[CholeraJoe]

since when is compulsary education a legitimate function of government?

Your profile doesn't indicate your state, so I picked Texas' Constitution as an example:

The Texas Constitution

Article 7 - EDUCATION

Section 1 - SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FREE SCHOOLS

A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.

You can disagee with the premise but you cannot dispute that public education has constitutional authority in nearly every state and is thereby a legitimate function of government.

[LikeLight]

Posted before reading your last . . . obviously, I refer to the U.S. Constitution.

[FreeTally]

However, no State requires public education(because they constitutionally cant), so thus your claim that those seeking non-public education should also have to "follow the same rules" is quite specious.

If private citizens wish to assume the functions of government, let them meet government standards. If I want to build my own house, I still need to comply with the applicable building codes.

This doesn't even make sense. The State or county doesn't build you a home if you ask them to. You seem to imply that the "function of government" is to provide housing.

Here is a more valid comparison. When a governmental body buys property, whether its the federal, state or local governments, there are sertain procedures that they must take. When A private citizen buys property, they are not required the same.

[LikeLight]

As a conservative (I'm assuming you are, since you're here), in what other areas of life do you choose to avail yourself of substandard government services when you are capable of providing a higher quality alternative at your own expense? Do you choose a top notch doctor, or drop in down at the free community health clinic? Do you choose to ride the bus to work, or drive in the safety and comfort of your own SUV? Etc.

[snippy_about_it]

...it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish..

I see nowhere where it says citizens must attend, or send there children, etc. I always believed that somewhere it states the government would provide education, not that the education provided was mandatory.

I wonder has this be heard before the Supreme Court?

I guess I better start searching. BTW, I have no children and I am a product of public education.

[savedbygrace]

Your post #11 is non-responsive, Joe.

The issue is compulsory public education. Texas' constitution doesn't establish compulsory public education in the section you quoted.

From your posts on this thread, it appears you know little or nothing about home education. That's not a flame. I'm just reading what you've written and drawing a reasonable conclusion.

[Zack Nguyen]

Where does it say that in that amendment that it is primarily the job of government to teach kids? Why are homeschoolers "assuming functions of government"?

The amendment simply says that government shall provide free public schools. Very well. It does not say that anyone else has to live up to their standards. It does not say that anyone has to attend these "public free schools." It does not mandate that public schools are the benchmark that homeschoolers must live up to.

[Freedom4US]

That's interesting - so the state has a mandate to provide a 'free and public' education. We knew that already, but that's fine, well and good. What's not fine, well and good?

When the premise is twisted into something completely different.

Just because the State is mandated to provide education doesn't mean we have to use it. Or does it? (which is the only way a failed system would continue to exist - government decree)

To argue any further along that line of reasoning is folly.

[hopespringseternal]

since when is compulsary education a legitimate function of government?

You missed a word.

[fifteendogs]

There is nothing in the Texas constitution that says that the public schools are a mandatory form of education. The constitution only provides for a public school system for those who either want to partake of it or cannot provide an education to their children.

[Lady Heron]

A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.

Where does it say that the public must use this education, only that is shall be provided. I have a constitunal right of freedom of religion. Supreme court agrees, Amish do not go to school past the 8th grade. You can not force them it is their right. Nor can you force a parent have their children sit in classes that teach ideas opposed to their religion. The only thing this is about is the control of minds and money. I am not willing to give up my freedom of self determination to the goverment nor should any republican or libertarian that is for the socialist in the dim. party.

[nobdysfool]

You can disagee with the premise but you cannot dispute that public education has constitutional authority in nearly every state and is thereby a legitimate function of government.

I most definitely disagree with the premise. Primary Education of children is the parent's job. Giving that responsibility over to the government is a recent developement in human history. Secondary Education (i.e. College or University) should not even be within the control of government.

Of course, Liberals are almost all Statists, and buy into the false idea of a benign, benificent State who only has the best interests of its citizens at heart. If they can't even see the fallacy in that idea, is it any wonder that they have been for years slowly taking over more and more of the roles of parent and guardian?

If you put your trust in government, you have no right to bitch when the government sh*ts on you. And it's only a matter of time before they do...

[ApesForEvolution]

Sorry, read your assinine, socialist-script commentaries and couldn't help but dive in.

Just because a state government or the federal government robs taxpayers to make K-12 education (socialist indoctrination/daycare) 'available' does not mandate that anyone must hand them their children. Find me a constitutional mandate that forces anyone to hand their children over to the government for education. Homeschoolers repeatedly, across the board, blow the doors off of government schooled children..

[SuziQ]

it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.

That statement just says that the state has a duty to PROVIDE education for its citizens. It does NOT say that a citizen is REQUIRED to avail himself of that privilege. If someone wants to be schooled in a different manner, the state does not seem to have the right to demand anything of that person.

The free market would take care of this in the type of higher education the person would be seeking. Some colleges require more of those who apply than others. If a student desires to be admitted to a big name, competitive school, he or she will have to do the work in the subjects required by that college for admittance.

[SwankyC]

Where exactly in Article 7 does it say anyone is required to even attend the "efficient system of public free schools."????

[jeremiah]

to establish and make suitable provision for, the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools So where in this legal language, does it give govt the sole right to educate children? Or to judge the results of parents efforts? Shouldn't the judgement be left to colleges, tested by entrance exams etc? Aren't these same schools afraid of testing of their own students?