"Whoa there. You're making us look bad."

[Expat]

Is someone feeling not as specialer as his Mom always told him he was?

 

[Streak]

I'm ok with it. What business is it of yours how other parents children are educated? All children are home schooled. Sometimes the home school is primary and the only source of education. Sometimes the home school is the primary and the public education is supplementary learning. Sometimes the public education is the primary and the home school is the supplemental learning. In all cases, it's none of your business.

It is quite possible that a test or form was not completed or not completed properly. This is why the family contacted this organization, to fight it through legal channels. What does that have to do with the parents feeling that their child would be better served learning at a third grade level? Don't you think these parents would know better what's best for their child?

The business has everything to do with the fact that uneducated people:

A) Are much more poor.
B) More likely to commit crime.
C) A hindrance to their own potential.

And no, I don't believe parents always know best. Why? Because I had **** parents who thought beating their kids and not feeding them because all of the money went to cigarettes and drugs were what was best.

So no, being a parent doesn't make you automagically a ****ing upstanding person who is "all knowing". It should make you realize your own shortcomings and that should prompt you to find ways around your shortcomings to give your kids the best chance. Being a parent doesn't make you a good parent and until we know both sides of the story we don't really know what's going on.

And yes, I'm all for advocating setting limits on how ****ty parents can treat their children. But I suppose years of being kicked and punched and thrown around at 3am wakeup calls has nerf'd my ability to live in a bubble where everything is nice and parents stay together because of a wooden cross on a wall and bits of gold metal on a finger.

 

[Streak]

Is someone feeling not as specialer as his Mom always told him he was?

On the contrary. My parents were **** and that's why I know for a fact that parents aren't always right about raising their kids. I also know that how you raise your kids directly impacts how well or ****ty they do in society...so it directly benefits all of us to ensure nothing but the best for children...and I hate children, it's entirely for selfish reasons I think this.

 

[buckstopshere]

The business has everything to do with the fact that uneducated people:

A) Are much more poor.
B) More likely to commit crime.
C) A hindrance to their own potential.

And no, I don't believe parents always know best. Why? Because I had **** parents who thought beating their kids and not feeding them because all of the money went to cigarettes and drugs were what was best.

So no, being a parent doesn't make you automagically a ****ing upstanding person who is "all knowing". It should make you realize your own shortcomings and that should prompt you to find ways around your shortcomings to give your kids the best chance. Being a parent doesn't make you a good parent and until we know both sides of the story we don't really know what's going on.

And yes, I'm all for advocating setting limits on how ****ty parents can treat their children. But I suppose years of being kicked and punched and thrown around at 3am wakeup calls has nerf'd my ability to live in a bubble where everything is nice and parents stay together because of a wooden cross on a wall and bits of gold metal on a finger.

That sucks bro. I'm sorry you had a crappy childhood. That, unfortunately doesn't make you unique. I know exactly the abuse you're talking about. I know how the state works to remove you from the home. I also know what it's like to be on your own at 14 living with friends, sisters, cousins, anyone who would take you in or sleeping in the park at 16, walking to school early and showering in the locker room. But we have to rise above the way we were raised and let that stuff go. I'm a very good Husband and a very good Father to two girls. They will never have to go through what I did.

None of that changes the fact that you have no business in how parents decide to educate their children. None whatsoever. You don't get a say in what I decide to do for my kids.

I don't have a college degree and I barely graduated high school. I made a six figure income at 22 and haven't looked back since. I have a friend with a Masters degree who is working two part time jobs making less than $30k a year. There are no guarantees either way.

What business is it of yours how people stifle or nurture their own potential? How ridiculous is that? How does that have any standing on you and your life what others do or don't do with their gifts? I would've made a great porn star but I went a different route. Why is that important to you?

As far as committing crime, poor and uneducated people do not have a monopoly on such things. All you have to do is look at DC and State Capitals to see that.

Until you realize that you can't control other people, you're going to be that abused little boy. Your way doesn't work and always leads back to abuse.

 

[buckstopshere]

On the contrary. My parents were **** and that's why I know for a fact that parents aren't always right about raising their kids. I also know that how you raise your kids directly impacts how well or ****ty they do in society...so it directly benefits all of us to ensure nothing but the best for children...and I hate children, it's entirely for selfish reasons I think this.

Well, I'm living proof that you're wrong

 

[88GT]

Yes, because a website that is for the advocation of homeschooling would have absolutely no bias. There's no information from the school's perspective...it's just a circlejerk "hurr durr this family's child is supposedly ready for 3rd grade education and we think that totally validates that HOME SCHOOLING ROCKS DUDES!".

Well, if you can find a more mainstream media source that is covering the "state knows better" story, I'll be happy to read it.

Let's see how this all plays out when we get both sides of the story. My guess is if HSLDA loses they'll either post some "DEY TRAMPLING RIGHTS" headliner or they'll quietly sweep it under the rug. For all we know it's simply a matter of a test and same paperwork (which is how public schools do it nowadays) to do the grade skip and the process wasn't followed. Unless we're all OK with parents just randomly going "I'm making my 2 year old a senior in high school, because she's SOOO smart", right?

I believe the family "won."

But let's explore this notion that you think the state has some overarching authority to determine arbitrary grade level in which the student should be placed. If I understand your posts correctly, it's not okay for the parents to decide what grade level material to use, but it's okay for the state to decide? Is there some piece of information that suddenly makes your position NOT hypocritical and contradictory?

What if the family had complied with the state's demand to resubmit the paperwork with the grade level marked as "second" and continued to teach using "third" grade material?

What if the family doesn't use a curriculum that arbitrarily divides coursework up by grade? What makes a 2nd grader a 2nd grader anyway? Seems to me that all the second graders in all the public schools have but one thing in common: their age. Are you arguing that age is a better determinant for placement than ability?

The business has everything to do with the fact that uneducated people:

A) Are much more poor.

Or is it that the poor are less educated? Correlation can work both ways, but causation does not. Causation is the only thing that matters though.

B) More likely to commit crime.

Granted, but I don't see how that's relevant. Government schools are churning out scores more uneducated "graduates" than private or homeschools. So wouldn't the correlation be that government educated children are more likely to commit crimes. There's a correlation there. Should we toss government schools because of it?

C) A hindrance to their own potential.

Everybody is equally capable of hindering his own potential. Nothing new there. But again, since government schools are less successful at educating, shouldn't your ire be directed at them?

And no, I don't believe parents always know best. Why? Because I had **** parents who thought beating their kids and not feeding them because all of the money went to cigarettes and drugs were what was best.

And your solution is to strip parental rights from everybody so the government can screw up with all the children instead of just the ones who lost the parent lottery? It's not enough that you had to suffer?

So no, being a parent doesn't make you automagically a ****ing upstanding person who is "all knowing". It should make you realize your own shortcomings and that should prompt you to find ways around your shortcomings to give your kids the best chance. Being a parent doesn't make you a good parent and until we know both sides of the story we don't really know what's going on.

Do you have children?

And yes, I'm all for advocating setting limits on how ****ty parents can treat their children.

For the sake of addressing your point, those limits DO exist. But on a more philosophical level, who gets to decide what those limits are? Who gets to enforce them?

But I suppose years of being kicked and punched and thrown around at 3am wakeup calls has nerf'd my ability to live in a bubble where everything is nice and parents stay together because of a wooden cross on a wall and bits of gold metal on a finger.

I can see how growing up in an environment like that would create doubt, cynicism, and anger. But if we're going to get real and honest with each other, you should have enough integrity to admit that your argument that the world isn't perfect is equally applicable against you. Yes we get it: Just because Joe and Mary have it perfect, doesn't mean all married couples do. Likewise, just because streak's mom and dad were sad, lonely individuals who didn't know how to give their child(ren) the love and care they deserved doesn't mean other parents are equally abusive and neglectful. You have every right to be angry. But only at your parents. Your animosity to people who value marriage and parenting is misplaced and wrong. Perhaps it's time for you to recognize your own shortcomings and stop projecting your misery and anger onto everybody else. I didn't beat you. I didn't starve you. I didn't put myself before you. And I don't do that with my kids. Why are you angry at me for my choice to homeschool or my advocacy for it?

On the contrary. My parents were **** and that's why I know for a fact that parents aren't always right about raising their kids.

Can you define what is "right" and what is "wrong" in parenting? What criteria do we get to use?

I also know that how you raise your kids directly impacts how well or ****ty they do in society...so it directly benefits all of us to ensure nothing but the best for children...and I hate children, it's entirely for selfish reasons I think this.

I thought we were talking about education. Now you're talking about raising children for society in the general sense. Again, how do we define "best for the children?" Shoot, it doesn't even sound like you care about the children. It sounds like you want to hammer out little robots who become adults who behave the way you think they should behave. But back on topic: Do we get to use your standards or mine? The state's?

At the risk of sounding patronizing, I feel sad for you. First your parents screwed you over. Now you're screwing yourself over. And you want to take everybody else down Misery Lane with you it seems.

 

[Streak]

That sucks bro. I'm sorry you had a crappy childhood. That, unfortunately doesn't make you unique. I know exactly the abuse you're talking about. I know how the state works to remove you from the home. I also know what it's like to be on your own at 14 living with friends, sisters, cousins, anyone who would take you in or sleeping in the park at 16, walking to school early and showering in the locker room. But we have to rise above the way we were raised and let that stuff go. I'm a very good Husband and a very good Father to two girls. They will never have to go through what I did.

None of that changes the fact that you have no business in how parents decide to educate their children. None whatsoever. You don't get a say in what I decide to do for my kids.

I don't have a college degree and I barely graduated high school. I made a six figure income at 22 and haven't looked back since. I have a friend with a Masters degree who is working two part time jobs making less than $30k a year. There are no guarantees either way.

What business is it of yours how people stifle or nurture their own potential? How ridiculous is that? How does that have any standing on you and your life what others do or don't do with their gifts? I would've made a great porn star but I went a different route. Why is that important to you?

As far as committing crime, poor and uneducated people do not have a monopoly on such things. All you have to do is look at DC and State Capitals to see that.

Until you realize that you can't control other people, you're going to be that abused little boy. You're way doesn't work and always leads back to abuse.

The state didn't remove us because the state was never involved. It took a family member adopting 3 children to get us out of that situation. I'm not advocating stifling or nurturing anybody's right to do whatever they want to their own potential. I will, however, advocate their right to negatively impact ANOTHER'S potential. At no point did I say that homeschooling was bad. I did say that the source the OP gave was bull****, because it literally presented only one side and it has a very clear motivation to create a spin on a story. What I said is we don't know the situation.

I'm all for home education as long as meets or exceeds the standards set by the state.

It should be important to everyone when parents are being ****ty parents...children are not property, you don't get to own them. They're a resource which should be shaped to provide a positive and constructive interaction with the rest of society. It's my business (and truly everyone's business) because when you create a bad home for children and you raise them in an obviously wrong way it's highly likely those kids will have a negative effect on society. Most "career" criminals tend to have come from ****ty homes. That's why I am OK with being taxed for school. I don't like your kids. I think they're loud, obnoxious, little bags of snot and disease. They're also the future of our society and if there's one job that everyone has on this planet that job is to make sure each successive generation is BETTER than the previous generation.

That's our purpose. That's our job. That's what makes humanity great: we're always striving to improve. So send your kids to the best colleges, teach them at home, I don't ****ing care...I'll help pay for it...just make sure you're providing the MINIMUM that society says your children needs.

I'd much rather pay for a future doctor than a murderer.

 

[88GT]

I would've made a great porn star but I went a different route.

There's great potential for Printcraft in this thread now.

 

[buckstopshere]

Well, if you can find a more mainstream media source that is covering the "state knows better" story, I'll be happy to read it.


I believe the family "won."

But let's explore this notion that you think the state has some overarching authority to determine arbitrary grade level in which the student should be placed. If I understand your posts correctly, it's not okay for the parents to decide what grade level material to use, but it's okay for the state to decide? Is there some piece of information that suddenly makes your position NOT hypocritical and contradictory?

What if the family had complied with the state's demand to resubmit the paperwork with the grade level marked as "second" and continued to teach using "third" grade material?

What if the family doesn't use a curriculum that arbitrarily divides coursework up by grade? What makes a 2nd grader a 2nd grader anyway? Seems to me that all the second graders in all the public schools have but one thing in common: their age. Are you arguing that age is a better determinant for placement than ability?


Or is it that the poor are less educated? Correlation can work both ways, but causation does not. Causation is the only thing that matters though.


Granted, but I don't see how that's relevant. Government schools are churning out scores more uneducated "graduates" than private or homeschools. So wouldn't the correlation be that government educated children are more likely to commit crimes. There's a correlation there. Should we toss government schools because of it?


Everybody is equally capable of hindering his own potential. Nothing new there. But again, since government schools are less successful at educating, shouldn't your ire be directed at them?


And your solution is to strip parental rights from everybody so the government can screw up with all the children instead of just the ones who lost the parent lottery? It's not enough that you had to suffer?


Do you have children?


For the sake of addressing your point, those limits DO exist. But on a more philosophical level, who gets to decide what those limits are? Who gets to enforce them?


I can see how growing up in an environment like that would create doubt, cynicism, and anger. But if we're going to get real and honest with each other, you should have enough integrity to admit that your argument that the world isn't perfect is equally applicable against you. Yes we get it: Just because Joe and Mary have it perfect, doesn't mean all married couples do. Likewise, just because streak's mom and dad were sad, lonely individuals who didn't know how to give their child(ren) the love and care they deserved doesn't mean other parents are equally abusive and neglectful. You have every right to be angry. But only at your parents. Your animosity to people who value marriage and parenting is misplaced and wrong. Perhaps it's time for you to recognize your own shortcomings and stop projecting your misery and anger onto everybody else. I didn't beat you. I didn't starve you. I didn't put myself before you. And I don't do that with my kids. Why are you angry at me for my choice to homeschool or my advocacy for it?


Can you define what is "right" and what is "wrong" in parenting? What criteria do we get to use?


I thought we were talking about education. Now you're talking about raising children for society in the general sense. Again, how do we define "best for the children?" Shoot, it doesn't even sound like you care about the children. It sounds like you want to hammer out little robots who become adults who behave the way you think they should behave. But back on topic: Do we get to use your standards or mine? The state's?

At the risk of sounding patronizing, I feel sad for you. First your parents screwed you over. Now you're screwing yourself over. And you want to take everybody else down Misery Lane with you it seems.

I can't rep you again yet til next year so I grant you 1 million internetz

 

[88GT]

That's our purpose. That's our job. That's what makes humanity great: we're always striving to improve. So send your kids to the best colleges, teach them at home, I don't ****ing care...I'll help pay for it...just make sure you're providing the MINIMUM that society says your children needs.

Sure, just as soon as you can define that minimum.

 

[HoughMade]

"Society" demands the minimum....or less.

A little bit of exposure to dedicated home-schoolers would reveal that the average home-schooler has much higher standards than "society."

...but whatever. I'll raise my kids how I prefer and if you have any questions about my commitment to quality education, I'll compare Curriculum Vitae whenever you like.

 

[buckstopshere]

The state didn't remove us because the state was never involved. It took a family member adopting 3 children to get us out of that situation. I'm not advocating stifling or nurturing anybody's right to do whatever they want to their own potential. I will, however, advocate their right to negatively impact ANOTHER'S potential. At no point did I say that homeschooling was bad. I did say that the source the OP gave was bull****, because it literally presented only one side and it has a very clear motivation to create a spin on a story. What I said is we don't know the situation.

I'm all for home education as long as meets or exceeds the standards set by the state.

It should be important to everyone when parents are being ****ty parents...children are not property, you don't get to own them. They're a resource which should be shaped to provide a positive and constructive interaction with the rest of society. It's my business (and truly everyone's business) because when you create a bad home for children and you raise them in an obviously wrong way it's highly likely those kids will have a negative effect on society. Most "career" criminals tend to have come from ****ty homes. That's why I am OK with being taxed for school. I don't like your kids. I think they're loud, obnoxious, little bags of snot and disease. They're also the future of our society and if there's one job that everyone has on this planet that job is to make sure each successive generation is BETTER than the previous generation.

That's our purpose. That's our job. That's what makes humanity great: we're always striving to improve. So send your kids to the best colleges, teach them at home, I don't ****ing care...I'll help pay for it...just make sure you're providing the MINIMUM that society says your children needs.

I'd much rather pay for a future doctor than a murderer.

My kids are neither snotty, obnoxious or loud but I do not care if you like them or not. And as far as my kids are concerned, Society's expectations are completely irrelevant. My expectations and their mother's expectation are.

There's great potential for Printcraft in this thread now.

There's always potential for Printcraft.......

 

[88GT]

There's always potential for Printcraft.......

Maybe fodder would have been a better word choice.

 

[Streak]

Well, if you can find a more mainstream media source that is covering the "state knows better" story, I'll be happy to read it.

That's not my prerogative nor my problem. A biased source is a biased source and just because you can't find anyone else who'll pick up the story doesn't invalidate your source as being bull****.

I believe the family "won."

Not in the way the website is spinning this "story"

Here is the case law

Because our decision rests on G. L. c. 76, § 1, as interpreted in Care & Protection of Charles, 399 Mass. 324 (1987), there is no need to consider the several arguments made by the plaintiffs under the Massachusetts Constitution. We also need not address their argument that the requirement is a disguised effort to perform unwarranted teacher evaluations. The judgment is vacated. A new judgment is to be entered declaring that the school committee of Lynn and other school officials cannot, in the absence of consent, require home visits, as a condition to the approval of the plaintiffs' home education plans, and that, if those plans continue to comply with the standards for home education, they are to be approved.


The lawsuit was about the state requiring a home visit to determine if a home education plan was acceptable. The Supreme Court threw that out, however it does stipulate that there are still standards and there still needs to be approval of a plan. It's starting to sound like there was a hell of a lot more of a back story to this that your source conveniently didn't publish.

