"Ya Got trouble Right Here in Oklahoma City!" [Another Effort at Homeschool Regulation]

Oklahoma Council On Public Affairs Magazine ^ | March 2007 | Dr. Bruce N. Shortt

[achilles2000]

Ya Got Trouble Right Here in Oklahoma City! by Bruce N. Shortt

Oklahoma’s crack team of government educators, the folks who spend billions of dollars a year to achieve heretofore unknown levels of semiliteracy and illiteracy among otherwise normal children, periodically take time out from their educational misfeasance to offer ominous warnings that we’ve got trouble – terrible, terrible trouble – lurking in homeschooling homes all across the state. But as was the case with the flimflam of a certain “Professor” Harold Hill, these warnings are just part of a swindle...

[taxcontrol]

I would disagree with you. Specificly the treaties that Bill Clinton signed on behalf of the United States, if ratified by the Senate would specificly place these rights in the hands of the government.

Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause of Article VI Section.2, “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

In Missouri v. Holland, (252 U.S. 416), the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Supremacy Clause a treaty made by the President, with concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate present at the time of voting, would become the supreme law and take precedent over contrary state laws. Thus, the U.N. Convention would constitute legally binding law in all 50 states. Otherwise valid state laws pertaining to education, the family, etc., which conflict with the provisions of the treaty will be subject to invalidation.

So unless there is a specific enumeration of the rights in the Constitution, they can be "given away" by treaty.

See the following for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000021.asp

[JenB]

I am getting more dogmatic about this stuff as I get older. When it was my parents homeschooling, I didn't really care. Now that it'll be me homeschooling in a few years I want things to get better.

[TalonDJ]

as long as they child can be shown to meet or exceed the education of an averages student

Totally disagree. Why should homeschoolers be subjected to a HIGHER than average standard? (there is not such thing as right at average unless average is defined as a range or values.) Many people homeschool because they have developmentally disabled children that they believe are not being well serviced by public schools. Those people would be unable to demoststrate above average performance because they have a challenged child that might never be average. Enumerating the rights a parents could be construed as enumerating the rights of the children. I fear that would lead to a steady growth of such rights. Or that parents ONLY have the rights to those things. The constitution serves to limit government and define what rights the government can't in fringe. It does not grant rights. To enumerate things like 'Discipline the child in a manner that does not endanger the health or injure the child' is to open up government interpretation of what constitutes health and 'injure'. If they decide saying 'no' injures self-esteme... then what?

[TalonDJ]

Got to disagree with you a little 2J. The idea that they government should butt out, 'if they are not on assistance' is buying into the idea that the government has a vested interest in your kids to some minimum 'productive citizen' level. I consider that a very slippery slope that starts out by using the 'wrong' of a welfare state to justify the 'wrong' of governmental interference with parents. The wrongs don't make a right. Does the state go around and arrest people that make a living as an artist but saying 'you don't pay enough taxes so you have to go back to school and get a real job'? No way! So what if I wanted to train my child in NOTHING but how to be a professional artist. What if they painted all day and did not learn math? Should I be in trouble? Am I doing my child harm? Debatable perhaps since I am closing doors to them. What if they child at age 10 says 'I want to surf for a living' and so I teach them nothing but how to be a professional surf board instructor?
The question comes down to 'who gets to decide'. Whoever makes the 'minimum standards' has the power. I chose not to give that power up. Now if they want to set some handy guidlines that I can voluntarily use to measure against then I am ok with that. But those guidlines already exist.

[fr_freak]

Sounds like we'd be better served by a Constitutional amendment which prohibits treaties based on other than trade or war.

[TalonDJ]

So unless there is a specific enumeration of the rights in the Constitution, they can be "given away" by treaty.

As long as I have guns those rights aren't leaving my house. I will store them under the ammo. Anyone wanting to take them can have some of the ammo first, the hard way.

[achilles2000]

I think you should only be able to send your children to public school if they exceed the performance of the average homeschool student (snicker, snicker...).

[taxcontrol]

You bring up two excellent points.

First, as to the "meet or exceed".... read the rest of the sentence... the "grade" clause is your out. If the child is only capable at performing at 3rd grade level at 15 years of age, no problem, as long as they are at the 3rd grade level of education.

But you comments and concerns point to a larger discussion of the wording of such an amendment. First and foremost - I will not be the one to write the amendment. I do not have the required skills to do so, despite what my ego may be telling me. Which brings me to my second point.

While I did mention the articulation of the rights of the the parents and expressed them from the view of "...parents should have the right to...", consider that the Constitution should restrict CONGRESS. It should not need to positively state otherwise.

So perhaps the actual phrase should be something like....

No law shall be created that restricts a parent or guardian from determining the practice of religion of their children in their custody..... or some such.

[wintertime]

Determine the appropriate education be it private, public or home school for their children as long as they child can be shown to meet or exceed the education of an averages student of either the appropriate grade or age level.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would amend this to:

So long as the child meets what is considered passing for the lowest performing ( but passing) student in the worst government school of the state.

If it is considered passing for the government imprisoned child ( oops! "schooled") then it should be considered passing for the rest of the unwashed commoners whether private or home schooled.

[wintertime]

I agree, but it is a steep hill to climb. I think that a more practical approach is to take another 20% of children out of the government schools, which would deligitimize them politically and send them into financial cardiac arrest. Government schools delenda est. (with apologies for my poor Latin).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I agree!

The best solution is to shut government schools DOWN!

And the best way to shut government schools down is to remove children. Then these parents, their relatives and friends, need to vote in representatives that pull the money plug on the government schools.

[TalonDJ]

Hah! No argument here. heheh.

[JenB]

Hehehehe. I'd like to see government teachers meet that standard... ok, so it's impossible to have every kid meet the average performance unless every kid does exactly the same, but still.

What right, exactly, does the Constitution grant the state to force children to recieve an approved education, anyway? What happens when they start having "government kitchens" and demanding "home feeders" meet some arbitrary standards that the "government kitchens" fail to meet most of the time?

[TalonDJ]

On an side but related note. THIS is the sort of thing I think of every time someone tries to use 'but what if they are abusing them' as an argument against homeschooling. The little girl in that article died right under the noses of dozens of people that should have sounded a real alarm. Homeschooling is hardly needed to abuse children. Parents wanting the easy way out will find it easier to send children to public school to get them out of their hair for the day. The idea that home schooled children are more at risk for abuse seems right at a very very high level bit can be shown as nonsense with statistical data quite easily.

[TalonDJ]

If all kitchens had to mean USDA and inspection standards everyone would instantly have to eat out all the time. Which is exactly why anti-homeschoolers want to add more and more regulations.

[JenB]

Well, at least, if *our* kitchen had to meet standards, we'd have to eat out all the time.

[DesScorp]

"It is a pity that Vatican II cut support for the Catholic school system. In 1960, the Catholic system was bigger than the public system in Chicago."

Yeah, but after Vatican II, the Church was so liberal for awhile it wouldn't have made things any better. However, now that the good guys won (Thanks, JP II !), I agree that the Church should get back into the business of funding and sponsoring (and leading) schools. And I'm not even Catholic (big admirer of the Church and both JP II and Pope Benny...and I call him that with much affection). I homeschool my oldest, and while it took some getting used to, it's been great for the both of us. Now if he'd only work a little harder on the math...

[Database]

However in Reid v. Covert the court subsequently held that no international agreement can free the federal government from the limitations of the constitution. So, treaties are subject to the constitution just as are laws written under it. Unfortunately, the courts have been all too liberal in permitting the federal government power unimagined in the text of the document.

[achilles2000]

Unfortunately, they do have government kitchens - school breakfast, lunch, and after school programs. Parents addicted to Aid to Dependent Parents are becoming increasingly irresponsible.

[achilles2000]

bump

[Hoosier Catholic Momma]

I agree...I wouldn't put my kids in public school in Oklahoma, and I sure won't do it here in Hoosier land. Fortunately, our daughter's tuition is under $3,000/yr, but it will jump up when she hits junior high (7th grade--is in 2nd grade now). In a couple more years, another one will be heading off to kindergarten, and then a couple years later, another one...my husband better get that engineering degree quick :)