accessible for inspection every school day."

What about weekends and summer vacation? Where's your constitutional authority to invade home-schooler's homes for inspection? Child abuse is a crime. If your purpose is to check for child abuse, then all the standard constitutional protections apply.

The effects of abuse and/or neglect don't disappear over the weekend. Inspections during class hours is sufficient. Summer vacation is irrelevant because school is not in session and public school students aren't accessible to school officials either.

Where's your constitutional authority to invade home-schooler's homes for inspection?

Simple. The place where ALL constitutional authority comes from -the Constitution.

"Simple. The place where ALL constitutional authority comes from -the Constitution."

In that case please quote the relevant section that gives the Federal government the authority to require mandatory home inspections for all homeschoolers.

who ended up in a feces-filled shack armed and afraid...

Or Andrea Yates' kids...I'm sure they were outdoing public school kids up to the end...

By the way, how do we KNOW homeschoolers do better academically than their counterparts in the public schools?

Interesting really, both now go to Catholic school, now one no offense to him isnt so bright but hes a good kid I like him, and hes not as elitist as the other, now the other kid gets good grades in Catholic school, finds me a dummy because of my public school breeding, and I consider elitist. It depends really and both of these kids live in my neighborhood.

Having a background check?

kids in traditional schools are being taught well?

In some cases home schooled kids are way ahead of their counterparts in regular schools. Others don't learn a thing. Some states require that the home school register itself with the state and that the kids take standardized tests those years. It's a state by state thing.

got done for sexual assault at a local boy's high school.
The sad thing is that whether a child is homeschooled or at a public
school, the risk of abuse it there. Background checks and qualifications will not always protect people.

How about making sure the parents are at least somewhat qualified to teach?

Make it harder to home school, so you can't just take your kids out because they teach "godless evolution"?

The whole home-schooling movement disturbs me. There's a reason we train teachers. It's not something anybody can pick up and do.

I don't appreciate having my independent minded family lumped with the religious wackos. I hated High School and had the option of going to college or homeschooling at 16, and I chose college.

I'd also add that elementary education majors sometimes are not the brightest people in the world. Their training is focused on crowd control and less on hard knowledge. I remember my sixth grade teacher telling my class about evolution. "What did the cell decide to do, grow a head one day?" he told us, mocking the central principle of biology.

You made the better choice, assuming that your sister had the same choice.

Note that I did not say that all homeschoolers were religious, but rather, that I don't feel that the school teaching a subject you don't like is a valid reason for pulling your kids out of school.

I'd also add that elementary education majors sometimes are not the brightest people in the world. Their training is focused on crowd control and less on hard knowledge. I remember my sixth grade teacher telling my class about evolution. "What did the cell decide to do, grow a head one day?" he told us, mocking the central principle of biology.

Yes, but how many teachers did you have in sixth grade? I know I had somewhere around 8. Ultimately, the odds are good that you'll have several well-qualified teachers in a institutional setting. The odds aren't quite as good with parents teaching their own children.

I went to a Lutheran school from K-3, so when I went to the public schools after that, the standards were lower across the board. There was a *lot* of fighting, the academics were inferior, the faculty were lamer, et cetera. And these were Illinois "blue ribbon" schools, too.

If I had to do it over again, I'd have my parents homeschool me K-12, and then I would go to college.

I flipped between two different school systems (one in VA, one in RI, back to the same one in VA), the second time in the middle of the school year.

But I'd hesitate to say that I could have come out much better. <ego>I like to think of myself as a rather smart guy, and most of the people who know me would agree</ego>. Perhaps it is egoistic of me to assume that just because I made it through public school, that everybody else should be OK too.

I do think that it takes training to teach, if only because I've tried to tutor people, and often failed miserably. I know the stuff inside and out, but trying to express it to others can be incredibly frustrating.

They hate teaching because the kids do not want to learn.
One friend said he hasn't really been able to teach all this term because the kids are so continually disruptive. Many kids just can not stay still and quiet for long enough to get a class going.
Other friends have told me about sexual harassment by the pupils to the teachers, fighting, bullying, kids that go home at night to mothers on Crack or on the game. My friends are aged between 26 and 32, not one of them wishes to stay in teaching, they are so dispondent about their jobs.
My point is that the kids are getting tougher to teach, it isn't just funding or quality teaching that stop kids from getting a good education. I don't know if teachers in the US have similar problems, whether the teachers grow to hate their jobs too.

"Ultimately, the odds are good that you'll have several well-qualified teachers in a institutional setting. The odds aren't quite as good with parents teaching their own children."

A degree in Education? There are lots of teachers well-educated in "Education" and woefully lacking in knowlege of the subject they are teaching. And don't tell me that an Education major is smarter than you're average person, I've known too many of them :)

But Education + Subject X majors aren't. As I said above, knowing a subject isn't enough to be able to teach a subject.

HS teachers are required to major in their subject field and minor in education (might be the reverse; it's been a while) to graduate with a teaching degree.

I no longer teach, but without both the subject background and the education background, I couldn't have done it.

A few of them were great, most were mediocre, and some were horrible. I fully support public schools and teacher's unions, and I oppose any schemes to try to destroy public education and hurt education workers - vouchers, corporate schools, privatized eduction, and the rest of that crap.

But leave homeschoolers alone, they aren't hurting anyone. Parents have a right to keep their kids out of school and government shouldn't be forcing families to do it.

I have a unique perspective on K-12 schooling - I went to a private elementary school, was home schooled for a year, and graduated from public high school :)

Do you even know anything about home schooling or how children learn. Why make a sweeping generality about people who choose to home school.

You say that teaching children is not something that anybody can just pick up and do. I really do wonder how children ever learned before schools were forced upon us.

On Edit: A couple of authors you may want to check out are John Taylor Gatto and John Caldwell Holt. They may be able to enlighten you on how children learn and why our current way of teaching children is failing so miserably.

I really do wonder how children ever learned before schools were forced upon us.

Am I reading this correctly by assuming that you think mandatory education is a bad thing? If so, please elaborate; I don't understand what you're trying to say.