But let's explore this notion that you think the state has some overarching authority to determine arbitrary grade level in which the student should be placed. If I understand your posts correctly, it's not okay for the parents to decide what grade level material to use, but it's okay for the state to decide? Is there some piece of information that suddenly makes your position NOT hypocritical and contradictory?

Yes. The state is made up of multiple people and the academia bodies are generally made up of those who understand teaching, education, and the minimum standards by which society wants children to be educated. Or are you OK if a parent just decides to not give a **** about their kid and graduate the kid at the age of 3 for being a "genius"?

What if the family had complied with the state's demand to resubmit the paperwork with the grade level marked as "second" and continued to teach using "third" grade material?

The state was demanding a home visit.

What if the family doesn't use a curriculum that arbitrarily divides coursework up by grade? What makes a 2nd grader a 2nd grader anyway? Seems to me that all the second graders in all the public schools have but one thing in common: their age. Are you arguing that age is a better determinant for placement than ability?

Hardly. Public schools have standards by which they can pass children on...and I'll be the first to admit that ****ty educators sometimes creep in and stop the filtering. Public schools get their requirements from the state and the state works with academia leaders to figure out and plan the levels of education needed to provide the children with the necessary skills for adulthood and further education. It's certainly not perfect and sometimes I wonder if it could be made more challenging. But there is actual thought and work involved in determining what makes a "2nd grader" a "2nd grader".

Or is it that the poor are less educated? Correlation can work both ways, but causation does not. Causation is the only thing that matters though.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here???

Granted, but I don't see how that's relevant. Government schools are churning out scores more uneducated "graduates" than private or homeschools. So wouldn't the correlation be that government educated children are more likely to commit crimes. There's a correlation there. Should we toss government schools because of it?

Uneducated how? I'll be the first to admit that the American education system could use some vast improvements. But the other countries which are generally regarded as "better educated" have public schools themselves...I fail to see how "government education" has negative effects simply because it's done by the government. Also you just said causation is the only thing that matters -- try to use your own rules.

Everybody is equally capable of hindering his own potential. Nothing new there. But again, since government schools are less successful at educating, shouldn't your ire be directed at them?

Based on...?????? Ah, did a private institution teach you that it's OK to make a claim and then not back it up with any sources? Or was it a government school? Either way you clearly don't have anything to back up your claims.

And your solution is to strip parental rights from everybody so the government can screw up with all the children instead of just the ones who lost the parent lottery? It's not enough that you had to suffer?

Parents don't have a right to be ****ty parents.

Do you have children?

No and I never will. I had horribly ****ty parents, however, and I know for a fact that parents don't always know what is "best".

For the sake of addressing your point, those limits DO exist. But on a more philosophical level, who gets to decide what those limits are? Who gets to enforce them?

Society and the government that society elected to represent the views of said society.

I can see how growing up in an environment like that would create doubt, cynicism, and anger. But if we're going to get real and honest with each other, you should have enough integrity to admit that your argument that the world isn't perfect is equally applicable against you. Yes we get it: Just because Joe and Mary have it perfect, doesn't mean all married couples do. Likewise, just because streak's mom and dad were sad, lonely individuals who didn't know how to give their child(ren) the love and care they deserved doesn't mean other parents are equally abusive and neglectful. You have every right to be angry. But only at your parents. Your animosity to people who value marriage and parenting is misplaced and wrong. Perhaps it's time for you to recognize your own shortcomings and stop projecting your misery and anger onto everybody else. I didn't beat you. I didn't starve you. I didn't put myself before you. And I don't do that with my kids. Why are you angry at me for my choice to homeschool or my advocacy for it?

I'm angry, that is true, but that anger doesn't drive this debate. The fact is that there are ****ty parents out there. Society owes it to all children in the society to protect and ensure they have the best -- even if that means override some parent's ****ty ideas.

I have no problem with homeschooling. I don't believe "government education" is inherently bad or ****tier than homeschooling. I believe it depends highly upon the educator and we have a duty to ensure that the educators are providing a GOOD, QUALITY education. Sometimes that means teaching things like math or science and if you're homeschooling you should be held to the same minimal standards as public educators, but I fully agree and believe that you should be able to go beyond those standards as you wish.

This article had more to do with the school trying to review the standards by doing a home visit. The court dropped that **** like a hot coal, but the basic principle of what I am saying was upheld.

Can you define what is "right" and what is "wrong" in parenting? What criteria do we get to use?

No, I can't. I'm not qualified, but there are people that are qualified and they're generally the people like courts, CPS, etc.

I thought we were talking about education. Now you're talking about raising children for society in the general sense. Again, how do we define "best for the children?" Shoot, it doesn't even sound like you care about the children. It sounds like you want to hammer out little robots who become adults who behave the way you think they should behave. But back on topic: Do we get to use your standards or mine? The state's?

I'll admit it, I hate children. I don't believe in hammering out robots, I believe in hammering out intelligence, creative, productive adults who are smarter, more creative, and more productive than I was at whatever necessary cost. Why? Because that's what betters society.

At the risk of sounding patronizing, I feel sad for you. First your parents screwed you over. Now you're screwing yourself over. And you want to take everybody else down Misery Lane with you it seems.

I'm unsure why you suddenly feel the need to pity a stranger over the internet. My life is not on the whole a bad thing, it just is. I'm not "miserable" by any means. I'm angry at my parents for being ****ty, abusive, unsupportive parents. That doesn't excuse any of my shortcomings or mistakes that I've made. I have zero intentions of going down any "lane" and my entire point was that parents don't always know what is best for children. The children shouldn't suffer for it because "parent rights". Parents have rights, but they should be monitored to ensure they're doing at least the minimal level of job required to raise a child appropriately. I also believe it's society's duty and in society's best interest to help out (whether that be financially or otherwise) to ensure that child has the best possible chance at realizing their full potential.

 

[Hohn]

It's very clear that Streak carries a lot of hurt around as a result of the traumatic childhood experiences. Unfortunately, that hurt turns into anger. The strength of that emotion obviously clouds his judgment. Not because he's a bad person, but because he's human. Any one of us who finds ourselves with passions excited is NOT thinking rationally.


I think it's foolhardy to outsource the definition of educational excellence (i.e. setting standards) to an agency-- the State-- that has proven to be so incredibly inept at achieving the desired excellence.

That would be like saying you want to put McDonald's in charge of defining what "good" food is.

One of the many flaws in Streak's reasoning is that he is conflating the interest in education with the interest in raising virtuous children. There are plenty of relatively uneducated, low-income people that serve society well. They coach kids sports teams. The volunteer in civic organizations. They take in "problem" children.

Society benefits economically from having children be more educated. But the high costs of people that lack virtue are go far beyond a simple education/income aspect.

Education does not produce "better" people. And expecting a public school system increasing bent on social engineering (raising them with the values of the State) to do that is foolhardy. The State not only fails to educate in mind, but many times in morals that contravene those held closely by significant numbers of people.

Theodore Roosevelt said that educating someone in mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society. I think he's right.

I think we'd all rather pay to educate a doctor than a murderer-- is there any basis upon which to believe we can choose?


It sounds to me like Streak needs to find a good counselor and start working through his PTSD before it takes away the rest of his life.

The state didn't remove us because the state was never involved. It took a family member adopting 3 children to get us out of that situation. I'm not advocating stifling or nurturing anybody's right to do whatever they want to their own potential. I will, however, advocate their right to negatively impact ANOTHER'S potential. At no point did I say that homeschooling was bad. I did say that the source the OP gave was bull****, because it literally presented only one side and it has a very clear motivation to create a spin on a story. What I said is we don't know the situation.

I'm all for home education as long as meets or exceeds the standards set by the state.

It should be important to everyone when parents are being ****ty parents...children are not property, you don't get to own them. They're a resource which should be shaped to provide a positive and constructive interaction with the rest of society. It's my business (and truly everyone's business) because when you create a bad home for children and you raise them in an obviously wrong way it's highly likely those kids will have a negative effect on society. Most "career" criminals tend to have come from ****ty homes. That's why I am OK with being taxed for school. I don't like your kids. I think they're loud, obnoxious, little bags of snot and disease. They're also the future of our society and if there's one job that everyone has on this planet that job is to make sure each successive generation is BETTER than the previous generation.

That's our purpose. That's our job. That's what makes humanity great: we're always striving to improve. So send your kids to the best colleges, teach them at home, I don't ****ing care...I'll help pay for it...just make sure you're providing the MINIMUM that society says your children needs.

I'd much rather pay for a future doctor than a murderer.

 

[buckstopshere]

Maybe fodder would have been a better word choice.

Win!

 

[Streak]

It sounds to me like Streak needs to find a good counselor and start working through his PTSD before it takes away the rest of his life.

It sounds like to me that you should present your license before you start giving out advice that would cost me money. I also think it's disrespectful to those who have PTSD that you'd go around insinuating that because I have different beliefs that I'm somehow "damaged".

The rest of your comment won't be addressed, perhaps you should talk to your psychological licensing board and have them re-review your license to provide psych treatment over the internet, Dr. Phil.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yes, because a website that is for the advocation of homeschooling would have absolutely no bias. There's no information from the school's perspective...it's just a circlejerk "hurr durr this family's child is supposedly ready for 3rd grade education and we think that totally validates that HOME SCHOOLING ROCKS DUDES!".

Let's see how this all plays out when we get both sides of the story. My guess is if HSLDA loses they'll either post some "DEY TRAMPLING RIGHTS" headliner or they'll quietly sweep it under the rug. For all we know it's simply a matter of a test and same paperwork (which is how public schools do it nowadays) to do the grade skip and the process wasn't followed. Unless we're all OK with parents just randomly going "I'm making my 2 year old a senior in high school, because she's SOOO smart", right?

TL;DR: Biased website is biased, no real information given, bull**** headliners are bull****. You get an A for effort. Here's a sticker

I bet they are less biased than the public schools sputum that they foist upon the public on a daily basis talking about how much money they need to teach our children how to be good little slaves.

 

[jamil]

Yes, because a website that is for the advocation of homeschooling would have absolutely no bias. There's no information from the school's perspective...it's just a circlejerk "hurr durr this family's child is supposedly ready for 3rd grade education and we think that totally validates that HOME SCHOOLING ROCKS DUDES!".

You are biased. I am biased. Homeschoolers are biased. "Believers" are biased. "Nonbelievers" are biased. Global warming alarmists are biased. Global warming skeptics are biased. NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/FOX/Breitbart/Huffpo/NYTimes/WaPo are biased. Democrats are biased. Republicans are biased. Libertarians are biased. We ARE ALL biased. Everyone will tend to present their own biased viewpoint in the best possible light, even if they pretend to fairly represent the opposing view. The thought that people can consistently overcome the natural instinct to self preservation is absurd, though occasionally you might find random acts of actual journalism eek through the swill of self interest.

For example, your desire to dig into this story deeper comes from your desire to prove that your own biased opinion is true, whatever that is. Are you fully representing the opposing view in your research? Or are you presenting mostly the things that back your argument? That's a rhetorical question. No need to answer.

The business has everything to do with the fact that uneducated people:

A) Are much more poor.
B) More likely to commit crime.
C) A hindrance to their own potential.

And no, I don't believe parents always know best. Why? Because I had **** parents who thought beating their kids and not feeding them because all of the money went to cigarettes and drugs were what was best.

So no, being a parent doesn't make you automagically a ****ing upstanding person who is "all knowing". It should make you realize your own shortcomings and that should prompt you to find ways around your shortcomings to give your kids the best chance. Being a parent doesn't make you a good parent and until we know both sides of the story we don't really know what's going on.

And yes, I'm all for advocating setting limits on how ****ty parents can treat their children. But I suppose years of being kicked and punched and thrown around at 3am wakeup calls has nerf'd my ability to live in a bubble where everything is nice and parents stay together because of a wooden cross on a wall and bits of gold metal on a finger.

I'm sorry you had a ****ty childhood. I did too, but not in the same way you did. But because you went through what you did, you have a source of strength not many other people have. That doesn't make what you went through worth it. If you make use of that strength at least you can get something out of your ****ty experience.

On the contrary. My parents were **** and that's why I know for a fact that parents aren't always right about raising their kids. I also know that how you raise your kids directly impacts how well or ****ty they do in society...so it directly benefits all of us to ensure nothing but the best for children...and I hate children, it's entirely for selfish reasons I think this.

There are a lot of ****ty parents out there. But you're stuck in that collective Star Trek fantasy thinking "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". That society's needs are more important than individual needs is absolute bull****. There is indeed no such thing as a society outside of the individuals and families that comprise it. Society is not more important than my family to me. It is my natural right to put them above you or anyone else.

I'm all for home education as long as meets or exceeds the standards set by the state.

I suspect that there are still more adequate parents out there than ****ty ones. So why do we need to place ANY limitations the majority for the sake of the minority? It should not be parents responsibility to prove to the state that their kids education meets some arbitrary standard, especially when they regularly fail those standards themselves. There is already a closed loop system that tends to self regulate.

It should be important to everyone when parents are being ****ty parents...children are not property, you don't get to own them. They're a resource which should be shaped to provide a positive and constructive interaction with the rest of society. It's my business (and truly everyone's business) because when you create a bad home for children and you raise them in an obviously wrong way it's highly likely those kids will have a negative effect on society. Most "career" criminals tend to have come from ****ty homes.

Ok, really hard to ignore all the collective **** again, but let me ask, having a ****ty childhood with ****ty parents, do you have a negative effect on society? Are you a career criminal? I suspect that you're not. I will not argue hat kids who come from families who don't instill value of life into their kids, would not tend to be on the wrong side of the law. But there's a root cause to bad parenting. Fixing that is much more beneficial to society than doing all the collectivist **** that collectivists do. Keep giving them welfare, pay them to have kids with no consequences, and you'll continue to exacerbate the problem.

That's why I am OK with being taxed for school. I don't like your kids. I think they're loud, obnoxious, little bags of snot and disease. They're also the future of our society and if there's one job that everyone has on this planet that job is to make sure each successive generation is BETTER than the previous generation.

That's our purpose. That's our job. That's what makes humanity great: we're always striving to improve. So send your kids to the best colleges, teach them at home, I don't ****ing care...I'll help pay for it...just make sure you're providing the MINIMUM that society says your children needs.

I'd much rather pay for a future doctor than a murderer.

I'm sorry but this is the most creepy glob of collectivist bull**** I think I've heard since I last read a blog on Huffington Post.

I'm a boomer. MY generation is the generation after the WWII generation. We certainly are not better than them. The generation after mine is not better than mine. The generation after that isn't better, and so on. They aren't getting better. But in our world of bias and spin, you won't see the effects of entropy unless you've experienced it. Though some things have gotten better from generation to generation, generally each generation has gotten worse overall through societal entropy.

Striving to improve is not what we do. Self preservation is our uttermost instinct. We strive to survive, and in so doing, we have built a knowledge base such that each generation builds upon the knowledge of the last. The very fruits of all that knowledge is social entropy. All that "enlightenment" crap they filled your head with in school is all bull****. It does not jibe with the reality I've experience. Social entropy does. Our founding fathers laid a framework that acknowledges our true nature, self preservation. But we're no longer using it.

Parents don't have a right to be ****ty parents.

Yes they do. Non-****ty parents, neighbors, friends, family, have a responsibility to step in and do something about it. But to say that this job is best left to government agencies, who don't know what's really going on, don't really have the child's best interest at heart, is something I completely disagree with. I've experienced first hand as a child living as a ward of the state. They don't give a **** about individuals. With some exceptions, they generally give the most **** about the power they have over families. Do you know why? Because like everyone else, people who work for the government are individuals whose uttermost instinct is self preservation. Government employees have no better immunity to human nature than people who don't work for government. They can be and often are, ****ty too.

I'm angry, that is true, but that anger doesn't drive this debate. The fact is that there are ****ty parents out there. Society owes it to all children in the society to protect and ensure they have the best -- even if that means override some parent's ****ty ideas.

Society owes you or anyone NOTHING. Society is you, me, my family, your family, John next door, Sue down the street, my boss, your boss, Printcraft and Buckstopshere, and 88GT, and GFGT, and all the other INGOers, and all the other individuals and families in our cities, states, and the US. I'll let you off the hook right now. You don't owe me anything. None of you, collectively, owe me or my family anything. I don't owe any of you or your families anything. Society isn't a singular entity. There's no such thing. There are only individuals and families.

I'll admit it, I hate children. I don't believe in hammering out robots, I believe in hammering out intelligence, creative, productive adults who are smarter, more creative, and more productive than I was at whatever necessary cost. Why? Because that's what betters society.

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but our education, particularly PUBLIC education is getting worse. Educating by LCD isn't working.

I'm unsure why you suddenly feel the need to pity a stranger over the internet. My life is not on the whole a bad thing, it just is. I'm not "miserable" by any means. I'm angry at my parents for being ****ty, abusive, unsupportive parents. That doesn't excuse any of my shortcomings or mistakes that I've made. I have zero intentions of going down any "lane" and my entire point was that parents don't always know what is best for children. The children shouldn't suffer for it because "parent rights". Parents have rights, but they should be monitored to ensure they're doing at least the minimal level of job required to raise a child appropriately. I also believe it's society's duty and in society's best interest to help out (whether that be financially or otherwise) to ensure that child has the best possible chance at realizing their full potential.

You put it out there. People are just responding. Ok, so your parents were ****ty. Some people suck worse than others. Those are the breaks. If you're not a criminal, and you're making something of yourself, screw it man, move on.

 

[88GT]

Let me see if I understand this correctly: Someone who hates children not only has their best interests at hearts, but knows exactly what that is for each and every one of them and can do it better than the parents who love them. Why didn't I see it before?