Loyalty to the State
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 8 of 27
Quote:Which puts California homeschoolers right back where they were before, waiting for the next court case to realize that the law effectively bans homeschooling. A half ass solution, at best. At the same time you call the only real solution, legislating provisions for homeschooling, “unjust,” whatever the hell that means. I don’t know what you‘re deal is, and I’m not even sure you know.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote: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.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Because California law has banned homeschooling since 1953 and that can only be rectified through legislation.
California homeschoolers are organized and fighting this ruling. I have every confidence it will get depublished, as it were, without further legislation.
Quote:My understanding is that there is nothing similar between the two states with regard to homeschooling. Texas has one of the most lax homeschooling policies in the country while California has one of the most stringent.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
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.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
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.
Kansas has a similar approach. It'll be interesting to see how, or if, this ruling spreads to other states. I'm not sure if Lawrence represents the rest of the state (in most other ways it certainly doesn't), but the school district there was very friendly to home schoolers offering mentoring and partial enrollment as options.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:California homeschooling law was just fine the way it was. TX requires that private schools be able to produce a curriculum if asked, but says very little about what that curriculum should be. CA requires a Private School Affidavit to be filed. Other than that, private schools in both states pretty much have free reign.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Texas has one of the most lax homeschooling policies in the country while California has one of the most stringent.
Quote:
http://www.hsc.org/faqs.html
The California Education Code provides that "all children between the ages of 6 and 16 must attend a public full-time day school unless otherwise exempted." (section 48200) This "compulsory schooling law" has two statutory exemptions:
1. The private tutoring exemption (section 48224) for children who are instructed for at least three hours each day, 175 days a year by a teacher who holds a valid California teaching credential for the grade taught, and
2. The private school exemption (section 48222) for children who are enrolled in a full-time private school. There are no laws that establish the minimum standards for the teachers or curricula of private schools. The only legal requirement for private schools is that they file a Private School Affidavit (section 33190) with their local County Superintendent of Schools.
The hoopla in this case is that the child in question was enrolled in a Private School Independent Study Program (ISP). Many homeschoolers use this route, so the ruling may affect them. But the ruling should not affect those homeschooling under Private School provisions. [Edited to add: Actually it is unclear if this ruling would be upheld, and if it would apply to private schools or not.]
--------------------------
I am beginning to suspect all elaborate and special systems of education. They seem to me to be built upon the supposition that every child is a kind of idiot who must taught to think.
-- Anne Sullivan
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Wow... don't think I've ever been quoted this much before.
All I'm saying that I think it would be a mistake to shift the primary responsibility for the welfare of our children from the parents to the state. And if you give the state the ultimate say in what's good for the child by default, that's exactly what you're doing. In my opinion, strengthening a parents role in the equation is far more practical and more likely to promote the welfare of children on the whole.
Rock
I guess the issue comes down to rights in a way. Do parents hold total rights and authority over their children? They did in Roman times, well at least the father did. You could murder your child or sell them as a slave if they displeased you.
I'd hope that we would all think that none of us support absolute authority like that, that there are limits to what a parent can do with their child, and that usually comes down to harm.
I guess the question is 'what constitutes harm?' I happen to think that not providing an education at all (and calling it homeschooling) or teaching your kids that the world is flat probably constitutes harm.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, it wasn’t just fine. It is illegal under California law for a parent without a teaching credential to establish themselves as a private school, regardless of whether they signed a California Private school Affidavit or not. It has been certainly since 1953. That the law has been ignored in many cases does not make it “just fine.” What it means is that California homeschoolers must go to the Legislators and get the law defined instead of looking for excuses and loopholes to get around the law.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:California homeschooling law was just fine the way it was. TX requires that private schools be able to produce a curriculum if asked, but says very little about what that curriculum should be. CA requires a Private School Affidavit to be filed. Other than that, private schools in both states pretty much have free reign.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Texas has one of the most lax homeschooling policies in the country while California has one of the most stringent.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I guess the question is 'what constitutes harm?' I happen to think that not providing an education at all (and calling it homeschooling) or teaching your kids that the world is flat probably constitutes harm.
And Richard Dawkins thinks that indoctrinating kids with obviously false religious beliefs should be considered child abuse. If teaching kids that the world is flat is abuse, what about teaching them things in conflict with current law? (teaching them that the war on drugs is a load of shit, for example). The issue is whether the decision of how I raise my children is, in general, subject to majority rule, or is it a private matter, to be interfered with only when tangible neglect or abuse is suspected. When we start trying to use politics to decide how everyone should raise their kids, I think we've taken majority rule too far.
The aspect that does clearly split us into two camps on this issue is the question of burden of proof. Should the state's involvement occur only after a parent is suspected of neglect or abuse, or can the state pass laws that preemptively require parents to answer to the state as a matter of course.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like Sarge beat me to the punch here - cause that is what I was about to say.
The presumtion of good parenting should rest with the parents, until solidly proven otherwise.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
unfortunately there will always be a degree of indoctrination in American public schools, so long as we refuse to recognize the influence of secular humanism on the youth. i suspect we will continue to see traditional structures such as the family and community break down, before we finally acknowledge what moral relativism does to a society. its for this reason that anarchy will never work, absent established moral absolutes by which to self govern by(ie libertarianism). why not call anarchy what it is: the law of the jungle? it surprises me that anyone would find anarchy viable... other then in the event of a complete global social meltdown, and even then it is less an ideology, and more a protective instinct to survive
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um, no offense there Antimason, but as someone with secular humanist leanings and an anarchist philosophical outlook...
You quite literally have no idea what you are talking about.
To a humanist-anarchist, as most Kropotkinists are, Family and Community are MORE important, not less, than they are within our current state of affairs, because those are the bonds and the framework by which human interaction functions, and it is only by the willful erosion of them by the State, in hopes of reducing human loyalty to anything but itself, that those bonds are sundered and broken.
You know, kind of like the church does in the name of religion, poisons all bonds not to itself, demeans them and seeks to destroy them.
Matthew 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
I know that book better than most believers, considering that is what turned me against them and the vicious soul sucking monster they call God.
Humanist-Anarchists place thier faith in the people they know, love and trust, in spite of their personal differences, acting on mutual respect...
While religious zealots shun and despise all who do not believe as they do, even within the same family, often destroying it.
You don't disagree with indoctrination in public schools at all, you just disagree with the fact that it ISN'T YOURS.
Shovel another load, and I'll force feed that one back to you too.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@Frem
The following quote is in regards to the evolution/creation "debate", which anti falls on the creation side of.
"What’s scary is, most of the creationists aren’t fighting to accomplish this for reasons of sheer personal power, but because they place their faith above any other loyalty, and their faith is profoundly self-serving and irrational. In other words, they aren’t wolves, we can understand and deal with wolves. Instead, they are demented sheep. MUCH harder to deal with."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME