Slashdot Mirror

https://www.hslda.org/laws/def...

five states are listed as being tight with the regs

1 are either of you teachers??
2 think you did well enough to "bluff" teaching??

if either is yes then hit

http://www.hslda.org/hs/defaul...

NOW no don't read any further in this thread don't do anything but GO TO The HomeSchool Legal Defense Association NOW

if you HomeSchool you NEED the HSLDA for the "Panic Number" minimum.

"Of course, there is homeschooling, but that is being quickly outlawed state to state. Some states require a social worker sign off on a parent removing a kid from a public school."

okay your first statement is pure BULLSHIT. Directly from the HSLDA website http://www.hslda.org/laws/

there are only 5 states that have "high regulation" (and this says nothing about a social worker having to sign off)

If you want to prove me wrong i want to see actual LAW from at minimum 5 states (no parent blogs no scare sites actual state run sites with a chapter and verse from the law).

Hint any state trying to pass that kind of law would have a visit from Mr Smith next day.

do yourself a favor and never EVER stand for office (and you may want to stop voting also)

http://www.hslda.org/speakers/speaker.asp?s=1 WILL be giving you a phone call if you are in office and say that type of thing.

so let me clear something up for you

1 some folks are actually qualified to teach their children
2 and most of them have a linkup with some sort of Formal School
3 when you are not trying to deal with 35 other kids (3/4 of which are physically/mentally "damaged") you can actually TEACH
4 PoliCritters that try to tamper with the (USA) RIGHT to homeschool very quickly find themselves speaking to Mr Smith http://www.hslda.org/speakers/speaker.asp?s=1

and i think some Prep type Homework for the summer break would do nicely

*Sigh.* I'm SO tired of hearing this tired old nonsense. I was homeschooled from 7th grade on. My wife was homeschooled from 1st grade on. The transition for me was the BEST thing my parents ever did for my social development. Oh yeah, and I'm an engineer at a med device company, even though I jumped ship BEFORE finishing college to start my career. I did meet my wife there, so it wasn't a complete waste of time. Bottom line, the socialization argument has been disproven time and again, and the quality of the education the child receives is largely due to the effort put in by the parents and the child's own aptitude. My wife and I are homeschooling our children, but we are doing it through a charter school which provides $1800 per semester per child for curriculum and activities, as well as a teacher we meet with twice a month who collects documentation of schoolwork. That's a superfluous amount of money, so we use the excess to fund my daughter's ballet, son's karate class, and field trips. My son is also in Little League and Cub Scouts, where he socializes (gasp). This is in California. There are of course problem cases, just as there are in public school, but you can't categorically write off homeschooling as a method of education; the statistics aren't on your side.
hslda.org

HSLDA: Advocates for homeschooling has a few links.

A California politician a few years ago tried to outlaw it, there was a big case decision about it.. Basically, they could just raise some kind of requirements that a home-school wouldn't be able to meet. Say a teacher must have an education degree for example.

As for why, well I can think of a few reasons of varying levels of trust and mistrust in the government and parents. It ranges from "parents just want to keep their kids ignorant" to "homeschooled kids don't get socialized" to "the State wants to indocrinate my child!". Ultimately, it comes down to control in some form or another.

I happen to live in the country (Germany) where the first state-mandated compulsory school attendance happened. That was 1592.

You also live in same country that arrests homeschoolers. That is political, not scientific.

http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/201104190.asp

One of the reasons is that teachers need protection from people like you

First, my friends are teachers. Teachers don't need protection from me. What are you talking about? Of course there are good and bad teachers. Now listen to you come unglued:

the fucking parents did their parts and put some basic life skills into their brats. Instead, not only education but raising a kid has been outsourced to the schools. And then the same parents who cause all those behaviour problems and phone calls and meetings you mentioned yourself above are giving the people who compensate for their failures a hard time.

Sounds like parents need protection from you. Regardless, the disruptive environment due to the family unit breakdown (kids with no life skills as you put it) is way beyond the ability of the school system to address. It *took* what it could not manage, and now can't easily give back: the role of surrogate parent. So now it just ends sadly for many uneducated dropouts and "graduates" that can't do grade school math. Call a failure a failure. But you know, those kids that want to succeed for whatever reason, will find a way, regardless if they are public schooled, charter schooled, private schooled, home schooled, or unschooled.

Back to my point. The schools *took* parental responsibilities. They take them everyday. They go above parents heads and hide behind specially crafted laws. What part of that have you missed? If you go around parental authority by means of the law, you lose the moral ground to complain to the parents about what they are or aren't doing. I can't speak for Germany, but here in the US the schools, like Horace Mann first envisioned, took on the role of surrogate parent, and they keep that role by force of laws backed by..."science". So, if you take the job of surrogate parent you get the babysitting job with it. That is why kids can't be left alone in a classroom. Require adult supervision is, of course, babysitting, whether it involves changing diapers or handing out detention slips. And, you can't have it both ways

And one final word on homeschooling: The rich used to home-school their children for pretty much all of history, from at least ancient greek onwards. But they never did it themselves. The kids got their education at home, yes. But their parents hired professional teachers.

And the point of the article is that with access to books, which only the rich had, is now cheap and ubiquitous, which is why homeschooling can exist today, and why it's growing by leaps and bounds in some countries...where it's legal. A free country produces free thinkers. A country of excessive laws produces lawless people.

Sure you can have all the pupils practice on their own while the teacher watches - but then you would be right about complaining that all they're doing is babysitting. So what is it? Homework or babysitting?

No. If the students were doing actual work (the "homework") in school, the "teacher" would be a tutor, directing and guiding instead of being a front-of-the-room talking head that reads the instructions to the kids - from the book they have right in front of them - and bores many of them into "acting up." If the kids where learning in school, there'd be no homework. My kids don't do homework because what they do is *actually* learn in an efficient, compact manner *every* single day with *no* fluff. That is what homeschool is about. It's more effective, fairly or not, at a fraction of the cost, is bully and drug free, and is wonderful for the parent-child relationship, which is a problem for many in Western cultures.

Two thoughts: "The law is for the lawless" and "bad company corrupts good morals".

"...the term "babysitting" is metaphorical"

When my vice-principal friend says babysitting, he means it. He literally spends his time dealing with behavior problems, and makes dozens and dozens of parent calls and meetings a week. He babysits, un-metaphorically.

"What we did for thousands of years doesn't count."

Not true. The amount of knowledge and what knowledge specifically is completely relative. They had full days of learning back then, and learning is learning. It's just different stuff. We've not evolved into smarter, more complex humans in the last 2000 years. People were pretty damn smart in Europe and Asia back then.

Regarding homework, you said:

"One, it teaches kids to work on their own"

Stop and think for a second. That is precisely what they should be learning in school, during the school day.

"...there is no group to wait for or catch up to".

This is an unresolvable problem that currently creates pitiful outcomes and reflects the broken state of education in the US. The smartest kids are held back (somewhat, either literally or bureaucratically) and the slowest kids simply get left behind. But since it's the "best we can do", we settle for it, because "best we can do" protects the interest of the institutions (teachers unions, the public school system, etc.) and not the students. Putting students first would up-end this model completely. It can be done, but it's not done. It's a case of institutional self-preservation delimited by a "this is what can do for you and nothing more" philosophy, that comes with a staggering monetary cost regardless of outcome. There are far cheaper models, but they are radically outside the institutional norm.

"Which is why they were invented long, long before mothers would go out to work"

I'm talking about state-mandated compulsory school attendance, like in New England in the mid-19th century. Horace Mann believed "that universal public education was the best way to turn the nation's unruly children into disciplined, judicious republican citizens."

And this: "Mann also suggested that by having schools it would help those students who didn't have appropriate discipline in the home. Building a person's character was just as important as reading, writing and arithmetic. By instilling values such as obedience to authority, promptness in attendance, and organizing the time according to bell ringing helped students prepare for future employment. Mann faced some resistance from parents who didn't want to give up the moral education to teachers and bureaucrats"

So yes, the NEA position is propaganda. You can't even get rid of bad teachers without a lawyer and $$$ to go with the effort. "But if we just spend more money..." is not the answer. If it was truly a pure science, after 160 years of field work, surely we'd know more and have better results by now. But the evidence of homeschoolers, who spend less than $500 per child per year and have far better results, is problematic for the public education sector. Yet the NEA maintains parents are not qualified and SAT scores are significantly better? The average public school spend per student is over 10k, nearly $900 of that going to transportation alone.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200105070.asp

"Home schooling was an option until some states actually required home-schoolers to submit a curriculum"

and the response was for home-schoolers to link up with a school to get access to a formal curriculum (which most of the good home schoolers already had done).

Some version of Home Schooling is legal in all 50 states of the US http://www.hslda.org/laws/

Even Attempting to make Home Schooling illegal is a great way for a Critter to get a phone call from Mr Smith
http://www.hslda.org/about/staff/attorneys/Smith.asp. If you as a Critter make a serious effort then Mr Smith will be at your office NEXT DAY to explain to you why in no uncertain terms why this is a Bad Idea.

"Home schooling was an option until some states actually required home-schoolers to submit a curriculum"

and the response was for home-schoolers to link up with a school to get access to a formal curriculum (which most of the good home schoolers already had done).