There's a BIG difference between the government saying "Every child must be educated" and "Every child must be educated by the state". Government mandates that children should be educated for one reason: Uneducated children become uneducated adults, who are often unemployable and are likely to turn to crime or welfare for substinence. It is, therefore, in everyones public interest to make sure that ALL of our children are educated.

But why should it matter to you or me HOW they're being educated, so long as they are? I do agree with yearly testing, BTW, but it's rather totalitarian for the government to step in and dictate the finite details of its citizens lives.

how children ever learned before mandatory education came along? Not trying to be extreme, just wondering why so many people feel that public or private schools are the only options.

Religious education, mainly, with some supplemental education sometimes; I'm not a historian, but I recall from my history classes that it was mainly either you learned the family trade or worked as an apprentice.

I come from down in the valley
Where mister, when you're young
They bring you up to do
Like your daddy done

Fifty or a hundred years ago, you didn't necessarily need an education. Yeah, if you were going to be the doctor or the banker, you'd go away to school and come back to ply your profession. But if your dad owned the livery stable or the smokehouse, as soon as you were able to hold a hammer or a pork shoulder, you'd be learning your trade. Apprenticeship, they called it, and it ended as soon as your dad decided he didn't want to work anymore (or he got killed or dropped dead). Nine years later, after your own son could hold a hammer or a skinning knife, he'd be learning his trade from you.

You could apprentice to other people too...if you were one of five or six sons, you might be learning to make tinware or shoes for the tinner or cobbler who just happened to be blessed with seven girls. But that's how people learned in those days.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that if your dad wanted you to follow him in the tugboat-pilot trade and you wanted to be a silversmith, there'd be trouble.

Also, forget the "finer points" of life--while you were learning just the proper mix of sugar, salt and saltpeter to make that ham taste like it has for six generations, you certainly weren't learning anything about the humanities.

There are still apprenticeships available, but they're few and far between. These days, you go to community college to learn how to cook instead of slinging hash in the family restaurant. Hence, education is now a necessity.

Would I rather my kid is in a class with 21 other kids with a qualified teacher who marches the kids up Bloom's Taxonomy, or

Would I rather my kid taught with his sister (only child in my kid's case, but) by a mother who doesn't know educational theory but loves them both more than anyone in the world.

I think they'd be fine homeschooling, especially if they were part of a homeschooling group.

I know there are many concern's surrounding the issue, but it can be a very wonderful experience for a family.

Traditional public schools shove kids behind a desk for 6 hours and expect them to 'learn' something? This is so anit-nature for kids KWIM? In addition, children can treat eachother with such disregard. Did anyone hear about the 12 year old who hung himself recently due to being 'teased'?

Children can learn at home in 2 hours, what it takes in 6 hours at school. In addition, children learn 80% of what they are interested in and about 20% of what they are not...

There are many good reasons to homeschool.

http://www2.netdoor.com/~nfgcgrb/brohshecm.html

You may be interested in a book that I'm reading by Grace Llewellyn and Amy Silver called "Guerrilla Learning."

That is what worries me. I have taught many excellent students who were home-schooled.

What worries me is that fact that public school money is going for it, with no accountability required in some cases.

How can there be public schools left when they are taking the money from them to give to charter schools, home schools, and private schools?

So many of the programs for home-schooling are put out by fundamentalists, extreme ones. That worries me, as the goal of this administration is to get them while they are young.

If the parents want to teach them religion, well and good. So many of the ones I taught by 6th grade were totally intolerant, very anti-social, and their parents were unaware. Try telling parents that their child is those things. Not good.

the school district still gets my $1,700 a year school taxes
i requested use of the science lab so that my son could meet the state requirements...school said NO!

This may fall under William Bennett company's corporate vouchers, which still in the long run take money which would have gone to education. Computers are delivered to the parents, books, materials. Qualified counselors in the public school do monitor them a little, which takes more money.

There are several other ways this may be done, but I need to find the articles.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against home-schooling. I am against the death of the public schools. As a retired teacher, I am against the lack of standards of voucher students whose name may never be revealed.

If you are home-schooling, they should provide something. I can see both sides. I just think our country should provide an education. The schools can't do it here in Florida anymore. It is one of the biggest losses our country can suffer. It did not have to be.

Two of our daughters do go to the Florida Virtual High School ( http://www.flvs.net/_florida_services/index_fls.htm ), which is not the same as the other that William Bennett runs. The other daughter, we still make lesson plans for ourselves. We receive no money or help of any kind from the state or anyone else. And we still pay our property taxes to support the public schools.

In general, with regular homeschooling, you don't get anything in FL, except that your children do still have the right to participate in public school extra-curricular activities (the ones Jeb Bush hasn't gutted yet).

You are required to take your children to be evaluated by a teacher every year and maintain a portfolio for them. But the state of Florida doesn't supply books, computers, or help of any kind that I've ever heard of (after 4 years of homeschooling), with the exception of the one program run by William Bennett that just started this year.

Karen

...the works. Same in Wisconsin and probably a few other states. Use a state-chartered school for the curriculum and the freebies, teach the kid yourself, and the school district pays the bill.
Examples at www.connectionsacademy.com and www.pavcs.org

I think Connections is the Bill Bennett company, and he has truly benefitted from his connections I would say.

Yes, the ones here get a new computer as well.

$1,700...but i had to purchase all my childrens text books and materials from pocket...another $700 to $800 anually...and thats how it should be if you choose to homeschool...no money should be taken away from the public schools children to support my choices

I think taxpayers should expect some value for what they pay in taxes.

I wouldn't expect NY DOE to bend over backwards, but there should be some give and take, for example:

There should be some certification process for parents. That'll shut a lot of people up about what I like to call 'homeskool.' You don't meet the minimum requirements - your kids take their asses to public school, end of story.

The curriculum should be subject to review by the state DOE, and should meet certain minimum standards.

The kids get tested BY THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT every year. You do not get to proctor the test. You don't get to watch your kids take the test, or be in the same room. You wait in the waiting area until the kids are done, the STATE, not you, get to evaluate the results, and if the kids don't pass, your homeschool program goes 'poof.'

What the local district should provide to YOU is the loan of any and all textbooks and other class materials the other kids get to use. The cost for running off copies of course outlines is minimal, and besides, YOU paid for the damn things. You SHOULD be able to use them. In my ideal school district, all this stuff would be online anyway, so nobody would have to worry about the 59 cents' worth of copier toner.

Since use of science labs requires supervision and contains certain potentially hazardous materials, schools should be exempt from allowing homeschoolers to use them. Sorry. You can't have everything in Why's Libertarian Socialist Republic.

Your kids should be eligible to sit for the Regents exams on an equal basis with his public school counterparts. There is NO reason why homeschoolers should not be eligible to get a Regents diploma. None at all. You can homeschool yourself through college via Excelsior College or SUNY Empire State College and get a real diploma, why can't someone who successfully homeschools through high school?

So, what would the result be if Why were to get elected Governor and his progressive, common-sense platform is implemented? Well, you wouldn't have quite as many people doing their kids injustice by subjecting them to ill-run homeschool programs, but you would have the remaining programs much better organized because parents get the guidance they've been screaming for and the oversight they need to keep everything above board.

public school, the kids are just cybercommuting. I'm pretty sure the county ends up saving money by not having to provide a building for the students that do that. Schools are expensive to build.

My children are not homeschooled because I fear the teaching of "godless evolution."

They are homeschooled because they both possess genius IQs and were withering away in public school for years.

They are homeschooled because ALL the PUBLIC schools in this area (actually within a 50 mile radius) are filled with God talk and I wanted my kids to focus on math and literature and history and science.

They are homeschooled because my 1st grade son was beat down by a gang of girls and lost a tooth and the teacher grilled him for an hour demanding to know what HE had done to provoke them.

They are homeschooled because my genius IQ son was bored to tears in 2nd grade and would not sit still and his teacher demanded I put him on Ritalin "or else."

I've got a news flash for you. We don't train teachers in this country. I come from a family and in-law family of teachers and we all agree the public school system is horribly broken. Don't blame homeschoolers. Blame ignorant knee-jerk reactions to new ideas and honest criticism.

1) I agree the public school system is flawed. The answer is not to pull out of the system and see if you can do a better job by yourself.

2) Note that I didn't say all children were homeschooled because their parents were scared of evolution. I said that shouldn't be a valid reason for pulling your kids out.

3) Your first grade son had every reason to be pulled out; If it were me, I would have tried to find a private school. However (I'm assuming you're in the South, based on your description of the school system), it's hard to find a good private school that isn't religious, and it is expensive. So I can understand the home schooling there. As for your other son, it is possible to buck the system. My parents did it for me - as I recall, my situation was very close to the one you described back when I was in second grade.

4) As for training teachers, surely you agree a college education is generally superior to no college education? Again, not saying that all homeschoolers are taught by people without college educations, but I know of too many who are.

On edit: typo

Schools are bad all over.

As for "bucking the system" my husband and I and our two kids struggled to buck the system for years and finally realized we didn't have to beat our heads against the wall anymore.

We have no regrets for our decision and fewer stomach aches all around.

Finally though, I must ask. Why do you believe I should have sacrificed my kids to the public school system? Why is the answer "not to pull out of the system?"

I have encountered this attitude before and I cannot comprehend it. As a parent, my job is to give my children the best possible start in life. Public school would NOT be the best. So I should have left them in a substandard situation for the good of the system?

No way. My kids deserved better and they have it.

P.S. edited to correct bad typing

Before all the teachers at DU get annoyed, let me say that I agree teaching is a tough job, and that not only were both of my parents teachers but I have taught, as well (college, not public school), and have about 30+ teachers among my cousins. However, I have been severely disappointed by some of the teachers I have come across in my children's schools (all of them in supposedly good districts). Some of the teachers are simply uneducated, despite their degrees, and a few have gone wild on the relative freedom a teacher has in a classroom. I have seen some real martinets out there, and I pity the children who suffer under their control.

Because I know quite well what teachers go through on a daily basis, it pains me tremendously to have to tell my children "your teacher is wrong" when they come home with factually incorrect information, examples of their teachers' incorrect grammar, or improperly graded tests. Some teachers have only a modest knowledge of their subject matter (in higher grades) because they haven't majored in the subject but in "education." Many children would be better off with their parents -- including parents without college degrees -- than with SOME of the teachers out there (again, I don't want to paint all teachers with a broad brush).

My mother, who taught for many years in a sizeable city's public schools before becoming an administrator in the same system, says that if she had young children today, she WOULDN'T send them to the public schools, BECAUSE OF the teachers. Since she directly supervised scores of them (and worked with them before becoming a principal), she's in a position to know. It's a crap shoot sometimes.

When parents decide what they want their children to learn, those children don't learn things those parents consider bad for their chilren.

that the children be tested and the tests must be sent to the state education dept. I do believe, in Illinois, that the school must be notified that you are home schooling and then they give you all of the requirements needed for each class, grade etc. or you can get the information from the State Education Dept. I don't know what they do if the tests aren't sent in or if the child is doing poorly.

I do know that homeschooled children tend to far exceed public school kids in academics.

But, I don't think any parent has to be certified or have background checks.

(individual home instruction plan) and quarterly report (your childs grades)....assessment test at 4th and 8th grade level.

a mother who can afford to stay home and do it. A mother whose husband has the total burden of support. The rest have to send their kids to a school, while they go out to work so that they can pay their mortgage and the bills. That says to me that home schooling is just another form of the elite looking out for themselves-- which imo is just another form of "I got mine" and the hell with the rest. I think this attitude does not bode well--because the entire society will have to depend upon each other-- the home schooled will someday have to depend upon the less than fortunate public schooled individual for his support and for his survival. So therefore, it is is the best interest of everyone that they vigorously pursue and defend a well supported public education.

I know a number of them.

"home schooling is just another form of the elite looking out for themselves"

You obviously are not familiar with many, if any, home-schoolers.

enough to perform that task. For those who are not, for those who are striving to upgrade beyond the talents of the mother who may not have a good or a firm grasp on say, the English language, it is not the same. Immigrants to this country, traditionally have been those who perhaps did not have a firm grasp on the language and who HAD to depend upon public schooling to propel their children upward as they desired most sincerely--and THIS has been the strength of this country in it's melting pot democracy. In the long run, even the home schooled, who think they have avoided the "perils" or the "evils" of the public school system (those ignorant teachers)that does not afford THEIR precious,and most intelligent little boy Johnny or little girl Jill, the first place in the class, as THEY know their children deserve above all the other children in the class,
, will have to, inevitably, need to depend upon those "others" who are public schooled.

A society is a web, an interweave. I believe that working for a school system that supports all--is the best. It is NOT, imo, in the best interest of society, for some to get better because thier mothers can afford to stay at home and not work, while others do not, This is NOT in our best interest) as a society. It might be in YOUR best interest for YOUR child in the immediate perception of what it BEST for YOUR child, but in the long run, it is not in the best interest of society and therefore not in the best interest of your child. Eventually YOUR child, as he 0r she grows, will depend upon others for his or her best interests in life. It is NOT, imo, the best thing for each to take care of ITS own--because in the long run, your children will need to depend upon those others for their happiness and their survival.

"It is NOT, imo, in the best interest of society, for some to get better because thier mothers can afford to stay at home and not work" ... "It might be in YOUR best interest for YOUR child in the immediate perception of what it BEST for YOUR child, but in the long run, it is not in the best interest of society"

On the contrary, it is in the best interest of society for every child to be educated to their best and fullest abilities. For some children that means a public school education, for others a private school education is preferable, and for many, 1-on-1 or home schooling is the best option. What's important here is that the education of no child should ever be sacrificed for the good of "society", because a highly educated child is potentially more beneficial to that society than a moderately educated one.

If a parent can offer their children educational opportunities above and beyond what our public schools are capable of offering, then we should ALL be supportive of that. After all, that kid could grow up to be the next Einstein, Von Braun, Beethoven, or Salk. Education is the key to improving our society, and NO educational system should be ignored or regulated if it WORKS. The numbers prove quite clearly that home schooling does work, and that it does have a place in our society.

"On the contrary, it is in the best interest of society for every child to be educated to their best and fullest abilities. For some children that means a public school education, for others a private school education is preferable, and for many, 1-on-1 or home schooling is the best option"

And for those whose mothers can afford to stay home eight hours a day, then that is an advantage, certainly. Of course, it is NOT viewed as elitist--it is viewed as the "best interest" of the child when the mother can be at home and be supported by a husband, is it not? -and that child who is kept at home under Mommy's wing, does NOt get along in a public school at all, is that correct?--the teacher does not understand the child's needs--or the teacher is not giving attention to the child's genius abilities--or the teacher is not qualified or for some reason does not recognize the genius they see before them--ie your child--anything to make an excuse for the child not being able to adjust or learn in a social situation--or the parents not being able to adjust to the fact that their little "genius" is not being given his or her "due" by the teacher--who does not recognize that this child needs something the other children do not.

Sorry, but home schooling is elitist--and your child is the most important to you--of course. There was a tinme when the public school was an institution that was the ideal for a country like this--it is now an embarrassament--and it was done on purpose.

have underfunded public education. Simply look at our federal spending priorities to see where we make our future investment.

Sad that in 30 years we won't have enough smart people to maintain our defense investment.

If we founded public education the way we should, we wouldn't have this debate.

FYI, I'm being a mouthpiece for my wife on this one. She's got a Masters in early child development, helped establish our new local Head Start program, and has been an elementary public school teacher for years. If you really want to argue and stubbornly stick to the belief that shoving all kids into some kind of 30 kids to a teacher, 1 size fits all, standardized curriculum state school is the "ideal", and that all kids are going to "adapt" to it, then I'm not going to argue with you. I'm simply going to tell you that you're wrong.

Homeschooling works, and there's nothing "elitist" about giving your children the best. In fact, I'd say that, as parents, it's our DUTY to give our children every advantage we can manage.

and teach her own children. Others, whose intelligence quotient may be even above that of your very degreed wife who is able to stay at home and teach her children better than any teacher in any public school can, because, of course, she recognizes that her own children will do better without all of that competitition in a classroom situation, because perhaps her own children deserve ALL of the attention of the teacher and this should not be shared with other children who OBVIOUSLY are not as SMART as the child of the "degreed" mother and father, and will do better without the teacher who has to teach ALL of those children, some of whom may actually have more talent and more intelligence than the "degreed" parents, but who do not have the luxury of the home sc hooling of the stay at home mom who is supported by the husband, so who can teach her children exclusively away from any competition. This is elitist. It is ONLY the parent who can afford a father who can support them all tha can devote all of their attention on educating their own children, separate and apart from those who MUST attend a public school in order to learn how to read and write. It IS elitist. It IS separation, puposefully, away from those "others"

May be good individually to do it.....but the problem is when every country decides to outsource their production.

I think you really hit the nail on the head. A society of totally home schooled is going to produce a lot of unintended consequences.

of NIGHT JOBS?

I know several people that home-school, and one parent works during the day while the other homeschools, and the one that homeschools works at night while the other is there with the kid.

NONE of the people I know are what you'd call 'elite'---in fact, they're just regular working Joe's and Jane's like everyone else. They struggle to pay bills, they do the best that they can to keep their family strong, and they're doing quite a good job at it.

One of my friends (who has no education aside from attending a community college back in the early 90's) homeschooled her daughter. At age 16, she (the daughter) took the SAT and scored a 1550 on it. When she entered college, she was able to audit both a bio 101 and a chem 101 class because of what her mother taught her.

When she compared what SHE knew and was learning vs. what her friends knew and were learning, she was YEARS ahead of them.

And again, I stress---both parents in the household worked full-time jobs 5 days a week. They were not rich, affluent, or elite. They were just doing what was best for their child. And their child got a much better education than she ever would have going to a public school

All of it. (I was saying much the same to Old and in the Way up the board a bit.)

And also, what a fortuitous "unintended consequence" of it all -- all those women removing themselves from the labour force "voluntarily". (Funny how it's mothers who do the homeschoolin', eh?) And being economically dependent on men. The economically dependent just aren't in a position to make many demands, individually or as a class.

