• 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

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Isn't the whole entire point of education to educate children so they can get jobs and not be a burden to the tax payers? This "the child needs to be exposed to different view points" sounds like a load of crap and a dangerous precedence. This isn't parents trying to pray instead of driving their child to a doctor. If these people were muslims and some judge used a crock of **** excuse like "the child needs to be exposed to different view points" there would outrage by liberal nuts in the media and everywhere about religious discrimination by a bigoted judge.

Home-schooler ordered to attend public school - Washington Times

A New Hampshire court ordered a home-schooled Christian girl to attend a public school this week after a judge criticized the "rigidity" of her mother's religious views and said the 10-year-old needed to consider other worldviews as she matures.

Ever since the judge's ruling came out in July, the case has aroused the interest of home-schooling groups nationwide, whohave asked why a court has the power to decide whether someone's religious views are too extreme.

The girl's mother, Brenda Voydatch, has engaged the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., to contest the ruling, in which the judge granted a request by the girl's father, Martin Kurowski, that the girl go to a public school.

On Tuesday, the girl, Amanda Kurowski, started fifth grade at an elementary school in Meredith, N.H., under court order. Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.


snip..


The mother has primary physical custody of Amanda, whom she has home-schooled for several years in math, English, social studies, science, handwriting, spelling and the Bible

Home-schooler ordered to attend public school - Washington Times

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. The child also takes supplemental public school classes in art, Spanish, theater and physical education and is involved in extracurricular sports such as gymnastics, horseback riding, softball and basketball.

Her parents have been feuding for years over how she should be educated. The father tried to get Amanda removed from the mother's tutelage in 2006, but another judge ruled against him. However, the court did appoint Janice McLaughlin as a guardian of the child's legal interests.

The father continued to push for some changes in the way his daughter was educated.

"[Mr. Kurowski] believes that exposure to other points of view will decrease Amanda's rigid adherence to her mother's religious beliefs and increase her ability to get along with others and to function in a world which requires some element of independent thinking and tolerance for different points of view," Judge Sadler's ruling said.

The ruling quoted Mrs. McLaughlin as saying the child "appeared to reflect the mother's rigidity on questions of faith." 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.
 
Hmmm. While that may be excessively statist in nature, non-intervention would have perhaps permitted a greater exertion of authoritarianism if she was simply being indoctrinated. Christian fundamentalists don't tend to be especially libertarian types, particularly when it comes to childrearing.
 
At first, I was kind of pissed that the court would step in in that manner. Then I read where it's the father who instigated this. Now I understand.

IMO, this is less of a case of the court sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong, and more of a case of a father wishing to have some say in how his child is educated.
 
At first, I was kind of pissed that the court would step in in that manner. Then I read where it's the father who instigated this. Now I understand.

IMO, this is less of a case of the court sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong, and more of a case of a father wishing to have some say in how his child is educated.

OK, thanks for bringing this to light. Based on what you reported/stated it appears that the OP left out, forgot, failed to include a few vital points of information. I am sure that it was not on purpose. I am sure that the OP had every intention of bringing up all of the truth soon, real soon.

So tis is a dispute bewteen a father and ex wife. I am not in favor of courts interfering with commom people and their religion but in this case we have a split juridiction.
 
OK, thanks for bringing this to light. Based on what you reported/stated it appears that the OP left out, forgot, failed to include a few vital points of information. I am sure that it was not on purpose. I am sure that the OP had every intention of bringing up all of the truth soon, real soon.

So tis is a dispute bewteen a father and ex wife. I am not in favor of courts interfering with commom people and their religion but in this case we have a split juridiction.

Yea there is allot more to this story my Father live's in Guilford which is the next town over from Meridith and the stories fail to discuss some of he father conscerns. Which was what the Judge's ruling was based on.
 
Yea there is allot more to this story my Father live's in Guilford which is the next town over from Meridith and the stories fail to discuss some of he father conscerns. Which was what the Judge's ruling was based on.

It would also be nice to know what the disposition / agreement was regarding child raising in the divorce arranegement. We don't know if the judge went beyond the divorce agreements or did the judge in essense modify it.
 
We had a thread that was about an almost identical topic around 6 months ago:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/education/45530-judge-forces-public-school-womans-kids.html

Like I said then:

We have a situation where two parents are divorced. One parent wants the children to be home schooled. The other parent wants them to go to public school. Since they obviously can't spend half the week at home and half the week at public school, one side has to get what they want. The judge looked at the situation, looked at the types and detail of education that the kids would be getting from each, and made a decision. That's what has to happen.

In this case, not only do we have the mother and father split, but the child's guardian ad litem that was appointed by the court has looked at the situation and agrees with the father.

I don't see a problem here.
 
I don't think the government should order any "home-schooler" to attend public schools. I think that is the parents personal right.

That said....I have never met someone who was home-schooled that isn't a complete freak and who isn't "socially retarded". Maybe there are some who don't fit this stereotype, but I've known 20-30 in my life and they all are extremely strange and awkward.
 
I don't think the government should order any "home-schooler" to attend public schools. I think that is the parents personal right.

That said....I have never met someone who was home-schooled that isn't a complete freak and who isn't "socially retarded". Maybe there are some who don't fit this stereotype, but I've known 20-30 in my life and they all are extremely strange and awkward.

