Children of the State

[Shog9 0]

Christian Graus wrote:

2 - some of these parents are, with whatever intention, bringing harm to their kids by failing to teach them the basic skills they will need to nagivate life ?

CG, you sound like you've put a fair bit of thought and effort into giving your kids the education they need. I suspect you would find it quite irritating, if your rulers decided they would no longer give you any say in this. Surely, the cost of the freedom to do well by your own is the freedom of your peers to do poorly on theirs?

Christian Graus wrote:

In any case, if your schools and teachers are so bad, perhaps the problem is that people are not complaining about it ?

Complaining doesn't fix anything. Squeaky wheels get greased, but that doesn't do much when a bearing is failing. And when it comes to doing something... Well, you can stay in the system and try to fix it while accepting that even if you succeed it might be too late to help your own kids, or you can leave. Many parents appear to be quite selfish when this choice comes up... ;-P

[Shog9 0]

Christian Graus wrote:

2 - the main reason for home schooling in the US appears to be to hide children from science.

I've heard that an awful lot, though not as much as the "emotionally stunted for life" bit. Not to sound whiny, but... it's getting stale. I could probably think up some fresh ones if you're interested...?

[Ilion]

Christian Graus wrote:

50 years ago, less child abuse was reported because of the same attitude, ...

What a socialist-totalitarian ass.

[Christian Graus]

Shog9 wrote:

CG, you sound like you've put a fair bit of thought and effort into giving your kids the education they need

Yes, we have.

Shog9 wrote:

I suspect you would find it quite irritating, if your rulers decided they would no longer give you any say in this.

Sure. And I'm not advocating that parents have no say. Indeed, at the core, I am pointing out that Mike's implication is false, the issue here is not that parents get no say, but that the parents disagree and are asking the state to step in.

Shog9 wrote:

Surely, the cost of the freedom to do well by your own is the freedom of your peers to do poorly on theirs?

Well, my right to decide how my kids eat, doesn't give someone else the right to starve their kids to death because they think that people can live on air ( there are people who believe this, BTW ). There comes a time when a child is being harmed, and that's where the state needs to be involved, to protect children. If someone wants to home school their kids to not believe in science, so long as they are teaching them enough to function in society, I don't have a huge problem with it, but, the freedom has to include some standards. School is the law, and if that's the case, the state should also be allowed to define school. That's all I am saying.

Shog9 wrote:

Complaining doesn't fix anything.

Not complaining fixes even less. There's lots of parents in America, you're saying this doesn't have the power to become an issue that politicians will do something about, to get elected ?

Shog9 wrote:

Many parents appear to be quite selfish when this choice comes up...

Sure, I accept that at the end of the day, each parent cares most for their own kids. But, surely it's possible to attack the problem from both ends. I assume the bulk of kids are still in public schools, why are those parents not complaining ? Do they just not care ?

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Christian Graus]

Where does that leave the kids ? The father wants them in school, the mother does not. How do they resolve that, if they take it to a judge and he refuses to decide ? He might have forced them into some sort of arbitration, to make them discuss it, that would be acceptable.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Christian Graus]

Ilíon wrote:

What a socialist-totalitarian ass.

You think my ass is socialist ? Is that good or bad ? Or did I misunderstand you ? Are you really saying that you think child abuse is a good thing, and up to the parents to decide ?

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Chris Austin]

Come on man. That's weak sauce. CG is being a man enough to have an opinion that doesn't seem popular in this discussion but he is standing up, making his case and, listening. At least show some respect for yourself and keep the discussion above the 3rd grade.

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?

[Chris Austin]

Christian Graus wrote:

Not complaining fixes even less. There's lots of parents in America, you're saying this doesn't have the power to become an issue that politicians will do something about, to get elected ?

It is 'always' an issue. The problem is that big systems like this have a hell of a lot of inertia so to speak. The last decade or so, the solution has been to throw money at it and emphasize standardized testing. I have no doubt the school system will eventually get guided back onto course but it's going to take time.

Christian Graus wrote:

I assume the bulk of kids are still in public schools, why are those parents not complaining ? Do they just not care ?

I am sure they all care. And, I remember many parents complained even when I was in school. Heck, recently in Dallas a group of parents were protesting at a school supernatant's home :) But, positive news like that rarely makes it past the local stuff.

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?

[Brady Kelly]

To protect them from Obama's fascist propaganda machine. - Stan :laugh:

[Oakman]

Christian Graus wrote:

Where does that leave the kids ? The father wants them in school, the mother does not. How do they resolve that, if they take it to a judge and he refuses to decide ?

