Children of the State

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.

Mike Gaskey

Christian Graus wrote:

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.

Where in God's name did you read that, "the parents disagree and are asking the state to step in" ??? What you did read was that the father objected and pushed the issue in court. Since the mother was doing the teaching it is safe to assume the mother is the custodial parent and should make those decisions, not the father and not some moronic judge, who may only be a family court judge because he won some fucking election. If there's any implied opinion on my part it is that the state is not the parent of the child and it is the parent's responsibility to prepare the children for the world as those parents see fit to do. Other wise we should just raise our kids to school age and hand them over to the state.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

Lost User

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.

So breaking a child's arm deliberately is quite OK with you as long as you don't have a child cruelty body to report and investigate. If such abuse is happening in your neck of the woods, it is likely happening in somebody else's neck of the woods as well. Having a national organization to stop child abuse enables, for example, information to be collected that can identify the likelihood of resources needed to tackle the issue and then provide that resource to in fact tackle the issue.

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 a family moves from one locality to another locality (that could be from town to town or indeed across state borders) the probability that any existing child abuse will also move with it and the authorities have no effective means of stopping that abuse. Another reason for such a national organization.

Stan Shannon wrote:

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

That depends on whose yard stick you use make such a comparison. In many countries, shouting at a child is considered child abuse. In many countries smacking or reasonable chastisement is considered abuse. But in other countries, shouting, smacking and reasonable chastisement is acceptable practice. So Stan, what is your yard stick telling you? Not getting involved when you suspect or know that child abuse is happening in a family home within your vicinity is the right thing to do if you are callous and have a disregard for humanity. All others would report it to the NSPCC or whosoever your local child protection authority so that this abuse stops. Are Microsoft wrong in supporting the NSPCC in Britain and their "Full Stop campaign" [^]? Sometimes it is vital to separate parents and children. Failure to do so can in effect give the child a death sentence carried out by the very people who are supposed to love, cherish and protect them.

Shog9 0

Christian Graus wrote:

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.

:-\

Christian Graus wrote:

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.

That's fair, so long as the same standard is applied to other schools in the area.

Christian Graus wrote:

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).

That's pretty much how my parents taught. I know it's kind of a big deal for a lot of people, but... frankly, i have a hard time granting it much importance. I run into people willing to hold strong opinions on evolution who don't appear to have even the most basic knowledge of the more concrete aspects of biology like, say, hybridization. So we end up with these huge, knock-down drag-out fights on a topic that doesn't really affect the lives of most people, while discussions on things like organic vs. genetically engineered crops - you know, the stuff we eat - get the short shrift, crammed full of misinformation with little hope that your average highschool graduate will suss out the bullshit.

Christian Graus

Shog9 wrote:

I know it's kind of a big deal for a lot of people, but... frankly, i have a hard time granting it much importance.

My only concern is that it's not education if it hides the mainstream view. I also think a high school science class should point out that some people don't believe it, for the same reason. In fact, I think that schools would do better to more expose kids to the fact that we don't always know things to the point where everyone agrees 100%, and use that as a springboard to discussing alternatives. Asking why SHOULD we believe in evolution, or any other topic, is a better way to get kids thinking than 'regurgitate these facts on test day' would, IMO.

Shog9 wrote:

That's fair, so long as the same standard is applied to other schools in the area.

Yes, making sure that the local standard was being at least passably met, would be the only goal.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Christian Graus

Mike Gaskey wrote:

"the parents disagree and are asking the state to step in" ??? What you did read was that the father objected and pushed the issue in court.

Exactly. If the father disagrees with the mother, then the parents disagree, and so the issue was pushed to court. That's what I said.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Since the mother was doing the teaching it is safe to assume the mother is the custodial parent and should make those decisions, not the father and not some moronic judge, who may only be a family court judge because he won some f***ing election.

OK, so now you're stan, twisting a story so that it hits your hot button issues ? I'm sorry, but I am a father, and screw you if you think that divorce means that a father has no rights in saying how his kids will be raised, unless he happens to still get a say by virtue of being in the good graces of the mother. Am I right in thinking that you disapprove of the way you select judges ? I tend to think that voting for sheriffs and judges is retarded, too, but somehow you've ended up with that.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

it is the parent's responsibility to prepare the children for the world as those parents see fit to do.

It is the parents responsibility to do that. BOTH parents. The state did not step in here, they were dragged in, by parents who could not agree. The state had to make SOME decision, and they made it based on the facts in front of them, not a snippet that was written to sell papers to people like you who would enjoy getting enraged by the slant of the news story.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Other wise we should just raise our kids to school age and hand them over to the state.

OK, I'm sorry. You're not LIKE Stan, you're the same as him.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Shog9 0

Christian Graus wrote:

In fact, I think that schools would do better to more expose kids to the fact that we don't always know things to the point where everyone agrees 100%, and use that as a springboard to discussing alternatives

Agreed.

Mike Gaskey

Christian Graus wrote:

so the issue was pushed to court. That's what I said.

and you apparently didn't bother to read the article: the parents were in court for a divorce proceding, the father didn't go to court over the home schooling issue. the children had been home schooled for 4 years, it didn't start yesterday.

Christian Graus wrote:

OK, so now you're stan, twisting a story so that it hits your hot button issues ?

no Christian, that was you.

Christian Graus wrote:

OK, I'm sorry. You're not LIKE Stan, you're the same as him.

in that I don't cede my life to the state, certainly.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

Christian Graus

Mike Gaskey wrote:

the parents were in court for a divorce proceding, the father didn't go to court over the home schooling issue.

So, you're saying that the parents were in court for divorce ( I know that ), that the parents disagreed on the way the kids should be raised ( I know that ), and that this came out because the judge started to question them, because he hates home schoolers and was looking for a way to control this woman's life ?

Mike Gaskey wrote:

no Christian, that was you.

Fact: the state did NOT seek out these people to control how they raise their kids. They disagreed, and they took it to court. The manner of schooling was a point of contention and so the judge made a call. I notice you didn't comment at all on my pointing out that the judge had all the facts, and you have a story that was written to sell papers, by eliciting the response in you that it has.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

n that I don't cede my life to the state, certainly.

If you don't want to live in a place that is subject to laws, you should start your own country. Or if you think enough people around you also want to live in a place where people can do what they like, to whomever they like, and are subject only to mob rule, why not start a revolution and see how that works out for you ? They went to court, the court made a ruling, and you think this proves the state is interfering in peoples lives. How is that not you following some journalist in trying to create a story about something that is important to you ( and, more to the point, is kind of insane ? )

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Lost User

Christian Graus wrote:

I knew a kid who went to one of those.

My son goes to one...

Christian Graus wrote:

He was one weird guy

My son is one :)

Christian Graus wrote:

Not that I judge the whole school by this one person, of course

NO "of course" bout it - lots of people would, and do! In fact with some of these smaller independent schools, you can't even judge one school by another - at Steiner they're given a lot of freedom to interpret the 'rules' (not the right word, but i can't think of the right one now) locally.

___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')