Unless you have access to the statistics (and are essentially omniscient regarding unreported abuse), you are basing your conclusion upon nothing more than a scientific wild-assed guess.
goober from a gooberment agency
As far as I am concerned, this undercuts your entire credibility for reasoned debate.
When we first allowed some goober from a gooberment agency to displace G*d as the one to whom the parent was responsible for for the child until said child was an adult, AND when we assumed that the final authority for the child's raising was some goober instead of the parent to whom G*d gave the child,
It's not an either/or. The simple fact of the matter is that the government - especially in this more technical age - has a compelling interest in ensuring that children are adequately educated so that they have options other than welfare or slinging burgers at McDonalds. Additionally, while most homeschool parents are good decent folks doing their best to educate their children, there have been a few whose treatment of their children ranged from unfortunate neglect to active abuse. Abusive parents don't just answer to God - they answer to the State, and rightfully so.
Ya still wanna substitute some nameless, faceless, unaccountable goober for that child's [parents?]
Assuming I interpreted your sentence fragment correctly, in some cases, absolutely yes. While government is not well-placed to protect a child's interest and should generally remain hands-off, there are some parents who are so astonishingly bad that the governemnt must intervene. No one else will.
There are enough bad apples out there to justify some minimal reporting requirements. The only people who will have trouble with an annual curriculum plan, quarterly reports, and annual teaching are those who won't be teaching at all. I could find you (given enough digging) my own grade-school records kept when I was a homeschooled pupil.
So how does it feel to be a Statist bootlicker?
Me: Given the number of "abuses" in public versus home school situations, I would argue that the intrusion of government between parent and child is a far greater danger than preventing a very rare case of "child abuse".
Thee: Unless you have access to the statistics (and are essentially omniscient regarding unreported abuse), you are basing your conclusion upon nothing more than a scientific wild-assed guess.
Me: Read what I posted, try really hard to remember some history, nad you will then (perhaps) understand that I was pointing out that allowing a bureaucracy between parent and child, putatively to prevent some sort of "educational abuse" to use the Libroid phrasiology of the judge, is assinine.
Do remember that for most of America's hsitory, schooling was a very local thing and the parents were very involved, not some huge bureaucracy.
The idea that a bureaucracy is good for education of the child is essentially socialist. The German attack on home schoolers is a case in point.
Are you perchance part of some agency, or a public scruel teacher, union and all?
Me; goober from a gooberment agency
Thee: As far as I am concerned, this undercuts your entire credibility for reasoned debate.
Me: Are you aware you have just labelled yourself as PC speech impaired. While I can understand your taking umbrage over my less than respectful terminology, dismissal of an argument for such reason is often indicative of either a mind of remarkable narrowness, or a desire to avoid the issues being discussed.
Me; When we first allowed some goober from a gooberment agency to displace G*d as the one to whom the parent was responsible for for the child until said child was an adult, AND when we assumed that the final authority for the child's raising was some goober instead of the parent to whom G*d gave the child,
Thee: It's not an either/or. The simple fact of the matter is that the government - especially in this more technical age - has a compelling interest in ensuring that children are adequately educated so that they have options other than welfare or slinging burgers at McDonalds. Additionally, while most homeschool parents are good decent folks doing their best to educate their children, there have been a few whose treatment of their children ranged from unfortunate neglect to active abuse. Abusive parents don't just answer to God - they answer to the State, and rightfully so.
Me: Your argument is based on the premise that we can prevent evil, particularly, the evil of abusive parents.
We can't.
hat we can try to do is balance the needs of teh "abused" child against the rest of teh society. In such a balance, I took the position that the certainty of egregious abuse of home schoolong families was far greater, much more certain, and far more damaging to the larger society than the possibility of perhaps preventing some case of "education abuse" by a swarm of educrats and lawyers under the watchful eye of JudgiePooh.
Me: Ya still wanna substitute some nameless, faceless, unaccountable goober for that child's [parents?]
Thee: Assuming I interpreted your sentence fragment correctly, in some cases, absolutely yes.
Me: Oopsie! Your bad! Try doing a sentence analysis again. Or, if your home schooling was a tad weak in that area, there are many sources for sentence analysis.
Thee: While government is not well-placed to protect a child's interest and should generally remain hands-off, there are some parents who are so astonishingly bad that the governemnt must intervene. No one else will.
Me: Here is the crux of our disagreement. Better a few cases of "education abuse" than the multitude of abuses certain to occur when the 900 pound bureaucratic gorilla is loosed on home schoolers.
Lest you weep for the home schooled who might be "educationally abused, consider the far greater probability that public schools will turn out far more "educationally abused".
Your emphasis on the rights of the state would lead me, and perhaps many others, to assume that you assume the needs of the state are superior to the rights of the parents.
Lots of luck finding that in the Constitution, fellow FReeper!
Thee: There are enough bad apples out there to justify some minimal reporting requirements. The only people who will have trouble with an annual curriculum plan, quarterly reports, and annual teaching are those who won't be teaching at all. I could find you (given enough digging) my own grade-school records kept when I was a homeschooled pupil.
Me: On this issue, I would defer to the home school associations, and the views of their members. To ask the public scruel educrats, or judgiePooh is to assure that the socialism impaired have been given an opportunity to empose their agenda.
Ultimately, I trust parents over the goobers, and likewise for socialism impaired judges.
It is an interesting subject, though. Thanks for the input and your perspectives.
GG
Compulsory schooling isn't about learning. It never has been.