Some version of Home Schooling is legal in all 50 states of the US http://www.hslda.org/laws/

Even Attempting to make Home Schooling illegal is a great way for a Critter to get a phone call from Mr Smith
http://www.hslda.org/about/staff/attorneys/Smith.asp. If you as a Critter make a serious effort then Mr Smith will be at your office NEXT DAY to explain to you why in no uncertain terms why this is a Bad Idea.

As far as I know only the Amish have an exemption, and then only after 8th grade. Even homeschoolers are required to meet certain requirements and pass state tests. Private or religious schools also have to meet those requirements

Actually, I'm pretty sure this is wrong. In quite a few states there seems to be little to no regulations on homeschooling. I personally know a few people who homeschooled their children and never had so much as a visit from the government or anything similar to that (because that kind of thing isn't required by my state).

However, there are some states that have stricter regulations on homeschooling. But, as I said, the laws vary from state to state.

http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp

in six states you do have to link up with a "normal" school to get your curriculum certified but its guaranteed by the Constitution due to religious reasons. And trying to get a law passed to make it otherwise will get a Policritter a visit by Mr Smith http://www.hslda.org/speakers/speaker.asp?s=1 and he has taken cases to SCOTUS and won.

http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp

in six states you do have to link up with a "normal" school to get your curriculum certified but its guaranteed by the Constitution due to religious reasons. And trying to get a law passed to make it otherwise will get a Policritter a visit by Mr Smith http://www.hslda.org/speakers/speaker.asp?s=1 and he has taken cases to SCOTUS and won.

I'm talking about a minority of individuals passing laws willy-nilly without consulting the people who are supposed to obey them. The basic function of the government should be to protect the border, and maintain the status quo, not to continually invent laws without the imprimatur of the people.

Last I checked, the guy with the most vote wins (with one exception per 100 years). So the imprimatur of the people seems to be functioning perfectly well, except for the point that you don't like what they approved.

The basic function of the government should be to protect the border, and maintain the status quo, not to continually invent laws without the imprimatur of the people.

And if The People were to vote for representatives that overwhelmingly approve particular laws, what gives you the right to veto their judgment on this topic (not that you have to accept it as correct, only as their judgment)?

Last I checked, the topic suitable for government functions is itself a matter commended to The People and their representatives (or, in case of a drastic change requiring amendment, to some more stringent procedure that still ultimately rests with The People).

Hardly. There are several ways to avoid compulsion. In this particular case (to get back on topic) I pulled my children from public schools and educate them at home. No truancy.

YMMV, but home schoolers in many States still have to attend the same number of hours of instruction that the public schools. See, e.g. http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/New_York.pdf requiring "the substantial equivalent of 900 hours yearly" plus standardized tests. Obviously laws vary by State.

PS. Good on you (seriously) for educating your children though.

"there is no law that says you have to send them to public school (at least in my state)"

its actually legal in ALL 50 states to even go to the point of homeschooling your kids. http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp

a law maker trying to make it otherwise will be visited by Mr Smith so he can explain reality in the US. http://www.hslda.org/about/staff/attorneys/Smith.asp

"there is no law that says you have to send them to public school (at least in my state)"

its actually legal in ALL 50 states to even go to the point of homeschooling your kids. http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp

a law maker trying to make it otherwise will be visited by Mr Smith so he can explain reality in the US. http://www.hslda.org/about/staff/attorneys/Smith.asp

"I'm a conservative. My real problem with this is that a strong central government (Texas) is making decisions that should be made at the local level."

Please review the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The question is whether the States respectively have the authority to educate. State run Public Education was rare when the Constitution was ratified, but it did exist. Therefore, States do have the authority to educate.

Do you question whether a state can set educational standards?

The State of Texas _funds_ public education (http://www.texasbudgetsource.com/education) in accordance with the Constitution, so Texas asserts its authority in managing that education. Its Constitution gives it the authority to educate: "Article 7, section 2 of the Texas Constitution only authorizes the legislature to establish and maintain public education, not private or parochial education (Leeper, Slip Op. At 10);"

http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/Texas.pdf

At the local level, you do have some say. You can privately educate your child. You can home educate your child. But, you cannot say Texas lacks the authority to educate.

No, its illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_in_Germany

http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/200501100.asp

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/139

"While the school district responded by stating that homeschooling is illegal, the parents' maintained that their fundamental rights as parents would be violated if they were forced to return the children to public school. All of the families obtained excellent packaged curriculums from German correspondence schools, and demonstrated to school officials that their children were receiving a proper education.
Heinz Kohler, the county education director, dismissed the families' beliefs, stating, "you and your children are not living in isolation on some island but rather in an environment posing intra- and extracurricular situations where you'll have to accept that your world view will be curtailed." Mr. Kohler further explained that homeschooling could not be allowed as "children should not be encapsulated or kept apart from the outside world. In these cases, the parents' rights to personally educate their children would prevent the children from growing up to be responsible individuals within society"

For those that oppose home-schooling, do they seriously think that the government does a great job of educating children? I can't believe there are so many that oppose home-schooling, yet Slashdotters in general rail on the poor quality of the American education system.

