Bill Would Require State Approval to Homeschool

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong. "We the people" can butt out. They have no right to interfere in the decisions a parent makes for his child.

Really? So if a parent decides that his/her 10 year old child needs to immediately marry a 50 year old man and consummate said marriage, society has not place to intervene? Wow, you become more and more irrelevant with every day, though increasingly bat shit crazy statements.

Obviously parents can't abuse their children. In other words, they can't commit crimes against their children. Short of that, it's no one else's business.

Paerents who refuse to competently ensure the children's education, a public interest, is criminal.

 

[SwimExpert]

Home schooling often works well for people with exceptional abilities. Too often schools, both public and private aren't equipped to educate exceptional students.

Absolute truth. It's really ashamed because many of our brightest individuals never get the chance to reach their full potential.

 

[dblack]

If you have reason to believe someone is abusing their children, by all means, accuse them and prosecute them in court.

That is exactly the point.

Then we have no argument. To be clear, what I'm opposed to is the presumption of guilt inherent in the regulatory state in general.

But that's not what statists want.

But now you're slipping toward intellectual laziness. There are no true answers to be found on the extreme edges of any issue.

Neither are there true answers found in hedging the middle. We stake out our values and principles where we find them.

Going back to my earlier point, "we the people" i.e. the government/society do have a justifiable reason to interfere in a person's choices regarding their children. It's ridiculous to say it doesn't. The correct thing to say is that there are substantial limits to when exercising such power can and should be used.

By the same token, someone suggesting that the government should exercise such power are not necessarily "statists." And for that matter, the idea you are trying to express is not actually statism. It's more akin to totalitarian fascism. Either way, the point is that such a person does not necessarily want or advocate for the government to have complete and total control over the people.

Indeed it is 'fascism'. And you're right, even totalitarian fascists don't, necessarily, want or advocate for the government to have complete and total control. Sometimes they only shoot for 95%.

The point is, the power you want government to have is far more insidious than simply the power intervene if cases of abuse and neglect. You claim that the state has a compelling interest in the well-being of your children, as though your children, or the potential citizens they represent, are somehow the property of the state; it's this very attitude I'm rejecting. The state belongs to us, not the other way around.

 

[SwimExpert]

If you have reason to believe someone is abusing their children, by all means, accuse them and prosecute them in court.

That is exactly the point.

Then we have no argument. To be clear, what I'm opposed to is the presumption of guilt inherent in the regulatory state in general.

But now you're slipping toward intellectual laziness. There are no true answers to be found on the extreme edges of any issue.

Neither are there true answers found in hedging the middle. We stake out our values and principles where we find them.

Going back to my earlier point, "we the people" i.e. the government/society do have a justifiable reason to interfere in a person's choices regarding their children. It's ridiculous to say it doesn't. The correct thing to say is that there are substantial limits to when exercising such power can and should be used.

By the same token, someone suggesting that the government should exercise such power are not necessarily "statists." And for that matter, the idea you are trying to express is not actually statism. It's more akin to totalitarian fascism. Either way, the point is that such a person does not necessarily want or advocate for the government to have complete and total control over the people.

Indeed it is 'fascism'. And you're right, even totalitarian fascists don't, necessarily, want or advocate for the government to have complete and total control. Sometimes they only shoot for 95%.

The point is, the power you want government to have is far more insidious than simply the power intervene if cases of abuse and neglect. You claim that the state has a compelling interest in the well-being of your children, as though your children, or the potential citizens they represent, are somehow the property of the state; it's this very attitude I'm rejecting. The state belongs to us, not the other way around.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not advocating for the bill in question. And the person who is sponsoring it has made nothing but stupid arguments for it. But I don't think it's an inherently unreasonable idea either. It would have to be executed well, and be carefully designed. Ultimately, when dealing with state issues when I'm not a resident, I generally defer to supporting what the people of said state want.

 

[bripat9643]

For a long time the courts declared child labor laws as unconstitutional under the contract provisions of the Constitution. The states still believing the use of child labor was wrong so to beat those decisions, they dreamed up laws making compulsory education mandatory. Now kids had to go to school instead of work. Maybe it's time we dump the mandatory school laws and get kids back into the work force? Child labor is so much cheaper and easier to manage compared to adults and their labor unions, their minimum wages, their strikes and so forth.

What does your idiocy have to do with home schooling?

 

[bripat9643]

Really? So if a parent decides that his/her 10 year old child needs to immediately marry a 50 year old man and consummate said marriage, society has not place to intervene? Wow, you become more and more irrelevant with every day, though increasingly bat shit crazy statements.

Obviously parents can't abuse their children. In other words, they can't commit crimes against their children. Short of that, it's no one else's business.

Paerents who refuse to competently ensure the children's education, a public interest, is criminal.

So the teachers and administrators in government schools who fail to educate our children should be thrown in prison? For once I agree with you.

BTW, your libturds friends claim that crimes are only those actions that government has outlawed. If it's not against the law, it's not a crime. So you'll have to take it up with them. According to their stated position, it isn't criminal.

Furthermore, since when is failing to promote the "public interest" a crime?

 

[bripat9643]

If you have reason to believe someone is abusing their children, by all means, accuse them and prosecute them in court.

That is exactly the point.

But that's not what statists want.

But now you're slipping toward intellectual laziness. There are no true answers to be found on the extreme edges of any issue. Going back to my earlier point, "we the people" i.e. the government/society do have a justifiable reason to interfere in a person's choices regarding their children. It's ridiculous to say it doesn't. The correct thing to say is that there are substantial limits to when exercising such power can and should be used.

Allowing people to make parental decisions is the "extremist" position? On the contrary, the claim that some nebulous "public interest" takes precedence over the natural relationship between parent and child that has existed for millions of years is extremist, on top of being idiotic.

By the same token, someone suggesting that the government should exercise such power are not necessarily "statists." .

Of course they are. That's the very definition of statism: the belief that the government's "interests" take precedence over individual rights.

And for that matter, the idea you are trying to express is not actually statism. It's more akin to totalitarian fascism. Either way, the point is that such a person does not necessarily want or advocate for the government to have complete and total control over the people.

Fascism is just one of the many flavors of statism. So they don't want complete and total control? How nice of them.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Really? So if a parent decides that his/her 10 year old child needs to immediately marry a 50 year old man and consummate said marriage, society has not place to intervene? Wow, you become more and more irrelevant with every day, though increasingly bat shit crazy statements.

Obviously parents can't abuse their children. In other words, they can't commit crimes against their children. Short of that, it's no one else's business.

Paerents who refuse to competently ensure the children's education, a public interest, is criminal.

In other words, you agree with many posters: sending children to many public schools is, in fact, child abuse.

 

[nitroz]

Well, then how about ACTUALLY TEACHING THEM instead of shoving a bible in their face?

Send them to a religious school for that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obviously parents can't abuse their children. In other words, they can't commit crimes against their children. Short of that, it's no one else's business.

Paerents who refuse to competently ensure the children's education, a public interest, is criminal.

So the teachers and administrators in government schools who fail to educate our children should be thrown in prison? For once I agree with you.

BTW, your libturds friends claim that crimes are only those actions that government has outlawed. If it's not against the law, it's not a crime. So you'll have to take it up with them. According to their stated position, it isn't criminal.

Furthermore, since when is failing to promote the "public interest" a crime?

All those who cannot teach competently should not be allowed to teach.

Your second paragraph is an anarchist screed that makes on sense.

Third, "criminal" can be a connotative term: look it up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obviously parents can't abuse their children. In other words, they can't commit crimes against their children. Short of that, it's no one else's business.

Paerents who refuse to competently ensure the children's education, a public interest, is criminal.

In other words, you agree with many posters: sending children to many public schools is, in fact, child abuse.

I certainly agree that submitting your children to unqualified teachers (public, private, home) is abuse. Yes.

 

[bripat9643]

Paerents who refuse to competently ensure the children's education, a public interest, is criminal.

So the teachers and administrators in government schools who fail to educate our children should be thrown in prison? For once I agree with you.

BTW, your libturds friends claim that crimes are only those actions that government has outlawed. If it's not against the law, it's not a crime. So you'll have to take it up with them. According to their stated position, it isn't criminal.

Furthermore, since when is failing to promote the "public interest" a crime?

All those who cannot teach competently should not be allowed to teach.

Then you'd have to fire half the teachers in the government schools. You would also have to convict anyone who sent kids to government schools of child abuse.

Your second paragraph is an anarchist screed that makes on sense.

Wrong. It's what a number of your allies in this forum have said when it was pointed out that taxation is indistinguishable from theft.

Third, "criminal" can be a connotative term: look it up.

Meaningless gibberish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My words always have meaning, for they involve a real world, where anarchism is simply true gibberish.

All incompetent teachers, I agree, should be removed.

 

[bripat9643]

My words always have meaning, for they involve a real world, where anarchism is simply true gibberish.

All incompetent teachers, I agree, should be removed.