Yup, there were reasons why women once demanded the ability to be economically independent, just like there were reasons why people fought for mandatory school attendance and free, publicly-operated schools.

But they (we) were really just deluded.

True freedom for cihldren doesn't lie in having an education and growing up to be members of an educated society; it doesn't lie, for women, in being able to support themselves and their families, and participate in the economic life of their society. No, it lies inside the nuclear family and its four walls, where children's educational opportunities are dependent on their parents' whims and disposable incomes ... well, on their fathers', since the incomes are theirs ... and women's opportunities end at the doorstep.

Imagine us imagining there was something better.

.

I am raising my son alone, without child support to boot. There are plenty of sacrifices made for my son to be homeschooled this year (see posts elsewhere in this thread). There are no whims or even disposable incomes here, and my opportunities as a woman didn't stop at the doorstep. I found a way for this to work for both my son and myself. I'm a 51 year old professional woman and have worked since my teens. Life's circumstances change whether we want them to or not, and horrific they did, in my case. I am a survivor and have chosen to be proactive. I am sure I am not the only woman (single or married) to do this.

Now,while my son is upstairs in his room researching and writing his paper on the 5th Column, I'm pursuing my dream of a home-based business, unrelated to my former healthcare profession. I am available to answer his questions and offer him more challenges, all the while his lunch is warming in the oven. I can be mommy, tutor, activist, businesswoman and just me at the same time - all independent of a man's financial support.

And of course, your personal experience disproves the assertion that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of homeschoolers are women, in two-parent families, who have no independent income and are economically dependent on their husbands.

No? Then what was the point?

I wasn't talking about exceptions to the rule. There always are exceptions, aren't there? And we're all exceptional in our own exceptional ways. I'm an exception to lots of rules. For instance, I'm in the top low-single-digit percentage of income earners in my country. I'm a woman. Does this mean that all women earn more than 95% of the rest of the population? (That would certainly be mind-boggling.) That there are no barriers to women in employment?

I was speaking about a PHENOMENON, and the fallout from that phenomenon. not individual cases. Surely that was obvious. If you want to argue that I was wrong about the phenomenon, or its fallouts, feel free.

.

I don't speak to people in a patronizingly superior manner. My antedote, as you refer is not meant to intrude upon your phenomenon.

So, what was my point? Just posting to my friends in DU that might find an exception to generalizations interesting or even encouraging - nothing else.

all the homeschoolers I have known have not had high incomes maybe because alot of the mothers stay home and give up income for the betterment of their children. YOU may know some elitist that homeschool but to catagorize it as an elitist activity is incorrect.

my children are now in one...i am grateful tho for my firefighters husband salary which allowed me the luxury to home school for those years...you are correct about it being a luxury...although i do know many who sacrifice dearly to home school.

I send my kid to private school.

My brother in law and sister in law (both professors) together make more than I do. My wife doesn't work outside the home.

My brother in law tells me that he just got back from Paris, and is about to take a trip to the southeast USA for a few weeks.

Then he tells me he wishes he had enough money to take his daughter out of the local sorry public schools and put her in private school, but they just can't afford it.

I would say (but don't for my wife's family's sake) that they could afford it if it was important to them. They choose to live a higher lifestyle instead. We live more simply, but spend the money on our son's education.

How can children who are being physically abused by their parents be found out and protected if there is no over sight such as teachers, school nurses or school social workers? How many children will become hostages to abusive parents under home schooling?

How many children go to public or private school are abused by teachers, coaches, or other children? Just more stupid arguments for the government to stick its nose where it doesn't belong!

than you are an idiot who should be schooling no one. The facts are that the percentage of parents who abuse their children are far greater than the occasional incident at school. There are thousands of children who have been saved from their parents by pro-active schools. It's too bad that Andrea Yate's children didn't have that protection.

What a nightmare - government agents inspecting everyone's homes for signs of abuse. Take a look at what DCF is doing in Florida - I wouldn't let those freaks near my kid.

Are these the same people who are against the Patriotic Act? You would never know by some of the arguments that are made when it comes to people being able to raise their own children.

to get them to tstify against their parents. Ve Hav Vays to Make You Talk Little Girl.

when people start talking about more government oversee. I appreciate what you said.....Someone very close to me who was probably abused more severly that most people here on DU homeschools his child. This person was also helped by a teacher in regards to the abuse. This person would never agree or condone the idea of mandatory inspecting of homes. Do people want to be free or what???????

My point is that you act as if there is some great epidemic of children who are home schooled that are also being abused and that is not supported by facts. If you didn't know then perhaps you should educate yourself about the regulations that the majority of states require for children to be schooled at home. There, in fact, are only eight states which require no notification, Texas being one of them. If Andrea Yates is the poster mother for home schooling, then Mary Kay Letourneau is the poster teacher for public schooling. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

There are no facts because there is no over sight. The only time that a problem is noticed is when it is to late. I shudder to think what kids will be subject to if home schooling truly becomes a wide spread trend. As it is, we will never know what percentage of the 850,000 home schooled kids are being abused, and we will never know.


And isn't comparing a murderer of five children to the sexual exploits of one male student and a female teacher a little ridiculous?You are having to stretch far to make your argument.

Being compelled to homeschool her children (as Yates essentially was) didn't exactly do wonders for her mental health.

Public schooling might well have spared them from that fate, not just because of the opportunity for oversight, but perhaps mainly because the situation that culminated in her divorce from reality and their deaths might well simply never have developed.

Privatization of the burden was not limited to caring for / educating children in her case, of course. She was also caring for / coping with an elderly demented parent.

But heck, I'm sure he was better off in the care of a stressed and psychotic woman and under no public oversight than he would have been in a publicly-overseen facility under the care of properly trained and compensated professionals, too.

And I'm sure it was the Yates's right to keep him away from that oversight and care. Either that or he was their responsibility. Or both, more likely. If you're a Republican, anyhow.

.

how many public school educated kids are abused sexually or otherwise either.

Since one or two mothers have murdered their children supposedly because of some kind of postpartum episode require that all homes be routinely inspected..........just in case???? give me a break!

when they go to public schools. Teachers, school nurses are taught to look for signs of abuse and report it. Are you telling me that parents should just do as they please with their children and society has no authority to protect these children?

Maybe a few child torture cases here and there are ok with some in this thread, as long as they get to home school. It is painfully obvious that few here care about protecting children from their number one predator, their parents.

shit happens all the time all over the world I never said I thought it was good that someone was abused..But you cannot police everyone and take peoples rights away from everyone because of somebodys horrific behaviour. White Straight Men are the most quilty of sexual abuse so maybe we should monitor all of them I mean it's there *ucking fault we have to live with this shit. I mean leave the *ucking homeschoolers alone and go after the real culprits. For crying out loud.

Maybe a few child torture cases here and there are ok with some in this thread, as long as they get to home school. It is painfully obvious that few here care about protecting children from their number one predator, their parents.you see what I mean?

This is really unfair.......It is painfully obvious that few here care about protecting children from their number one predator,straight white men. I mean none of you here agree that we should monitor and investigate and enter into the homes of all straight white men to make sure none of them are sexually abusing children and all children should be forced to go to public school and have all those well trained watchers that are schooled in sniffing out abuse and also none of the teacher can be straight white men.... with that said all you who disagree really don't care about abused children right?

"It is painfully obvious that few here care about protecting children from their number one predator, their parents."

Simple solution - take all the kids away from their parents, put them in boarding schools where they are checked for signs of abuse by professional educators, problem solved right? Perhaps we should install cameras in homes to check for abuse?


What is it about public education that brings out some liberal's inner Nazi?

Try again. Refute the fact that 42 states require notification and 29 of those states have a good deal of regulations.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you would.

What Liberal Guerrilla said was:

"There are no facts because there is no over sight. The only time that a problem is noticed is when it is to late. I shudder to think what kids will be subject to if home schooling truly becomes a wide spread trend. As it is, we will never know what percentage of the 850,000 home schooled kids are being abused, and we will never know."

And you respond:

"Refute the fact that 42 states require notification and 29 of those states have a good deal of regulations."

I'm sure that those states also have speed limits.

I can't think of how either speed limits or what you're talking about would address the fact, and potential problems inherent in that fact, that homeschooled children can be kept out of the public eye and away from public scrutiny virtually completely for most of their lives.

Let's assume that children are abused by homeschooling parents at the same rate as, no more or less frequently or seriously than, children who are in a school system.

Children who are in a school system are observed for several hours a day by teachers and other professionals who are trained to detect signs of abuse even where it isn't obvious -- and even other children who can and sometimes do convey information about abuse to the appropriate persons. They are also told about abuse, and about their right not to be subjected to it. They are instructed in ways to report abuse and escape abusive situations. And if they do report, they are offered protection.

Which of these are regularly available to homeschooled children? Especially homeschooled children who are abused?

How is a child who is never taught what abuse is, who never hears that s/he is entitled not to be subjected to it, who is never offered a conduit for reporting it, who has no notion that there is protection available from what is happening to him/her, likely to be able to avoid the abuse and the abuser?

Might I offer the totally subjective impression that it is more common among homeschooling parents to keep their children away from television, and that they are lauded for this resolve? Even frivolous entertainment programming on television is a source of information for an abused child about what is happening to him/her and how to make it stop. Is an abusive homeschooling parent being responsible by limiting his/her child's exposure to the noxious infuence of popular culture with its sex and violence, or protecting him/herself?

SOME homeschooling parents are abusive -- physically, emotionally, actively or by neglect. Just as some non-homeschooling parents are. But homeschooling undeniably provides better cover for an abusive parent, and less protection for the child.

Anecdotes are always such fun. My only personal experience with homeschooling (that sort of thing is just so not heard of in urban Canada) went like this. Five little girls under the age of ten lived with their educated, middle-class parents in a row house in the downtown of a large Canadian city -- with subsidized rent of course, since a couple that chooses to have five children and only one income (the father's civil service job) tends to need that sort of thing, and Canadian society tends to provide them with it. Of course, it was the mother who did the homeschooling. And most days, the homeschooling seemed to consist of five little girls under the age of ten running around naked and shrieking and unsupervised in the tiny shared backyard of the row of four houses, one door around the corner from a busy traffic artery and visible from the sidewalk on that busy street.

It isn't just parents, themselves, that some kids need protection from. It's the dangers that the moronic parents expose them to. If these little girls had been in school, they would not have been running around naked within sight and easy reach of anyone who walked by. And of course, I have no idea what went on behind the closed doors of the house, but I wouldn't actually be surprised at anything done by a parent who left a naked 10-year-old girl and her little sisters outside alone in the inner city. Just not quite normal, to my mind.

Anecdotes are actually a waste of time. But I'll put mine up against anybody else's, nonetheless.


Is there any substantive argument against, say, inspecting the homes in which children are schooled, or better, requiring the kind of regular physical check-ups and psychological/emotional check-ins (say, with guidance counsellors or in health classes or peer-group discussions of developmental issues) that occur in the public schools?

I mean, other than "liberty!!!"?

Sure it's a limitation on liberty, an infringement of privacy. Lots of things are. We do them when the objective is sufficiently important to justify doing them. Some of us think that child protection is sufficiently important. Some of us think that a really very technical and limited infringement of our liberty or privacy is more important than child protection.

Go figure.

.

I could not have spelled it out any better my self. I would agree that if this trend does continue, regular home checks and physicals should be mandatory for kids who are being home schooled. But even that is not enough.

some very serious constitutional problems there. Where do you find Constitutional authority to compel home inspections in cases where there's no reason to believe a crime has been committed? That flies DIRECTLY in the face of at least two Democratically treasured civil liberties....the Right to Privacy and the Right to be free from unreasonable searches.

Your views will be more acceptable there. Here, in the United States, we prefer freedom and civil liberties.

The scariest part?

"But even that is not enough." - so mandatory home inspections and physicals are not enough for you? What exactly are you planning to do to our children anyway?

"Is there any substantive argument against, say, inspecting the homes in which children are schooled,"

There has to be probable cause that a crime was committed, along with a judicial determination that PC exists. We're talking BASIC Constitutional right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Of course, you live under different rules than we have down here...lucky for us!!! :)

to piss off. Don't let me stand in your way.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of
communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

"We're talking BASIC Constitutional right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Of course, you live under different rules than we have down here...lucky for us!!!"

But on your way out, do also feel free to print out the above excerpts from the Canadian constitution and maybe find a way of stuffing them somewhere you're likely to notice them and not likely to be able to keep on pretending you aren't familiar with them.

"There has to be probable cause that a crime was committed, along with a judicial determination that PC exists."

And feel free to learn some constitutional law while you're gone.

Your statement is correct in the case of searches for the purpose of obtaining evidence of a crime.

Duh again. That's not what anybody's talking about.

How, I wonder, would you explain health inspections of meat packing plants, or occupational safety inspections of workplaces? No warrant needed, no crime need be believed to have been committed.

(Never mind screeching about how these places are not dwelling places. The gummint can't search a meat packing plant or a workplace for evidence of a crime without a warrant either, can it, chum?)

Here ya go. How would you explain the fact that you must permit a property standards inspector to enter your home and inspect the renovation you've been doing (or an electrical utility inspector, to inspect your rewiring)? Quick -- where's that crime? If there's no evidence of non-compliance, why should compliance inspections be permitted?

You know what there is? There's an activity going on -- construction, wiring -- that is subject to public oversight even though it's happening in your very private property, because your society has decided that the interest it seeks to protect -- safety -- justifies this intrusion into your home. YOU can be compelled to demonstrate compliance with the requirements that apply IF you want to engage in that activity.

YOU choose to engage in this regulated conduct -- to make structural changes to your home, or redo the electrical wiring. You may not do that without consenting to inspection. That's the law, and you can whine to the inspector about liberty and privacy all you like. Don't let him in, and you won't get an occupancy permit for your property and you'll get charged with a bylaw violation if you occupy it, or you won't get any electricity supplied to your property.

(I'm guessing. That's how it works up here in utopia, but I suppose I can't speak for your neck of the backwoods.)

So do the math. YOU choose to engage in the regulated conduct of educating children -- an activity that is subject to a range of completely valid legal requirements. YOU choose to conduct that activity in your home. YOU have therefore chosen to permit inspection of your home, if the interests that such inspections would serve are determined to justify that utterly minimal intrusion on your privacy.

Me, I'm still wondering why anyone would be of the opinion that this petty obstructionism for no genuine purpose (invasion of privacy my ass) is a decent ("moral", if you prefer) response to the fact that such inspections (and other forms of oversight which are, in my opinion, minimally necessary) might well save some other child from serious harm.

Me, me, me, is all I hear.

Is it getting fainter? Just because the gun dungeon has finally bored me to death and I've pretty much abandoned you, you really needn't be following me around, you know.

.

"Your statement is correct in the case of searches for the purpose of obtaining evidence of a crime.

Duh again. That's not what anybody's talking about.

How, I wonder, would you explain health inspections of meat packing plants, or occupational safety inspections of workplaces? No warrant needed, no crime need be believed to have been committed."

Ever hear of "expectation of privacy"? You don't have an expectation of privacy in a meat packing plant now, do you...

"Here ya go. How would you explain the fact that you must permit a property standards inspector to enter your home and inspect the renovation you've been doing (or an electrical utility inspector, to inspect your rewiring)? Quick -- where's that crime? If there's no evidence of non-compliance, why should compliance inspections be permitted?"

Because it's a recertification that the house is fit to be re-inhabited. That means that while it's your property, it's not really your home, it's a building under construction. by obtaining the building permit, you're basically voiding the original occupation permit. In case you didn't know this, occupied dwellings are given great deference in US laws on privacy issues.

"So do the math. YOU choose to engage in the regulated conduct of educating children -- an activity that is subject to a range of completely valid legal requirements. YOU choose to conduct that activity in your home. YOU have therefore chosen to permit inspection of your home, if the interests that such inspections would serve are determined to justify that utterly minimal intrusion on your privacy."

The law, here at least, states that children must be educated, and provides public schooling for those who want to take advantage of it. Please cite ANY law from ANY state in the US that authorizes home inspections of domiciles for people that home-school.

"Just because the gun dungeon has finally bored me to death and I've pretty much abandoned you, you really needn't be following me around, you know."

Don't flatter yourself. I've responded to posts by several other authors other than you on this thread. The only reason you're getting responses from me is a) because you're responding to my posts while the others aren't, and b) because you still don't seem to have a very good grasp on how things work down here.

- feel free not to respond when you don't understand the concepts

- feel free to piss off anytime you like


"Ever hear of 'expectation of privacy'? You don't have an expectation of privacy in a meat packing plant now, do you..."

You're a funny fella.

Now you run along and tell that to a meat packing plant owner whose plant you are about to subject to a warrantless search for evidence of a crime. I have a suspicion you might find yourself looking up close at a large bit of meat, or an implement for turning it into small bits.

You not believing in that "private property" stuff at all now, boyo?


"Because it's a recertification that the house is fit to be re-inhabited. That means that while it's your property, it's not really your home, it's a building under construction. by obtaining the building permit, you're basically voiding the original occupation permit. In case you didn't know this, occupied dwellings are given great deference in US laws on privacy issues."

Ye gods, talk about yer question-begging. Wanna look that one up and explain it in your own words? A cat is a cat because it's a cat. You must allow your home to be inspected because you must allow your home to be inspected. Works for you, does it?


"Please cite ANY law from ANY state in the US that authorizes home inspections of domiciles for people that home-school."

You don't grasp the business of argument at all, do you?

That --

"So do the math. YOU choose to engage in the regulated conduct of educating children -- an activity that is subject to a range of completely valid legal requirements. YOU choose to conduct that activity in your home. YOU have therefore chosen to permit inspection of your home, **if** the interests that such inspections would serve are determined to justify that utterly minimal intrusion on your privacy."

-- was what you'd call MY ARGUMENT. See that there "if" in that last sentence? "IF the interests that such inspections would serve are determined to justify that utterly minimal intrusion on your privacy"? You familiar with the idea of HYPOTHETICALS? IF "x", THEN "y" -- which is NOT a statement that "y" is true, UNLESS "x".