To me, home-schooling is a great alternative. Parents in general care the most about their children, not the government. Obviously there are the exception (child abusers, etc.), but that's not necessarily an argument to ban all home-schooling outright.

Seems like as long as the children can pass the standardized tests (SAT, etc.), we should support it. In fact, studies have been done that show that home-schoolers often do better than public school students. For example:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

Anecdotally, my sister found that some colleges actually prefer home-schoolers for this reason.

Read this study. I'll even put part of it here for you.

You ready for this?
$34,999 or less - 85th percentile
$35,000-$49,999 - 86th percentile
$50,000-$69,999 - 86th percentile
$70,000 or more - 89th percentile
Ok, ok, ok... you got me. The rich ones score a whopping 4 percent better.

Read this study. It shows that, even in the lowest socioeconomic groups (sub annual income of $35,000) homeschoolers perform in the top 85th percentile.

"Kids with recklessly negligent parents" are not homeschooled. It is the parents decision to homeschool it requires a non-negligent parent. Sorry, you aren't going to find those studies. Aren't we talking from a parents point of view? The parent is the one making education decisions for the child and the numbers back me up. Homeschooling is a better decision for your child. It's not hard to see.

The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.

Neither parent has a college degree-83rd percentile
One parent has a college degree-86th percentile
Both parents have a college degree-90th percentile

Here's that study.
I know it's in style here on slashdot to vomit out "correlation does not equal causation" every time someone shows you a study you don't like, but do you really think that all those homeschoolers were just born with high IQs and just happen to be that smart? That's called sticking your head in the sand and no one is fooled by your mantra of "no it's not, no it's not". Just ask George Bush.

Good question. This study does agree that household income does affect the outcome of homeschoolers on tests.

You ready for this?
$34,999 or less - 85th percentile
$35,000-$49,999 - 86th percentile
$50,000-$69,999 - 86th percentile
$70,000 or more - 89th percentile

WOW!!!! (Note: incoming sarcasm) Yeah... those homeschooling parents who have all the money sure are the only ones who succeed! Why... there's a whole 4 percentage points between the lowest socioeconomic group and the highest one. Dang... you sure shot a hole in my argument.

Absolutely correct. Studies consistently show that homeschoolers are ridiculously better prepared than students who have been through the public school system. A study in 1997 (admittedly 12 years ago) showed that students who have been homeschooled for two years or more usually score between the 86th and 92nd percentile in every subject. linky

While playing devil's advocate here, the question comes to mind about how the home school demographic performs against a similar slice of society where the only difference was the schooling. That'd be an interesting comparison. The link only mentions that race appears to be a non-factor.

Absolutely correct. Studies consistently show that homeschoolers are ridiculously better prepared than students who have been through the public school system. A study in 1997 (admittedly 12 years ago) showed that students who have been homeschooled for two years or more usually score between the 86th and 92nd percentile in every subject.
  linky

Homeschooling has its problems, usually social ones, but academically, homeschooling nearly always produces vastly better educated children.

I was homeschooled for all of my primary and secondary education in Arizona (a VERY good state to be homeschooled in because of the LACK of regulation it puts on homeschoolers. It seems Arizona has realized that homeschooling produces MUCH smarter kids and it is best to leave government well out of it) and don't have a High School Diploma or GED. I got a FULL SCHOOLERSHIP into ANY state school (ASU, UofA or NAU) because my SAT scores were nearly perfect. Get that GP. I. Didn't. Pay. Anything. Because. I. Was. Homeschooled.

Most homeschooling parents have found out that it is an incredible sacrifice to stay home and teach your child yourself, but it is one of the best ways of showing your love for your child by providing an actual education for them instead of the public system that is failing so many children across the country.

Indeed. I was homeschooled from 1st to 12th grade, and I'm currently being paid to go to university.

Good, structured homeschooling, with appropriate teachers for subjects beyond the parents reach, seems to be far more effective than any public school I have heard of. Now this unschooling... This is the antithesis of my homeschooling experience, and I think it is foolishness. I was reading a variety of books when I was four years old. If the kids in that picture from TFA are reading when they are ten I'll be surprised.

Absolutely correct. Studies consistently show that homeschoolers are ridiculously better prepared than students who have been through the public school system. A study in 1997 (admittedly 12 years ago) showed that students who have been homeschooled for two years or more usually score between the 86th and 92nd percentile in every subject.
  linky

Homeschooling has its problems, usually social ones, but academically, homeschooling nearly always produces vastly better educated children.

Well, clearly those state universities must have sucked because you apparently never learned that correlation does not equal causation. I went to an accelerated program for high school that compresses 5 years into 2. About 25% of the people in my class were previously homeschooled - and it was easy to see why.

Being gifted academically is often correlated with being socially maladjusted. I don't think any parent chooses for their kids to be bored or bullied in school but this is often what happens to these kids. Bottom line is - public education does a very poor job of satisfying the emotional needs of smart kids. Home-schooling is a solution, but let's be clear here - that does not make home-schooling an ideal educational path.

If you left high IQ kids alone (after about age 12) to play videogames for 5 years, their IQs would still be high. This does not mean videogames create smart kids.

Compound that with the fact that a parent who homeschools kids is a parent who isn't working. Which means that either the other parent is making enough money for two, or they are already financially well-off for other reasons. So the average socioeconomic status of a homeschooled family is going to be much higher than the average socioeconomic status of a public education family... and surprise-surprise, income levels also correlates with educational attainment, IQ, health, and pretty much every other "good" thing!

There are lots of parents who are smart and organized enough to do this. There are a bunch who are ambitious enough to do it. There are some that are even committed enough to see it through. There are a few that have the time to do it. Unfortunately, there are just a small number with all four traits.

Apparently most parents who choose to homeschool(*) have those traits: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

Now "parents who choose to homeschool" is a self-selecting group. So maybe parents in general don't have those traits, but in that case the ones that don't at least have the good sense to recognize that homeschooling isn't for them.

I'm not saying home/non-schooling should be disallowed, but it's in society's best interests to educate as many kids as we can to the highest level we can reasonably achieve. So if a parent wants to do this, I'd say they should have to demonstrate the skills and commitment, then they can receive support, assistance, and above all constructive progress monitoring and feedback.

Depending on the state you live in, homeschools are held to the same standards as any private school. In fact where I'm from (Kansas), homeschools are private schools as far as the law is concerned.

Check thiscitation out. Homeschoolers, on average, score 30-37% higher in every subject than public schoolers. And children who have been homeschooled for 2 or more years do better than that, they usually score in the 87th to 92nd percentile.

Absolutely correct. Studies consistently show that homeschoolers are ridiculously better prepared than students who have been through the public school system. A study in 1997 (admittedly 12 years ago) showed that students who have been homeschooled for two years or more usually score between the 86th and 92nd percentile in every subject.
linky

Homeschooling has its problems, usually social ones, but academically, homeschooling nearly always produces vastly better educated children.

I was homeschooled for all of my primary and secondary education in Arizona (a VERY good state to be homeschooled in because of the LACK of regulation it puts on homeschoolers. It seems Arizona has realized that homeschooling produces MUCH smarter kids and it is best to leave government well out of it) and don't have a High School Diploma or GED. I got a FULL SCHOOLERSHIP into ANY state school (ASU, UofA or NAU) because my SAT scores were nearly perfect. Get that GP. I. Didn't. Pay. Anything. Because. I. Was. Homeschooled.

Most homeschooling parents have found out that it is an incredible sacrifice to stay home and teach your child yourself, but it is one of the best ways of showing your love for your child by providing an actual education for them instead of the public system that is failing so many children across the country.

Um... I hate to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of home schooled students are taught so because their parents don't want them picking up "incorrect ideas" such as "evolution," "all races are equal," and more. It's not just religious whackjobs, it's whackjobs period who do the majority of homeschooling, nowadays. The best way to indoctrinate your kid is to make sure you're the one feeding them all the information.

While this certainly may be true, I and several others I have met spent time "homeschooling" because there weren't any private schools worth beans in the area and the public schools were an order of magnitude worse. I started my tenth grade year because the local school felt that moving was an unexcused absence (keeping in mind that I was moving across the state, not down the block, and they had records from the previous school to prove this). The old school provided resources and I went back to public school ahead of the curve in 12th grade after another move. I graduated 9th out of 450ish after taking the various tests. Home schooling doesn't need to mean that you are of a fringe ideology, it is simply one of the possible reasons for homeschooling. Another, much less negative possibility: Students who have high internal motivation do not need public school and can even find it to be a hindrance. As for the claim that the majority of homeschoolers are racists--where did this come from? Homeschooling is used by people across all demographics - and for some statistics (first google link, so I'm not sure how much it's worth): Home School Legal Defense Association.

Read my post in context with the parent to which I was responding. Original poster used the term "fucking barbaric" to describe a country that executed drug users and I was suggesting they thought a little more about their posting.

Agreed my language should have been more carefully chosen. I completely agree the issue is more nuanced than a short response can provide however felt it would be mostly lost on the original poster, hence decided to give them a blunt response to get them thinking about what they'd written. Perhaps I shouldn't have jumped back at a troll...

Clearly you are more capable of a more rational debate and it would be more pleasant to have a decent conversation and discuss the issues with you rather than User Jaysyn.The issues are indeed complex.

I'd note though that the State of Texas- a part of the USA - apparently still reserves the right to execute under 18 year olds and President Obama has promised to review the failure to ratify the Convention (Ref.)

regards.

I think that it is very strange to defend a blunt response if it can easily be shown to be incorrect. For example, I could call you "fucking barbaric" for murdering children too, but that would be incorrect and certainly unjustified. At very least, your outburst makes you look very silly to me. The context doesn't compare the US to anyone, and the post doesn't imply the author is from the US at all. So your remark about the US is certainly off-topic and not supported by the context.

Your reference from wikipedia is probably incorrect. The citation in wikipedia for the remark, that Texas reserves the right to execute 17 year olds (Texas's previous limit), does not mention Texas at all! I did a search for texas in that article and got nothing, so (unless my browser is malfunctioning) that wikipedia statement seems baseless to me. So I will edit out that reference from the article.

Furthermore, Texas cannot overrule the US constitution, and the supreme court has already ruled on the matter. There was a case mentioned in the wikipedia article where they tried to overturn the ruling in Alabama, but that went nowhere (and rightfully so). So that reference that you cited can not support your argument in any case whether true or not.

Finally, Obama is a politician. He cares a lot about symbols, as shown by his public reasons for "firing" a CEO. I repeat that: he forced a person to retire from his job because Obama wanted to emphasize a point. Doesn't matter if it was justified for other reasons or not - that was the reason suggested by the man himself. Obama also recently suggested a world without nuclear weapons, though there are many reasons that is currently unrealistic. Obama declared it probably won't happen in his lifetime, in fact! So the point of mentioning that goal was also symbolic. The UN Convention is also a symbol. So Obama's support of ratifying the convention is not surprising, but also not a sign that he thinks it is realistic or even possible in the near future. Of course I could be wrong, but I think this is the likely conclusion.

Well, when your choices are no education and free but perhaps not perfectly accurate education, I think most of the world's poor would choose the latter for their children.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp A wonderful article about how money doesnt=good education.

The children of typically wealthy parents that care enough about their child's education to go to the effort of putting them in a private school perform better in school.

I do not know what to make of this. I just thought it needed to be shared. 16872638 incest father encourage touch penis 2006-03-26 20:04:02 http://muse.jhu.edu/ 16872638 incest father encourage touch penis 2006-03-26 20:04:02 http://nasw.org/ 16872638 incest father encourage touch penis 2006-03-26 20:04:02 http://www.fhi.org/ 16872638 list drugs interact with each other 2006-03-29 01:02:06 http://www.centerfordrugsafety.org/ 16872638 list drugs interact with each other 2006-03-29 01:02:06 http://www.fda.gov/ 16872638 list drugs interact with each other 2006-03-29 01:41:37 http://www.personalmd.com/ 16872638 ohio senate bill 17 2006-03-29 01:45:09 http://www.hslda.org/ 16872638 ohio senate bill 17 2006-03-29 01:45:09 http://www.ohiosenatebill17.org/ 16872638 ohio victim counseling service prosecute 2006-03-29 01:46:34 http://www.usdoj.gov/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.sexualassaultresources.org/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://odmrdd.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.drc.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.odvn.org/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.ag.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.drc.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.drc.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.drc.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.usdoj.gov/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.usdoj.gov/ 16872638 multiple drug interactions paroxetine 2006-03-30 12:57:21 16872638 multiple drug interactions safety 2006-03-30 12:57:56 16872638 drug interaction checker safety 2006-03-30 12:58:47 16872638 dictionary words that start with 2006-03-30 14:05:03 http://dictionary.reference.com/ 16872638 dictionary words that start chu 2006-03-30 14:06:58 http://www.hyperdic.net/ 16872638 case history woman abuse childhood rape 2006-03-30 17:58:32 http://www.womanabuseprevention.com/ 16872638 case history woman abuse childhood rape 2006-03-30 17:58:32 http://www.survivorinfo.org/ 16872638 case history woman abuse childhood rape 2006-03-30 17:58:32 http://www.musc.edu/ 16872638 case history woman abuse childhood rape 2006-03-30 17:58:32 http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/ 16872638 case history woman abuse childhood rape 2006-03-30 17:58:32 http://escapinghades.pandys.org/

Any body with enough brains to actually Home School their children will hook up with either a group or even a HomeSchool friendly B&M School (most likely both)
Unless you are a former teacher you simply do not have the acess to Curiculum(s) and of course the Home School Legal Defense Fund (hi mr Smith!!) http://www.hslda.org/about/staff/attorneys/Smith.a sp

"In 1994, an amendment to House Resolution 6 would have required all students to be taught by subject-certified teachers. Alarmed home schoolers besieged Congress with phone calls, faxes, and letters. In eight days, over 1 million phone calls shut down the House of Representatives' switchboard for hours at a time." - Home School Court Report Vol. XVII, No. 2

So my question is, how can technology be better-implemented to ensure a student's studies and also lower the costs of fuel for the districts?

Just home school. Through this mircale of modern technology, kids can be better taught than through any other method known to man! Not to mention that your child will receive his very own "teacher unit" who just happens to also be related to the child! A Win-Win situation for all!

Joking aside, Home Schooling is a very good option, especially in rural areas where familys can better afford to only have one parent working. The results of various studies show that the home schoolers easily outperform their publically educated peers, and that the social aspect isn't as big of an issue as was once feared.

From Wikipedia (which actually links to quite a few more sources):

"The academic effectiveness of homeschooling is largely a settled issue. Numerous studies have confirmed the academic integrity of home education programs, demonstrating that average homeschoolers outperform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects. Moreover, the performance gaps between minorities and gender that plague public schools are virtually non-existent amongst homeschooled students. Source"

---

"According to the findings, children who were schooled at home 'gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to function in society...at a rate similar to that of conventionally schooled children.'

"The researcher found no difference in the self concept of children in the two groups. Stough maintains that 'insofar as self concept is a reflector of socialization, it would appear that few home-schooled children are socially deprived, and that there may be sufficient evidence to indicate that some home-schooled children have a higher self concept than conventionally schooled children.'" Source

Technology only bolsters the abilities of home schoolers. Where as a home schooler of my generation had to be satified with the curriculum, materials the parents could afford, and the local library (an excellent source itself), modern school children can find information on virtually ANY issue simply by checking the Internet. Also, whereas labs done by my generation had to be performed by video tape, the modern generation is capable of actually video conferencing with a lab instructor for more precise education.

Isn't modern technology wonderful? ;-)

Homeschoolers exceed national average for 2003 ACT.

Sorry, couldn't find data for last year. Not sure how often this stuff is compiled.

He's just bought into the standard image of homeschooling that is presented by places like the Homeschool Legal Defense Association - that homeschooling is primarily the domain of fundamentalist Christians who wish to raise their children apart from the world. He probably also believes that you spent several hours a day behind a desk just like the ones he sat behind, only with a parent in front of the desk instead of a professional teacher.

That is the image of homeschooling as it is presented in our culture - unschooling as a concept is almost completely unknown outside of the community of unschoolers. Not only that, but you must remember that to most people in our culture it seems unnatural that a child could find peers or role models outside their own age cohort - you're asking the poster to believe that you were able to find friends despite not being locked six hours each day together with hundrerds of people born in the same calendar year. This is really a very difficult concept to swallow, given that even despite several years of that forced togetherness, few of us develop more than a handful or two of friends in high school.

That forced togetherness of this kind is actively harmful toward developing healthy social skills goes against the conventional wisdom. (Though I must now pause and admit that actual evidence either way is sparse and inconclusive: there seems to be no detectable difference between homeschoolers and similarly-aged public school students in terms of social skills)

In short, you're presenting the poster of the grandparent post with evidence that reality is severely at odds with his preconceptions. Don't expect him to accept all that you say at once.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/rudner1999/rudner4 .asp or here

Every homeschooled person I've ever met have been crazy geniuses because they were taught how to think and reason. Of course, they are also socially inept as they didn't have to deal with masses of other children.

As someone who was homeschooled for 9 years I have to disagree with your statement. I'm sick of all the ignorance about homeschooling.
There are many oppourtunities for homeschoolers to "interact" with other children. We had monthly homeschool meetings where we all got together (50-60 families and in rural south ga. I know of some groups that have over 200 ) There are many clubs we canjoin boys and girls club boy/girl scouts, 4-H etc. and since we can do a days worth of work by lunch time we have more time to devote to extracurricular activities. I have had several friends who were homeschooled for years go back to public school and fit right in. Most of them like it better becasue the class work is easier than what they had to do at home. I make friends quite easily. I've been at college for 3 weeks and this weekend I spent the entire weekend away from my house hanging out with diff groups of friends. Last night while I was hanging out with a couple guys I had 2 other groups call me and see if I wanted to do something.
Course we're not all crazy geniuses either. some people want to homeschool cause they think it means they wont have to work hard. Or because they are "discipline problems" which is entirely the wrong reason to HS.

for the past two years I attended a 2 year college with the reputation of being the hardest in the state. The English Teachers are proud of the high Regents essay test scores and work hard to keep it that way. I dont know how many times I heard someone say "I wish my teacher hadnt been so easy on me."

