Homeschooling outlawed by California courts

[TSR]

Scholastically, not many parents would have the academic ability to teach the courses in today's schools.

TSR. Of the homeschooled children I know and know of personally, very few are homeschooled past elementary school. In fact I cannot think of one that never attended a public or private school at all.

These parents know their limitations, and are resigned to the fact that their children will have to attend a higher curriculum at some point.

How can you possibly believe that a public school teacher cares more about a child's education than a parent does? How is this possible?

I would think as someone in the education field, you would pat these people on the back for spending the time in a attempt to give their children an advantage over and above the status quo.

I am just trying to understand your train of thoughts and understand why the NEA is so vehemently opposed to homeschooling.

The biggest argument from the anti homeschooling establishment I have read so far is that homeschooling would eliminate the "cream of the crop" from public schools, thus creating a lesser quality environment for the remainder of children.

Your opinion is diametrically opposed to this notion. Please reach down deep and come up with a better argument?

Mike, I don't think I said that a teacher would care more for a child's education than a parent. On the contrary I said a parent would be more accountable because they were teaching their on flesh and blood and would have a greater interest in the outcome. Basically thats what I said.

With respect to the parents, again, If they are spending the time and are truly capable, then yes they are to be commended. I just have not seen that scenario so far in my experience. I haven't seen tht cream of the crop either from a homeschooled situation. Have a good one. Hope you miss the drought this yr.

 

[Red Robin]

Scholastically, not many parents would have the academic ability to teach the courses in today's schools. Some would but most would not. And as others have posted here a lot would be running around town for most of the day with the kids when the children's time would have been better spent in school provided as I stated earlier that they had the attitude and the want to. JMHO

Scholastically speaking TSR most teachers that I know couldn't teach the class without the book. Home school parents have books as well. As far as running around town, I'd say without the class breaks every 45 minutes and the distraction for the first 5 or 10 minutes in class settling in and such, public school students could spend quite a bit more time running around town and get the same info learned. I guess we just disagree. I see no justifiable reason to ban home school other than the teachers union wanting more control and a liberal government wanting to give it to them in exchange for a vote.

3-5 minutes between classes isn't much of a break to me RR. And I could turn it around with respect to politics and say the conservative politicians will be courting the home schoolers for every vote they can get also. I promise you the teachers that I know could throw the text out the window and do a good job. Most just use it for the practice assignments for their kids and to make sure they cover the items the state tests require. One of our high school math teachers teaches courses at our local college which has an enrollment of 7-8000 generally per semester. And BTW I didn't say anything about banning homeschooling. I just don't think its effective especially in the upper elementary grades.

The original reason for the thread is because californicators ruled that homeschooling is illegal, thus my comment. It wasn't directed at you. What I find real odd is that the very people that want homeschooling outlawed are the ones that also say government has no business saving a life of an unborn baby and that government has no business interfering with what goes on in someones bedroom but government has a mandate to see that kids are educated in a forum that government thinks is appropriate.

 

[Mike]

Homeschooling and the Myth of Socialization
by Manfred B. Zysk

One of the silliest and most annoying comments made to homeschooling parents is, "Aren't you concerned about how your child will be able to socialize with others?". What is being implied here is that the homeschooled child is some kind of introverted misfit who cannot relate to other people, children, and the outside world. In reality, most of the homeschooled children that I have known and met are not only outgoing, but polite and respectful, too. This is a sharp contrast to the public school children that I have known, who can't relate to adults and whose behavior is rude and inconsiderate. Realistically, there are some exceptions on both sides.

Isn't it interesting that amid all of the public school shootings over the past few years, the only comment that opponents of homeschooling can come up with is the red herring of "socialization"? You may have noticed, there haven't been shootings at private schools, or shootings inside of the homes of homeschooled children.

Opponents of homeschooling can't complain about average test scores, since homeschooled children consistently outscore public school children, so they instead make a problem that doesn't exist.