I don't understand why judges should be expected or permitted to enforce their personal prejudices which is pretty much what this guy did. There are laws that require the kids to be schooled somehow. The parents need to start working on that issue - or paying fines for every day there's kids aren't in school. Meanwhile the parents can start political action committees and try to get the law rewritten.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Chris Austin wrote:

CG is being a man enough to have an opinion that doesn't seem popular in this discussion but he is standing up, making his case and, listening

CG is a mensch.

Chris Austin wrote:

At least show some respect for yourself and keep the discussion above the 3rd grade.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Christian Graus wrote:

Are you really saying that you think child abuse is a good thing, and up to the parents to decide ?

He is saying that anyone who considers the state inherently superior to the parents in such considerations is, in fact, a socialist ass. There is no amount of child abuse which justifies the creation of a 'federal bureau for child care' which is empowered to ensure that parents are treating their children in accordance with some bureaucratically defined standard of child care. Should local communities have laws that protect children from family violence? Of course. But there is no justification for taking it beyond that. When you do, all you achieve is exchanging the probability of a child being abused by some parent with a completely different probability that the state will fundamentally destroy the basic family unit for an entire society. The vast majority of families do not abuse their children, so it really is none of your concern.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Lost User]

Sounds more 'State-ist' than the UK. Our Education Act seems to have been framed so as to encompass private tuition and schooling for the upper classes. So education is compulsory, and must be provided by attendance at school, or otherwise. Home educators make use of the latter clause. Some Local Authorities are helpful and make teaching resources available, others make home ed. as hard as possible. We worked with our LAs, but on our terms. However, when our youngest reached school age (some 17 years ago), we did not notify the LA (done it 3 times - why invite the extra work?). Had he been 'at risk', nobody would have been aware, so Christian is right to worry on that score.

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

Sounds more 'State-ist' than the UK.

In some ways, it's the People's Republic of Massachusetts, at least until you get out the western part of the state where real New Englanders still live. Most of the rules went into place as a sop to the Teachers' Union when state funded alternative schooling went into affect - which was a huge success and occasioned an immediate full course press by the entire educational industry which was contemplating losing much of its constituency. Many of the most popular alternative schools by the way, were set up by and for the inner city populations. Funny thing how when it comes to your kids, it's fuck politics, give the kid an education time.

Bob Emmett wrote:

Had he been 'at risk', nobody would have been aware, so Christian is right to worry on that score.

Worked for a while as a civilian volunteer ombundsman for the foster child program in Mass. Trust me. Kids are at risk whether they go to public schools, private, alternative or home-based. When there are children going to school wearing long winter pants in June so no-one will see the fresh lashes on their legs - who cares whether they get to study evolution?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Shog9 0]

Christian Graus wrote:

Indeed, at the core, I am pointing out that Mike's implication is false

Yeah, i think most of us decided your other assertions were more... interesting than Mike's. ;)

Christian Graus wrote:

There comes a time when a child is being harmed, and that's where the state needs to be involved, to protect children.

Sure. Protect the weak, defend the innocent, right? Easy idea to get behind. Plenty of politicians willing to get behind it, at least in principle. In practice, it comes down to social workers, etc., on the street, trying to make a judgment call based on what they can see. In practice, children are still maimed and killed by bad parents. And in practice, many bad parents manage to stay under the radar more effectively than mediocre parents, clogging the system with families who, their lives forever disrupted, won't really end up any better off for it...

Christian Graus wrote:

there's lots of parents in America, you're saying this doesn't have the power to become an issue that politicians will do something about, to get elected ?

It's the bread and butter of politicians across the country. But politicians, in most cases anyway, aren't the ones teaching your kids. They'll pass a few bills, throw some token money at new activity or testing programs. They listen to the teachers' unions as well, of course, who tend to be better organized and funded. At the local level, where there's actually some opportunity for change, you're still only a voice among many, and... well, like i said, parents tend to be pretty myopic when it comes to what they think is best for their own children.

Christian Graus wrote:

I assume the bulk of kids are still in public schools, why are those parents not complaining ? Do they just not care ?