Homeschoolers actually tend to do better in college as well. We're already used to working on our own and having to get projects done on time.
As to the topic you wouldnt believe how much pressure has been put on the homeschool movement in the past and continues today. Here is an excerpt from the current issue Home School Legal defence association's monthly court report
"Two veteran homeschool families, both Home School Legal Defense Association members, received notices from the Calhoun Intermediate School District that they were in "violation" of the compulsory attendance law. Though aware that these families were exercising their constitutional and statutory rights to homeschool, the district demanded that the families' children be placed in public school the day after receipt of the notices. The notices threatened that failure to place the children in school immediately would result in "court action." If convicted, the families would be slapped with a fine, "imprisonment for not less than two or more than ninety days," or both. HSLDA court report

To see some stats on homeschooling click here
One ladies decision to home school her son

don't beleive me?

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R .163:
http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89 /default.asp

Thanks in advance for dying for Bush. Your death will make him richer.

That is one reason I intend to leave before my kids become school age and move to a state that actually understand what a magnet school is, and what it is for.

Now, I may be more than a bit biased in this regard (my girlfriend is homeschooled), but I have to take exception to your comment. While the homeschoolers I know are more introverted than many of my friends (blame it on the lack of "socialization" if you want, but most of them are geeks and geeks are not generally outgoing), they are certainly not screwed up either academically or socially. Most of them are extremely smart, both in the amount of information they know and in their skills in applying it.

I'm sure that I'm not typical in my experiences with homeschoolers. Some go to my church, and some former homeschoolers went to my high school. The others I met through math competitions (USA Math Olympiad), or through my girlfriend (whom I also met through math stuff; we both scored in the top 12 nationally on the USAMO). While this is clearly a biased slice, you might notice that homeschooled children have disproportionately high representation in all sorts of academic competitions (national spelling bee, math competitions, etc).

And yes, many of them have teachers for parents. But I would guess this is true of a large proportion of homeschoolers, as teachers are often critical of public schools and can't afford private ones.

I googled briefly for numbers, and here's what I found:
"The average SAT scores of home-schooled students were 568 Verbal and 532 Math, above the national averages of 505 Verbal and 514 Math."

Unfortunately, SAT scores are a really lousy metric. I wasn't able to find any info on other standardized tests, such as those given in elementary school; these would probably be better indicators. Students who homeschool all the way through high school probably have a better time than those who just homeschool for a year or two.

maybe... now IANAL, but from my law-school wife, I get the knowledge of the "sanctity of the home"- that's why police can't barge in without a warrant, they can't peek into your windows, and this would be upheld by the supreme court.

So my thought is someone was just trying to brown nose some ultra-conservative constiuents in an effort to get more money out of them. It doesn't sound like there is a reasonable method of "getting caught"-

Again, IANAL, nor am I paranoid. I just have a low enough opinion of politicos so that I don't assume they want to fuck everyone over, I think they are just pandering "laws" for a buck. It'd be great to get some insight from Michigan police officers on this one.

It would be nice to also get the point of view of any lawyers, specifically those from Michigan.

p.s.- for those who care, some quick-o sanctity links:
social workers can't enter a home w/o a warrant , Kirk v. louisiana, you can't bust into someone's home and just arrest them ,
Illinois v. McArthur, even if I have some weed, you can't bust into my place without a warrant.

I'm not really interested in an argument over how bad public schools are or aren't. I think it's pretty clear to all that they are at least bad enough that grand claims of `vital social benefits' from being forced into such an environment are rather overblown.

Yes, it's important to make sure that your children interact socially with other children. But public schools are neither the only nor a particularly good forum for such interactions. Plenty of other venues exist for meeting other children, including athletic leagues, clubs, churches or synagogues, and so forth. To pretend that the failed academic environment and low standards of a public school should be tolerated in the name of having your children interact socially with other children strikes me as, at best, misguided.

Of course, the fact that a homeschooler beat out kids five years older than him to win the national geography bee is just one example of what study after study has shown -- the fact that on average homeschoolers perform several years above grade average in every area of the curriculum.

Against this, you have what counter-argument to make? That home schoolers are missing out on enforced conformity, clicques, bullying, and all the other `vital social experiences' enjoyed by public school children? Thanks, but I (and my children) will pass...

In addition to helping with the various legal hurdles some states impose on home-schoolers, the HSLDA also provides a clearing house for home-schooling information.

Another group you may find interesting is k12.com, which is an internet-based classroom for homeschoolers, founded by former US Secretary of Education Bill Bennett.

Some links.
NEA on home schooling You can only do it if you're licensed.

NEA on funding for home schooling Don't allow parents to use their education taxes to pay for their children's education.

NEA membership You have to be licensed by us, but you can't join us and have any say.

NEA on proposed legislation You can't take power away from the schools and give it to the government, because the government might give some of that control to parents.

From the horse's mouth.

And for an opposing view, Home School Legal Defense Association Do a search on 'NEA'