Posted on 01/02/2003 11:03:09 AM PST by hsmomx3
No prob
Carry on Carry_O
Thank you for implying that because I am childless, I cannot hold an opinion in this. PLease inform all other FReepers of this new rule. I suppose this will also extend to non-smokers on smooking threads, people who have never been in the military on the military threads, etc.
I know what a gathering place of losers and degenerates it is having been in the thick of it myself(thank God I got out!). I would not give any credence to any opinion on what is beneficial for children from anyone still CURRENTLY in that scene.
And I do not give much credence to the "That is a loser, degenerate scene. I say so because I used to be in it. Now I am so righteous I can hardly stand myself. I now only listen to hymns in church because all the other music is eeeeevil" crowd.
No kidding. If she's a lawyer, remind me never to have her argue on my behalf. One wonders how she passed the BAR.
It's one of the skeletons in our closet. Horace Mann, a Unitarian, violently hated calvinism. He was clever enough though, to get the calvinists on board with his scheme to de-christianize America (by brainwashing the children) by pitching it as a way to Americanize all those "shanty Irish."
Why? You haven't had the courage to respond directly to my arguments, but then, I knew calling you on the quality of your rhetoric would work. Your are entirely too predictable.
Oh wait, you live in Santa Cruz. Nevermind.
Which means you know how bad the schools are here and thus renders your argument, advocating the public school system to arbitrate what constitutes educational quality, specious.
I need a typist. Sheesh.
If you find a cheap one, let me know.
And my one question:
Defend the power of the state to educate
Hey, I am am a poet, and didn't know it.
If you mean state as in state and not federal, any powers not delegated nor prohibited are reserved to the states. That means, the states can decide if they want to be in education. You could always fight to change your state constitution, but I doubt you'll overturn Amendment X.
But your feet show....
Nevermind, you know the end of that one.
I am sure that angers some here.
You haven't heard of the San Francisco mother who (with a mere high school education) taught her kids while living in her car? They scored 1600 on the SAT.
Frankly, there are so many children graduating from pubelick high skewels incapable of reading at a 4th grade level that I cannot imagine a parent doing worse simply for lack of an education. Further, that parent, if committed to the task, will use the opportunity of educating their children to correct the faults in their own schooling. I have seen it many times and society thus benefits two ways.
I will answer the rest of your ill-consderations directly however (unlike you), and say that there are probably parents who are incapable of teaching their kids. The good news for you is that they are, as a group, not inclined to teach their kids at home. For those who have kids that have been rejected by the public schools and don't desire to teach them at home, I think allowing the state to judge and regulate the rest of home schooling parents too high a price to pay when that populaiton will without doubt end up a customer of the system regulated or not.
Thus, not have you failed to establish a legal Constitutional claim to COMPULSORY public education to Mr. o, you haven't shown me how the measures you advocate could deliver the outcome you envision.
Um, my eight-year-old is doing high school algebra. Her ten-year-old sister is will start trigonometry and calculus this spring.
Bella Bru, you can read last year's term paper by the older child here. She was eight when she wrote this one.
The funny thing about the GED is that most homeschooled 8th graders can pass it with flying colors. That is why you are not allowed to take it until you are 17, at least that was the age stated when my 15 year old tried to take it 3 years ago. That year he took the ACT instead got a score that would allow him into all but Ivy league universities. It would not do to let a bunch of 8th, 9th and 10th graders get their highschool equivilancy diploma so young, what would the public schools do with the loss in money?
These are not the test home schoolers are not willing to take. It is the test that ask questions that are outside the relms of education (social situation questions) that they refuse to take and have been backed by the courts in their refusal.
And to think, I write for a living.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.