Who is responsible for creating this "socialization" problem? This myth has been perpetrated by sociologists, psychologists, public school administrators, the NEA (and local teacher's unions), etc., whenever they comment on homeschooling to the news media. These are the same people who give Ritalin (a very strong narcotic) and other drugs to schoolchildren, in place of discipline.

A family member asked my wife, "Aren't you concerned about his (our son's) socialization with other kids?". My wife gave this response: "Go to your local middle school, junior high, or high school, walk down the hallways, and tell me which behavior you see that you think our son should emulate." Good answer.

In order for children to become assimilated into society properly, it is important to have a variety of experiences and be exposed to differing opinions and views. This enables them to think for themselves and form their own opinions. This is exactly what public education does not want; public education is for the lowest common denominator and influencing all of the students to share the same views ("group-think") and thought-control through various means, including peer-pressure.

Homeschooling allows parents the freedom to associate with other interested parties, visit local businesses, museums, libraries, etc. as part of school, and to interact with people of all ages in the community. For example, my son goes on field trips with other homeschooling families in our community. He recently was able to visit an audiologist, a McDonald's restaurant (to see how they run their operation), and several other similar activities. He gets to meet and talk to people of different ages doing interesting (and sometimes not so interesting) occupations. He spends a lot of his free time with kids older and younger than himself, and adults from twenty to over ninety years old.

Meanwhile, in public school, children are segregated by age, and have very little interaction with other adults, except their teacher(s). This environment only promotes alienation from different age groups, especially adults. This is beginning to look like the real socialization problem.

My wife and I like to bring our son with us when we are visiting with friends and other adults. How else will he learn to be an adult, if he never has contact with adults? He knows what kind of behavior we expect from him, and the consequences of his actions. He is often complimented on his good manners by friends and adults.

In conclusion, homeschooling parents choose to homeschool for a variety of reasons, but I have never heard any homeschooling parent say that the reason they want to homeschool is to isolate their child from all of society. But, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for homeschooled children to stay away from public school administrators, the NEA members, sociologists, and others who cannot properly "socialize" with children.

Go to your local public school, walk down the hallways and see what behaviors you would want your child to emulate.

 

[TSR]

Scholastically speaking TSR most teachers that I know couldn't teach the class without the book. Home school parents have books as well. As far as running around town, I'd say without the class breaks every 45 minutes and the distraction for the first 5 or 10 minutes in class settling in and such, public school students could spend quite a bit more time running around town and get the same info learned. I guess we just disagree. I see no justifiable reason to ban home school other than the teachers union wanting more control and a liberal government wanting to give it to them in exchange for a vote.

3-5 minutes between classes isn't much of a break to me RR. And I could turn it around with respect to politics and say the conservative politicians will be courting the home schoolers for every vote they can get also. I promise you the teachers that I know could throw the text out the window and do a good job. Most just use it for the practice assignments for their kids and to make sure they cover the items the state tests require. One of our high school math teachers teaches courses at our local college which has an enrollment of 7-8000 generally per semester. And BTW I didn't say anything about banning homeschooling. I just don't think its effective especially in the upper elementary grades.

The original reason for the thread is because californicators ruled that homeschooling is illegal, thus my comment. It wasn't directed at you. What I find real odd is that the very people that want homeschooling outlawed are the ones that also say government has no business saving a life of an unborn baby and that government has no business interfering with what goes on in someones bedroom but government has a mandate to see that kids are educated in a forum that government thinks is appropriate.

RRobin again our school system is run basically by Board policies that were open for discussion in community forums. Now you're never going to please everyone,we all know that I think. Aside from unfunded mandates like NCLB No Child Left Behind those aforementioned policies were developed by local people generally.

 

[TSR]

TSR

Overall, public education has been very successful in this country.

Locally our school system is in shambles.. cost per student ($19,323) is way over the state average and well above the national average.. teacher to student is one teacher for every 11 students.. yet we have the highest drop out rate in the state and failing students, with less then 60% at grade level proficiency..

So for almost $20,000 you get almost 20% who drop out.. and 40% of each grade failing....

Unfortunately when a school district fails it fails children.. and the cost is high..

Math scores is just one example.. 45.9% at grade..

No high school proficiency scores are above 60% ..

A functional illiterate rate of 11%

No less then 50 young adults quit.. every year.

Over 300 children are failing.. or not working close to grade level

Out of a district with just under 800 children.. and almost $20,000 per child..

Some feel that that a caring parent is worse..

Yet this public school district produces over 30 functionally illiterate adults every year...

Steve I bet your school sytem is the exception and not the norm in your state.

 

[TSR]

I have seen far to many children in this small rural setting I live in be served unjustly by their parents who were telling everyone they were home schooling and these children are growing up not reading or writing. I know some of you will right away say that happens in the public school system too. However, a lot (not all) of the time a principal, administrator, or other parent catches on to a bad teacher and evientually the year lost is made up in another grade. Is their problems with the current educational system. Yes. Teachers need to keep their job based on their job performance not on the number of years employed with a district.

I agree with a lot of what you say Cattle Army. In many instances with respect to test scores teachers are up and down for various reasons kinda hard to justify termination. Also I would argue that many times test scores won't be the most important thing in a young person's life. I have heard several essays written by students honoring their former teachers. I have yet to hear one mention their test scores and these kids went on to have very successful lives at least in part due to a teacher or coach according to their comments. And you are right no system as large as the public educational system will ever be without its problems.

 

[Red Robin]

Even as the right to educate one's children at home has become more established over the past 20 years, the right of parents to determine when their children are ready begin or finish formal education has steadily eroded. Minimum compulsory education ages have been falling and maximum compulsory ages have been rising.

As a result, a new dialogue has opened. The question is being asked: Should there be compulsory attendance laws at all? The resolution of this debate will have a profound impact on the education of the next generation.

The History of Compulsory Education in America

When our passion for liberty burned brightest, there were no compulsory education laws in our country. Between the pre-Revolutionary period and the mid-1800s, the power to decide whether, when, and how to educate one's children lay entirely in the hands of the parents. The first compulsory attendance law was adopted in Massachusetts in 1852.1 During the next 15 years, no other state followed Massachusetts. But, beginning in 1867, a steady stream of states began adopting compulsory attendance laws and, by 1918, all states had enacted them.2

Germany's Education System

In 1908, only a half dozen years before the Kaiser's attempt to conquer Europe, George Milton, Editor of the Knoxville Sentinel, published an article, "Compulsory Education and the Southern States." In this piece, he referred admiringly no less than three times to the German compulsory attendance system, including this gushy quote:

The Germans were the earliest to institute a system of general education, and the wonderful progress of Germany in every respect is now largely attributed to the thoroughness of national education...

The fact that in Germany elementary education has been generally compulsory and, to a large extent, also gratuitous, for more than one hundred and fifty years, is recognized to be an essential element in recent political, industrial, and commercial successes of the nation.4
Many factors contributed to this transfer of responsibility from the family unit to the state. Proponents of compulsory attendance hoped that the disparity between the poor and the wealthy would be "leveled." Some saw compulsory state education as a way of "Americanizing" the great waves of immigrants. Compulsory state education was also seen as a way to improve the situation of children following the passage of laws outlawing child labor.

American proponents of compulsory attendance pointed with admiration to the system of compulsory attendance established by Prussia (part of modern-day Germany) in 1717.3 (See side bar.)

There were those who raised their voices against the rising tide of compulsory attendance. Governor Pattison of Pennsylvania vetoed two compulsory attendance bills in 1891 and 1893 on the ground that they interfered with traditional parental liberties. In 1892, the national platform of the Democratic Party stated: "We are opposed to state interference with parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children."5

By the early 1920s, however, all meaningful debate over the virtue of compulsory attendance had ceased. The discussions that continued centered on how compulsory attendance should be enforced, and for how long. The minimum age for compulsory attendance was forced steadily lower. Early compulsory attendance laws generally did not require attendance until a child turned 8, and in Ohio and South Dakota, attendance was not required until age 10. Only one state, New Hampshire, required attendance of 6 year olds.

Table 1

Click to enlarge.
As Table 1 indicates, the number of states requiring 6 year olds to attend school has risen dramatically, and today, 28 states require attendance of 6 year olds. The District of Columbia, Delaware, and Oklahoma have even gone so far as to require children to attend school at the tender age of 5.

During the same period, the number of states requiring attendance until 18 grew steadily. In 1887, only Washington state required attendance to age 18. Today, 14 states do. The average length of the school term was also growing. From 1887 until today, the average school term swelled from 130 to 180 days.

A Thoughtful Dialogue

Prompted perhaps by wide media exposure of the social and academic failure of public schools, the dialogue concerning the desirability of compulsory attendance laws was reopened in the late 1960s and early 1970s.6 Today, there are at least two organizations that advocate the repeal of compulsory attendance laws.7,8 It remains to be seen which side of the dialogue will prevail in the 21st century.

Those who favor compulsory attendance laws are not sitting idly by while a determined minority works to abolish compulsory attendance. In recent years, bills have been introduced in multiple states to lower the minimum age of compulsory attendance and raise the maximum. Although most of these have failed with significant home school opposition, a few (Vermont and Connecticut) have succeeded. A bill expanding compulsory attendance awaits the governor's action in New York.

Furthermore, lengthening the school term is another topic engendering great discussion. Japan is frequently held up as an example for the United States to follow. Japanese students attend school 240 to 250 days per year, including half a day Saturday.9 The admiration expressed for the Japanese educational system today is reminiscent of the admiration expressed for the German education system at the beginning of the compulsory attendance movement.

Is it merely a coincidence that the two countries whose educational system we have most admired gave rise to totalitarian states in the 20th century, bent on world domination? Looking into the dying embers of two world wars should remind us that the utopian impulse that lures men to entrust control of the individual—including compulsory attendance and state control of education—to the wisdom of the state, sets the stage for corrupt and domineering governments. And, as experience should have taught us, this can lead to horrible results. Although today's proponents of compulsory attendance will argue that their purpose is benign, when the power to control education is concentrated in the hands of a few, it can easily be turned toward objectives which are not all benign.

Home School Legal Defense Association supports efforts wherever possible to roll back compulsory attendance laws. It has happened before. Although the general trend has been for the period of compulsory attendance to expand, there have been a handful of instances in which state laws reduced the period of compulsory attendance. Nothing in the United States Constitution compels any state to operate public schools or to compel attendance. And of course, the Constitution nowhere empowers the federal government to take any role in education.

What Role Should Government Play in Education?

Although courts today frequently say that education is one of the most important roles of government, this shows an astounding lack of perspective and knowledge of U.S. history. During the 75 years after America declared our independence from England, our government's role in education was minimal, and compulsory attendance nonexistent.

For centuries, education has primarily taken place in the home. Compulsory attendance is relatively new phenomenon in our country. The home school community brings a broader, historical perspective into the dialogue by demonstrating that education centering around the family unit can be as successful today as it was around the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, when literacy rates were around 97 percent. In the scriptural model, the home is the center of nurture, education, and life itself. Compulsory education undermines the integrity of the home by usurping parents' authority to make educational decisions for their children.

We need to reestablish the right of parents to decide when their children are ready to begin formal education and of young children to enjoy the brief years of childhood without the threat of government intervention. A shadow is cast across the joyful teaching of loving parents when education is no longer a natural product of their love for each other, but a product of state compulsion.

The failure of the public school system and the success of home schooling demand that a thoughtful dialogue move forward on whether or not compulsory attendance laws should be retained.

 

[CattleArmy]

RR way to go bringing in the homosexual card and abortion card on a school issue. :?


For centuries, education has primarily taken place in the home. Compulsory attendance is relatively new phenomenon in our country. The home school community brings a broader, historical perspective into the dialogue by demonstrating that education centering around the family unit can be as successful today as it was around the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independance

The problem with home schooling in this modern society that we deal with going off of this statement is the fact that in a lot of two parent homes it is taking both parents working to provide for the family. ( Don't bring up my boat and fancy new pickup why I work because I have neither and you will be wrong with that argument.) I look around the area I live in and see more and more if they are ranching families the wife is working in town in order to provide insurance in most cases. The other cases is tight ranchers paying 1500 a month and thinking they are giving their help the world. :shock: The other problem with the bold statement is the fact that the American family is changing. Less families are the original parent families. There are step families and single families on the rise. Not that these families are not as worthy or wrong but the home that this home schooling is taking place in is changing also.

 

[Red Robin]

RR way to go bringing in the homosexual card and abortion card on a school issue. :?


For centuries, education has primarily taken place in the home. Compulsory attendance is relatively new phenomenon in our country. The home school community brings a broader, historical perspective into the dialogue by demonstrating that education centering around the family unit can be as successful today as it was around the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independance

The problem with home schooling in this modern society that we deal with going off of this statement is the fact that in a lot of two parent homes it is taking both parents working to provide for the family. ( Don't bring up my boat and fancy new pickup why I work because I have neither and you will be wrong with that argument.) I look around the area I live in and see more and more if they are ranching families the wife is working in town in order to provide insurance in most cases. The other cases is tight ranchers paying 1500 a month and thinking they are giving their help the world. :shock: The other problem with the bold statement is the fact that the American family is changing. Less families are the original parent families. There are step families and single families on the rise. Not that these families are not as worthy or wrong but the home that this home schooling is taking place in is changing also.

I don't understand your logic. What does single parents have to do with homeschool? Are you just wanting to ban home schooling on single parents? Please explain.

 

[CattleArmy]

RR way to go bringing in the homosexual card and abortion card on a school issue. :?


For centuries, education has primarily taken place in the home. Compulsory attendance is relatively new phenomenon in our country. The home school community brings a broader, historical perspective into the dialogue by demonstrating that education centering around the family unit can be as successful today as it was around the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independance

The problem with home schooling in this modern society that we deal with going off of this statement is the fact that in a lot of two parent homes it is taking both parents working to provide for the family. ( Don't bring up my boat and fancy new pickup why I work because I have neither and you will be wrong with that argument.) I look around the area I live in and see more and more if they are ranching families the wife is working in town in order to provide insurance in most cases. The other cases is tight ranchers paying 1500 a month and thinking they are giving their help the world. :shock: The other problem with the bold statement is the fact that the American family is changing. Less families are the original parent families. There are step families and single families on the rise. Not that these families are not as worthy or wrong but the home that this home schooling is taking place in is changing also.

I don't understand your logic. What does single parents have to do with homeschool? Are you just wanting to ban home schooling on single parents? Please explain.

I was simply saying the family from the bold is changing. Plus did you not read where I said not that these families are as worthy and not wrong? I put that in their because I knew someone would jump on it and you didn't let me down.

In a single parent family that parent is responsible for making the money to support the family. It would be very difficult to work full time and home school right? I would NEVER ever just want to ban home schooling on single parents I would want to ban it on All parents even homosexual parents. :wink:

I'm against home schooling and I will be until I see that children do not get used as babysitters and ranch help for the parents that are supposed to be, yet fail to educate them. I will be against it as long as I see them around town more then I see myself in town where I work. I will be against it until there is a mandated test in order for them to prove that an actual learning environment is taking place. I'm also against it because in many rural areas this group of individuals with their own agendas, most not the education, are helping to kill out rural schools.

 

[Red Robin]

RR way to go bringing in the homosexual card and abortion card on a school issue. :?


For centuries, education has primarily taken place in the home. Compulsory attendance is relatively new phenomenon in our country. The home school community brings a broader, historical perspective into the dialogue by demonstrating that education centering around the family unit can be as successful today as it was around the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independance

The problem with home schooling in this modern society that we deal with going off of this statement is the fact that in a lot of two parent homes it is taking both parents working to provide for the family. ( Don't bring up my boat and fancy new pickup why I work because I have neither and you will be wrong with that argument.) I look around the area I live in and see more and more if they are ranching families the wife is working in town in order to provide insurance in most cases. The other cases is tight ranchers paying 1500 a month and thinking they are giving their help the world. :shock: The other problem with the bold statement is the fact that the American family is changing. Less families are the original parent families. There are step families and single families on the rise. Not that these families are not as worthy or wrong but the home that this home schooling is taking place in is changing also.

I don't understand your logic. What does single parents have to do with homeschool? Are you just wanting to ban home schooling on single parents? Please explain.

I was simply saying the family from the bold is changing. Plus did you not read where I said not that these families are as worthy and not wrong? I put that in their because I knew someone would jump on it and you didn't let me down.

In a single parent family that parent is responsible for making the money to support the family. It would be very difficult to work full time and home school right? I would NEVER ever just want to ban home schooling on single parents I would want to ban it on All parents even homosexual parents. :wink:

I'm against home schooling and I will be until I see that children do not get used as babysitters and ranch help for the parents that are supposed to be, yet fail to educate them. I will be against it as long as I see them around town more then I see myself in town where I work. I will be against it until there is a mandated test in order for them to prove that an actual learning environment is taking place. I'm also against it because in many rural areas this group of individuals with their own agendas, most not the education, are helping to kill out rural schools.

I guess no amount of statistics showing homeschooled kids are better educated will change your mind. You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[CattleArmy]

I don't understand your logic. What does single parents have to do with homeschool? Are you just wanting to ban home schooling on single parents? Please explain.

I was simply saying the family from the bold is changing. Plus did you not read where I said not that these families are as worthy and not wrong? I put that in their because I knew someone would jump on it and you didn't let me down.

In a single parent family that parent is responsible for making the money to support the family. It would be very difficult to work full time and home school right? I would NEVER ever just want to ban home schooling on single parents I would want to ban it on All parents even homosexual parents. :wink:

I'm against home schooling and I will be until I see that children do not get used as babysitters and ranch help for the parents that are supposed to be, yet fail to educate them. I will be against it as long as I see them around town more then I see myself in town where I work. I will be against it until there is a mandated test in order for them to prove that an actual learning environment is taking place. I'm also against it because in many rural areas this group of individuals with their own agendas, most not the education, are helping to kill out rural schools.

I guess no amount of statistics showing homeschooled kids are better educated will change your mind. You're entitled to your opinion.

Thank you.

 

[Steve]

TSR

Overall, public education has been very successful in this country.

Locally our school system is in shambles.. cost per student ($19,323) is way over the state average and well above the national average.. teacher to student is one teacher for every 11 students.. yet we have the highest drop out rate in the state and failing students, with less then 60% at grade level proficiency..

So for almost $20,000 you get almost 20% who drop out.. and 40% of each grade failing....

Unfortunately when a school district fails it fails children.. and the cost is high..

Math scores is just one example.. 45.9% at grade..

No high school proficiency scores are above 60% ..

A functional illiterate rate of 11%

No less then 50 young adults quit.. every year.

Over 300 children are failing.. or not working close to grade level

Out of a district with just under 800 children.. and almost $20,000 per child..

Some feel that that a caring parent is worse..

Yet this public school district produces over 30 functionally illiterate adults every year...

Steve I bet your school system is the exception and not the norm in your state.

While I would hope it was the worst.. it is not.. many of the inner city schools fare worse.. the state has a way of hiding the real data, and it is hard to find,.. but for one small district.. it is failing.. and the children it fails will not ever be given a chance to regain the lost education.. fortunately most are to uneducated to know how badly the state has ripped them off..