If that was your experience, then it was what it was. Most of the homeschooled people I've known were well-educated, mature beyond their years, competent, capable and well-adjusted. One anecdotal opinion is as good as another...
 
I think we still have to focus on the oft-ignored issue of parental coercion potentially being a far more authoritarian factor than state intervention.
 
At first, I was kind of pissed that the court would step in in that manner. Then I read where it's the father who instigated this. Now I understand.

IMO, this is less of a case of the court sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong, and more of a case of a father wishing to have some say in how his child is educated.
This may be true, in which case the Judge should have said so, and remained silent on his personal opinions.
 
If that was your experience, then it was what it was. Most of the homeschooled people I've known were well-educated, mature beyond their years, competent, capable and well-adjusted. One anecdotal opinion is as good as another...

Like I said....maybe there are some who don't fit the stereotype, I haven't encountered them. It never fails...in my experience. When I meet someone and sense it...It almost always turns out to be the case.
 
I don't think the government should order any "home-schooler" to attend public schools. I think that is the parents personal right.

That said....I have never met someone who was home-schooled that isn't a complete freak and who isn't "socially retarded". Maybe there are some who don't fit this stereotype, but I've known 20-30 in my life and they all are extremely strange and awkward.
Maybe those that are not complete freaks and "socially retarded" are smart enough to not associate with you or let you know their situation. ;)

.
 
OK, thanks for bringing this to light. Based on what you reported/stated it appears that the OP left out, forgot, failed to include a few vital points of information.

Or someone just didn't read

Her parents have been feuding for years over how she should be educated. The father tried to get Amanda removed from the mother's tutelage in 2006, but another judge ruled against him. However, the court did appoint Janice McLaughlin as a guardian of the child's legal interests.

The father continued to push for some changes in the way his daughter was educated.

"[Mr. Kurowski] believes that exposure to other points of view will decrease Amanda's rigid adherence to her mother's religious beliefs and increase her ability to get along with others and to function in a world which requires some element of independent thinking and tolerance for different points of view," Judge Sadler's ruling said.

I agree with Right on this personally.
 
We had a thread that was about an almost identical topic around 6 months ago:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/education/45530-judge-forces-public-school-womans-kids.html

Like I said then:



In this case, not only do we have the mother and father split, but the child's guardian ad litem that was appointed by the court has looked at the situation and agrees with the father.

I don't see a problem here.

If the child is making acceptable progress with their home schooled program why would you agree with this?
 
That said....I have never met someone who was home-schooled that isn't a complete freak and who isn't "socially retarded". Maybe there are some who don't fit this stereotype, but I've known 20-30 in my life and they all are extremely strange and awkward.

I noticed this to when I took my kids to the museum today.

All the other kids were running around like fiendish crack addicts while my kids were respectful, polite and intellectually engaged with the exhibits. :doh
 
If the child is making acceptable progress with their home schooled program why would you agree with this?

Why should the mother's plans for the child's education take precedence over the father's, especially when an independent legal guardian for the child looked at the situation and agreed with the father?
 
If the child is making acceptable progress with their home schooled program why would you agree with this?

The question is not whether the child was making acceptable progress, but where the child will do best. With the parents split, the court appointed guardian decided the child would do best in school. Normally I am 100 % opposed to the government getting involved in deciding what is best for kids, but with the parent's split on the issue, and the father taking it to court, they had no choice.

Edit: Sigh, RightInNYC types faster than me...
 
Why should the mother's plans for the child's education take precedence over the father's, especially when an independent legal guardian for the child looked at the situation and agreed with the father?

You didn't answer my question though.

If the mother is the person with primary custody, she has the primary authority to dictate which educational situation she can have her child in.

Not to mention the prejudice that people who home school their children already get, I'm sure the independent guardian was wholly unbiased. :no:
 
I don't think the government should order any "home-schooler" to attend public schools. I think that is the parents personal right.

That said....I have never met someone who was home-schooled that isn't a complete freak and who isn't "socially retarded". Maybe there are some who don't fit this stereotype, but I've known 20-30 in my life and they all are extremely strange and awkward.

I taught high school students that came out of home school situations. They were among the brightest students and the most well adjusted in terms of peer interaction. Not sure what you are encountering, but people in public schools and private schools can be just as awkward.
 
The question is not whether the child was making acceptable progress, but where the child will do best. With the parents split, the court appointed guardian decided the child would do best in school. Normally I am 100 % opposed to the government getting involved in deciding what is best for kids, but with the parent's split on the issue, and the father taking it to court, they had no choice.

Edit: Sigh, RightInNYC types faster than me...

I disagree, with there being no compelling evidence of abuse or educational neglect, there is no reason to adjust the child's educational situation.
 
As much as I support home-schooling, it sounds as this decision was to defer to the father's wishes for a more well-rounded educational environment for his child to be educated in. Although he is the non[custodial parent, he stills wants to have some say in the upbringing of his child.
 
I disagree, with there being no compelling evidence of abuse or educational neglect, there is no reason to adjust the child's educational situation.

Ordinarily, I would agree, and go further even, except that the father brought the issue to court. At that point, a positive decision is needed.
 
Ordinarily, I would agree, and go further even, except that the father brought the issue to court. At that point, a positive decision is needed.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom