I find this notion creepy and more like something I would expect from China. Maybe I’m being wooshed here. Poe’s law and all.
Kimstu - Thanks for the link, very informative.
That’s just it, many of those who are home schooled are kept from public school specifically so that they do not have their children learning evil things like evolution, or really anything that would not be needed in order for them to properly fulfill their role in a Christian household.
There are plenty of other reasons to home school that can have the kid turn out as well or better than public school. I did have a friend whose parents were both college educators. They homeschooled him for the most part, though he did attend school a couple times a week for partial days for socializing and things like PE. He turned out great. I haven’t talked to him in a well over a decade, but last i heard of him, he was doing something with Hall Effect Thrusters.
Your post shows an epically remarkable level of ignorance that you chose to share.
Yes, as I said, everyone I knew growing up that was homeschooling for religious reasons is in pretty bad shape now. They are on public assistance and have serious drug problems. None of them have any sort of college education. I grew up in an extremely white, very Christian neighborhood. There were quite a number of people who kept their kids out of school, and all of them were far behind the rest of us academically. My friend got beat by one of my neighbor’s fathers when, in 7th grade, he was surprised that his home schooled neighbor did not even know that the scientific consensus was that the earth was billions of years old.
Try for less of a knee jerk reaction next time, not everything you disagree with is bigotry.
Right. But if someone thinks that that’s okay–that a parent has the right to undereducate their child, if they chose–then really, we can’t discuss details. Because that’s a fundamental issue. I feel really strongly every child is entitled to enough of an education to make their own choices–I don’t even care about evolution, specifically, but I think that they need to have the skills they need to be able to get a job, go to community college, live outside the community that raised them if they choose.
I’m in the camp that thinks that’s not only not okay, that’s child abuse.
And if all it impacted was the child, then I guess an argument can be made that since it came from your loins, it is your property to dispose of as you choose. I disagree with that argument, however, on the grounds that the child will not be under the parent’s care and guardianship forever, and needs to not be a burden to society as an adult.
Just because you created a life doesn’t actually make you capable of raising a child.
See, I disagree with that because I think a person is a person, not your property. I mean, I think a billionaire also has to educate their child, and I wouldn’t approve of them raising their children as illiterate perpetual dependents based on the argument that they would be able to provide for them.
This is the cite. DMX was asking why I disagreed with Scalia’s dissent in that case, and I would be glad to debate it, but don’t want to hijack the thread.
Not that I disagree with many of the concerns raised in the thread, but I would ask for a cite about this continuing assertion that a child has a “right to an education.” Where does that come from and what does it entail? Must they read The Canterbury Tales? Is basic literacy enough? Do they need to be able to name the author of the Declaration of Independence? The First President of the United States?
I’m not trying to be nitpicky, but if we can’t start from a common baseline of understanding each other, I’m afraid that the debate will not be very productive.
The uniqueness of America derives from it’s government - the state. That uniqueness is communicated through the experiences citizens have interacting with the state and information communicated to citizens by the state.
The standards set for school curricula are the most basic form of state communication. It is those standards that determine how citizens define their government.
I think “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” involve the ability to be financially independent. For that, a child needs to be exposed to an education that at least makes the attempt to get them to the skill level they would need to be successful in a community college. And before you point out that many high school graduates don’t meet that standard–that is absolutely true, and we need to fix that. But at least high school programs have that level of education as their goal.
Will you answer my question? If someone says “I want to keep my girls ignorant so they can’t ever leave their men”, would you consider that within a parent’s rights?
“I want to keep my girls ignorant so they can’t ever leave their men”, would you consider that within a parent’s rights?
Yes, that is the parents right because it deals with life style. However the state sets the standards for academic education.
I would not. That is an abdication of the duties of a parent.
But I do not support having to prove to the government that I am not doing something illegal or improper.
I also fear that in a few years, if not now, people will argue that a statement to one’s own’s daughter that “The Bible says that your first and foremost duty as a woman is to support your husband, and that’s what we believe in this family” will be considered as bad as what you stated.
Well, I can say with certainty the 3 kids of the asshat who lived in housing at NOB Norfolk had his very downtrodden wife [abused, hm. long sleeves and turtle necks and heavy makeup in August in Norfolk VA … nothing going on there folks] homeschool the kids and I heard them at their lessons outside one afternoon … reading writing and arithmatics for the boys, and enough math to do grocery shopping for the girls. The reading was out of the bible, and it was the only book in the house. My neighbor Pat and I would share the coupons out of the newspaper with her because he refused to let her get a newspaper even just to get coupons …
Now, 30 years later I wonder what happened with the kids. I forsaw with Pat the boys going into the Navy and the girl eitehr running away and being a pregnant single mom dependent upon a string of abusive boyfriends, ot restarting the abuse cycle for herself because she didn’t know any better. Either way, she was probably hooked up with a man and pregnant at 16 …
Yeah, and as I said, I disagree with that argument as well, I’m just saying that it is the only thing I can even think of as a valid “justification” to allow parents to subject their children to substandard education. And I go on to point out that even in that case, society still has a compelling interest in preventing them from doing so.
Personally, I think that parents are among the least qualified people to raise children. They have no experience and many conflicts of interest.
Really, if you think about it, education has little to do with the parents. The provider of the education is the school, funded by society, and the beneficiaries of that education is the student and society. The parent’s main role should be to minimize their interference.
aruvqan,
What you describe is the Conservative view of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is however life style and not the concern of the state.
Home schooling has the potential for abuse. That is not sufficient cause for it to be banned.
So you would object to having a required curriculum and testing to meet minimum standards in home schools?
How can we tell if parents are abdicating their duties without ever checking in on the kids? Are we supposed to just take the parent’s word for it that they are healthy, safe, and adequately educated?
Yeah, see, that’s why there is a difference between words and deeds. While the hypothetical statement that you made is pretty horrible and misogynistic, it would be a parent’s right to tell their child this.
However, it would not be a parent’s right to force that role upon their child by denying them access to an education that would allow them to be financially independent.
K9…,
Agreed!
So the state (society) should regulate homeschooling.
I’m pretty sure your quote header says it all. Plurality opinion. I’m also pretty sure that you’ll agree that courts and legal scholars aren’t nearly as unanimous on the establishment of binding precedent given that it wasn’t a majority opinion. Hell, even SCOTUS seems scared to clarify how to apply the Marks rule as they’ve had many opportunities to do so.
First, everything it cites is binding precedent. And it was a plurality of four and the part I quoted was agree with by Thomas in his concurrence but he did not join the opinion because he would have applied strict scrutiny. So this is binding as it had 5 votes and all of those prior cases hold it to be beyond dispute.
The other justices didn’t really argue with the holding, they just argued that it didn’t apply to the Washington law specifically. Scalia had the only oddball view of it, and even he said that he agreed with it in substance, but as I said, I don’t want to hijack the thread.
Again, how does the state determine that I am not beating my wife and preventing her from leaving the house? Do we have random home searches and invasion into private lives without cause just to ensure that nothing untoward is happening?
You are correct that much spousal abuse goes on without being detected or prosecuted.
I would not consider that a good argument for enabling child abuse.