Should Homeschooling be Illegal?

[Caninope]

But that's serving drinks commercially. It's perfectly legal to mix and serve drinks in a non-commercial manner without any sort of license. Under this logic, you should only need a license to educate at home if you choose to do so commercially.

How about driver's licenses? You need one even if you're just driving for your own private purposes and not as part of some commercial venture.

Not really. You only need a driver's license to drive on public roads.

That's why I first drove my dad's truck at 7, for instance. I was on a private road.

EDIT: I also feel it important to note that to drive commercially (i.e. very large vehicles) , most jurisdictions require a specialized endorsement of the license.

[Dragoria]

How about driver's licenses? You need one even if you're just driving for your own private purposes and not as part of some commercial venture.

...Not really?

I mean, unless you're using 'private purposes' to mean grocery shopping and such. But driving a car on your own property for your own purposes (the point used where I live would be lawn maintenance or hay collection) certainly is just fine without a license.

If you're driving on a road for any purpose, you need a license. And the car needs to be registered. And here in NY, the car also needs to be insured.
A young person's mind, if mishandled, can be just as dangerous as a mishandled car.

[Bottle]

How about driver's licenses? You need one even if you're just driving for your own private purposes and not as part of some commercial venture.

...Not really?

I mean, unless you're using 'private purposes' to mean grocery shopping and such. But driving a car on your own property for your own purposes (the point used where I live would be lawn maintenance or hay collection) certainly is just fine without a license.

Yes, the bold, or for recreation or whatever. It's not like only professional truckers have to get licensed.

As for the aspect of it being on your private property, that's rather a different argument, isn't it? Originally, the objection was that you can serve drinks in a non-commercial manner without a license.

If the issue is now location, then that's a whole other story. There are plenty of things you aren't permitted to do on your private property without a license, like, say, perform surgery.

[Bottle]

How about driver's licenses? You need one even if you're just driving for your own private purposes and not as part of some commercial venture.

Not really. You only need a driver's license to drive on public roads.

That's why I first drove my dad's truck at 7, for instance. I was on a private road.

EDIT: I also feel it important to note that to drive commercially (i.e. very large vehicles) , most jurisdictions require a specialized endorsement of the license.

So therefore people only need a license to teach a child if they plan to let that child out in public?

I can live with that.

[Caninope]

...Not really?

I mean, unless you're using 'private purposes' to mean grocery shopping and such. But driving a car on your own property for your own purposes (the point used where I live would be lawn maintenance or hay collection) certainly is just fine without a license.

Yes, the bold, or for recreation or whatever. It's not like only professional truckers have to get licensed.

As for the aspect of it being on your private property, that's rather a different argument, isn't it? Originally, the objection was that you can serve drinks in a non-commercial manner without a license.

But is it really? A parent is educating his own child, in much the same way that the hypothetical driver is on his own land.

[Caninope]

Not really. You only need a driver's license to drive on public roads.

That's why I first drove my dad's truck at 7, for instance. I was on a private road.

EDIT: I also feel it important to note that to drive commercially (i.e. very large vehicles) , most jurisdictions require a specialized endorsement of the license.

So therefore people only need a license to teach a child if they plan to let that child out in public?

I can live with that.

I applaud your humor.

All the same, I do not feel that a parent should be forced to acquire a type of teaching license to homeschool their child. All the same, the child should be required to meet certain standards.

[Bottle]

Yes, the bold, or for recreation or whatever. It's not like only professional truckers have to get licensed.

As for the aspect of it being on your private property, that's rather a different argument, isn't it? Originally, the objection was that you can serve drinks in a non-commercial manner without a license.

But is it really? A parent is educating his own child, in much the same way that the hypothetical driver is on his own land.

If one assumes a child is a piece of property rather than a human person, I suppose that is a valid comparison.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...Not really?

I mean, unless you're using 'private purposes' to mean grocery shopping and such. But driving a car on your own property for your own purposes (the point used where I live would be lawn maintenance or hay collection) certainly is just fine without a license.

If you're driving on a road for any purpose, you need a license. And the car needs to be registered. And here in NY, the car also needs to be insured.
A young person's mind, if mishandled, can be just as dangerous as a mishandled car.

