I can't bite my tongue anymore.
Shouldn't every one here be suspicious when things are done "for the children?" We've gotten so far away from our freedoms, that we think it's fine for the government to have so much control over us, even to dictating how/whether we educate our children. I think we swallowed that when we allowed laws mandating schooling to certain ages.
My argument would be that since there are laws on the books for child abuse, that should be sufficient. We, as a society, believe that no child should be physically/sexually abused, and I doubt few would argue that this is tyrannical (well, maybe the AMA and the APA, who want to sexualize children and other sickos). However, when we extend the control of government farther than that, we are infringing on basic freedoms. Education is synonymous with parenting; parenting is education. Once you say education is the government's job, you've said that parenting is the government's job.
Non-voluntary standardized testing is wrong on principle, especially since the teaching content and methods of public school are rightfully suspect. You submit to testing, you are submitting to content. Using the few folks who do it wrong (fake homeschoolers, truants) to leverage as a bludgeon against the most who do it right is disingenuous. Without being conspiratorial or anything like that, the bottom line is control.
I don't know all the facts in the Bryant case, and perhaps the Bryants aren't perfect, but the government/bureaucracy is a worse parent than most, but never gets called on the carpet for its abuses (e.g., lost foster children in Florida, state of the public school system, etc.). Sadly, the Bryants probably have lots of common sense, but ran afoul of technicalities and/or abusing bureaucrats reading more power into the law for them than there is -- this happens ALL THE TIME, whether you are trying to homeschool without running afoul of the law or trying to make sure your permits to install a dishwasher are square. It's called a loss of freedom.
I wish I knew more of the facts regarding the Bryants case, too.A few cases similar to the Bryants happened here in N. California. Most of these cases were resolved through the courts with the families eventually winning. The situations usually involved a mean-spirited, petty educrat who turned the "concern for the child's educational welfare" into a personel vendetta. Liberals (educrats are almost always liberals) are like commie dictators--they don't like to be thwarted and hate to have their power and leftist dictates undermined.
My husband and I voluntarily have our son tested for several reasons.We wanted to see where he was in relation to his getting into college (SAT's, entrance exams, etc.) and as a record in case some snoopy government official tried to harass us and claim that we weren't doing our job.
Testing also kept my in-laws from griping too much. My in-laws were initially shocked that I would even consider homeschooling. After I sent them test results and samples of our son's work, they told me that this was probably the best option for their grandson.
Of course the key theme here is "voluntary." I would probably become like the Bryants and scream bloody murder if some state jerk tried to wrest my son from me because I refused to have him indoctrinated within the public schools systems and forcibly tested every few months just to satisfy some petty educrat vision of what constitutes an education.
Gracious. The public schools test the tarnation out of kids and it hasn't really improved a thing. There are still far too many students who can't read, write or understand basic math principles in the public schools. Unfortunately, many of these kids are ignored, put on drugs to "calm them down," or promoted by lazy teachers. I'm sure that a great many of these forgotten kids finally drop-out of school in their teens. (Way more than the homeschool average, I'll bet.)
Fix your own house, I say to these leftist educrats, before you dare try to fix mine!!!