• 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!

Which requirements should be placed upon parents that choose to home school?

Which of the following should be legally bared from homeschooling their kids?

  • Convicted Child Abusers.

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Convicted Sex Offenders.

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Parents that lack a high school diploma or GED.

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Other - Explain.

    Votes: 4 33.3%

  • There should be no restricts at all on which parents can home school.

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • Total voters
    12
ALiberalModerate

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
32,445
Reaction score
22,674
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I routinely listen to podcasts while I am on a run and yesterday listened to one on the deregulation of homeschooling. First off, this thread is not about whether parents should be able to home school or not. Homeschooling is largely a First Amendment issue, so if you want to debate that, then start a thread on it. Instead this is a question of whether there should be any minimal restrictions on who can home school. For example, in the majority of states there are no restrictions preventing any of the following from homeschooling their kids:

Convicted Sex Offenders
Convicted Child Abusers
Parents that lack a high school diploma.

So the question is, do you think there should be any such restrictions on parents that choose to home school? The NPR podcast is here if you are interested: The deregulation of homeschooling? | Radio Times | WHYY
 
Last edited:
I'd require that they take a standardized test every few years, just to make sure that they were on a comparable level to the rest of their peer group.

Failing that, the parent could simply provide a lesson plan.
 
i have known some people who home school their kids and I wonder if they could even teach a dog to fetch a stick....and iv known some that did a much better job than the school system could but i attribute that to the fact that the parents were well educated themselves
 
Talking about sex offenders and child abusers home schooling it a red herring and nothing else. If someone is a sex offender or child abuser such as should not be home schooling, then the child shouldn't be in the home anyway.

Such questions would be no different that asking if anyone should be able to vote because currently there is no law against terrorists who want to destroy the United States who are Americans from voting.

Home schooling means just that, in the home. Particularly since most school boards and states have openly declared that as a matter of law children in school can not be protected and those government entities assure all would-be psychotic killers and terrorists that by law no one in a school can stop them from killing as many children as they want to, government abandoned it's right to require any parent to send their child to the free-killing zone of their children.
 
In my opinion child abusers and sex offenders should be bared from homeschooling because of the risk it poses for their kids. If a kid is being abused and they attend a public or private school, then that child has the opportunity to tell others about their abuse, or a teacher or friend may see the obvious signs of abuse. However, if a child is home schooled and their parent is a sex offender, that child could be the victim of abuse and the parent could be using the fact that they are home schooled as a way of preventing them from having any contact with others.

The vast majority of parents that home school of course are not abuses or sex offenders and thus such a legal restriction would have no impact on them at all.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I'd require that they take a standardized test every few years, just to make sure that they were on a comparable level to the rest of their peer group.

Failing that, the parent could simply provide a lesson plan.
Click to expand...

Hmm... When public schools "fail" they get more tax money to fix the problem.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I'd require that they take a standardized test every few years, just to make sure that they were on a comparable level to the rest of their peer group.

Failing that, the parent could simply provide a lesson plan.
Click to expand...

I'd agree, if I agreed with standardizing people and that all children are all clones of each other.

Simply put, I vehemently oppose standardized testing. They reduce everyone to the lowest denominator and penalize uniqueness, while rewarding being generic - minimally acceptable at everything but specialized in nothing.
 
In my area, there's no such thing as home schooling.

Your child either attends school, or they'll drag you into court and ask you why.

ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... When public schools "fail" they get more tax money to fix the problem.
Click to expand...

Government always throws money at problems. Hardly anything is ever resolved.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
In my opinion child abusers and sex offenders should be bared from homeschooling because of the risk it poses for their kids. If a kid is being abused and they attend a public or private school, then that child has the opportunity to tell others about their abuse, or a teacher or friend may see the obvious signs of abuse. However, if a child is home schooled and their parent is a sex offender, that child could be the victim of abuse and the parent could be using the fact that they are home schooled as a way of preventing them from having any contact with others.

The vast majority of parents that home school of course are not abuses or sex offenders and thus such a legal restriction would have no impact on them at all.
Click to expand...

Sooo... in your opinion it's fine for child abusers and sex offenders to have children in their home. Rather, they just shouldn't be allowed to educate the children.

I oppose genocidal zombies and homicidal psychotics from being allowed to be teachers. Yet there is no restriction on this. OMG!
 
AJiveMan said:
In my area, there's no such thing as home schooling.

Your child either attends school, or they'll drag you into court and ask you why.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of Nazism in Wisconsin, which they define as being enlightened progressives. Wisconsin is a government control freak state.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I routinely listen to podcasts while I am on a run and yesterday listened to one on the deregulation of homeschooling. First off, this thread is not about whether parents should be able to home school or not. Homeschooling is largely a First Amendment issue, so if you want to debate that, then start a thread on it. Instead this is a question of whether there should be any minimal restrictions on who can home school. For example, in the majority of states there are no restrictions preventing any of the following from homeschooling their kids:

Convicted Sex Offenders
Convicted Child Abusers
Parents that lack a high school diploma.

So the question is, do you think there should be any such restrictions on parents that choose to home school? The NPR podcast is here if you are interested: The deregulation of homeschooling? | Radio Times | WHYY
Click to expand...

There should be some standard of material and if they want to go to college, they'll have to meet all those standards. That's probably about it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I routinely listen to podcasts while I am on a run and yesterday listened to one on the deregulation of homeschooling. First off, this thread is not about whether parents should be able to home school or not. Homeschooling is largely a First Amendment issue, so if you want to debate that, then start a thread on it. Instead this is a question of whether there should be any minimal restrictions on who can home school. For example, in the majority of states there are no restrictions preventing any of the following from homeschooling their kids:

Convicted Sex Offenders
Convicted Child Abusers
Parents that lack a high school diploma.

So the question is, do you think there should be any such restrictions on parents that choose to home school? The NPR podcast is here if you are interested: The deregulation of homeschooling? | Radio Times | WHYY
Click to expand...
Convicted child abusers shouldn't have custody of any minor, let alone be home schooling them. Convicted sex offenders, if the offense is against a minor, shouldn't either.

Other than that, it needs to be a decision of the parents and not of the government.
 
joko104 said:
There's a lot of Nazism in Wisconsin, which they define as being enlightened progressives. Wisconsin is a government control freak state.
Click to expand...

Oh those damned Nazi proggies! :cuckoo:
 
joko104 said:
I'd agree, if I agreed with standardizing people and that all children are all clones of each other.

Simply put, I vehemently oppose standardized testing. They reduce everyone to the lowest denominator and penalize uniqueness, while rewarding being generic - minimally acceptable at everything but specialized in nothing.
Click to expand...

Simply put, it's sometimes needed. :shrug:

My parents did a great job Homeschooling me. Admittedly, I'm a tad weak in the STEM fields (or, rather, on par with the average American student :lol: ), simply because neither of my parents specialized in such subjects themselves.

However, as far as reading, writing, and critical thinking are concerned, I was easily light-years ahead of anyone in my peer group.

Other Homeschoolers I knew? Eh... Not so much.

While they aren't common, there certainly are some horror stories out there. Make no mistake.

"Unschooling" in particular tends to be rather hit or miss. I knew at least one "unschooling" family that wasn't able to get any of their children into college, because they were so busy focusing on art, language, and music that they never bothered to seriously teach math, science, or English. They all basically flunked their SATs as such.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Sooo... in your opinion it's fine for child abusers and sex offenders to have children in their home. Rather, they just shouldn't be allowed to educate the children.

I oppose genocidal zombies and homicidal psychotics from being allowed to be teachers. Yet there is no restriction on this. OMG!
Click to expand...

Whether a child is removed from a home or not is contingent or the parent being a present danger to their child. The system always favors keeping kids with their parents if at all possible. For example, if a parent physically abused their kids 20 years ago, was convicted and sought treatment, then there is nothing legally preventing them from having another kid and parenting that child today. The question then is whether that parent should be able to home school and if so should their be some sort of oversight to ensure that they are not using home schooling as a way to prevent others from finding out they are abusing their child.

This is not some red herring either, it has happened.

Abuse in Homeschooling Environments - Coalition for Responsible Home Education

As I stated earlier though, such a restriction in my opinion should only be placed upon convicted abusers, thus the vast majority of people would not be impacted.
 
I don't think sex offenders or child abusers should have kids at all, so let's just throw those out right now. I think that all schools, public, private and home, need to provide a minimum level of education that cannot be ignored, forgotten about or otherwise not taught, regardless of the beliefs of the parents. If we're going to say that children need to be educated, we can't make exceptions because it might hurt someone's feelings. I also think that homeschooling is a privilege, not a right. As such, all children need to be tested regularly in a setting outside of the home and those children who cannot pass the tests need to be forced to return to a school setting outside of the home.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Convicted child abusers shouldn't have custody of any minor, let alone be home schooling them. Convicted sex offenders, if the offense is against a minor, shouldn't either.

Other than that, it needs to be a decision of the parents and not of the government.
Click to expand...

I think that's an overly broad statement though. For example, if a parent physically abuses their child, then seeks treatment, and by all indications no longer abuses their child, do you think their parental rights should still be revoked?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I routinely listen to podcasts while I am on a run and yesterday listened to one on the deregulation of homeschooling. First off, this thread is not about whether parents should be able to home school or not. Homeschooling is largely a First Amendment issue, so if you want to debate that, then start a thread on it. Instead this is a question of whether there should be any minimal restrictions on who can home school. For example, in the majority of states there are no restrictions preventing any of the following from homeschooling their kids:

Convicted Sex Offenders
Convicted Child Abusers
Parents that lack a high school diploma.

So the question is, do you think there should be any such restrictions on parents that choose to home school? The NPR podcast is here if you are interested: The deregulation of homeschooling? | Radio Times | WHYY
Click to expand...

We may have a much bigger problem to deal with than just home schooling, if we have Convicted Sex Offenders and Convicted Child Abusers around kids in any regard then something was missed. Usually these sorts of convictions come with the conclusion of being on registry lists and other mechanisms of tracking which should include limitations on being around kids. Teaching then, at home or at a school, would be out of the question. Would it not?
 
OrphanSlug said:
We may have a much bigger problem to deal with than just home schooling, if we have Convicted Sex Offenders and Convicted Child Abusers around kids in any regard then something was missed. Usually these sorts of convictions come with the conclusion of being on registry lists and other mechanisms of tracking which should include limitations on being around kids. Teaching then, at home or at a school, would be out of the question. Would it not?
Click to expand...

Child abusers only lose parental rights if they are deemed a current danger to their child. For example a convicted child abuser that sought treatment and by all indications was no longer abusive to their child would not lose their parental rights. The question then should they be able to home school.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I routinely listen to podcasts while I am on a run and yesterday listened to one on the deregulation of homeschooling. First off, this thread is not about whether parents should be able to home school or not. Homeschooling is largely a First Amendment issue, so if you want to debate that, then start a thread on it. Instead this is a question of whether there should be any minimal restrictions on who can home school. For example, in the majority of states there are no restrictions preventing any of the following from homeschooling their kids:

Convicted Sex Offenders
Convicted Child Abusers
Parents that lack a high school diploma.

So the question is, do you think there should be any such restrictions on parents that choose to home school? The NPR podcast is here if you are interested: The deregulation of homeschooling? | Radio Times | WHYY
Click to expand...

It says "their children" so sex offenders and abusers are already in the environment.
This is about the desire of parents to get their child a better education, faster, and
without gov't indoctrination. I think the testing for the homeschoolers is the key to
logical decision-making regarding the child's education. If the child it testing well
with the Education Department approved testing format and tests, then it is a moot
point. If the child shows lack of progress or failure, it is a good time to assess a
possible intervention or insistence that the child be moved into the public education
network and that choice is not because public education is better but because it is the
alternative.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think that's an overly broad statement though. For example, if a parent physically abuses their child, then seeks treatment, and by all indications no longer abuses their child, do you think their parental rights should still be revoked?
Click to expand...

Yes. There is no way to know whether the "treatment" was effective or not short of letting the parent once again abuse their child.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes. There is no way to know whether the "treatment" was effective or not short of letting the parent once again abuse their child.
Click to expand...

Well its definitely a difficult situation. However, a child that is in a public or private school is regularly exposed to others that would report signs of continued abuse while a child in a home schooled situation could be hid from anyone outside the home that would potentially report continued abuse.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
In my opinion child abusers and sex offenders should be bared from homeschooling because of the risk it poses for their kids. If a kid is being abused and they attend a public or private school, then that child has the opportunity to tell others about their abuse, or a teacher or friend may see the obvious signs of abuse. However, if a child is home schooled and their parent is a sex offender, that child could be the victim of abuse and the parent could be using the fact that they are home schooled as a way of preventing them from having any contact with others.

The vast majority of parents that home school of course are not abuses or sex offenders and thus such a legal restriction would have no impact on them at all.
Click to expand...

Agreed of course, but it's a fairly useless regulation. Convicted child abusers and sex offenders are already barred from contact with children.
 
clownboy said:
Agreed of course, but it's a fairly useless regulation. Convicted child abusers and sex offenders are already barred from contact with children.
Click to expand...

Not with their own children. The only reason they would be bared from contact with their own children is if they are deemed a current danger to their own children.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Well its definitely a difficult situation. However, a child that is in a public or private school is regularly exposed to others that would report signs of continued abuse while a child in a home schooled situation could be hid from anyone outside the home that would potentially report continued abuse.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, if the offender still had custody, which they shouldn't IMO, then it would be much better if the child were seen regularly by other people who would report evidence of abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom