Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, March 07, 2008

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution. The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Petrous

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

If you homeschool, you had better check your State laws.

If you have failing schools near your home, you better get a lawyer because you are neglecting your children if you are sending them there.

" is the duty and responsibility of the state to indoctrinate each new generation of children into being good, obedient subjects who will be loyal and subservient to political authority and to the legitimacy of the political order. Young minds are to be filled with a certain set of ideas that reflect the vision of the official state educators concerning "proper behavior" and "good citizenship.""


After they are able to eliminate the pesky home schooling they will start on conservative leaning religious and private schools.

It is also to get pre K for all...get them in early...before they pick up any nasty free thinking ideas.

I bet it gets overturned in a higher court. I hope so anyway.

" free thinking ideas."

Are you going to try to pretend that conservatives are "free thinkers?"


Considering the false applications for jobs, I wonder how many teachers don't have the creditials claimed?

How many can't teach? I know many a good public speaker, well educated, but can't teach. They are great one on one, but forget a classroom.

If the courts really believe the law restricts homeschooling to only the credited, then the Legislative must change the laws.

I don't want the courts making law from the bench.
If it's bad law, change the law in the right Branch of Govt.

Danni...you have heard of a dictionary...right?

The word conservative has more than a political.


conservative (k'n-sr'v'-tv) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

... "oppose change"...like liberal mores.

oops
....more than a political definition.

I'm not sure that homeschool is the best learning environment, or that homeschoolers get a real perspective of normal social interaction among their peers. But that doesn't concern me. They aren't my kids. I know for a fact--'cause I went to one--that conservative leaning religious and private schools don't allow many free thinking ideas.

But anytime a parent is willing to actually foot the bill for their kid's education and not ask me to pay for it in property taxes, I'm happy. Parents should pay for every nickle of services their kids need. If we are to have public schools, parents should pay for and run those institutions without my money or suggestions.

However, as long as parents depend on me to fund their crotch-fruit, they shouldn't get twisted up when when we non-parents make decisions about their kids future they don't like.

Don't want me (or the state) mucking up the education system, pay for it by yourself, use "boot-straps" I hear they work well. Otherwise STFU and get in the welfare line like the rest of our teet-suckers.

Either way Kerrin, your dictionary definition certainly doesn't include "free thinking."

From Wikipedia:
"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers."

Liberal Democrats: They only thing they are pro-choice on is abortion. Everything else they are against choice.

You can mis-educate my children when pry them from my cold dead arms.

Thank you very much.

oops, I kinda self retorted myself there.

should be another "you" up there

Again you run with your preconceptions of what I said,as oposed to what I actually said.

"After they are able to eliminate the pesky home schooling they will start on conservative leaning religious and private schools."

"It is also to get pre K for all...get them in early...before they pick up any nasty free thinking ideas."


See the dif?

r8 - people who homeschool are bound by the same taxes as those who don't, but the school gets a certain amount of money for each day a child attends school and this is what it really boils down to. it's called state aid - i don't know how much they get in californistan as we left that godforsaken country almost nine years ago.

those particular parents need to bring a class action lawsuit of some sort against that regime or leave like we did.

Kerrin, Kerrin, Kerrin.....come on now....it is a well known fact that the majority of home schoolers are kept out of public schools to avoid "free thinking" preferring (from the definition) dogma and tradition, authority over science and logic.

Now I would be the first to admit that the public schools are doing a horrible job of teaching anything and everything and also that parent's should have the right to educate their children at home and to instill the values and ideas they see fit but.....just don't call it "free thinking."

hslda statistics on homeschooled children.

"..."free thinking" preferring (from the definition) dogma and tradition, authority over science and logic."

Here's some free thinking for you Danni...lots of science and LOGIC. Government schools at their best.

www.denverpost.com

I agree with you on that one JESTGETTINGALONG....ridiculous way to determine giftedness. But what that has to do with "free thinking" I don't quite get.

American Heritage Dictionary - DOGMA

A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.


morality and faith...bad dogma

condoms in kindergarten...good dogma

condoms in kindergarten...good dogma

Got a link to that? No?

Aren't you ever discouraged by the fact that you must use ridiculas strawmen as a leaver to hold up your argument (really, a lack of an argument)? At some point I would think you might realize that you could be wrong.

Or are fallacious arguments some kinda supplement for "free thinking" in your book?

Condoms in kindergarten, dude, you're a h00t.

"morality and faith...bad dogma"

On the contrary, good dogma.


Imposing your morality and faith on other people in the public square...bad dogma. Bad Karma, too.

Leading, of course, to...

My karma ran over my dogma.

Dogma is not necessarily good or bad, but it is not free thinking. Accepting dogma as the criteria to determine morality might be good but often in the past it has been bad.

Free thinking, on the other hand, based on science and logic, reveals truth.

Then we have pseudo-free thinking, which pretends to be based on science on logic but is really just foolishness.

R8...yeah...I was running with that one...should have said age appropriated sex ed. What a hoot!

DAN... if you look at the article you will see it is the STATE trying to impose their will on private citizens and their children.
I never said you should or have to suffer from good morals....nor have I said I should impose my values on you.



Read up the thread...I said...
After they are able to eliminate the pesky home schooling they will start on conservative religious and private schools.

It is also to get pre K for all...get them in early...before they pick up any nasty free thinking ideas.


Some are trying to throw both thoughts/sentences together, for a rewrite....then go off on a tangent to get a swipe in.

It's gonna be a long , cold, wet drive home tonight. 50 and raining...but we need it, so why bitch. Bye!


appropriate..
Damn it.

After thought for R8...better to wait til they are the ripe old age of 11 years old to dispense the condoms and birth control without parental consent.

I'm not sure about this ruling. As long as the children can take the state sanctioned tests, and the parents can pass the state sanctioned teaching tests, there shouldn't be a problem.

I don't think homeschooling is good in most cases. Typically it is for fundamentalists who don't want their children exposed to other thinking (it might pollute their fundamentalist views). But I don't think we should disallow it all willy nilly like this.


I don't think homeschooling is good in most cases. Typically it is for fundamentalists who don't want their children exposed to other thinking (it might pollute their fundamentalist views). But I don't think we should disallow it all willy nilly like this.

Posted by bigjohn_1972

I agree, although some fundamentalist things aren't really that bad. I want my kids to keep their virginity. Homeschooling doesn't provide them too many chances of them loosing it compared to the school environment. Plus, it's hard to join a gang at home.

Plus, most armed students blowing kids heads off doesn't occur in a homeschooler's house. I think my kids are same from that at home than at school. - or at least until my kids can pack while at school.

I agree, although some fundamentalist things aren't really that bad. I want my kids to keep their virginity.

I don't think wanting your children to maintain their virginity is a "fundamentalist" thing.

anytime a parent is willing to actually foot the bill for their kid's education and not ask me to pay for it in property taxes, I'm happy.

Posted by r8rh8r at 2008-03-07 01:20 PM | Reply

As the parent of a home-schooled child, I can honestly say you are an idiot.

I pay local property taxes that primarily go to the public schools (the rest goes to the police and jails, where the results of public education are warehoused).

I also pay state and federal taxes, some of which goes to your government indoctrination camps.

Then, I pay again to provide my children with a proper education. So people like me cover your worthless ass.

Typically it is for fundamentalists who don't want their children exposed to other thinking

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2008-03-07 04:21 PM | Reply

Another idiotic and retarded comment. You know nthing about home schooling.

Home schooled children do better on SAT and ACT tests. They get more scholarships. They are better adjusted.

Sorry, asshat, but you don't own my children.

Are you going to try to pretend that conservatives are "free thinkers?"-Danni

Yeah, we're all a bunch of close-minded idiots and religious zealots, oh and bigots too. And democrats own the market on "free thinking" and tolerance. Give me a break. Man, it gets so tiresome hearing stupid shit like that.

My question is, why would anyone, who claims to be so enlightened, say something that they know is wrong?

Sorry, asshat, but you don't own my children.

POSTED BY VERNON


You own your children? Amazing.

I also pay state and federal taxes, some of which goes to .

Then, I pay again to provide my children with a proper education. So people like me cover your worthless ass.


I'm not sure what your problem is with me, Vern. If your kids are homeschooled then the government shouldn't force you to pay for public education. Nor should it force people like me, who do not have/want children to pay.

"your government indoctrination camps"

Read what I said. I want nothing to do public schools. Don't want to pay for 'em. Don't want to set policy at 'em. But if I am forced to pay, then I get an opinion on how my money is spent.

You aren't "covering" me or my ass. I never attended a public school and don't have kids to send to one. If I did have kids they would be privately educated on my dime, maybe even homeschooled like yours, but I would never expect the state or taxpayers to supplement my choice of having kids.

My problem is with parents in the system, who whine with their hand stuck out wanting more pay for teachers, more money for books, computers and smaller classrooms, but believe my (and the state's) involvment stops with the checkbook.

If parents want society to collectively pay for their children's education, then society gets to set some standards. Or they could chose to pay for schools themselves and tell the child-less, like me, to fuck off.

Just go to show why elistist liberal judges are a danger too our culture. Heaven forbid somebody not get the prescribed state brainwashing!!!!

In one sense, this feels like a bone thrown to the teachers' union. They most likely cannot stand the notion that there are thousands of kids who don't need them, and that the desire for home schooling is growing, especially with the explosion of the internet in our society.

At the same time, however, I don't see a problem with requiring home-schooling parents to be required to have a teachers' license just like everyone else. It's within the state's interests to require that teachers be licensed, whether they do it inside a public building or their own home. The grey area appears when the kid is being home-schooled through the internet by a licensed professional. Do the parents supervising the kid need to be licensed too? I'd say no, but this ruling might require that, which seems wrong (though I haven't read the ruling).

"""Yeah, we're all a bunch of close-minded idiots and religious zealots, oh and bigots too. And democrats own the market on "free thinking" and tolerance. Give me a break. Man, it gets so tiresome hearing stupid shit like that."""

Who said anything about democrats or republicans? Conservative by definition is :

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Live it, love it or change. Don't deny it, self-loathing is not healthy.

"""Just go to show why elistist liberal judges are a danger too our culture"""

If you think that is the source of your culture's problems, you're in more trouble than I thought.

My question is, why would anyone, who claims to be so enlightened, say something that they know is wrong?

Posted by everlong at 2008-03-07 05:11 PM



Self Retorting Retort!


Yeah, we're all a bunch of close-minded idiots and religious zealots, oh and bigots too. And democrats own the market on "free thinking" and tolerance. Give me a break. Man, it gets so tiresome hearing stupid shit like that.