So you agree that anyone who sends a child to a government school should be arrested?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My words always have meaning, for they involve a real world, where anarchism is simply true gibberish.

All incompetent teachers, I agree, should be removed.

So you agree that anyone who sends a child to a government school should be arrested?

That is anarchist gibberish to suggest such a thing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Paerents who refuse to competently ensure the children's education, a public interest, is criminal.

So the teachers and administrators in government schools who fail to educate our children should be thrown in prison? For once I agree with you.

BTW, your libturds friends claim that crimes are only those actions that government has outlawed. If it's not against the law, it's not a crime. So you'll have to take it up with them. According to their stated position, it isn't criminal.

Furthermore, since when is failing to promote the "public interest" a crime?

All those who cannot teach competently should not be allowed to teach.

Your second paragraph is an anarchist screed that makes on sense.

Third, "criminal" can be a connotative term: look it up.

But our schools are filled with teachers who won't teach.

More doctors lose their license to practice medicine then teacher lose their license, and our educational system continue to fall further and further behind the rest of the world

Why do you defend the Progressive Intellectual pedophilia that's practiced in our schools?

 

[dblack]

So the teachers and administrators in government schools who fail to educate our children should be thrown in prison? For once I agree with you.

BTW, your libturds friends claim that crimes are only those actions that government has outlawed. If it's not against the law, it's not a crime. So you'll have to take it up with them. According to their stated position, it isn't criminal.

Furthermore, since when is failing to promote the "public interest" a crime?

All those who cannot teach competently should not be allowed to teach.

Your second paragraph is an anarchist screed that makes on sense.

Third, "criminal" can be a connotative term: look it up.

But our schools are filled with teachers who won't teach.

More doctors lose their license to practice medicine then teacher lose their license, and our educational system continue to fall further and further behind the rest of the world

Why do you defend the Progressive Intellectual pedophilia that's practiced in our schools?

The question is: who gets to decide, parents, or the state?

 

[Darkwind]

Schoolteachers in NY undergo background checks before they are hired. Why should a parent who wants to be a schoolteacher get preferential treatment?

Because they're teaching their OWN children, not thousands of OTHER PEOPLE'S children.

What a STUPID question.

Wow, so carby must believe that people should get a background check (and possibly a license) before having children.

 

[regent]

For a long time the courts declared child labor laws as unconstitutional under the contract provisions of the Constitution. The states still believing the use of child labor was wrong so to beat those decisions, they dreamed up laws making compulsory education mandatory. Now kids had to go to school instead of work. Maybe it's time we dump the mandatory school laws and get kids back into the work force? Child labor is so much cheaper and easier to manage compared to adults and their labor unions, their minimum wages, their strikes and so forth.

What does your idiocy have to do with home schooling?

As some parents have shown before they would rather their children worked than go to school. Has that changed?
It seems the home schooling requirements are set by the home, even the hours spent in class all decided by the home. Are all parents today that enamored with education, or that able to provide a competent education? Would some parents give more credits for work-experience? And in the end, would there be a new state bureaucracy that would supervise home education?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Paerents who refuse to competently ensure the children's education, a public interest, is criminal.

So the teachers and administrators in government schools who fail to educate our children should be thrown in prison? For once I agree with you.

BTW, your libturds friends claim that crimes are only those actions that government has outlawed. If it's not against the law, it's not a crime. So you'll have to take it up with them. According to their stated position, it isn't criminal.

Furthermore, since when is failing to promote the "public interest" a crime?

All those who cannot teach competently should not be allowed to teach.

Your second paragraph is an anarchist screed that makes on sense.

Third, "criminal" can be a connotative term: look it up.

It's become apparent that public schools have issues of their own that need attending before requiring those same standards of others.

Every year in California, public school administrators assign thousands of teachers to classes for which they lack the credentials or legal authorization to teach. Untrained teachers have been assigned to a variety of difficult classes, including those filled with English-language learners and others with special intellectual and physical needs. Or, in Parker’s case, to teach social studies when they’re credentialed for biology.

Nearly 1 in 10 teachers or certificated personnel – more than 32,000 school employees – did not have the credentials or authorization for their positions from 2007 through 2011, according to data compiled by the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

In California, thousands of teachers missing needed credentials | California Watch

School districts are supposed to verify that the teachers they hire are state certified. It’s easy to do – anyone can go online and look up their kid’s teacher’s certification.

But sometimes school districts don’t check. Michigan’s Department of Education officials report they expect nearly fifty districts and public school academies will be issued penalties this year.

Investigation uncovers non-certified teachers at Muskegon Heights new charter school | Michigan Radio