• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Home-schooler ordered to attend public school

But why?

If for arguments sake, nothing changes except the location of where the student is being educated, then what purpose does it serve?

The judge hasn't made a relevant case of why she should be forced to go to a government school.



Based on the judge's comments, he does sound biased.
 
But why?

If for arguments sake, nothing changes except the location of where the student is being educated, then what purpose does it serve?

The judge hasn't made a relevant case of why she should be forced to go to a government school.

The guardian the court appointed did not agree that only the location of where the student is being educated would change.
 
The guardian the court appointed did not agree that only the location of where the student is being educated would change.

The guardian nor the judge has not brought forth any evidence that she is being abused or her education is being neglected.

As for her religious teaching, I'll admit it is a bit rigid but do you really think that will end because she is in a government school?

What about the constitutional rights of freedom of association and freedom of religion?
 
There is a built in bias with most peopl, I know I used to have it.

I used to say all the cliche crap about socialization and all that jazz but it is simply an unfounded prejudice.

You and I have debated this before...I do not agree that the socialization stuff is unfounded prejudice. However, in the case at hand, it seems that the court took a parental custody situation as more important in determining the education of the child than the child's education. If there was evidence that the child's education was being negatively effected by the home-schooling provided, then I'm not so certain I agree with this decision...just based on religious bias. I agree that each parent should have equal say in the matter, but the welfare of the child should come first. Changing one's educational situation can be detrimental to that child, emotionally.
 
There is a built in bias with most people, I know I used to have it.

I used to say all the cliche crap about socialization and all that jazz but it is simply an unfounded prejudice.
The socialization they receive is with immature, disrespectful young people, for the most part, who have grown up with a huge sense of entitlement, weaned on online porn, think blowjobs are no more than heavy petting, and that their parents are the biggest idiots on the face of the Earth...
 
The socialization they receive is with immature, disrespectful young people, for the most part, who have grown up with a huge sense of entitlement, weaned on online porn, think blowjobs are no more than heavy petting, and that their parents are the biggest idiots on the face of the Earth...


By and large, you are not far wrong...
 
The socialization they receive is with immature, disrespectful young people, for the most part, who have grown up with a huge sense of entitlement, weaned on online porn, think blowjobs are no more than heavy petting, and that their parents are the biggest idiots on the face of the Earth...

It's nice to see that you know how to make an unfounded overgeneralization. Do you have any evidence of your assertion?
 
You and I have debated this before...I do not agree that the socialization stuff is unfounded prejudice. However, in the case at hand, it seems that the court took a parental custody situation as more important in determining the education of the child than the child's education. If there was evidence that the child's education was being negatively effected by the home-schooling provided, then I'm not so certain I agree with this decision...just based on religious bias. I agree that each parent should have equal say in the matter, but the welfare of the child should come first. Changing one's educational situation can be detrimental to that child, emotionally.

"The course load, except for the Bible study, is similar to what public students get and the mother's home schooling has "more than kept up with the academic requirements of the [local] school system," the judge's statement said."

From the story, the judge has said that her education has kept up with that of the school.

The judge decided this on, "The child would "be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior," it added."

That is totally subjective.
 
It's nice to see that you know how to make an unfounded overgeneralization. Do you have any evidence of your assertion?

Well, I'd share my doctrinal thesis, but I'd prefer to stay anonymous here...

:rofl
 
The socialization they receive is with immature, disrespectful young people, for the most part, who have grown up with a huge sense of entitlement, weaned on online porn, think blowjobs are no more than heavy petting, and that their parents are the biggest idiots on the face of the Earth...

As a proud indulger in such vice, I can't help but wonder why I hated school, then. :(
 
It's nice to see that you know how to make an unfounded overgeneralization. Do you have any evidence of your assertion?


Cap, I have a kid in public school. Now I know that public schools vary considerably, but in my personal experience it's like I said: he may not be exactly right, but he isn't far wrong. Half the kids my son goes to school with seem to be vying for the yearbook title "Most Likely To Die In Prison".
 
Last edited:
"The course load, except for the Bible study, is similar to what public students get and the mother's home schooling has "more than kept up with the academic requirements of the [local] school system," the judge's statement said."

From the story, the judge has said that her education has kept up with that of the school.

The judge decided this on, "The child would "be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior," it added."

That is totally subjective.

And guess what, Harry. As much as I am an anti-advocate for home-schooling, in this particular situation, I agree with you completely. The child should remain in the home-schooling environment that she has been in. There is no reason to change it, other than bias...and some of it seems religious in nature. The court seems to be considering making things fair for the parents over the best situation for the child. I disagree with that course of action.
 
Well, I'd share my doctrinal thesis, but I'd prefer to stay anonymous here...

:rofl

And I'd share my 20+ years of experience with situations like this, but I'd prefer the same. :2razz:
 
Cap, I have a kid in public school. Now I know that public schools vary considerably, but in my personal experience it's like I said: he may not be exactly right, but he isn't far wrong. Half the kids my son goes to school with seem to be vying for the yearbook title "Most Likely To Die In Prison".