Maybe if you are tired of hearing this you should help educate the Rethugs into getting a Real Education instead of suckling at the teats of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter...

How many Democratic candidates said they did not believe in the Theory of Evolution? NONE

How many Democratic Candidates will agree that the Biblical account of Creation is true and that the world is 6000 years old? NONE

As far as I can tell the Democratic Party is much more tolerant that the Gay hating self loathing wide stance Republicans...not ALL of them but MOST of them.

back on topic -

If it is the law then we either have to change the law or follow it...

You feel so strongly that homeschooling is better that what can be obtained in public schools...prove it and change the law...

I would love to see Verns proof (probably came from his magic calculator) that home schooled kids are better educated than publicly educated kids. I think it really depends on a lot of factors...probably the most significant factors are your living standard and whether the parents are educated or not.

They are better adjusted.

Not really. To be well adjusted requires interaction with all other kinds of people, something that is hard to do when your kids hardly every get out of the house.

elistist liberal judges are a danger too our culture

Who's culture? Your culture? America's culture? My culture (a collaboration of boorish English drinking/hooliganism and Southern slave-owning farmers)?

'Cause if you are talking about American culture, then "liberal" rulings fit the bill. There are more
liberals in America than conservatives. More progressives than not. So you should get used to it, or find a country with less liberals. Try Russia, China, or Lebanon.

Or you could just enroll your kids in private education and pay for it yourself. Then you wont have to worry about "brainwashing" with science, math, and stuff.

HSLDA "statistics"?

What a laugh. Completely self-serving.

Personally, I think people who only homeschool their children are scared of public schools because they expose children to diversified thinking.

Eventually, your children will grow up and enter the adult world. Do you want them to be scared of how the real world works, or do you want them to be as prepared as possible?

By homeschooling children, you're setting them up for failure.


Just go to show why elitist liberal judges are a danger too our culture. Heaven forbid somebody not get the prescribed state brainwashing!!!!

Posted by jonryker


And how exactly do you know a judge is elitist? Did you pastor teach you that one? Just because a judge does his job by enforcing the laws on the books and making decisions to defend the individual in this society doesn't make them elitist.

Guess the Amish better look out if they have any communities in CA.

I applaud any parent that values their child's future enough to homeschool them. In NC there are many organizations that homeschooled children belong to that allow them to do activities with other children - heaven knows the stereotype about home schooled kids is that they have some type of social issues. I see many in Tae Kwon Do and they are no different than any other child. My daughter attends public school where my wife teaches at - it works for us. Our neighbors home school their kids and my daughter plays with them regulary with no problems - it works for them.

Having a judge tell me that I can't homeschool my kid even though I don't have a 'club' membership is a step in the right direction - maybe people will wake up fix the law in that proposition state.


HSLDA "statistics"?

What a laugh. Completely self-serving.

Posted by SamBarber


Yeah, no kidding. You don't need a fake homeschooling diploma to see right through that one.

oops.

Even though = just because

Boy there are some real dumbasses on this thread--

There are quite a few that don't have the first clue about public education or homeschooling.

Enlightened indeed!

Maybe some of you should go google and find out what homeschooling is and what is offers kids and their families over the wretched likes of public school education.

And I am not putting down all public schools--just the ones in urban areas and poor areas and minority areas. Any area outside of La Jolla, CA.

Next they will try to close down the Christian schools where the teachers are not credentialed. They still teach everything the same as the public schools and add the Bible.

Next they will say if you don't give up your kid to Pre-K schooling you don't get Universal health care.

These bastards--this will get overturned.

The NEA is running the country and the Dems BTW--they are in lock step to break the family up by any means possible.

They don't even have a good reason about requiring a teachers credential--There are millions of stupid teachers with credentials that can't teach anything and are allowed to stay because of tenure.

Murphy

So what is wrong with requiring Home schooling parents to have acceptable teaching credentials to teach?

Doesn't that make sense?

"they are in lock step to break the family up by any means possible.

Murphy"

Umm, okay Murphy. Time to take your meds.

If your kids are homeschooled then the government shouldn't force you to pay for public education. Nor should it force people like me, who do not have/want children to pay.

----

Don't bite the hand that will probably feed you in the future.

To be well adjusted requires interaction with all other kinds of people, something that is hard to do when your kids hardly every get out of the house.

Posted by ness_gadol at 2008-03-07 05:46 PM | Reply

You prove once again how retarded and uninformed you are.

My home-schooled children interact wih a diverse group of people every day. Parents who home school are a diverse group who support one another. And respect the views of others.

Your government indoctrination centers teach a specific dogma, and punish those who do not obey. Hardly an environment for free thinkers.

Donner - if the kids pass the exact same tests as public school children then what does it matter? If it's performance based wouldn't you rather it be performance based on results rather than requirements? And there lies the difference, eh? I guess I (CTA) would be tired of my bosses asking why I am constantly getting my clock cleaned by the home-schoolers when my PhD says I know what I'm doing? Of course that's just conjecture - but if the shoe fits...

My wife and I are actually debating homeschooling. She does have a degree in elementary education though. Pluses and minuses to both and much depends on the child.

Some children do better in public schools and some do better homeschooled.

And who can say that Vernon's children haven't turned out just fine: savetherobot.files.wordpress.c
om
?

He even let them play sports with eachother: www.tvsquad.com

Of course, Vernon also made sure his children had fun time too: www.funnyhub.com

He is one proud papa: images.google.com

Pirate--if you and the many others don't pitch in your tax pennies for public education--

Then they all end up in jail--is that good enough for your precious tax dollars? How about the uneducated masses converge on your street and take your house over?

Donner--it isn't that hard to teach with the materials that are required to homeschool. And it is expensive. Yes, you have to have a brain--but the credential is a degree in whatever and a year of learning how to write on the board and make an outline.

And don't get me started on the millions of kids who are molested by the "credentialed" teachers!

They are arguing the credential as the deal to teach kids and it's not--everyone knows it too!

And all this garbage about kids who are homeschooled and "stuck" in the house--how backwards are you Ness!

Did you know that --OMG--they have Little League and ASA Girls Softball and Pop Warner Football and OMG--the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts and OMG--do you get the picture?

Murphy

Sorry Pirate--you posted someone else's remark and it looked like it was from you.

My last post was directed at whoever Pirate copied...


Monte--

The NEA is the one of the biggest contributors to liberals and the Dem Party.

The NEA hates homeschoolers and hates the family with their itinerary of sex education--taking 12 year old girls from school and get them an abotion without the parents knowledge. Teach 8 year olds about gays--you know the regular stuff.

The Dems and the NEA both hate school vouchers which is the only way for kids to get out of the school poverty in this country.

They are in bed together--to break up the family and keep people addicted to the gov't.

Murphy

if the kids pass the exact same tests as public school children then what does it matter?

that is a good point... who administers the tests determines whether they pass? In any system where there is no peer review you will have problems...but if they are passing the "tests" well alrighty then!

I am a parent and I work full time. My wife works part time and spends the rest of the day managing the household until I get home.We get a few hours of "family" time every night.

I could not imagine how I would find the time to home school my 5 kids... so I admire anyone who takes on that challenge...and is successful in ANY way.

but I still think if they are going to do that they should at least pass some test themselves and get credentials before teaching others...a degree in "whatever" does not mean you are qualified to teach others.

But, then again I think there should be a license to even HAVE kids as some parents are about as dumb as dirt...but that is another story...

Homeschooling is a joke and a dodge. Besides, the kids need the social interaction with other children or they will end up living in their parents basement, not unlike most of the people posting here.

I live in a very poor blue collar town. The uneducated masses actually converge in an empty lot 2 blocks over. Especially on warm Friday and Saturdays nights.

Ironically, in my town's case, the schools are good. It's the parents who suck.

Even if you have good schools but the parents aren't encouraging or investing in their kids education, the kids probably won't do well.

Home schooling, like religious schooling, may produce good Christians. But it's unlikely to produce good citizens who will contribute to their community's well-being. herm

Vern, they are after you... freeking idiot.

Even if you have good schools but the parents aren't encouraging or investing in their kids education, the kids probably won't do well.

Posted by Pirate at 2008-03-07 07:10 PM


EXACTLY... it has to do with whether the parents understand the value of a good education. Studies have shown that parents with degrees raise smarter kids that go on to college and have higher starting salaries.

If you are Amish this doesn't matter because that is a closed society and that child will never really leave "home". If your child is going to compete in the "real" world it does matter and it is a disservice to the child...hence, the theory that it is child abuse to not allow that child to get an equal opportunity at a good education.

Again, if the parent is Credentialed then they are trained in teaching skills and at least exposed to what they are "supposed" to be teaching the children and if they elect not to follow the guidelines of the State then that is a decision they can be held accountable for later... by the child or the State.

This is a scary decision. My bosses daughter home schools her kids. Her son recently had a state test (under test conditions at a school) he is 9 years of age. He passed the test at 12th grade level. He is bright, articulate and a very talented athlete (he can outswim 18 year olds), it would be a pity if he were forced into the government school system which would obviously hold him back.

As an aside what the f**k happened to the land of the free?

As an aside what the f**k happened to the land of the free?

Posted by Litlebritdifrnt at 2008-03-07 07:26 PM

why can't your boss just get teaching credentials...as far as I know this only applies to California anyway.

And The Land of the Free is not a Free For All...there are still rules here.

And don't get me started on the millions of kids who are molested by the "credentialed" teachers!

Murphy

Posted by MURPHY


Really? Millions? I'd like to see a link to that statistic.

Public?
Private?
HomeSchool?

It all comes down to the same thing. The home environment. If the kid lives in a home that values reading and learning, then they will grow up smart. If they live in a home that values crap and ignorance, well, guess what happens.

After all, this has nothing to do with the quality of the person, no matter how professionally or financially their goals work out.

Not surprised - you cannot indoctrinate the children if they are home schooled - would not want that to happen now would we??? My OH My, they might not become liberals - Big LOL (but true).

Ddenton,


Ahhhh, the judge needed to defend the individuals from their parents, eh? That wouldn't be an elitist notion, would it?

How come homeschoolers get much higher ACT scores than public school students?

Of course, Hitler and Stalin would both agree with you.

TFDNIHILIST,

Well, as a public school teacher I can confidently say that it is certainly the goal of the administrators to make sure they come out liberals. Fortunately for all of us, the smarter ones end up independent thinkers. Of course, since these are public schools we're talking about, not too many of them end up smart. That's part of the plan too.

TFDNIHILIST,

I'm sorry. Damn it, I got the wrong person. That retort was not intended for you.

Some school systems I could see the advantage of home schooling.

Most of the home schooling people I know are kind of off. I feel sorry for their kids and the strange ideas they have. Some kids do not even talk correctly. I new an 17 year old boy that still said mamau and bingbing. He did not know his multiplication tables. This is sad. Socially inept.

Still the State should not mandate it! The kids should be tested.

Home schooling one's children should be the parent's prerogative and the appeal court's ruling is a slap in the face to ALL parents whether or not they choose to home school or (gulp) trust the government to do it for them. Plus the BS that possessing teaching credentials actually proves competence to teach considering the free ride a lot of colleges give their students in getting a degree and the ability of those students to take tests (where required) to get certified.

If my school district banned tag and hugs like others have, then that would make me strongly lean towards homeschooling.

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

----

Why do you need credentials for that?

TFD--

Here read this--

www.post-gazette.com

www.ed.gov

So one in 10 American children is molested by a teacher--10%--the other article says 20%.

I may be off by saying millions--but it's more than the priests were given credit for.

And the teachers were passed around to the next school because they can't get rid of them--sound familiar?

Murphy

They continue to glorify teachers and schools that are failures.

We have the smartest K-2 graders---compared to every country on the planet. Then by 4th grade they are falling behind the other countries. By 8th grade some are flunking or dropping out. For 12th grade--they are mainly behind the rest of the world in every subject.

So the trend is that the longer a child is in public school the more likely they are going to flunk out or drop out and get dumber compared to the rest of the WORLD!

Murphy

Change the law.

It really is that simple. This isn't a State Constituion issue as far as I can tell, so just slap a bill up there during the next legislative session that makes provisions for homeschooling and yearly testing.

Of course the NEA will throw a hissy fit, but this is truly an issue that should be handled legislatively. IMHO

Change the law.

It really is that simple. This isn't a State Constituion issue as far as I can tell, so just slap a bill up there during the next legislative session that makes provisions for homeschooling and yearly testing.

Of course the NEA will throw a hissy fit, but this is truly an issue that should be handled legislatively. IMHO

To the Dumb ass who stated that the home school kids are being set up to fail. Bullshit to ya mate tell this to my neice whom is attending oxford on a free ride. show me a public educated student whom can say the same. why do the nationial stats. show home school children are doing better in collage entrance exams. I could go on but you people whom are against home schooling need a reality check.

Well, this was a brave decision by the judge, What would we do with Kids who were NOT taught that Columbus was a genocidal maniac, the founding fathers wer brutal Slave Holders, that Che Guevera was a brave liberator, that America Stole the Southwest from Mexico, That America is Imperialistic, and That America is the cause of all the strife in the world, Thank God some body realized that we can't have people running around who think differently than everyone else..what would we libs do.....By the way, I am being sarcastic

LOL, Hillbilly. You've got that ignorant reactionary moron shtick down cold.

Schwarzenegger denounces 'outrageous' homeschooling ruling

"Every California child deserves a quality education and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children," the governor said in a statement. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will."
www.sfgate.com

"Typically it is for fundamentalists who don't want their children exposed to other thinking

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2008-03-07 04:21 PM | Reply"

Another idiotic and retarded comment. You know nthing about home schooling.

Home schooled children do better on SAT and ACT tests. They get more scholarships. They are better adjusted.

Sorry, asshat, but you don't own my children.

Posted by vernon at 2008-03-07 05:00 PM


Actually, I know a bit about homeschooling.

en.wikipedia.org

Statistically, the typical American homeschooling parents are married, home school their children primarily for religious or moral reasons, and are almost twice as likely to be Evangelical than the national average. They average three or more children, and typically the mother stays home to care for them.


So what were you saying? The word asshat seems to be appropriate, only it is you who is the asshat. Clown.

The head non-com suggests that the schools indoctrinate kids and the parents don't. It's surely the other way around. Leave it to the parents and they'll produce good Jesus freaks very time. herm

"What would we do with Kids who were NOT taught that Columbus was a genocidal maniac, the founding fathers wer brutal Slave Holders, that Che Guevera was a brave liberator, that America Stole the Southwest from Mexico, That America is Imperialistic, and That America is the cause of all the strife in the world."

Your sarcasm is obvious, Billy, but sarcasm aside, with which of the above do you take issue? herm

As you can see..The Libs will call you names Like 'Fundamentalist" or "Christians" people they despise because these poeple will not goosestep in line with their "tolerant:" and "progressive" doctrine, So if they are unable to indoctrinate your kids, they will dimisnish you as some kind of rube. .Fascism doesn't alway come in Jack-booted Uniforms...

This is the only way they can push their gay sickness agenda to the rest of us. I would never live in this condemned state regardless of my situation. Liberals have everything in life backwards , I detest them and their stupid families.
And we wonder why terorists want to kill us....mhhh keep blaming President Bush and not yourselves you crap stinkers...we have a man and a woman which makes sense to mate with but idiots would rather smell sh*t. NAAAAAASSSSSTTTYYY
And all you gay idiots feel free to report me to drudge like you did last time...I can create new identity in a matter of seconds, homosexuality is wrong wrong and nasty

Posted by cmsa1r at 2008-03-07 11:52 PM


Damn. That was entertaining.






And revealing.

gay sickness agenda

I detest them and their stupid families

idiots would rather smell sh*t

So full of hate.
So full of ingnorance.
So full of FAIL.

...I can create new identity in a matter of seconds, homosexuality is wrong wrong and nasty

You can create a new handle but yer identity seems entrenched.

You are a small, hate-fueled, ignorant jackass.

No matter wot new nom de blog you come up with, you yerself will always be wrong.

And nasty.

Spud pities you almost as much as deth despises you.

And Jesus wept.

Be Well.

Ha Spud spelt ignorance wrong!!

How ignorant is that?

And revealing.

~Ted Baxter.

Caught that did ya? Good eye.

No one more zealous than a convert.

No one more self loathing than a closet case.

At least it explains his man-crush on Bi-Curious George.

Be Well.

No one more self loathing than a closet case.

At least it explains his man-crush on Bi-Curious George.

Be Well.

Posted by dethspud at 2008-03-08 12:04 AM


What's funny is, they don't know that we know that they are a closet case! lol

I bet you he has a 'wide stance' in the bathroom.

good!!! The children won't have some garbage of jeebus shoved down their throats. Screw the evangelicals and their xtian lies.

"Jesus wept" really says it all, Spud. That posting requires no further rebuttal. Aside from the pathetic sickness revealed in that homophobic shit, why would that lead to "terrorists" wanting to kill us? One would think that any terrorists would want our "corruption" to continue. herm

What's funny is, they don't know that we know that they are a closet case! lol

They reveal themselves to everybody but themselves.

That is kinda funny.

Forest for the trees and all that, one supposes.

I bet you he has a 'wide stance' in the bathroom

Betcha he knows how to tap dance too!

Be Well.

One would think that any terrorists would want our "corruption" to continue

~herm

Well, it would make sense to let yer enemy destroy themselves rather than having to do it yerself.

The terrorists use perverted twisted religious teachings in order to justify hate and violence. The biggest irony here, of course, is the fact that the terrorist types are far closer in nature to these western religious based haters than either side would ever be willing to see, much less admit to.

If peace, understanding, tolerance, liberty, equality and love are wrong then Spud don't ever want to be "right".

Laws no! M-O-O-N ...That spells Spud!

Be Well.

homosexuality is wrong wrong and nasty


I fear the lad is but one small step from self-mutilation.

Fascism doesn't alway come in Jack-booted Uniforms...

Posted by HillBillyJihad at 2008-03-07 11:39 PM

sometimes it comes in the form of Christian Dogma.

You and you kind wish to have a country based on Christian values...

Not the values of Jesus... but your values....your "Christian" death cult values...

Those values have nothing to do with Jesus...but everything to do with control...you want everyone to submit to your values..like the values of

CMSA1R...

I would rather die.

The parents need to get certified and teach to a certain standard OR change the Law.

I think it is a good law and I would continue to support it. So good luck in changing it.

It might need as little updating (like the FISA laws) but it is there for a reason.

I can understand requiring parents to hold some sort of academic credential, such as a four year college degree, but requiring parents to obtain a state approved teaching license is completely absurd - especially if the parent is teaching at a pre-secondary grade level (elementary, middle school, etc.).

Typical elementary education programs at colleges and universities are designed to help students do one thing: obtain the appropriate state licensure so they can begin to teach in a *public school* immediately upon graduation. (Secondary education programs are usually very similar except that students must also pass content area exams covering the subject they wish to teach. See
www.ets.org). Beyond what has already been learned in high school and in the first two years of undergraduate studies, these programs tend to teach very little reading, writing, science, mathematics, etc. - i.e., it is assumed that the student has already learned enough about these subjects to teach small children - the focus is instead shifted to courses (typically about 60 credits or so) that pertain to teaching and managing large, diverse groups of preadolescent carpet huggers. Also, several hours (months, actually) of actual classroom experience are also required for state certification. Thus, nearly anyone with a bachelors degree is likely to know just as much if not far more about the subjects being taught, they are just not as prepared to teach them in a public school setting. So unless the parent/parents have 30 children, each with a different cultural, religious and/or ethnic background, this educational difference between parents with four-year degrees and state certified elementary school teachers is largely irrelevant. (Indeed, even someone with no college degree could very easily have a far better grasp on elementary school subject matter than a state certified elementary school teacher.)

Secondary school is a different matter. High school teachers usually hold certifications in only one or two subject areas (e.g., physics and mathematics, history and political science, etc.), so even an actual high school teacher would likely not be well prepared to be a high school student's sole teacher. Ergo, it is easier to argue that high school age children are better off in the more structured environment of a public or private school than they are learning at home with mom or dad.

If I was an employer (and I sometimes am) and I see "homeschooled" on the resume - see ya', ya' nutcase!

I can understand requiring parents to hold some sort of academic credential, such as a four year college degree, but requiring parents to obtain a state approved teaching license is completely absurd

really? Have you ever been taught by someone who has a four year degree but has no concept of teaching others?

Have you even worked with someone with a college degree but no life experience? I have and it is frustrating to say the least.


Teaching is more of an art than a skill anyway. You can be books smart all you want but be completely incompetent and unable to transfer that knowledge to other humans. And those numbnuts exist in the public school system too. I had a few in my day.

There is no reason that a course could not be taught for homeschoolers designed to give parents the skills they need to teach children and then certify that they are ready to do so.

At all levels of education.

There probably already is.

You and you kind wish to have a country based on Christian values...

Actually, we already do.

No matter how much people like you wish that weren't the case.

Christian.

*ick*

really? Have you ever been taught by someone who has a four year degree but has no concept of teaching others?

Yes, when I was in public school.

Have you even worked with someone with a college degree but no life experience? I have and it is frustrating to say the least.

Yes, when I was in public school.

I have and it is frustrating to say the least.

Agreed.

Teaching is more of an art than a skill anyway. You can be books smart all you want but be completely incompetent and unable to transfer that knowledge to other humans. And those numbnuts exist in the public school system too. I had a few in my day.

Teaching is indeed an art - and so is learning. Even the best teachers encounter students they cannot reach, and even the best students have had at some point a teacher who was difficult to learn from. But obtaining a state teaching certification does not guarantee that a person will be a good teacher. It simply increases his/her preparedness to teach in public, and to a somewhat lesser extent, private schools.

There is no reason that a course could not be taught for homeschoolers designed to give parents the skills they need to teach children and then certify that they are ready to do so.

I don't know if there is such a program in California, but it is a good idea. The reason I am opposed to requiring existing state certifications is that they are, for the most part, very length and time consuming processes that are designed to prepare public school teachers. Teaching 30 students in a public school is very different from teaching 2 or 3 of you own children, and most of what would be learned is not applicable to a home school setting, anyway.


Ahhhh, the judge needed to defend the individuals from their parents, eh? That wouldn't be an elitist notion, would it?


Yes, there are plenty of children who need protection from their parents. If you have kids, I'm sure they're on the list.


How come homeschoolers get much higher ACT scores than public school students?


You made the claim, now back it up. Link please. And no, asking you to back up your own claims isn't lazy. The onus is on you.


Of course, Hitler and Stalin would both agree with you.

Posted by jonryker


Since Hitler and Stalin aren't here to verify that, I guess I'll take your word, since you're buddy-buddy with them and all.


To the Dumb ass who stated that the home school kids are being set up to fail.


If you're going to refer to me as "Dumb ass" on a thread about home schooling, you should bring your grammatical "A" game. And my username isn't too far from my post.


Bullshit to ya mate tell this to my neice whom is attending oxford on a free ride. show me a public educated student whom can say the same.


While I cannot "show you" one, I'm willing to bet more than one public school educated child has made it to Oxford and has gotten a scholarship, although I'm not sure why getting a free ride scholarship makes someone any more worthy to attend Oxford.

Since I doubt you'd be willing to do the research to prove your claim, I decided to do it for you. Err, for myself. Either way, your niece isn't the special little snowflake you think she is.

www.admin.ox.ac.uk

Despite encouraging results, some misconceptions remain entrenched. There were two incorrect perceptions still lingering in 2004 which we are keen to address,' said Helen Carasso. One is that teachers underestimate what proportion of state students go to Oxford and Cambridge, wrongly believing that independent school students are in a majority. The average estimate was that 44 per cent of students at Oxford and Cambridge came from state schools and colleges. In reality, for 2004 entry, 57 per cent of UK students admitted to Cambridge and 52.7 per cent of UK students admitted to Oxford came from state schools and colleges.

Teachers and students also wrongly believe that Oxford and Cambridge are more expensive than other universities. Perhaps by 2004 we hadn't done enough to publicise the generous financial support, competitively-priced food and accommodation, and excellent library and computing facilities. Since the survey was carried out, however, both universities have announced their bursary plans from 2006 onwards, with widespread publicity, including a national advertising campaign from Oxford. We are offering some of the most generous bursary schemes in the country up to 13,000 over four years from Oxford, and up to 12,000 over four years from Cambridge with even more for some mature students so we hope awareness of financial support has already been raised.'



why do the nationial stats. show home school children are doing better in collage entrance exams.


The only people/entities that have any data to back up this claim are the HSDLA, and they have even conceded that the statistics are misrepresentative because a disproportionaly small number homschoolers actually take college entrance exams (which tells you something else...).

If you can produce a statistic that comes from someone other than a homeschooling lobbying group, I'll believe you.



I could go on but you people whom are against home schooling need a reality check.

Posted by GenSherman


Why stop now? You're doing so well at proving your point.

a disproportionaly [sic] small number homschoolers [sic] actually take college entrance exams

No.

A disproportionally small number of students are homeschoolers.

So obviously, a disproportionally small number of homeschoolers will be represented in the data set of those who take college entrance exams.

You don't need an "outcome-based" public school diploma to see through that one.

So long as your sense of "self-esteem" is nurtured.

And you understand that Columbus was a genocidal asshole.

And that Heather has Two Mommies.


a disproportionaly [sic] small number homschoolers [sic] actually take college entrance exams

No.

Yes. See? I can respond with an single word too.

Outcome based? Doesn't every action have an outcome? Isn't the point of attending school to become smarter? Doesn't that lead to the "outcome" of going to college, and the "outcome" of landing a good paying job? Striving for mediocrity, are we?

And you're putting words in my mouth, as you commonly do around here Pinch.

It's no secret that Columbus murdered people, as a lot of people in his time did. I wouldn't agree that he was genocidal.

I'm sure somewhere there's a girl named Heather who has two mommies. Big deal. Lesbians and gays have been around since man came to be. What's your point?

My wife and I aren't having kids, but if we did, we would definitely send them to private school or homeschool them. We are not religious by the way.

The fact of the matter is that no public school would be able to teach our child what we could with our education, experiences, and 1 on 1 environment.

We have tons of friends with kids, so social interaction would never be an issue.

Our kid would not grow up not knowing what the federal reserve is, where England is, or using a double negative like I just did above. S/he would learn business acumen (we are self-employed), math, web-design, computer skills, the arts, history, geography, a musical instrument, at least 1 foreign language, and whatever else they needed.

When parents care enough to invest in their childs education, the sky is the limit.

How many here can do what this 2 year old can? Over half of the kids coming out of public schools can't do this at 18!!!
youtube.com

And that should be "child's education"...

All rights come from the State. Want to educate your kids at home? Ask the State if it's OK with them.

All rights come from the State.

Maybe that is where your rights come from.. Not mine..

All rights come from the State.

bob, are you simply incapable of originality, or do you really think you've come up with something so world shatteringly clever that it must be repeated several times a day?

Maybe that is where your rights come from.. Not mine..

Posted by jsprague at 2008-03-08 06:55 AM |

Where do yours come from?

No answer to my question, huh, bob? Well, I'll hazard a guess: You are incapable of originality, so you keep trotting about the rights thing.

That's OK. When I was 2 YO, the scope of my interaction with the world was "Old McDonald had a Farm" and "juice".

Goatman

You say the same thing, again and again. You never see the point. Here is the point. Were we ever talking about the right to educate your child at home? No. The same people who argue that rights come from some mystical rights fairy never seem to get it that all rights come from the State.

They don't see the irony of arguing that all rights don't come from the State while on a thread that illustrates the point exactly. If the right to educate your child does not come from the State--why ask the State about it if their permission is not required. If their permission is required, you get the right to educate your child at home from the State. If the States permission is not required, then the right to educate your child at home does not come from the State. Simple isn't it.

I bring it up again and again because it is always a different right we are talking about. Again, subtleties elude you.

Again, subtleties elude you.

Yeah, you're right. The subtlety between

all rights come from the State"

and

all rights come from the State"

eludes me.

"If the right to educate your child does not come from the State--why ask the State about it if their permission is not required."

The answer to that is simple. The State doesn't GRANT rights, it merely RESTRICTS rights. For instance, the Second Amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms, it reads: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, it recognizes we already have that right and prohibits the "infringement" of it. There are cases before the Supremes right now contesting certain anti-gun laws in violation of the Second Amendment. You may see some soon against the "infringement" of the right to educate your own children.

Where do yours come from?

I know this question wasn't addressed to me, but I feel I'd like to try to respond in some way. I hope you won't be offended.


Consider this:

If "the government" can grant people rights, then would you say it is logical to conclude that the government posses a certain level of power?

Think *really* hard, but don't hurt yourself.

Now, if the government has power, then is it not logical to conclude that that power must come from somewhere?

Think. Really think.

Where do you suppose the government gets its power from, Bob?

Take your time, now. No rush.

.
.
.

(Jeopardy music playing in the background.)

.
.
.

If the government gets its power from the people, Bob, then is it not logical to conclude that the people make it possible for "them" to grant rights?

.
.
.








I know this probably makes me very American, but the idea that someone could actually believe that his rights come from the state is so beyond my comprehension I can hardly believe it.

As I recently saw George Carlin (a truly great American) say something to this effect that we don't have "rights". It's an idea, invented by us humans, just like things like love. It's a nice idea, but we don't have them.

What we have are priviledges, granted to us temporarily, by our government. They can at any time decide to take away those priviledges, if we let them.

Personally, I think people who only homeschool their children are scared of public schools because they expose children to diversified thinking.

Eventually, your children will grow up and enter the adult world. Do you want them to be scared of how the real world works, or do you want them to be as prepared as possible?

By homeschooling children, you're setting them up for failure.


That's just fucking stupid.

Parents who choose home-schooling do so primarilly because they feel they can provide a better overall education than a state-run school. They feel this way far any number of reasons - and since they know their children best, they are most qualified to make such a decision.

This is a terrible law - or the judge's interpretation of it is terrible.

I fully expect some changes to the language to make an exception for homeschoolers in regards to truancy.

The notion that only the state can provide a quality education rampant with 'free thinking' is patently absurd.

if we let them

And there is the rub.

The answer to that is simple. The State doesn't GRANT rights, it merely RESTRICTS rights. For instance, the Second Amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms, it reads: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Posted by jestgettinalong at 2008-03-08 08:22 AM


So is your argument that I have the right to kill someone, but the state restricts that right?

Back to homeschooling, I wouldn't doubt that homeschooled kids to better than public school kids on average (though I believe I read a little while ago that they don't do as well as the more elite private schools).

Again from Wiki:
en.wikipedia.org
Parents of home schooled children are more than twice as likely to have Bachelors, Masters, or Doctorate degrees.

Bachelors degree:
HS Dads: 37.6
Male Avg: 15.6
HS Moms: 47.2
Female Avg: 14.8

Masters degree:
HS Dads: 19.8
Male Avg: 5.4
HS Moms: 8.8
Female Avg: 4.5

Doctorate degree:
HS Dads: 8.8
Male Avg: 3.1
HS Moms: 0.7
Female Avg: 1.3


So perhaps it isn't the superiority of the quality of homeschooling, but the fact that the parents are smarter and more educated so therefore their children are smarter.

To get an apples to apples comparison to test the efficacy of schooling, the parents would have to be controlled, you need to compare parents that have their Bachelors only, or Masters only.

I have been teaching for 30 years, and have come across MANY home-schooled kids. Many of them are just fine, but too many of them have one or both of the following:

underdeveloped or absent ability to relate to peers, especially in group settings

HUGE gaps in knowledge in specific areas, especially higer levels of math and science


On the plus side, they are usually motivated students who show respect for teachers.


That's just fucking stupid.

JeffJ


From my point of view, it's not stupid at all, because at my previous job an 18 YO who was homeschooled her whole life got a part-time job there and was the most socially awkward person I've ever met. At a company function, I also met her younger brother, who was also socially awkward and he made several racist comments.

A teenager who obviously grew up in a vacuum thinking it's ok to repeat their parent's bad behavior. Had that poor kid been exposed to other children that look and act differently than he, he might have turned out the way he did.

...he might have turned out the way he did.

he might not have turned out the way he did.

What part of the constitution is that based on. I don't think there is a state constitution in the US that says anything about who can teach your kids.

at my previous job an 18 YO who was homeschooled her whole life got a part-time job there and was the most socially awkward person I've ever met. At a company function, I also met her younger brother, who was also socially awkward and he made several racist comments.


So, you are basing your entire opinion of home-schooling out of 1 personal experience?

Well, I know plenty of public school prodigies who are socially dysfunctional, does that mean the entire system sucks?

As a home schooling parent, I have witnessed first hand the difference between public, private and homeschool methods, and my son is better off in a homeschool environment. I have heard so much made over socialization, the capability of parents to educate their children, and how laws should be passed for this or that issue as it pertains to not only homeschooling, but to every facet of life in these United States.

Socialization? People constantly comment on how well spoken, friendly, and gregarious my son is. My daughter is the same way (we begin her home schooling next fall). Who would I rather be the biggest influence on my children? Me and my wife, who can determine what they are exposed to on a daily basis, or a class room and school yard full of jocks, bullies, extroverts, and introverts, all with their own value systems? For the most part, my son's peers in school have very different morals than we do, and furthermore, they have no idea what they even base their value system on. My wife and I not only educate my son, we also enforce, re-enforce our value system to our children, and why we have the values we do. I do not want my son tainted by the values of ignorant children (all children are ignorant, by the way, including mine, which why they need us to provide their social and moral framework for their lives-not the school/government indoctrination center). I also do not want the values of a morally relativistic, pluralistic, and hedonistic government placed upon my children either.
On a side note, I live in Tennessee, and only three legislators are keeping a bill alive here that will force us to teach our kids according to the curriculum used by state schools. What makes it so insidious is the fact that it is being done under the guise of forcing private and home schooled students to take the same tests in Tennessee as public school students. This in effect forces parents and private schools to go by the same curriculum in irder to pass, although the state curriculum is inferior to what we give our children. Hence, parental rights to teach our choice of curriculum is effectively removed, and the dual crux of home school liberty and parental rights is broken.

I do not care for the nannny state, thank you very much. As I have heard quoted elsewhere, a government that is big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything away.

If the government gets its power from the people, Bob, then is it not logical to conclude that the people make it possible for "them" to grant rights?

Posted by lacigolli at 2008-03-08 08:37 AM | Reply |

You sound like you are stupid enough to think that the power of the government comes from the People.

The People didn't write the Constitution--the Government wrote the Constitution. The people didn't write the Bill of Rights, the Government wrote the Bill of Rights. The people merely got to vote on the amendements---after the government told them what amendments.

The American people decide nothing. The election of 2000 should have proven that to even the most feeble minded people. The Supreme Court decided who should be President--not the people.

This is not a democracy--this is a republic. All rights come from the government. I always trot this out to see who the people are who think anything else. It is really amusing to see idiots say rights come from the people.

Ever wonder why those rights don't work in other countries? I doubt it. Here's the answer. Those rights don't work anyplace except here because those rights come from our government. The people of Darfur don't have those rights because they don't have our government. What a surprise---why don't you tell them that no rights come from the government--I doubt they will be as amused as I am.

Good post, Buffalo Bob, but I must disagree one very salient point. As admitted by our Founding Fathers, and specifically Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, rights come not from government, but the Creator. We are endowed by our Creator certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whenever we get the mindset that our government hands out rights, we have essentially lost those rights. This is why our founders based the rights and rules of law on the body of Scripture, because our rights are given to us by God. (By the way, no, I do NOT want to start a religious flame war here, I am speaking from a historical perspective.)

"I am speaking from a historical perspective."

[citation needed]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The two guys who wrote that, Jefferson and Franklin (who changed Jefferson's "sacred" to "self-evident"), were deists. The truths are self-evident and stand on their own.

One note though, Zatoichi: These are self-evident, but they are also sacred. But if they are so self-evident, then why did Jefferson change on of these self-evident truths? Did you know that Jefferson changed the wording in another way: he changed the word "property" to The phrase "purdsuit of happiness". The reason why is WAY too long to go into here.

You sound like you are stupid enough to think that the power of the government comes from the People.


Honestly, bob, read a book or something. Learn something new. Expand your mind.

If all rights come from the government, I think I'll petition them to give you a brain. You obviously don't have the right to one.

"purdsuit(sic) of happiness"

That was purdy.

Jefferson also said, "Rocks do not fall from the sky."

Where ever rights come from, people institute governments to secure them. So rights come from mutual agreement of the people expressed in their government. If the people feel that government has failed, it is incumbent upon them to fix the government or lose their rights.

Bob, I love your ad hominem attacks. That was a typo, and you know it. I was in a rush to play with my children in the snow, and not please your typographical hypersensitivity.

By the way, here is a link to a dictionary if you need to decipher some these words, and I have included the definition of ad hominem for you also:

dictionary.reference.com

ad hominem / ... d hm'n'mnm, d-/ Pronunciation Key - Pronunciation[ad hom-uh-nuhmnem, ahd-]
adjective 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

One more thing, Bob, what you said regarding people instituting the government to secure them is right on the money.

Jeez, you have managed to use the word government in almost every sentence.

You sound like you are stupid enough to think that the power of the government comes from the People.

So if "the power of the government" does not come from the people, then where does it come from?

Hmmm ... ?

Oh, never mind. You are probably just going to say it comes from the government.

The People didn't write the Constitution--the Government wrote the Constitution. The people didn't write the Bill of Rights, the Government wrote the Bill of Rights. The people merely got to vote on the amendements---after the government told them what amendments.

Actually, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were authored by several members of the newly formed government. The government does not have a brain or a larynx, Bob, it cannot tell "them" anything.

The American people decide nothing. The election of 2000 should have proven that to even the most feeble minded people. The Supreme Court decided who should be President--not the people

The American people decide plenty. Admittedly, the influence of a single individual is extremely blurred when it comes to national politics, but that isn't because your vote doesn't count. It's because there are millions of other votes that count just as much as your vote. That is the way it should be.

If you really want to make a more significant difference, I suggest you try participating in your local "government." Depending upon the size of your city, you may be surprised what I little bit of sincere interest and determination can accomplish. Though, it's true, you still may not get what you want, whatever that is.

This is not a democracy--this is a republic. All rights come from the government. I always trot this out to see who the people are who think anything else. It is really amusing to see idiots say rights come from the people.

Actually, the United States is a democratic republic. Please don't conveniently forget to include important adjectives whenever it suits your purpose. It's annoying.

Ever wonder why those rights don't work in other countries? I doubt it. Here's the answer. Those rights don't work anyplace except here because those rights come from our government. The people of Darfur don't have those rights because they don't have our government. What a surprise---why don't you tell them that no rights come from the government--I doubt they will be as amused as I am.

I give up.

We are endowed by our Creator certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Posted by Conservatarian at 2008-03-08 01:50 PM


That is a hard thing to prove though isn't it. It's easy to say but hard to prove. How can you prove that we are endowed by our 'creator' those rights.

Though skipping that point and going right in to the pursuit of happiness will piss off a lot of anti gay-marriage types, because restricting gay marriage restricts their pursuit of happiness.

So I have to agree with Bob on this one, the government is what really gives us our rights. Without the government, and law (which is doled out by the government) we would have no rights. Now, we do get to choose somewhat our government, so it's not like we don't have a small say in the matter.

We are endowed by our Creator certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Posted by Conservatarian at 2008-03-08 01:50 PM


Too bad our Creator never says any such thing. Too bad Jefferson doesn't speak for the Creator. Too bad that sentence was written by the government. Too bad it isn't part of the Constitution.

Your right to exist comes from the government--not from some imaginary Rights Fairy. They can revoke that right at any time--and Jefferson did not believe in the biblical god so you are on weak ground there.

The People didn't write the Constitution--the Government wrote the Constitution. The people didn't write the Bill of Rights, the Government wrote the Bill of Rights. The people merely got to vote on the amendements---after the government told them what amendments.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Buf, you realy are a product of the government school system.

I don't know how it works where you're from but here in the US, the people allow the government to exist. People wrote the constitution that allowed the government to form. Our government exists to serve the people.

Your world is upside down and that is obvious from your posts. In your world, the people exist to serve the government.

Your right to exist comes from the government


Haven't you beaten this horse to death already, BBob?

Jeff J


Your right to exist comes from the government


"Haven't you beaten this horse to death already, BBob?"

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-03-08 03:34 PM | Reply


Not as long as morons think rights come from the Rights Fairy.

Sniper

"People wrote the constitution that allowed the government to form. Our government exists to serve the people."

The government wrote the Constitution. Not the People. Jefferson was the Government--not the People. Jefferson was speaking for the people--through his role as government. Facts are facts. The "people" had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.

The right to home school your children comes from the government.

Our government came from the same place all governments come from--the people with power. Our government was founded in the same way as Communist China---we just had more liberal people making the rules. Had the people in Philidelphia been Mao and Stalin instead of Jefferson and Franklin, our "rights" would have been much different. The "people" had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.
I think most communist countries claim to be "for the people" also. Isn't that their mantra?

Too bad our Creator never says any such thing. Too bad Jefferson doesn't speak for the Creator. Too bad that sentence was written by the government. Too bad it isn't part of the Constitution.

Too bad you don't have a brain. Too bad you don't have common sense. Too bad you sound like a broken record. Too bad you don't know more than one song.

I'm brainless bob. All rights come from the government. I'm brainless bob. All rights come from the government. I'm brainless bob. All rights come from the government. I'm brainless bob. All rights come from the government. I'm brainless bob. All rights come from the government.

Not as long as morons think rights come from the Rights Fairy.

Shit, bob, you can drop it then. I don't know anyone who believes in the rights fairy, much less thinks they derive anything from him.

"The right to home school your children comes from the government." BBob...

So? Your protestations about the rights of the government are not relevent in this discussion, because within this government, the people can modify thier rights within certain parameters.

Hence my post earlier about Arnold saying he would in this case....

Our rights are not static...so in that way, our government, is a "rights fairy" ;-)

The parents of these 166,00 kids should leave this rotten state. Most public schools in this country are centers of indoctrination. Now to quote that real free thinker "The debate is OVER".
Have another glass of koolaid Danni.
Imagine this. My state actually mandates that home schooled kids have access to public school extracurricular activities. They actually get the social side of it without the socialist brain washing.

As usual, good topics devolving to senseless drivel.

"these 166,00(sic) kids"

Home schooled?

They actually get the social side of it without the socialist brain washing.

Posted by westerner at 2008-03-08 04:14 PM


Let's assume for a minute that they are being 'socialist brain washed'. Why is it that America is still a democracy, shouldn't it be communist by now? How long has this brain washing been going on? It hasn't appeared to take yet.

Conrad- Please make sense of it all. PLEASE!

Shit, bob, you can drop it then. I don't know anyone who believes in the rights fairy, much less thinks they derive anything from him.

Posted by goatman at 2008-03-08 03:58 PM


Who knows what you believe. You never make a stand. Watch--case in point. Where do rights come from?

I've been through this with you bob. I'm not going to repeat myself. I'm sorry your memory isn't better. Take notes next time, or go back to my userblog. The answer is there.

I've been through this with you bob. I'm not going to repeat myself. I'm sorry your memory isn't better. Take notes next time, or go back to my userblog. The answer is there.

Posted by goatman at 2008-03-08 04:37 PM


Yeah sure. Anybody can see that.

;-)

Jeff J


Your right to exist comes from the government


"Haven't you beaten this horse to death already, BBob?"

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-03-08 03:34 PM | Reply


Not as long as morons think rights come from the Rights Fairy.


BB, as you know I am one of those "morons" who believes in the Rights Fairy. (I just call this being by a different name.)

I have been thinking about your argument though, and it occured to me that the logical conclusion to your argument is not that rights come from the government, but that rights simply don't exist at all. They are not granted by the rights fairy or the government. Face if someone or a government can grant or rescind a right, it really isn't a right.

It seems to me that your argument is that governments don't grant rights; they simply create rules or laws which prohibit behavior, allow behavior or require a specific behavior. That's it. The term "rights" is merely sugar coating by the government to make the masses feel like they have something.

Again, I don't believe a word of the above argument, but if that is what your argument is, then I understand it. In a meaningless universe as described by Dawkins, it is the only logical position to have.

Does my argument above jibe with yours? What do you think?

Cheers

I think that may be his argument, and it seems to be fitting too. Rights are an idea, and man made idea.

Through the process of civilization our conception of what rights people should be allowed to have, by the greater society or leadership.

How is it that the 'creator' gave us rights, and where are these rights listed? How do you even prove the creator gave out these rights.

I believe BB is right, it depends on where you live for what rights you have. In Saudi Arabia, the women don't have the same rights as ours do here. What is the difference between those two places? They have the same creator, but different government.

Grendel

You are exactly correct. Rights are an illusion. They are a construct of mans imagination, much like the gods of all religions, and the governments of all nations.

The gods of all religions make the rules for their religions and they have their priests to tell you what god says. Convenient isn't it?

The governments of all nations make the rules for their nations and they have their minions to tell you what the government says--only they call the government the People. Convenient isn't it?

You are exactly correct. Rights are an illusion. They are a construct of mans imagination, much like the gods of all religions, and the governments of all nations.

Again, I understand your argument; it is based upon an assumption that the divine does not exist. Convenient, isn't it?

I am more than content to agree to disagree.


Cheers

Grendel

Even if the divine does exist---where does it give anyone any rights? On what do you base your stance that rights come from a divine being, when the divine being has made no such declaration?

;-)

It seems to me that your argument is that governments don't grant rights; they simply create rules or laws which prohibit behavior, allow behavior or require a specific behavior. That's it. The term "rights" is merely sugar coating by the government to make the masses feel like they have something.

BB,

Do you take a ultra cynical position and say that all governments (or people) know this or do you think there are entire governments who believe their own "lie"?

Cheers

Grendel

People in this country do not know this. People in this country think rights come from someplace other than the government. People with oppressive governments know better.

You didn't answer the questions.

Even if the divine does exist---where does it give anyone any rights? On what do you base your stance that rights come from a divine being, when the divine being has made no such declaration?

;-)

Even if the divine does exist---where does it give anyone any rights? On what do you base your stance that rights come from a divine being, when the divine being has made no such declaration?

The answers to all these questions depends upon what you understand the divine to be and what you accept as the means by which he/she/it makes its will and self known.

But you know this already. Why are you asking me?


If you are willing to accept the existence of the creator,(which I know you are not) then I guess at the least, you accept that he gave humans the ability-- by their created nature and need to do so--and thus the right to designate their own particular rights or laws as you suggest.


Cheers

Grendel

Let's try again. I was asking for your logic to review. It is obviously faulty and I just wanted to see where the problem lies--and maybe you could see it too. OK--once more.

Even if the divine does exist---where does it give anyone any rights? On what do you base your stance that rights come from a divine being, when the divine being has made no such declaration?

First: Bob-A person picked up the pen and a group of people wrote all those documents that you ascibe to the government. There was no "government" - except the King of England and his parlement (which did not right it)

This is what makes America different than any other country. It specifically stated that rights do NOT come from a government but rather the people and it was given to the people from GOD- Which means that no person (King, president, Ruler, General) has the right to take them away.
Which is why if we ever are "oppressed" we have the right to shuck off that oppressor - and why the 2nd amendment is required to give the people the means to remove the oppressors.

Onward to the topic: Why would the legal group (in California) want to do this? Education is the last bastion of creating a liberal ethic. Do you see Conservatives REQUIRING school attendance...nope it is the LIBERALs that want to REQUIRE people to do things...Like Hillary REQUIRING everyone to get health care - even thought the majority of those uninsured make over 5 time the poverty rate (see US Census). Like REQUIRING no smoking, -every personal decision must be mandated by the Government if you are a liberal. So much for "Free Thinking" LETS MARCH IN STEP LIKE GOOD COMMUNISTS. LEFT LEFT LEFT.

Now what is really behind this? 1999 800K kids home schooled 2003 1.4M home schooled 2008 2.2M home schooled with a 20% growth rate. How many unionized school teacher jobs would be created if they were REQUIRED to go to school?

If the teachers were really interested in their students education they would leave them home.

"Home-educated students generally score at the 65th to 80th percentile on achievement tests, 15 to 30 percentile points higher than those in public schools," stated Brian D. Ray, founder of National Home Education Research

Are you going to try to pretend that conservatives are "free thinkers?"-Danni

I will, it wasn't a conservative court that has made it against the law to allow part-time private schooling and part-time home schooling. Before this law, liberals parents could teach their kids what they wanted, before 1953 in California they could enrolled part time in a liberal private school of their choice.

Conservatism allows free-thinking even when they don't agree with each other, liberalism does not!

Faulty logic?

Hmmm.

BB,

I am sorry that I have no youtube video for it, but if you wish to have logical arguments for the existence of natural law then you will need to consult both Aristotle (the architect of much of logic) and Aquinas (the theologian who interpreted logic in regard to scripture.

I will try to simplfy Aristotle's logical arguments for you so you can understand it.

1. Aristotle argues for the existence of God based on five arguments.

2. Aristotle argues that God by his very nature has ordered the universe because it acts according to rules, laws or principles.

3. Thus all of the created universe acts according to divine order.

4. The teleology of all created things is to be in harmony with the divine order.

5. To be in harmony with the divine order requires a created thing to act according to its created design.

6. Animals act according to their created design and achieve their teleology through instinct.

7. Human beings must use their reason and rational ability(part of their created design) to understand and recognize the orderly universe and put themselves in harmony with it.

8. For human beings to be in harmony according to their created design there is a necessity for self autonomy in order to choose how their individual existence will be in harmony with the highest good.

9. The need for self autonomy is, therefore, a basic human RIGHT to live, be free and have choice over individual actions* because it is part of the nature of human beings as they are created.

For Aristotle this basic right is a principle of the universe as designed by the creator--the greatest good. Unethical behavior is any actions by humans that interfere with this order.
In other words prohibiting other human beings from working towards this end is contrary to the order of the universe--it is, therefore, a violation of what is right, correct and ordered--against creation and therefore against the creation from which it all flows.

These ideas are found within the very nature of the word "Right." To be right (correct) and to have "rights" is to be in accord with how the universe has been ordered.


*You might recognize this as an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (You thought the founding father's pulled it out of their hat? They were logical deists very much in tune with Aristotelian thought.



If wish to find faulty logic you can take it up with Aristotle.

You can start by reading his Nicomachean Ethics

classics.mit.edu

Enjoy.


Cheers



Buffalo?

Bob?

BB?

Well, I guess he must be working through the Nicomachean Ethics.

What fun.

Cheers

Grendel

Maybe you missed the questions. Try again.

Even if the divine does exist---where does it give anyone any rights? On what do you base your stance that rights come from a divine being, when the divine being has made no such declaration?

Maybe you missed the questions. Try again.

Even if the divine does exist---where does it give anyone any rights? On what do you base your stance that rights come from a divine being, when the divine being has made no such declaration?


BB,

Scroll up,

Read,

Comprehend,

Repeat until you hear yourself say "ahh, yes I understand." (Which is not to be confused with "I agree.")

If you don't understand the response, then there is little that I can do to make it clearer.

Trust, me, though. It is a direct response to your question.

If you wish to pretend that it is not, then there is little I can do or care to do to convince you otherwise.

If it makes you happy, you can claim that I am avoiding the question and then you can declare victory and bask in the honor.

You have the right.
(I just granted it to you! You're welcome)

Cheers

11:12--in a wink it is 12:12 because of DST.

Yawn. Good night.


Cheers


From Wikipedia:
"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers."


Based on that definition, you can exclude democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives.

Public schools is not a place where a person is going to learn to be a free thinker because you don't learn to be.

Either you are or you aren't.

People in this country do not know this. People in this country think rights come from someplace other than the government. People with oppressive governments know better.


Since you did not dispute my earlier point that governments possess power, I will assume that you accept this as the truth. Imagine that the people of Darfur all moved away. There is only a government there now, and they have no one to govern. How much power does this government have now, Bob? With out people, no government has power. Without power, no government can secure the rights of the people. Where, then, do our rights ultimately come from*?