MY ARGUMENT is based on the premise that the interests that such inspections would serve DO JUSTIFY the utterly minimal intrusion on privacy in question.

I DIDN'T SAY that this determination has been made. So I DIDN'T SAY that homeschoolers are, at present, subject to an obligation to submit to home inspection.

And yet there you are, arguing with one of that straw menagerie you're so fond of.

Maybe you'll introduce me to them some day. I'd be curious to see how I could so often be mistaken for one of them. I sure don't see any resemblance myself, but then I don't wear the blinkers you're obviously so fond of.

.

"Ye gods, talk about yer question-begging. Wanna look that one up and explain it in your own words? A cat is a cat because it's a cat. You must allow your home to be inspected because you must allow your home to be inspected. Works for you, does it?"

Nope, all new construction is subject to building codes and require a building permit. Buildings that will be occupied as dwellings are no exception. Until there is an inspection and an occupancy permit issued, it's still legally under construction, and can't be occupied.

"MY ARGUMENT is based on the premise that the interests that such inspections would serve DO JUSTIFY the utterly minimal intrusion on privacy in question.
I DIDN'T SAY that this determination has been made. So I DIDN'T SAY that homeschoolers are, at present, subject to an obligation to submit to home inspection."

Your "ARGUMENT" flies in the face of constitutional law down here. You can make it all you want, but that doesn't make it something that would pass constitutional muster. As such, it's a completely bullshit argument, unless you're advocating amending the constitution.

Nope, all new construction is subject to building codes and require a building permit. Buildings that will be occupied as dwellings are no exception. Until there is an inspection and an occupancy permit issued, it's still legally under construction, and can't be occupied.

And again, DNR "begs the question" by not explaining how or why the govt's power to inspect is consistent with the property owners' property rights and his/her right to privacy on land that s/he owns. DNR just claims that it's "subject to inspection" but the home of a homeschooled child is not.

Maybe that explains DBR's frequent use of barnyard epithets. You know "If you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, baffle 'em with bullshit"

To see that *somebody* "gets it".

Even (hell, especially?) if it's somebody one doesn't (as I suspect) always agree with.

;)

could it be that there's a much higher standard to be reached to justify searching a person's home than there is to inspect a freshly constructed building? Might it be that there's a lower expectation of privacy in new unoccupied construction than in somebody's home? Have you noticed that the building inspector can't routinely inspect an existing private residence for building code violations, even if they know it's not up to code, unless they want to try to condemn it?

A citizen has the same right to privacy on his/her privately owned land as they do in their privately owned home.

Have you noticed that the building inspector can't routinely inspect an existing private residence for building code violations, even if they know it's not up to code, unless they want to try to condemn it?

That's not true. We have lawyers here who force inspections in buildings with code violations despite the opposition of the landlords. There's no need to condemn the building.

"That's not true. We have lawyers here who force inspections in buildings with code violations despite the opposition of the landlords. There's no need to condemn the building."

Rental property is subject to different rules (your state's landlord-tenant act), and the landlords are generally NOT the tenants. It's the tenants that have the privacy issue, not the landlord.

DNR continues to claim that private properties can't be searched unless there's a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, but also claims that rental property, privately owned, can be searched. And why is this?

Because "Rental property is subject to different rules" without giving any explanation of how that can be true when rental properties are privately owned and entitled to all of the Constitutional protections that non-rental properties are entitled to.

TNR also fails to explain how people who don't own the property have a privacy right on land they do not own. TNR is in danger having his "privacy is based on property rights" argument blown out of the water.

Rental property is, by definition, commercial. There's commerce going on there, in the form of a rental operation. It can be subject to both State (Landlord-Tenant Act) and Federal regulation (under the ICC) that a private dwelling is not.

The privacy right attaches by nature of the person moving into the place. This can take several different forms, for example, the prohibition of the landlord re-entering the property without advance notice to the tenant, or even search and seizure rules being applied to an occupied hotel room.

Is that all you've got?

If a homeowner rents a room in their house, that house is not transformed into a commercial property. It still is a private dwelling.

And if you really were a lawyer, you'd know that the ICC doesn't just apply to commercial activities - It applies to any activities that affect interstate commerce.

that pretty much shoots a wide-assed hole in your "argument"...

Lopez "shoots a wide-assed hole in your argument" and "rental properties are subject to different regulations because rental properties are subject to different regulations"

Did you ever wonder if maybe your legal advice is NOT considered sancrosanct?

I think the problem is people like you, who seem to think that you are better qualified to raise other people's children than their own parents. And you'll use horror stories and random anecdotes to justify your interest in other people's children. Quite frankly, people like you scare a lot of parents, and wish to keep their kids away from people like you and any of your home inspections, "group therapy" "peer counseling" "emotional check-ins" or whatever new schemes you come up with to interject yourself between parents and their children.

Busybodies always have a good excuse, and of course, it's always "for the children".

Didn't you read the post. Iverglas didn't call all home schooling parents "moronic". S/he was speaking of a particular pair of parents. Here, read it, since you missed it the 1st time:

And most days, the homeschooling seemed to consist of five little girls under the age of ten running around naked and shrieking and unsupervised in the tiny shared backyard of the row of four houses, one door around the corner from a busy traffic artery and visible from the sidewalk on that busy street.

It isn't just parents, themselves, that some kids need protection from. It's the dangers that the moronic parents expose them to.

Yep. "moronic parents", and it takes a moron to not realize that playing naked in the yard near traffic is NOT "good parenting"

Yep, there are moronic parents, and there is child abuse. Now is this a justification for the invasive police state tactics that are being proposed here? Another comment said parents shouldn't be allowed to home school because they might teach their kids that evolution is wrong. I suppose next incorrect political beliefs will be used as a justification?

So because some parents are abusive, all children must either be in school or have a state agent inspect them on a regular basis? Perhaps next will be drug tests to make sure the kids aren't smoking pot? How many civil liberties are we willing to part with "for the children" exactly?

The contempt for home-schooling families, the incorrect stereotypes being bandied about here, and the general belief that professionals can raise and educate children better than their own parents reeks of elitism to me.