I'm sure there are many reasons, and an even wider variety of complaints. When it comes to action, those with money will tend to move their offspring to a better school, while those with time may volunteer to help out with after-school programs or just use that time to teach and influence their own (either as a pure home-school or just by spending more time with them after classes). What would you expect those with neither time nor money to be doing? Again, yo

[Christian Graus]

Shog9 wrote:

The argument that some parents will use this freedom to provide their offspring with no education or a poor one is a red herring; you might as well argue that all children should be fed at State-run cafeterias or certified restaurants, precluding any home-grown or home-cooked meals, based on the evidence that some parents starve or otherwise fail to properly nourish their kids. The underlying question is the same: should The State step in when parents fail, or should The State step in just in case parents fail...?

At the core, I think the state should step in at the start of home schooling, by providing resources that say 'if you do this, this is what's expected' and then follow up with standardised tests that regularly ( say every couple of years, not so regular as to be a burden on the family ) test to make sure the child is progressing. Overall, I agree, I'm not suggesting the state should be QUICK to get involved, I'm just saying there has to be SOME standard. I think the problem is that perhaps my statements have been assumed to be arguing with the red herring the OP threw out there, that there this was a case of the state 'stepping in', when in fact, the state was dragged in, kicking and screaming.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Christian Graus]

Oakman wrote:

I don't understand why judges should be expected or permitted to enforce their personal prejudices which is pretty much what this guy did.

Well, the first thing I do in a case like this, is recognise that news sources want to sell their newspapers, they don't want to provide a balanced view. Without looking into it, I'd assume the judge knows more about the case than I do. Secondly, one would assume that there's a reasonable chance that he made a judgement based on the specifics of this case, rather than saying 'wow, now I can get back at one of these damn home schoolers'. Or, her lawyer is not worth a damn, if it was unfair and they didn't pursue it. One possibility to me seems that in this case, so long as the parents are this antagonistic towards one another, getting them into school is probably his only chance for a relationship with these kids, otherwise, she's going to be the only one with them 24/7, telling them that evolution is the devils work, and their father is the tool of the devil.

Oakman wrote:

There are laws that require the kids to be schooled somehow. The parents need to start working on that issue - or paying fines for every day there's kids aren't in school. Meanwhile the parents can start political action committees and try to get the law rewritten.

I'm not sure how these statements relate to this case. Both parents want the kids schooled, they went to court because they cannot come to an agreement how that should work.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Christian Graus]

Stan Shannon wrote:

He is saying that anyone who considers the state inherently superior to the parents in such considerations is, in fact, a socialist ass.

OK, so he wasn't replying to what I said at all ? Typical.

Stan Shannon wrote:

There is no amount of child abuse which justifies the creation of a 'federal bureau for child care' which is empowered to ensure that parents are treating their children in accordance with some bureaucratically defined standard of child care

OK, so YOU think that child abuse is less bad than having a form of government ?

Stan Shannon wrote:

Should local communities have laws that protect children from family violence? Of course. But there is no justification for taking it beyond that.

So, if the person abusing the child happens to have a lot of power in the local community, they can get away with it ? That sounds like your typical viewpoint ( that is, feed the rich, starve the poor ) in another guise to me,

Stan Shannon wrote:

When you do, all you achieve is exchanging the probability of a child being abused by some parent with a completely different probability that the state will fundamentally destroy the basic family unit for an entire society.

This is plain ridiculous. Destroy it, how ?

Stan Shannon wrote:

he vast majority of families do not abuse their children, so it really is none of your concern.

I agree. The kids who are being beaten and raped are in a minority, so screw them.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Shog9 0]

Christian Graus wrote:

Overall, I agree, I'm not suggesting the state should be QUICK to get involved, I'm just saying there has to be SOME standard

Sure. Make 'em take a test, make it the same test that's used in the local schools, and hold them to the same standards for results.

Christian Graus wrote:

I think the problem is that perhaps my statements have been assumed to be arguing with the red herring the OP threw out there

Well, #1 and #2 made it sound like you'd taken the bait, so... ;-)

[Christian Graus]

Shog9 wrote:

Well, #1 and #2 made it sound like you'd taken the bait, so...

My failing is that I'll make a side comment and then get lost in it, when I should really keep pulling back to my main point, which often gets lost as a result. Yes, all I am saying is that parents can't just keep their kids at home and not be subjected to *some* level of standardised testing, to make sure that what they teach them meets a minimum level. I personally think that exposure to evolution should be part of that ( I have no problem with parents teaching 'this is what a lot of people believe, but we reject it because....' , that's always been parents right, and making the parents the teacher blurs that line, but I think kids should at least be aware that there IS a debate).

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.