Loyalty to the State

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 7 of 27

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You can't hold a kid down and FORCE them to learn, they either will or they won't, you can guide them, encourage them, but if they flat will not do it... what then ?

Thank you.

Some parents spank kids for not sitting down and doing their work. Some teachers WISH they could spank, and some other teachers DO. What is this "minimum education" worth? Children aren't trains that you have to move from point A to point B, whatever the cost.

The solution to educational neglect is not to catch it. Catching it, as a solution, misses the point of WHY they were neglected to begin with. A better solution would be encourage caring in teaching, establish a culture and mindset that celebrates a child's individuality and nurtures a child's innate desire to learn. This takes care of both the teachers'/parents' responsibility and the children's motivation.

Sure, this solution is not perfect and will no doubt miss some kids still. (And that is NOT acceptable.) But it will miss less kids than the current solution, which is to establish bureaucratic criteria enforced by self-righteous monitoring of a faceless state. And once we actually improve, we can start talking about fine-tuning this solution to have even less kids fall through the cracks.

As the saying goes, "Minds are not vessels to be filled, but fires to be lit." Our current educational system wants a quota of mind-filling, using people with "qualifications" to fill minds. Educational reform (which needs to include both schools and homeschools) would change the paradigm to lighting fires. Once the fires are lit, the minds will fill themselves.

--------------------------
Minds are not vessels to be filled, but fires to be lit.
--Plutarch

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Control, eh? How much do you intend to control your child's television viewing, friendships, reading, computer use, casual contacts, education, diet etc?

As little as possible.

Signy, I don't know whether it's intentional or not, but you're going off the deep end with your 'interpretation' again. I was in no way advocating isolation as a desirable parenting technique, and I'm not defending the parental rights of David Koresh. Once again you seem more interested in painting me into one of the stereotypes you are preoccupied with.

Quote:
...At some point, "control" isn't the answer. In some cases, there is no answer.

No shit. I'm not sure what you're going on about. I'm not trying to tell people how to raise their kids. I'm trying to point out that there are costs, subtle and longterm, to replacing the parent with the state as the 'decider' for what's best for children.

It'd be nice if you could stow your preconceived strawmen long enough to address that point.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Exceptional children aside, even in the case where I were raising my daughter in a hostile society (current Afghanistan, the USA) I cannot in good conscience isolate my child from that society. I have a responsibility to make sure that my child can function as an adult, and in order to do that you HAVE to give up some "control".

You know Sig, I couldn't find anyone (including SergeantX) advocating isolating children from society. You are extrapolating the word "control" to absurd extremes that no one here supports. So that point is neither here nor there.

You know, and everyone here knows, that Serg is not an authoritarian control freak, and yet that is how you chose to interpret his use of the word "control." Let's discuss the same issues without using that word, shall we?

As I read it, Sergeant is talking about empowering parents to provide the guidance, structure, and limits that are essential to learning self-discipline and independence. Right now, many parents feel powerless and helpless because they feel they lack the "authority" or qualifications to provide guidance and limits. Court rulings like the one in question reinforce that perception. Sergeant is saying parents need to be encouraged, rather than discouraged, that yes, they CAN do the job and do it better than the State or anyone else. This encouragement needs to come from both societal norms and laws. Parental confidence has been whittled down, and it is about time it is built back up.

Serg, if I misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me.

--------------------------
...and we'll never be under the heel of nobody ever again.
--Firefly

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Serg, if I misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me.

Not at all. You've nailed it. Thank you.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...but they don't justify writing off children as some sort of acceptable loss without first making every effort to prevent that loss.
I have said absolutely NOTHING about "acceptable loss." I do not think the educational abuse / neglect is acceptable, nor have I ever said anything to that effect. I acknowledged the abuse in BOTH systems, and proposed a solution. Maybe you don't agree with my solution, but it could hardly be interpreted as accepting the problem and ignoring responsibility.

For the record, NO abuse or loss is ever acceptable. Clear enough for you?

Not really. Not after you spent all the other day talking about acceptable loss, it's just more difficult to figure out what your point is or even if you have one. Like this for instance:

"People abuse everything in the world. You can't penalize millions of legitimate homeschoolers because some people abuse homeschooling. Hell, more teachers abuse schooling than parents abuse homeschooling, and despite "attention drawn" to it, it keeps happening. Yet no one is calling for the end of public and private schools. Because the fact is, MOST schools do an adequate job despite the abusers."