I work and have worked with hundreds from public schools. Your example is the vast, vast, vast minority of students. It's an unfounded overgeneralization. Just like the one that says that all/most home schooled kids are freaks and completely socially awkward.
 
And guess what, Harry. As much as I am an anti-advocate for home-schooling, in this particular situation, I agree with you completely. The child should remain in the home-schooling environment that she has been in. There is no reason to change it, other than bias...and some of it seems religious in nature. The court seems to be considering making things fair for the parents over the best situation for the child. I disagree with that course of action.

I, generally, disagree with rigid religious instruction combined with education.

Whats your particular beef with non public schooling really though?
 
And the person who started the unschooling movement (a significant component of the homeschooling movement as a whole), was a former teacher who interacted with thousands of students. ;)

Like I said. MINE is better. :2razz:
 
I work and have worked with hundreds from public schools. Your example is the vast, vast, vast minority of students. It's an unfounded overgeneralization. Just like the one that says that all/most home schooled kids are freaks and completely socially awkward.


Minority, yes. Vast-et-al super-tiny minority as you suggest....well that has not been my experience, either as a student thirty years ago or as a parent today.

A nearby small city has recently had to enact a 10pm curfew against all persons under 18. The reason being, thousands of teens were congregating downtown at night and staying there until the wee small hours, and there were fights, vandalism, theft and miscellanous mayhem to a degree the city council found quite alarming.

There is plenty of other evidence that "all is not well" with a significant minority of modern teens.

Granted, every generation in history seems to think their successor generation is worse than they were, and some of that is probably perception... but I think that there is merit in the argument that the past 40 years has seen a substantial and significant decline in respect, manners, morals, ethics, obedience to the law, and so forth with each succeeding generation. From what I've seen I think it is all but inarguable...but if there is concrete evidence that it is not so, I'd be pleased to be proven wrong.
 
A nearby small city has recently had to enact a 10pm curfew against all persons under 18. The reason being, thousands of teens were congregating downtown at night and staying there until the wee small hours, and there were fights, vandalism, theft and miscellanous mayhem to a degree the city council found quite alarming.

Considering the likely unconstitutional nature of curfews, you'll have to understand that many will not welcome that as a positive sign of beneficial policies. This is underscored by the lack of support for the premise that youth curfews play any significant role in crime reduction in the available empirical literature, as illustrated in Males and Macallair's An Analysis of Curfew Enforcement and Juvenile Crime in California.

In recent years cities and localities across the country have expanded the use of youth curfews to address growing public concern about juvenile crime and violence. By reducing the number of youth on the street during certain hours, curfews are assumed to lower the risk factors associated with youth crime. Curfews have been widely cited by policy makers as an effective tool for reducing youth crime. However, no comprehensive analysis of the effects of these laws has been completed. This study analyzes arrest, reported crime, and mortality data from jurisdictions throughout California for the 1980-97 period. There is no support for the hypothesis that jurisdictions with curfews experience lower crime levels, accelerated youth crime reduction, or lower rates of juvenile violent death than jurisdictions without curfews.

More than that...

There is plenty of other evidence that "all is not well" with a significant minority of modern teens...I think that there is merit in the argument that the past 40 years has seen a substantial and significant decline in respect, manners, morals, ethics, obedience to the law, and so forth with each succeeding generation. From what I've seen I think it is all but inarguable...but if there is concrete evidence that it is not so, I'd be pleased to be proven wrong.

"Manners, morals, ethics...?" The ambiguous nature of such a description obviously renders your request somewhat unclear, but I do usually point out that widespread youth addiction to vice, for instance, is largely a myth manufactured by the mass media. Drug crises, for instance, primarily exist among older generations rather than youth, though the latter is more commonly scapegoated by the media and punditry. As to sexual issues, rampant teenage promiscuity is largely the stuff of myths, exacerbated by overhyped and nonsensical "reports" of oral sex epidemics and rainbow parties, as well as misinformation regarding the alleged economic costs of teenage pregnancy. When it comes to alcohol, underage drinking and alcohol-related problems are decreasing, and in my view, the U.S. would do well to look to the European experience with alcohol, in which moderate consumption is introduced to youth at a young age.
 
I, generally, disagree with rigid religious instruction combined with education.

I agree with you, but I do think that this is the decision of the parents.

Whats your particular beef with non public schooling really though?

I don't have a specific beef with non-public schooling, though I think that many private schools can be more narrow in both their approach and their services. My issue with home-schooling vs. public/private schooling is somewhat well documented at DP...in fact I think you and I debated this about 6 months ago. It is more about my belief that the varied experience and diverse situations encountered, socially, in school, are the most important skills that our young people learn. Home-schoolers are often at a disadvantage in encountering these situations.
 
Back
Top Bottom