Actually, it seems reasonable.
I agree. This is a great lesson about receiving government money. It does (and arguably should) have strings attached. If we don’t like the strings we shouldn’t accept the money. Not sure that’s what you are implying but that’s my take on the thing.
Only if homeschoolers are exempted from paying school taxes for resources that they cannot use.
You might think so. However, experiences with having a brother with special needs teach me that there is no practical way to get therapy services except through the government. My parents did not want to, but they had no choice. My brother needed the therapy and you couldn’t even get appointments unless you went with the government. There’s basically no private market for this stuff.
No, it’s not. It’s wrong to force people to pay taxes and then deny them the use of the services they’ve paid for.
Or do you think extortion is OK?
It’s just a low handed attempt to force homeschoolers into the system using financial means instead of legal means. They know it would never fly if they tried to do it the right way, so they’re being underhanded.
You approve of that?
>>Actually, it seems reasonable.<<
Why? I pay 15,000 a year for my two girls to be educated, yet keep them at home and do it myself.
Why shouldn’t I get something for that cash?
Doesn’t seem reasonable to me. If you have a child with some handicap, the public school may not be a good placement. Private schools may not be either, or may be out of reach financially. Handicapped children are expensive to raise - there are therapies and medical expenses that insurance does not pay for.
The only private school suited to my son cost fifty thousand a year, so he went to public school. My son was bullied in school, and fortunately the school was responsive and protective. If it hadn’t been, I would have pulled him out and taught him at home. He still would have needed services.
If the state pays for the services in private schools because of the student’s needs, it should pay for services for homeschooled students if that is the best placement for the child.
Until you remember that every household in the state if forced to finance these indoctrination centers at gunpoint by virtue of property tax.
Considering I’ll bet that they still pay the school taxes for the area, not really....
Why?
It may be reasonable to deny the services to all children.
And it might be “legal” to deny the services to some children but not others, based on whether those children do other things you force them to do (like in this case, attend public school).
But why is it reasonable to you that a parent be required to use ALL of the public school services, in order to avail themselves of a FEW of those services?
What is the benefit to the state of forcing the parents to send their kids full-time to school, as a condition of getting the special service the public provides?
I can think of no reason why it is better for society or the parents to force them to send their kids to public school. It obviously benefits the NEA because they can insist on hiring more teachers, and it benefits the people employed by the government because they can get more money because enrollment is higher.
But it drives up the cost to the taxpayers, it inconveniences and in some ways HARMS the children the state is supposedly wanting to help, and will NOT save money except in that some rare cases parents will hate the public schools so much they will be willing to forgo necessary treatment for their children.
Not really. Private school students are still eligible, and they are not enrolled in public school. NYS seriously dislikes homeschoolers (we used to homeschool in NYS), and this is simply the next step in de facto outlawing the right, IMO.
I think there is a serious equal-protection case within this ruling.