Or this:

"The "abuse" I was referring to (and thought you were referring to when you said "abusing homeschooling") is educational neglect. School teachers engage in this type of abuse all the time. They are charged with providing a minimum education, and for whatever reason (hey, parents have excuses too), they fail. It gets in the news, we get all up in arms, and the govt passes some law or another to "draw attention" to it. And still children get "left behind." It happens. But the majority of schools do provide a minimum education, so millions of schooled children should not be penalized for the few credentialed educational abusers. By the same reasoning, most parents do an adequate job providing the same minimum education at homeschools, so millions of homeschooled children should not be penalized either."

Every post you've made has been based on the idea of some acceptable loss, but now you say that has nothing to do with your point. So what is your point? I propose that the California legislation needs to review the law and your response is a constant drum beat of why that's not necessary because one must simply accept that some teachers are bad or some parents are bad. It sounds to me like what you are suggesting is that we should just ignore the problem, continue with inadequate legal protection and an outright ban on homeschool and just ignore any and all problems. That just doesn't seem like a good approach to me.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:02 PM

Quote:
You know Sig, I couldn't find anyone (including SergeantX) advocating isolating children from society. You are extrapolating the word "control" to absurd extremes that no one here supports.

No? Are you sure? I don't know anyone who'd take their kids out of country to prevent "interference" by "the authorities" in medical treatment, do you? Naaaah.... Or who'd stand in the door with a weapon to prevent their child from being contaminated by "The State"? Do you?

If I'm extrapolating to an absurd degree... and perhaps I am... then I suggest that you clarify the boudaries. Under what circumstances should parents give up "control", and how much should they give up? And perhaps more importantly, who gets to decides whether those boundaries have been crossed?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No? Are you sure? I don't know anyone who'd take their kids out of country to prevent "interference" by "the authorities" in medical treatment, do you?

What the fuck!!!?

I took my son to Peru because he gets better here. His allergic reactions are a fraction of what they are in the States. He can eat and he grows. It has nothing to do with preventing interference. You don't think I'd come back in a heartbeat if I could find a place in the States that he can be healthy in?

Fuck you.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I propose that the California legislation needs to review the law and your response is a constant drum beat of why that's not necessary because one must simply accept that some teachers are bad or some parents are bad.

NO. NOT because one must simply accept that some teachers/parents are bad. Because it would be an unjust solution.

Quote:
It sounds to me like what you are suggesting is that we should just ignore the problem, continue with inadequate legal protection and an outright ban on homeschool and just ignore any and all problems.

I have described what I suggested as an alternative solution in detail TWICE. Scroll up and read. My alternative solution does not involve legislation. Scroll back and read it. In summary, it calls for educational reform that would increase both financial compensation and social status of teachers, encouragement and empowerment of parents, and a motivational approach to education. Disagreeing with YOUR solution is not the same thing as ignoring the problem. Disagreeing that more laws need to be passed is not the same thing as ignoring the problem.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I propose that the California legislation needs to review the law and your response is a constant drum beat of why that's not necessary because one must simply accept that some teachers are bad or some parents are bad.
NO. NOT because one must simply accept that some teachers/parents are bad. Because it would be an unjust solution.

That’s nonsense. There is nothing unjust about legislators reviewing law. It is done all the time - in fact it is the way the system has worked sense the Constitution was signed.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have described what I suggested as an alternative solution in detail TWICE. Scroll up and read. My alternative solution does not involve legislation.

Then it’s probably useless, unless you‘re in favor of banning homeschooling. Because California law has banned homeschooling since 1953 and that can only be rectified through legislation.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Because California law has banned homeschooling since 1953 and that can only be rectified through legislation.

It doesn't need to be rectified if they allow private schools to hire whomever they want as teachers. And up to now, they did.

California homeschoolers are organized and fighting this ruling. I have every confidence it will get depublished, as it were, without further legislation.

I homeschool under TX law. There is no provision for homeschooling in TX either. Homeschools are private schools with no oversight by the state, very similar to those in CA.

--------------------------
It is the great triumph of compulsory, government monopoly mass-schooling that among even the best of my fellow teachers, and among even the best of my students' parents, only a small number can imagine a different way to do things
-- John Taylor Gatto

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE