[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?

[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.