Only in California?

[Paul Stevens]

Where else will this crop up. Is this just a payoff to the teachers unions or just stupidity.

[Jason Menard]

That's insane. Home schooled kids generally score higher on standardized tests so they have no leg to stand on.

[Thomas Paul]

It's the liberal viewpoint. No parent can possibly care for their child as well as the state can.

[Michael Ernest]

Liberal viewpoint? Excuse me? The federal act California's Dept of Edication is trying to apply was signed by which president?

[Shura Balaganov]

I would think kids with home schooling grow up a little intraverted?
Shura

[Paul Stevens]

Apply or warp? It is all about the money. If the kid is registered, the school gets $$$$. If not, no money. They could care less whether the parents are giving a better education or not.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Liberal viewpoint? Excuse me? The federal act California's Dept of Edication is trying to apply was signed by which president?

The act was signed by the sitting president. From the US Dept of Education:

On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The Act is the most sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since ESEA was enacted in 1965. It redefines the federal role in K-12 education and will help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. It is based on four basic principles: stronger accountability for results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work.

For those who haven't actually looked into this act, one thing it does is to give more control to the states. So the state saying they are trying to fulfill the requirements of this act when it comes to home schooling is laughable. Additionally, the FAQ very clearly references home schooling:

What if I want to home school my child? Does the new law require tests at home?

Nothing in the No Child Left Behind Act affects a home school or permits any Federal control over any aspect of a home school, whether that home school is treated as a home school or a private school under state law. Students who are home-schooled are not required to take any test referenced in the law.

This act is very clearly being used to further a liberal agenda, and its intent perverted. California is way off base, but the rest of the country has learned to expect such things by now. :roll:
More info is available at No Child Left Behind.

[Robert Paris]

All the home-schooled people I knew were considered weird and awkward only when we were in high school. When I met them (in college) they were among the most intelligent and articulate people in the school. Granted some were still weird, but I've met plenty of maladjusted people who were NOT home schooled.
The only problem I have with usual home schooling is that it does make it harder (not impossible) for the children to make friends their own age. However, for me, high school was the worst 4 years of my life, primarily because of the immaturity, viciousness and lack of intelligent conversation by my class mates. Only when I went to college did I find other people who would rather have discussions in an intelligent manner than sit around and belittle others all day. Of course, booze and drugs were way too widely used.

[Robert Paris]

uh, by the way. I believe you're all mis-reading Thomas Paul's comment. He says:

It's the liberal viewpoint. No parent can possibly care for their child as well as the state can.

You'll notice that the second sentence is a negation; it is negating the first sentence.
So what he means is:
It's the liberal viewpoint that home-schooling your children is more beneficial than attending public or private school. No parent can possibly care for their child as well as the state can.
(Or at least that's what I think he means )

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Robert Paris:

It's the liberal viewpoint that home-schooling your children is more beneficial than attending public or private school. No parent can possibly care for their child as well as the state can.
(Or at least that's what I think he means )

It's the conservative viewpoint that public schooling is dying, if not already dead. The liberal viewpoint is indeed that state-run schooling assures a more general education. It's conservatives who want the state to pay for education their children get elsehwere, under the premise that they shouldn't have to pay for a service they're not using.
Jason, I don't know how you can possibly say on the one hand this act gives the states more power and and the other that California is perverting the intent of this bill. This kind of power is not a federal subsidy, to be spent as directed by some stern parent. It's discretion! When the federal government wants to dictate policy to the states, it does it with money, not discretion.
That said, this ploy seems more like a really dull-witted money grab. No one who is well-read on the requirements of home schooling is going to bite.

[Jason Menard]

The intent of the bill was not to allow states to to use this power in order to deprive parents of their right to homeschool their children. Like you said, and we all seem to agree, much of it comes down to money.
ME: It's conservatives who want the state to pay for education their children get elsehwere, under the premise that they shouldn't have to pay for a service they're not using.
I believe you are talking about school vouchers, the purpose of which is to "redirect the flow of education funding, channeling it directly to individual families rather than to school districts." Yes, this is generally considered a conservative cause, but then again any time you are talking about diverting money from the government back to the people, it sure isn't a liberal cause.
But the whole school voucher issue can't really be broken evenly among liberal and conservative lines. For example, according to a poll taken by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington-based think tank devoted to black issues, support in the black community for vouchers is 57.3%, with 86.5% support among blacks aged 26-35, the age group most likely to be affected by school vouchers.
I would agree with you that many of our public schools are in trouble (at least according to conservatives). Underpaid teachers would be one prime cause IMHO. If teachers were paid paid as valued members of society, and treated as such, then a higher quality candidate would be attracted to the ranks of teaching, on average. Of course there is also the fact that in our current litigious society, educators are no longer allowed to maintain discipline in their classrooms, classes are generally taught to the lowest common denominator, and as a result of these things, the majority's education is disrupted to serve the minority. And how many parents do you think are actual partners with the educators in their child's education? It seems all too often to be an adversarial relationship. This is not to mention the newer touchy-feely curricula and teaching methods being used so that, according to liberal groups like the NEA, we don't damage our kids' self-esteem.

[Paul Stevens]

The whole schooling issue is a money grab. The NEA doesn't want alternatives because it will cost jobs if kids are educated at home or a non-union school. Everything else is just rhetoric. The NEA doesn't care about educating kids. They care about keeping union jobs.
The liberal viewpoint is that the NEA helps elect liberals so what they want is what the liberals want. It is also that if we would just spend more money they would succeed. If it really was about educating kids they wouldn't take the positions they do.
The conservative view is not what Michael is saying. It is that parents in failing schools should be able to send kids to a school that will educate them.
But let's face it some kids do not want to get educated.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
It's conservatives who want the state to pay for education their children get elsehwere, under the premise that they shouldn't have to pay for a service they're not using.

Not really. The conservative viewpoint is that competition is good. When public schools have to compete for education dollars it makes all schools better.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Liberal viewpoint? Excuse me? The federal act California's Dept of Edication is trying to apply was signed by which president?

Tell me, you misspelled "education" on purpose, right?
But to be clear, California is claiming that the reason they are stomping on parents who home school is that bill but there is nothing in the bill that says what California is claiming it says. Ask yourself this question, if California is correct in their interpretation then why are they the only state going after home schoolers?

[Rob Ross]

One important point that no one seems to have mentioned here is that not everyone makes a good teacher, whether you are a parent or you actually went to school and got a degree so you can teach.
I think home-schooling is pretty hit&miss. If you're lucky, your parents/guardians will do a good job preparing you for college; if you're not as lucky, they will have left you with a significant disadvantage in life.
I don't have a problem with some standardized way of accrediting people to certify them as good teachers. This can apply to parents who want to home-school their kids as well. I don't have an issue with home schooling per se, but there does need to be some oversight by the state to ensure each child is getting a baseline education.

[Paul Stevens]

by Michael in another thread
Choice is good; choice always favors the consumer, in competition over quality, price, features, you name it.

Explain why choice in this situation is bad?

[Paul Stevens]

Rob,
Try to put testing to teachers and see if they will buy off on it. Every time that issue comes up anywhere in the country the unions cry foul.