Home Schooling

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2018, 11:01 AM)Au165 Wrote: Yes, we shouldn't be in the business of speech monitoring (especially inside a home). As much as you can hate the speech, it's there right to speak it. What they do with that speech is where it becomes an issue. 

But we also have to protect children from unfit parents.  For example people are not allowed to deny their children medical care and let them suffer and die because "prayer alone" does not work.

Are you really going to blame a ten-year-old for blowing up a daycare because his parents told him to?  Shouldn't the parents be held to some level of responsibility?

[Au165]

(01-18-2018, 08:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But we also have to protect children from unfit parents.  For example people are not allowed to deny their children medical care and let them suffer and die because "prayer alone" does not work.

Are you really going to blame a ten-year-old for blowing up a daycare because his parents told him to?  Shouldn't the parents be held to some level of responsibility?

These two statements aren't similar. Denying your kid medically necessary treatment is abuse as they are physically impacting their health, teaching them to think differently is not putting them in immediate physical harm, unless the thinking asks them to do harm to themselves. There have been plenty of people who overcame racist parents to be good people. As to the blowing up a day care, i'm guessing a 10 year old didn't acquire explosives or knowledge of how to build them without an adult so they would then have provided material support to Murder/terroristic plot.

The constitution respects people's rights to think whatever they want, however it doesn't always protect their rights to act on it. We can't start telling people what they are and aren't allowed to think, and that extends down to what they teach their children. 

[fredtoast]

(01-19-2018, 09:43 AM)Au165 Wrote: We can't start telling people what they are and aren't allowed to think, and that extends down to what they teach their children. 

We already do.  Try telling the local government that you are not going to send your kids to any kind of school or give them any education at all.

Part of protecting children is seeing that they are educated.  And since an education is required it has to be a reasonable education.  So the question is not if we can do it.  The question is what is considered reasonable.

I bring this up not because I have a simple answer.  I bring it up to illustrate how difficult it is.

[fredtoast]

(01-19-2018, 02:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: Again...this is different. We aren't telling people what they can, or can't, teach their kids we are requiring that they teach them something. This is a far cry from telling them they can't teach their own values to their children.

The question is what are "values" and what are "facts".

If we require home schooled children to pass some sort of standardized test to get the equivalent of a high school diploma we can't pass them if they say the world is flat and our government was established by aliens from another planet.

If the child of a white supremacist killed a dozen black people because his parents told him it was acceptable I feel that the government should take some action against the parents.  There is a big difference between allowing adults to believe whatever they want and allowing a parent to teach his children whatever he wants.

[Au165]

(01-19-2018, 02:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The question is what are "values" and what are "facts".

If we require home schooled children to pass some sort of standardized test to get the equivalent of a high school diploma we can't pass them if they say the world is flat and our government was established by aliens from another planet.

If the child of a white supremacist killed a dozen black people because his parents told him it was acceptable I feel that the government should take some action against the parents.  There is a big difference between allowing adults to believe whatever they want and allowing a parent to teach his children whatever he wants.

Not sure where my post went I was trying to edit something and I backed out and it was gone.

Why can't we pass them if they say the world is flat or if they think the government was established by aliens? We already teach to tests in schools rather than teach critical thinking. If a kid can both believe in those things and know they need to give the "normal" answers on tests then how do you monitor that? The reason that is relevant is that it applies to your second example. A person can be racist and not act on those things in the same way as believing the world is flat, but knowing they have to put the earth is round on a test to function in the society. There are many racists in the country today that do nothing dangerous other than ramble on about ignorant beliefs.

If a kid kills a bunch of people texting and driving because they grew up seeing their parents text and drive should the parents now be held criminally liable (they obviously would be civilly, probably same way as the example above)? That is learned behavior reinforced over years by the parents actions that can be dangerous, right? Now the caveat to this is if the parent's specifically tell their kids to murder someone, but that is already against the law and applies to whomever they would kill.

[Benton]

Homeschooling can be a good thing if done right. There are social opportunities available and some educational places (state parks, museums, etc.) offer homeschool days. Instead of locking a kid into across the board lessons, a teacher can move on once a student has mastered something. Or they can slow down on something that needs more time.

[Millhouse]

I would say if I had to choose between for or against, I would choose against it for most kids. Only exceptions would be for kids that have major physical or health issues where homeschooling is more practical for them.

[*Nately120*]

(01-19-2018, 01:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We already do.  Try telling the local government that you are not going to send your kids to any kind of school or give them any education at all.

Part of protecting children is seeing that they are educated.  And since an education is required it has to be a reasonable education.  So the question is not if we can do it.  The question is what is considered reasonable.

I bring this up not because I have a simple answer.  I bring it up to illustrate how difficult it is.

Hell, part of protecting us all is providing education to the unwashed masses.  The correlation between crime levels and the mount of uneducated males in a population is quite significant.  When was the last time you were mugged by a guy with a PhD? That goes for leaning a usable trade, as well. If people don't know how to do useful things, they'll do bad things. Go figure.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-22-2018, 03:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hell, part of protecting us all is providing education to the unwashed masses.  The correlation between crime levels and the mount of uneducated males in a population is quite significant.  When was the last time you were mugged by a guy with a PhD?  That goes for leaning a usable trade, as well.  If people don't know how to do useful things, they'll do bad things.  Go figure.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/19/psych-professor-shooting-spree/  

Actually I don't know if he's a PhD, but take a look at that mug.  Who would hire that dude?

[*Nately120*]

(01-22-2018, 03:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/19/psych-professor-shooting-spree/  

Actually I don't know if he's a PhD, but take a look at that mug.  Who would hire that dude?

You aren't allowed to analyze mass shootings.  Duh.