Actually, that's not true depending on state.
Mine, for example, makes an exception for those without driver's licenses utilizing farm equipment or in the process of going to or from a farming location. But, that's more an exception so...

...Not really?

I mean, unless you're using 'private purposes' to mean grocery shopping and such. But driving a car on your own property for your own purposes (the point used where I live would be lawn maintenance or hay collection) certainly is just fine without a license.

Yes, the bold, or for recreation or whatever. It's not like only professional truckers have to get licensed.

As for the aspect of it being on your private property, that's rather a different argument, isn't it? Originally, the objection was that you can serve drinks in a non-commercial manner without a license.

If the issue is now location, then that's a whole other story. There are plenty of things you aren't permitted to do on your private property without a license, like, say, perform surgery.

I'm unsure it actually is. The reason one can serve drinks non-commercially for example is that you're a private person on private property. One couldn't hang a sign over their door called 'Billy's bar' and serve drinks, because it would be a commercial venture at that point.

It seems like one could, in the same way, say that homeschooling is the utilization of that same right in relation to educating their child rather than serving drinks or driving a vehicle. I dunnow...

[Caninope]

But is it really? A parent is educating his own child, in much the same way that the hypothetical driver is on his own land.

If one assumes a child is a piece of property rather than a human person, I suppose that is a valid comparison.

A minor is not a piece of property, but it is the ward of the guardian and/or parent. We should defer to the judgement of this guardian or parent in the welfare of their minor.

[Bottle]

So therefore people only need a license to teach a child if they plan to let that child out in public?

I can live with that.

I applaud your humor.

All the same, I do not feel that a parent should be forced to acquire a type of teaching license to homeschool their child. All the same, the child should be required to meet certain standards.

*Shrug* I have no idea if licensing is a viable solution, frankly, just pointing out that I don't think there's a problem with the analogies.

I'd prefer to improve public education and dismantle the superstitious subcommunities that currently comprise most home-schoolers in my country, and let the notion die out on its own.

[The Parkus Empire]

The type of person who wants to home-school their children is extremely likely to be the kind of person who should not be entrusted with anybody's education ever.

Really, this is fucking accurate.

I wasn't homeschooled so I'd be smarter, I was homeschooled because my parents wanted someone who thought as they did, believed as they did, and made decisions as they did, and they felt that ideas from my peers would interfere with that. I didn't even know about homosexuality until fourteen, and when my mom overheard me talking about it to my brother, she went nuts and demanded to know who told me such a thing existed (I kept my mouth shut).

Every person I know who was homeschooled, even the smart ones, were done so to isolate them. Most possess opinions and ideas that are mere replicas of those of their parents. It's not about upbringing human beings. While there are exceptions, by and large it sucks.

[Dragoria]

If you're driving on a road for any purpose, you need a license. And the car needs to be registered. And here in NY, the car also needs to be insured.
A young person's mind, if mishandled, can be just as dangerous as a mishandled car.

Actually, that's not true depending on state.
Mine, for example, makes an exception for those without driver's licenses utilizing farm equipment or in the process of going to or from a farming location. But, that's more an exception so...

"You need a license to drive a car" "Not on your own property" "Okay, you need a license to drive a car on a road" "Not if it's a tractor!"
Is that seriously your argument right now? Not needing a license to drive a tractor from barn to field two roads over is more like not needing a license to let your kid watch educational shows on PBS than not needing a license to teach your kid at home instead of letting a licensed teacher at a school teach them.

[Bottle]

If one assumes a child is a piece of property rather than a human person, I suppose that is a valid comparison.

A minor is not a piece of property, but it is the ward of the guardian and/or parent. We should defer to the judgement of this guardian or parent in the welfare of their minor.

Why? Why should society value a parent's judgment over objective measures of child welfare? (I ask from a purely pragmatic standpoint, here, since the morals don't interest me.) What is the gain to society from permitting parents to have such power, given that the only qualification to become a parent is that one must be able to obtain or birth a child?

[Caninope]

A minor is not a piece of property, but it is the ward of the guardian and/or parent. We should defer to the judgement of this guardian or parent in the welfare of their minor.

Why? Why should society value a parent's judgment over objective measures of child welfare? (I ask from a purely pragmatic standpoint, here, since the morals don't interest me.) What is the gain to society from permitting parents to have such power, given that the only qualification to become a parent is that one must be able to obtain or birth a child?

Because it is far more efficient to allow parents to make choices for their children, as they almost always have the most information, the most relevant information, and the best information, as well as the best intentions for their children.

I do not, of course, advocate giving up objective measures fo welfare. I do support, for instance, ensuring that homeschooled children meet certain standards.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Actually, that's not true depending on state.
Mine, for example, makes an exception for those without driver's licenses utilizing farm equipment or in the process of going to or from a farming location. But, that's more an exception so...

"You need a license to drive a car" "Not on your own property" "You need a license to drive a car on a road" "Not if it's a tractor!"
Is that seriously your argument right now? Not needing a license to drive a tractor from barn to field two roads over is more like not needing a license to let your kid watch educational shows on PBS than not needing a license to teach your kid at home instead of letting a licensed teacher at a school teach them.

...What?

I was simply pointing out an exception in the analogy (which, incidentally, doesn't only apply to tractors as you seem to think but 'farm equipment' as a whole, which includes vehicles) I wasn't trying to expand that analogy in some manner. Sorry if that's what it looked like I suppose it did look that way didn't it?

My apologies, I was just making an aside, it didn't really have much to do with the thread topic. My bad.

[Bottle]

Why? Why should society value a parent's judgment over objective measures of child welfare? (I ask from a purely pragmatic standpoint, here, since the morals don't interest me.) What is the gain to society from permitting parents to have such power, given that the only qualification to become a parent is that one must be able to obtain or birth a child?

Because it is far more efficient to allow parents to make choices for their children, as they almost always have the most information, the most relevant information, and the best information, as well as the best intentions for their children.

I do not, of course, advocate giving up objective measures fo welfare. I do support, for instance, ensuring that homeschooled children meet certain standards.

I suppose I just don't see why parental judgment should be considered supreme. Certainly factor it in, but my experience has been that parents are frequently the worst judges of their child's actual needs and abilities.

I find it odd that I am here arguing for child welfare, when I generally dislike children (there are exceptions but not many) and wish nobody had taught them to speak.

[Temujinn]

Ignoring the 19 pages of typical NSG fair, Homeschooling shouldnt be illegal because statistically it provides equal or superior education to public schooling. Thats it.
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
http://www.fpea.com/about-home-schooling/myth-busters/
http://www.homeschooling-family.com/hom ... stics.html
http://homeschool.calvertschool.org/dow ... uccess.pdf
http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/old ... eTests.htm
http://www.hslda.ca/cche_research/2009Study.pdf

EDIT and no I wasnt ever home schooled.

[Temujinn]

Because it is far more efficient to allow parents to make choices for their children, as they almost always have the most information, the most relevant information, and the best information, as well as the best intentions for their children.

I do not, of course, advocate giving up objective measures fo welfare. I do support, for instance, ensuring that homeschooled children meet certain standards.

I suppose I just don't see why parental judgment should be considered supreme. Certainly factor it in, but my experience has been that parents are frequently the worst judges of their child's actual needs and abilities.

I find it odd that I am here arguing for child welfare, when I generally dislike children (there are exceptions but not many) and wish nobody had taught them to speak.

It has been your experience based on what you judge to be the needs and abilities of a child, that the parent's judgement is flawed. I am curious what qualifies you to be the qualified judge of what is and is not proper in that instance?

[Dragoria]

"You need a license to drive a car" "Not on your own property" "You need a license to drive a car on a road" "Not if it's a tractor!"
Is that seriously your argument right now? Not needing a license to drive a tractor from barn to field two roads over is more like not needing a license to let your kid watch educational shows on PBS than not needing a license to teach your kid at home instead of letting a licensed teacher at a school teach them.

...What?

I was simply pointing out an exception in the analogy (which, incidentally, doesn't only apply to tractors as you seem to think but 'farm equipment' as a whole, which includes vehicles) I wasn't trying to expand that analogy in some manner. Sorry if that's what it looked like I suppose it did look that way didn't it?

My apologies, I was just making an aside, it didn't really have much to do with the thread topic. My bad.

Tractor/combine/farmtruck/Gator/ATV/whatever. Growing up on a farm, I'm aware there's more kinds of farm equipment than just "tractors".

Driving the tractor/"farm equipment" (which is longer and more of a pain to type out in hotter-than-hell weather when your brain is already half on strike) impacts mainly only yourself. If you hit someone else, you and your "farm equipment" are liable out the ass.
Teaching impacts the person you are teaching. In a pretty big way, at that. If you're doing something to someone that's going to have such a huge impact on how that person is going to develop and interface/interact with the world around them, you'd damned well better know what you're doing.

[Caninope]

Because it is far more efficient to allow parents to make choices for their children, as they almost always have the most information, the most relevant information, and the best information, as well as the best intentions for their children.

I do not, of course, advocate giving up objective measures fo welfare. I do support, for instance, ensuring that homeschooled children meet certain standards.

I suppose I just don't see why parental judgment should be considered supreme. Certainly factor it in, but my experience has been that parents are frequently the worst judges of their child's actual needs and abilities.

I find it odd that I am here arguing for child welfare, when I generally dislike children (there are exceptions but not many) and wish nobody had taught them to speak.

Actually, children still learn to speak even in cultures in which the parents refrain from speaking to the child.

[The Parkus Empire]

Why? Why should society value a parent's judgment over objective measures of child welfare? (I ask from a purely pragmatic standpoint, here, since the morals don't interest me.) What is the gain to society from permitting parents to have such power, given that the only qualification to become a parent is that one must be able to obtain or birth a child?

Because it is far more efficient to allow parents to make choices for their children, as they almost always have the most information, the most relevant information, and the best information, as well as the best intentions for their children.

I do not, of course, advocate giving up objective measures fo welfare. I do support, for instance, ensuring that homeschooled children meet certain standards.

I think the question of why the parents want to homeschool the kids is important. Why is that preferable to just helping them with their homework and teaching them on top of that? Homeschooling typically means you need at least one parent to stay home, and it also makes it a pain in the ass for the kid to get to know peers.

When it comes to homeschooling, it isn't about the kid, like you make it seem, it's about the parents. It's something they're all about, not, "Oh, this particular kid needs it."

[Temujinn]

Actually, that's not true depending on state.
Mine, for example, makes an exception for those without driver's licenses utilizing farm equipment or in the process of going to or from a farming location. But, that's more an exception so...

"You need a license to drive a car" "Not on your own property" "Okay, you need a license to drive a car on a road" "Not if it's a tractor!"
Is that seriously your argument right now? Not needing a license to drive a tractor from barn to field two roads over is more like not needing a license to let your kid watch educational shows on PBS than not needing a license to teach your kid at home instead of letting a licensed teacher at a school teach them.

You presume that gaining that License empowers the teacher with some magical ability that it doesnt. Never forget that a teacher is just doing their JOB, and I dont know about you but every day, every single day, I encounter more people who do the bare minimum at their Job, then people who do their damned best... why on earth would teachers be a single bit different? Its not like the ankle bitters they teach are theirs.

[Dragoria]

Ignoring the 19 pages of typical NSG fair, Homeschooling shouldnt be illegal because statistically it provides equal or superior education to public schooling. Thats it.

It limits the child's access to viewpoints that might differ from the parents, limits their access to peers to practice and learn appropriate social skills, among other limitations.

[Moralem Populi]

As long as the Government ensures that the kids are meeting basic criteria, homeschooling should be 100% legal.

[Caninope]

Because it is far more efficient to allow parents to make choices for their children, as they almost always have the most information, the most relevant information, and the best information, as well as the best intentions for their children.

I do not, of course, advocate giving up objective measures fo welfare. I do support, for instance, ensuring that homeschooled children meet certain standards.

I think the question of why the parents want to homeschool the kids is important. Why is that preferable to just helping them with their homework and teaching them on top of that? Homeschooling typically means you need at least one parent to stay home, and it also makes it a pain in the ass for the kid to get to know peers.

When it comes to homeschooling, it isn't about the kid, like you make it seem, it's about the parents. It's something they're all about, not, "Oh, this particular kid needs it."

There are many possible answers to that question.