I realize that to a certain extent this is kind of like the proverbial question, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" But which is the chicken (the governent ?) and which is the egg (the people ?) I do not know. In any case, I firmly believe that the government is nothing without the people, and no amount of ranting or name calling on your part is going to change my mind.

Now, to a certain extent I will say that you do have a point. But this depends upon the definition of the word "right." It is, if you think about it, an extremely generic term. If you are referring to privileges and entitlements, it is true that most if not all of our so-called rights would not exist without the government. Certainly they would not be secure. In fact, many of our rights are intrinsic to the government itself, such as the right to vote or the right to legal counsel.

But the word right has other meanings as well. Freedom comes to mind. I realize how corny this sounds, but its true. In a world with no government, an individual can roam the land, search for food, a mate, and have children, but he does so with great risk. There is nothing to prevent another man or group of men from taking what he has. If his mate is murdered, for example, justice is left to him alone.

Here is a question:

Why does it make sense for the people to come together - to form a community with a governing body - in the first place?

Think about it. I don't have time to explain it to you, but you might want to try going for a walk. I don't know where you live, but try to do it in the country. If you can, climb a hill, build a fire, catch a fish, and watch the sun set over a rolling hill. The important thing is to get away from people and to think about what's around you. Now try to answer the question.

Not everything comes from the government, Bob. Really.



*I would just like to say here that, just like one or two of our founding fathers, I am agnostic

"Since you did not dispute my earlier point that governments possess power, I will assume that you accept this as the truth. Imagine that the people of Darfur all moved away."

This has happened in the past. While they are moving their rights come from those in charge. When they get to where they are going, their rights come from the government in charge when they get there.

"There is only a government there now, and they have no one to govern. How much power does this government have now, Bob?"

As much as they had before.


"With out people, no government has power. Without power, no government can secure the rights of the people. Where, then, do our rights ultimately come from*?"

As stated--rights are an illusion. What rights exist, exist only because of government. The reason you and your family are safe is because your neighbors fear retribution from the government if they kill you and steal your property.

The government is nothing without people, and people are nothing more than savages without government.

"Or you could just enroll your kids in private education and pay for it yourself. Then you wont have to worry about "brainwashing" with science, math, and stuff."

Yeah, those poor kids that go to private/religious schools ...... it really sucks that they do so poorly at the college level when compared to public educated kids .... LOL LOL. Hell, even the minority/poor kids that are fortunate enough to live in a state that has 'vouchers' outperform those 'lucky' public school kids by a LARGE margin.

If the public schools would just stick to teaching core subjects (including art/music & PE) rather than the constant blathering about leftist BS for some union teacher lacky, may their student would graduate & maybe even have a chance to QUALIFY for college.

Christian schools excel at teaching racism and hatred.

Public schools excel at...hmmm...not exactly sure.

At least the Christians are learning something.

"Christian schools excel at teaching racism and hatred."

I went to Catholic school for 5 1/2 years (left when my family moved) and at no point were we taught anything but tolerance for all other people with no exceptions.

You are an bigoted jackass bleating about something you know nothing about. (I happen to reject many elements of my Catholic teachings especially the part that would have me suffer prejudiced jackasses quietly.)

"Public schools excel at...hmmm...not exactly sure.

At least the Christians are learning something."

When I did transfer from Catholic to public school, I found myself behind in math, science, social studies and foreign language. Christian school are only "better" in areas where the public schools are a total mess. A good public school gives a better education than they average Christian school.




"A good public school gives a better education than they average Christian school."

A "good" public school??? That's almost an oxymoron, isn't it? There are a few, perhaps, but the bureaucrats are trying really hard to fuck THOSE up.

www.denverpost.com

"A "good" public school??? That's almost an oxymoron, isn't it? There are a few, perhaps, but the bureaucrats are trying really hard to fuck THOSE up."

I know it is fashionable in come circles to say things like "there are no good public schools in the US" but that doesnt' make it so. You can find many examples of horrible school systems in the US. But the quality of public schools in the US varies greatly from district to district so the quality of one school system speaks very little towards the quality of another. There is a huge disparity between school systems but there is no fatal flaw in the system that makes all public schools lousy, regardless of the myth.

The government wrote the Constitution. Not the People. Jefferson was the Government--not the People. Jefferson was speaking for the people--through his role as government. Facts are facts. The "people" had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-03-08 03:43 PM


1) Jefferson did NOT write the Constitution.. He penned the Declaration Of Independence.

2) The Government Consists primarily of People (as far as I know).

3) The People of the Government (In America) were elected by the People at large.

4) The "Divine" exists only in the People's heads. (if there were no People there would be No Divine)

5) therefore the "rights" come from the People.

6) these "rights" are Self-Evident to the People.

7) Governments (made of People) CAN take away these self-evident rights IF the People (at large) let them.


It is my personal belief (and others too) that the Framers of the Constitution and Declaration used the word Creator as to not offend the Religious nutcases that existed then as they do now in order to get the Constitution ratified.

Regardless, Jefferson was a deist not a Christian as was George Washington. This country was not "founded" on "Christian values" though it is not immune from them either.

The idea of public schools comes from the belief that everyone deserves to be educated. I agree that this is a noble idea to be strived for. I do have a problem with extending this into forcing everyone to have an education or to have that education conform to whatever standards. I do accept the idea that people are responsible for their own actions. Thus, I have no problem with having people home school their kids. Of course, looking over the general population and the levels of knowledge and intelligence, I also believe that were home schooling to become widely adopted, many children would go into the working part of life disadvantaged. Most people don't even have the time to talk to their kids, much less educate them. Personally, I think reality would take care of this issue eventually.
I do see many problems with our education system. I also believe that most of it exists because of a lack of effort/interest on the part of the school kids and their parents. I know that in my educational experience I had good teachers, lousy ones and exceptional ones. I found that I learned as much as I wanted to learn.
I am bothered that most of the arguments made by home school advocates are done on an ancdotal basis. Plus, they have, at their core, that "I" want my kids to be educated the way "I" want.

Regarding our "rights", I agree with the philosophy that we have "priviledges" rather than rights. To be "rights", nature would have to respect them. As would lions, alligators, kings, Ghenghis Khan, the Roman Empire, etc. As I see it, philosophers converted some of these "priveledges" into "rights" and our founding fathers created a country and constitution based on those "rights". The government is empowered to protect those rights. Fact remains, though, if the government decides to suspend those rights because of some "national emergence" or other, those "rights" are gone until either the govt raises the state of emergence or people do something to eliminate that govt. So it really comes down to situation and perspective. If you are talking about the U.S. of A. under actual representative conditions, "rights" come from our constitution. If you are talking about the Soviet Union under Stalin, "rights" came only from him. The important point is that "rights" have been treated in one way through most of human history ("rights" come from power/government). The core point of the U.S. was to change that.


Christian schools excel at teaching racism and hatred.


Really?

The private school I attended was started in a Baptist Church. Every morning we said the pledge of allegiance and the principle would pray.

The rest of the day was secular education. In our science and history classes, the topics of creationism versus evolution came up quite often. The teachers never took a side. They only moderated the discussion to make sure it never got out of hand.

The issue with public schools is that they are allowed to only teach one side of an issue. It's evolution or nothing, and anyone who thinks differently is either openly or secretly ridiculed.

That's setting a good example for embracing our differences as humans. Young people are often times more adept at having civil discussion than adults. Especially liberals and conservatives.

I cannot claim a universal position for all who homeschool, but our reasons are as follows, in no particular order:

1) Difference in educational philosophy. We believe in the proven method of the Trivium and Quadrivium instead of untested methods of education floating variously around in the public school system (e.g., the whole language fiasco in California).

2) Freedom of tailoring curriculi to our individual child's needs. In homeschooling, the ability to invest one-on-one with a child is unparalleled by any school system (although admittedly, it takes exceptional effort). It is interesting that it is group dynamic that is the backbone of failure in public education. We test every day with regards to true retention and assimilation of facts.

3) Freedom to advance in curriculi. Because homeschooling is tailored to an individual child, that child has the ability to progress at a faster rate. Additionally, multiple classes can be added for little expense (as opposed to any public school extracurricular activities). Our daughter's (age 7) school schedule includes: math (4th grade), english grammar (4th grade), poetry, script and cursive writing, reading (5th grade), spelling, latin, russian, world history, U.S. history, art history, botany, meteorology, and other natural sciences, music theory, music (violin, piano), swimming, gymnastics, and track and field. All of these are done in less time and more efficiently because of individual dynamics.

4) Freedom of scheduling. We strictly comply with the national and state regulations regarding the number of hours in instruction in the classroom, and submit to the state a detailed plan of our schools' curriculi for our daughter. However, we are not bound to finish between the hours of 8:30am-3:30pm M-F. We can study on Saturday and Sundays, on snow days, during summer vacation. Moreover, we can take field trips whenever it is necessary, and sick days do not cause our daughter to get behind, because the days are made up when a traditional school could not.

the problem with people who home school is that religion especially the Christian religion is involved with the lesson plan. It is my belief that teaching Christianity is a complete waste of time. there is not 1 person on earth that can prove the existence of a GOD so why even bother teaching it? Homeschooling needs to be outlawed in order to save children from parents pumping crap into their little minds.

As far as necessities in credentials, the problem is that the certification process has nothing to do with competence in teaching, but standardization to what the state deems appropriate. Therefore, credentialed Ph.D.'s in California experimented with your children and the 'whole language reading program.' The end result was an abyssmal failure, as scores of children, your children, were passed by credentialed administrators and educators, and could not read, or had more difficulty reading. Thus, the standard by which a person was credentialed was in error.

On the other hand, homeschooling is largely unregulated. This is the difficulty of homeschooling, in that the blessing of having the parents administer the education is also the curse, in that some parents might abuse the whole concept and say they are homeschooling when they are not. To this, I have put forward to our own homeschooling cooperatives and membership bodies the necessity of self-governance. If the state or a homeschooling organization wants to certify my wife and me in the process of the Trivium, by all means we would be glad to do so. However, we would be unwilling to be certified in the methodology and philosophy of any program outside of our own educational philosophy.

Thus, certification does not a qualified teacher make. Governance does not necessarily need to be external.

It is also true that some parents, when their children get older, have difficulty teaching higher math and science, and that these children could indeed benefit from other tutors. Since I have the ability to teach higher math (up to an including Advanced Calculus, Euclidean and non-Euclidan Algebra, Physics, Chemistry, quantum physics, organic, physical and non-organic chemistry), our daughter would benefit from the resources that our family could not afford for itself. But these decisions come later, when it is clear that our daughter would benefit from a setting where physical resources are necessary for her development.

"While there may be concerns about home schooling, I don't think the percieved societal parent/kid interaction deficit is a problem. If anything, I'd suspect home schooling parents could tend to smother their child."

My point centers not what a particular parent does or will do, but what an "average" home schooling parent would do. After all, home schooling doesn't only pertain to those who do it well. Any government has to be more concerned about the average, since the exceptional will inevitably take care of themselves. Therefore, can you, or anyone, guarantee that when someone home schools their child(ren) that they will do a good job?
Also, sounds like you are saying that either only those who have the time should home school their child(ren). How are you going to enforce that?

The main charge against homeschooling is that the homeschoolers do not have an ability to relate to their peers. To this I say it is true, and am glad for it. Let me explain.

Socialization is a necessary education in the development of any person in society as a whole. However, socialization has been redefined to mean that a child should be able to act irresponsibly and forgetting all other persons in society, interact exclusively with those of the same age group, developing a jargon and behavior that is somehow culturally acceptable until some unspecifed time in the future, when the child must 'grow up,' take on the external form of goodness and communication, and proceed out into the real world. To us, socialization is the ability to communicate and work meaningfully with any other person, through the dictates of personal morality that govern ones own decisions. Thus, to be socialized is not to receive the morality of the peers, but to be the moral agent at any age and to communicate such through words, attitudes, decisions, desires, and actions in the larger society. In this way, our daughter is constantly instructed to not merely have a form of goodness, but to be good, and translate that goodness to the rest of society as a citizen. This comes not by establishing her peers as the objects of communication, but adults.

When homeschoolers have difficulty interacting with other kids their own age, most of the time it is because of the senselessness of the morality and behavior that is permitted. We are not claiming a moral superiority, but our method of socialization also serves to prepare our daughter not for her peers now, but her life as an adult.

When homeschoolers have difficulty interacting with other kids their own age, most of the time it is because of the senselessness of the morality and behavior that is permitted. We are not claiming a moral superiority, but our method of socialization also serves to prepare our daughter not for her peers now, but her life as an adult.

I did not home school but have relations that have and I will say you are full of BS.

The children not only don't interact with other kids their own age, as adults those kids have extreme difficult times interacting with OTHER adults.

This is simple to see, it is quite different how people interact as a family vis a vis interacting with others. I will say things to my brothers and sisters that I would NEVER say out side that arena.

When homeschoolers have difficulty interacting with other kids their own age, most of the time it is because of the senselessness of the morality and behavior that is permitted. We are not claiming a moral superiority, but our method of socialization also serves to prepare our daughter not for her peers now, but her life as an adult.

Posted by pnjbright


I that so??


This is what I think when I think of homeschooling


www.duggarfamily.com

"There is a huge disparity between school systems but there is no fatal flaw in the system that makes all public schools lousy, regardless of the myth."

There is not a fatal flaw in the system? Sure there is, it's called a teachers union. Fatal Flaw #1 .... oh, & they are not a myth.

As much as people like to rail on homeschooling & private/religious schools, the hard data, yr after yr, decade after decade, SHOWS that kids in a homeschool situation or in a private/religious school setting score better on college entrance tests & do better IN college. Bitch & moan all you want, but the simple data facts so the private sector has far outperformed the public sector. Doesn't matter what state you go to, the data always comes out the same.

Public Schools are glorified babysitters ...... & that's the gov admins/teachers unions like it that way.

Public schools teach children how to survive in the real world. Homeschooling will never teach a child how to backstab, blackmail, extort, steal, assualt or any of the tools that are used on a daily basis to get to the top.

Oohrah

I do understand what you are saying. The problem is that you are pushing intent where the question is competence. I am not about to, nor am I interested in, questioning their caring or giving. Nor is the govt. The concern is whether they can do a good enough job. Can all those earnest home schooling parents teach calculus? How about geography? How about arithmetic? Pnjbright sounds like an exemplary home schooler. Is he the norm? After all, the norm is what the govt is interested in.

Curriculi are chosen by the parents based upon educational philosophy. We follow what is called a semi-classical curriculum, in that we firmly believe in the educational philosophy of the Trivium, dividing the process of learning by children into three stages (grammar, logic, and rhetoric). In addition to the classical education, we supplement with additional courses. Yes, we do teach geography, and not just the U.S. states. Our daughter will be able to name all the provinces of Canada, the 'regions' of the C.I.S.. Additionally, we avail ourselves of architectural and art history in world geography. She is exposed to the movements of painting and literature. Moreover, the National Gallery of Art has free programs and lend out tapes and facsimiles of artwork. We are members of local museums and nature conservatories. We are building a philosophy for the love of the nature. We lived in Russia for five years, so both my wife and I are fluent in Russian, and saw the superiority of the Russian method of education, which, by the way, is firmly classical (The Trivium). Dorothy Sayers answered a dilemma in the United Kingdom's educational history that the reason they were failing in education (50 years ago) was a departure from the Trivium and Quadrivium (secondary education). To see her analysis, read, "The Lost Tools of Learning."

Are we the norm? I do not know. But, the homeschooling cooperative in our area has many, many serious parents who engage their children in all of these ways, seeking to develop them not merely as intellectual beings, but moral and social beings as well. Our daughter is anything but isolated from friends and compatriots. Can a program like ours be regulated by the state? It is in one sense. But, I truly believe that, aside from a private school that I cannot afford, the public school system in our area cannot offer education that my daughter is receiving in our home.

The time commitment is immense. My wife puts in about 60 hours per week in preparation, research, and teaching of our daughter. I put in less right now, given that my education will help as she progresses in the sciences and math.

No one in any school system will be more interested in my daughter's complete education than myself and my wife.

Homeschooling parents are not arguing that everyone should homeschool, since the commitment of time and choice of lifestyle is ingrained in the choice itself. Some parents cannot make this commitment. Others do not wish to make it. But, the fact that some parents do indeed desire to do these things, in a free society, should be allowed, which is why the California ruling raises multiple warning flags.

Are there school systems that excel in some or all of these things? Yes.

Are all of them as affordable as homeschooling? Maybe.

Is there the availability of the philosophy of classical education in your area at a price that you can afford? Most of the time, no!

With all of these factors, I would not make homeschooling the norm for every parent in every circumstance, forcing something upon them that simply cannot be done. On the other hand, to disallow homeschooling because of perceived deficiencies, or because of idealogical differences (as Messiah above), in a free society should not be tolerated. Simply put, as homeschoolers, we choose not to participate in the education that the state seeks to provide for our daughter in our area because we have the time, training, and resources to do better for her. When we reach the end of our resources, or she seeks to advance in a particular area that neither my wife or I can really with acumen teach, then we will either hire a tutor or enroll her in whatever private school might have such programs.

Pnjbright,

You make a very good case for home schooling in some cases. It is why I also do not agree with the Calif ruling. But, this is neither my point nor theirs. The govt's concern, by its very nature, should be precisely with that "norm". It appears that it is targeting exactly that and, unfortunatly, catching people like you in their sweep. Key sera, or more accurately, such is govt. Calif has, what, 30+ million people? It can't focus on a small group. The inherent problem of governing huge groups of people. One which democracy is not geared to handle. Even a representative republic stumbles.

"When homeschoolers have difficulty interacting with other kids their own age, most of the time it is because of the senselessness of the morality and behavior that is permitted. We are not claiming a moral superiority, but our method of socialization also serves to prepare our daughter not for her peers now, but her life as an adult."

Could it be that they just do not socialize like good little liberals??? Schooling without liberal indoctrination must not be allowed - are you not happy that you have a liberal court system to work with you and yours to achieve your unstated goals!

"Could it be that they just do not socialize like good little liberals??? Schooling without liberal indoctrination must not be allowed - are you not happy that you have a liberal court system to work with you and yours to achieve your unstated goals!"

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the trailer this morning.

Some would like statistics on how well homeschoolers are learning and how many actually get to college. Some want parents to prove they can educate their kids.

I've seen the numbers for Public schools.

If you think homeschool statistics are horrible, what should be done about homeschooling?

If you think parents should have to prove they can teach, how do you do it?

Now, would you take that answer and apply it to public schools?

"It is my belief that teaching Christianity is a complete waste of time. there is not 1 person on earth that can prove the existence of a GOD so why even bother teaching it? "
Posted by messiah


In my daily job, science and social studies never comes to play. Math, reading and writing, spelling...they do. So why teach them?


Tolstoy, Chaucer, Shakespeare. Total waste of time.
Does nothing for me financially. Doesn't support my life or family. So, why teach it?


One reason I refused college courses that were 'necessary' for the college degree. They were stupid subjects, having nothing to do with my career goals.

I don't need classes in Philosophy, or Creative Basket Weaving, Sociology, Feminine Studies, and Paint by Number, etc. Worthless classes.

Did your teacher ask you to write an essay about Tolkien's Lord of the Rings? You're becoming a doctor, right? So, what good does it do to teach this?

As for 'no one can prove there's a God' - you haven't found the person YET. Some are luckier (or in some minds here unlucky).


Neal Boortz quotes a page from an "activity book" published by Harcourt Brace for public schools:

"It's a page out of an "Activity Book" published by Harcourt Brace, now called Harcourt Education. This page is entitled "Rights & Wrongs" and comes from the Harcourt social studies textbook "United States in Modern Times." The heading for this page says "In the late eighteenth century many people complained that the Constitution did not list rights of the people. So the authors of the Constitution decided to write a Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments to the Constitution state simply and clearly citizens' rights that the government cannot take away."

This particular page (page 14) of the "Activity Book" then lists the Bill of Rights with short explanations of each one. I thought you might like to see what this book says about the 2nd Amendment:

"The Second Amendment * says that states may enlist citizens for a trained militia [army] and provide and train them with weapons."

Are you believing that? This, my friends, is the way the government schools work to indoctrinate rather than educate. In the heading Harcourt says that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people ... then they go on to say that the 2nd Amendment actually protects the rights of government.

Are you sending your children to the government to be educated?"


Jest, that's a horrible reading of the 2nd. Even SCOTUS fails to butcher it that badly.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

Does anyone recognize this.Of Course communism promotes state worship.I home school my children, 7 of them,. and I own guns.

OOPS I capitalized a wrong word and forgot my question Mark. Just think, and I went to a government school.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

Hello!!

"I home school my children, 7 of them,. and I own guns."

You ever hear of birth control, numbskull?

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable