Homeschool World Forums     Home     Mall     Catalog     Articles     Contests     Events     Groups     Forum     Contact  
Homeschool World Forum Forum Index Homeschool World Forum
Read thousands of forum posts on topics such as homeschool law, getting started, curriculum, special needs, homeschool vs public school, and much, much more!
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Accountability Within Homeschooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Homeschool World Forum Forum Index -> Homeschool Law
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Theodore
Moderator


Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 2122
Location: Missouri, US

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would just like to point out that standard of living determines level of education more than the other way around. A dirt-poor economy requires a large percentage of its population to be field workers - otherwise everyone starves. There's not really much point in giving everyone a college education without first improving the economy.

A big mistake a number of countries / aid organizations have made is setting up colleges first, while more or less ignoring local infrastructure and development. You end up with a bunch of college graduates who can't find jobs unless they immigrate somewhere else. The situation is different here in the US, where we have an excellent standard of living and the economy can support many people in advanced-level positions.
_________________
Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
seekingmyLord
User


Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 231
Location: Standing in the radiance of His glory.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dolly-VA wrote:
Ah... Cool I think on the first part we'll have to agree to disagree. When you spoke of Nepal, you brought in the world environment.

Actually, I was expounding on the comparison you introduced:
Dolly-VA wrote:
In countries that do not have mandatory, free education, literacy levels are far lower. Is this what we want the US to become?


Dolly-VA wrote:
Speaking of your grandfather (who sounds like he was a remarkable person) and the Amish, you are bringing it back to a domestic. Fortunately, living in the US does give us many more opportunities than would living in a third world country. We are lucky, indeed!

Thank you.

Let's look on the flip side, someone people would not see as "remarkable." If a person is educated but chooses to be a bum, what does it matter that he can read as he is just not interested in making anything of himself--by OUR standards in the the US. Should this same person be on a Native American reservation living off the land by THEIR traditions, that is okay, right?

It is interesting to me that WE think it is tragic if anyone cannot at least read because WE think that is the key to people having choices, but what if the choice made is not OUR kind of life?

There is something to said about the story of Adam and Eve seeking knowledge to be better than they thought they were, only to find that what they had, now lost, was something more precious and with all the knowledge they had acquired, they could not get it back nor could they create it for themselves.


Dolly-VA wrote:
I wasn't judging anyone's success by their income or formal education. Just stating facts. People in Nepal, where more than half the people are illiterate, earn an average yearly income of about $1,900. It's a fact that the countries where more people have higher educations have higher standards of living.

Not everyone wants or needs a "higher standard of living." Some people would rather live with their traditions untouched by OUR standards. We watch these people eagerly enough on NG or Discovery channels, because they are so different from us--we even study these differences in culture as part of OUR education, by the way. (Talk about double standards!) Of course, there are things that could improve their lives by OUR standards, but it would also cause them to lose something by THEIR standards.

This is the point I was making. I would prefer to live by my own standards, not by the standards forced upon me, particularly in homeschooling.


Dolly-VA wrote:
That's why the regulations (here anyway) say exactly what is required. I would have no problem confronting this possible someone. (You should hear my eldest repeat some of my parent/teacher conferences of days gone by... Cool

If they did not say what was required, how differently would that affect how you homeschool?

Dolly-VA wrote:
One is a young woman who works at Starbucks. When I first met her she and I spoke for a while and I found out she can write her name and recognize some letters. Her parents are very religious and didn't want her to go to PS so kept her out on a religious exemption. Unfortunately, her mother became emotionally unable to deal with the day to day routine of teaching her anything and she said when she was in second grade, school became nothing but watching educational shows all day. Being on a religious exemption meant she was totally on her own. This young woman is a lovely, kind person who "knows" she's very stupid and that nothing she thinks is worth anything. Fortunately, her manager is a wonderful person and in the last year has taught her to read and write, drive a car, balance a checkbook, and I'm sure other things. The other two, I'm afraid, are the children of my step-neice's husband (I have a complicated family.) He and his previous wife decided to home school also for religious reasons. When the eldest was in fourth and the youngest in first, the parents seperated. The mother moved out of state and "never had the time" after that. AND she wouldn't let them go to PS. I met them when the eldest was 16 and terribly embarrassed by her lack of education (but with a MUCH higher self-esteem than the woman at Starbucks.) The younger was 12. The younger child asked to live with her father and my step-neice and go to school. It is very sad when a child has to make the decision for the parent, but like your grandfather, some of us are self-motivated and do make the best of what we have.

You see, I believe in the Lord and that He has a plan for each life. Had these children placed in public school, I agree they would have had the opportunity to learn, but we all know that is not a guarantee that they would have. Teachers may have just passed them on without bothering with them because they were so behind.

Besides, what education these people lacked in their childhood does not have to determine who they are for all their lives. I agree that by my personal standards their education had a late start, but they also have the opportunity to learn now and the real shame would be not taking the opportunity IF that is what they want. It is not like an education is beyond them, but just they have to pursue it rather than it pursue them, as it is in school.


Last edited by seekingmyLord on Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:03 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
seekingmyLord
User


Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 231
Location: Standing in the radiance of His glory.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dolly-VA wrote:
I just realized you edited your post as I was responding (lol) so, in response to the article excerpt, do you have something not put out by HSLDA? Not that I think badly of them, but they have an agenda and the excerpt comes from their own sources. Kind of like quoting a Exxon Corp. study on the effects of off shore drilling to native wildlife. (But, if what they say is true, good for us!)

I apologize about the edit. However, if you had read the article, you would know that those stats came from a study done in 1990 by the National Home Education Research Institute, entitled "A Nationwide Study of Home Education: Family Characteristics, Legal Matters, and Student Achievement."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ncmom
User


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 321
Location: Eastern NC

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
However, I do disagree with you about this:
ncmom wrote:
How many people do you know that really need a degree in waste disposal to pick up trash? I don't have one and I am pretty sure I could ride on the back of a truck and throw garbage in it. As long as my kids have basic knowledge and can read, write and do math they are good.
This seems to presuppose that kids make a decision very early on that they are going to be one thing over another. When, in reality, it's their decisions while in school that will limit them. Did they do well in math? Do calculas as a senior? Loved the sciences? Did decently on the SATs? Then they can decide to go to college or not. People become garbage men and janitors and day workers because of decisions they made or were made for them limiting their choices. (Otoh, having a teenage son myself, I realize that there's oftentimes very little reasoning going on in their heads at this time. As a parent, I had to keep my fingers crossed that the good choices would outweigh the stupid ones.)


I never said that they were going to be a garbageman, it was an example of how college is now an industry. That is a common job and in a lot of areas you have to have a degree to do it. We need to get back to on the job training. You don't need a degree to do everything. There are some jobs they don't care what your degree is in as long as you have that piece of paper. That being said we need janitors and garbage men and although I have great kids if that is what they choose to do then I will support that. Once they graduate and leave my house then their life is theirs to live. I also said as long as they have general knowledge they are fine, I never said I wasn't going to teach them more than that, just that in my opinion they don't need to know all the parts of say the eye unless they are an eye doctor.

Quote:
Say your neighbor chooses to do no more than teach their child the basics of reading. Maybe they aren't well-educated themselves or maybe they come from a culture that feels girls really don't need to know more than that or they desperately need the child's help in running a family business. Should this be permissable? That child has now had his/her future lifestyle and career choice severely limited. That is fine? It's sad, but income and education are tied together. The better educated will earn more in all areas of the world. The poorly or uneducated will earn less. (Speaking not of individuals, of course, but as groups.)


The family has a choice to decide their childs future regardless of what anyone else thinks of that decision. I don't see you saying anything about those rich people who groom their child to be a doctor or lawyer or those who have family businesses that are mainstream and will make the children money. You don't feel that this is just as bad? It is simply that the pendulum is swinging the other way (meaning they have money and resources) so people think that it is OK and good for the kids because these kids are going to the "Best" schools or have private tutors.

If a girl comes from a culture that feels girls don't need to know more, well why is it your place or anyone else's place to tell that family they are wrong. Every parent, all over the world, makes decisions for their children. Whether these decisions are right or wrong is not anyone else's place to decide. You or someone else may not agree with this but if you start letting other's including the government come in and make you "accountable" (accountable meaning if you aren't doing it their way you are wrong) for how you raise your kids then pretty soon what you have is a government controlled society. Do you want a socialistic or dictatorship for your government? Or do you want the right to raise your children as you see fit?

You do realize that money can't and doesn't buy happiness, right? People can be poor and under educated and still be happy. It takes all classes to make a society not just one. If we are all equal then who is going to poor and who is going to be middle class? It is what you make of the life you were given that is important not how much you have.

As far as the HS laws, I live in NC and we have very few to follow. We have to file intent, test every year, and keep attendance (where else would they be). However, I did state in my original post that I feel like the little I have to do is to much and I meant it. If I choose to HS I shouldn't have to notify the state and name my school, I shouldn't have to test every year and I shouldn't have to keep attendance. They don't even want to records they just want you to do it. In my opinion it is just a way for the state to encourage you as a parent to leave your kids in PS school because you will have to spend extra money that you may not have or the little bit of "record keeping" they want might scare off a perspective HS parent. It is just silliness, kind of like busy work! Now you go to somewhere like AK and there are no regulations at all which is how it should be in all the states!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dolly-VA
User


Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Theodore wrote:
I would just like to point out that standard of living determines level of education more than the other way around. A dirt-poor economy requires a large percentage of its population to be field workers - otherwise everyone starves. There's not really much point in giving everyone a college education without first improving the economy.

The reality is the opposite of what you're saying. The whole key to civilization is productivity and productivity comes from the capability of building and passing on knowledge from generation to generation rather than require every person to have to rediscover the same things over and over again. With dirt farming you learn only from one or, maybe, two generations. An uneducated dirt farmer does not have the time or experience to invent more efficient means of production. This is something that gets created by the accumulation of knowledge from education. And once there is an accumulation, where one person has acquired the knowledge to produce the food necessary for 50 people, those people now can do other more productive things, maybe create or build better farming equipment, improving life even more.


seekingmyLord wrote:
Let's look on the flip side, someone people would not see as "remarkable." If a person is educated but chooses to be a bum, what does it matter that he can read as he is just not interested in making anything of himself--by OUR standards in the the US. Should this same person be on a Native American reservation living off the land by THEIR traditions, that is okay, right?
In my opinion, if this person was given the opportunity (i.e., an education that allowed him options) then whatever he chose is fine for him. If, however, he decides that life as a bum is not only how he should live but all his children as well so denies them an education so that they may choose, then that is not okay. (Considering the history of the American Indian and the tradition of cheating, lying, killing and stealing from them, it's probably best not to use them as an example.)

Quote:
There is something to said about the story of Adam and Eve seeking knowledge to be better than they thought they were, only to find that what they had, now lost, was something more precious and with all the knowledge they had acquired, they could not get it back nor could they create it for themselves.
Ah, well, my beliefs have not led me to believe that ignorance was bliss but, rather, knowledge was a necessary step in true understanding. Perhaps this is key to our different viewpoints?

Quote:
Not everyone wants or needs a "higher standard of living." Some people would rather live with their traditions untouched by OUR standards. We watch these people eagerly enough on NG or Discovery channels, because they are so different from us--we even study these differences in culture as part of OUR education, by the way. (Talk about double standards!) Of course, there are things that could improve their lives by OUR standards, but it would also cause them to lose something by THEIR standards.
I'll agree that we should not judge others by our standards, but a "higher standard of living" doesn't mean just the ability to buy computers and a new couch every once in a while, but a higher infant mortality rate, schools, medicines, hospitals, shoes, clean water, etc. There is no person in the world that doesn't want their children to survive past the first year or have water free from filth. That's what it means.

Quote:
This is the point I was making. I would prefer to live by my own standards, not by the standards forced upon me, particularly in homeschooling.
Again, I'm not certain what standards you're referring to.

Quote:
Dolly-VA wrote:
That's why the regulations (here anyway) say exactly what is required. I would have no problem confronting this possible someone. (You should hear my eldest repeat some of my parent/teacher conferences of days gone by... Cool

If they did not say what was required, how differently would that affect how you homeschool?
Probably not by much if anything. I wouldn't be stressing the "portfolio" requirement, but I would still be testing my kids.

Quote:
You see, I believe in the Lord and that He has a plan for each life. Had these children placed in public school, I agree they would have had the opportunity to learn, but we all know that is not a guarantee that they would have. Teachers may have just passed them on without bothering with them because they were so behind.
I believe that people make bad choices and do bad things because they have the free will to do so and that sometimes others are affected by these decisions made by others. The responsibility lies on us, the individuals.

seekingmyLord wrote:
I apologize about the edit. However, if you had read the article, you would know that those stats came from a study done in 1990 by the National Home Education Research Institute, entitled "A Nationwide Study of Home Education: Family Characteristics, Legal Matters, and Student Achievement."[/color]
I did read it, but noticed that many of the references were from their own publications. I did do a search on the organization you posted and, unfortunately, mistyped it, and didn't find it. Interesting site though. I'm not certain yet of their philosophical viewpoints, but I'll search it more closely later. I'm always looking to learn more! Very Happy

NCMom, I never thought you were speaking specifically about grooming your kids to be garbage men, I thought it was just an example. As far as grooming kids to be doctors or lawyers, I guess I am biased in this way. I believe it is everyone’s responsibility to provide the most possible for their kids education-wise, but if that kid decides not to be a doctor but a janitor, that’s perfectly fine with me.

Also, in your example of allowing people to keep their daughters ignorant (here in the US) because of religious or traditional values, I’d disagree wholeheartedly. Where do his rights to live his life according to his values stop and yours, mine and that individual’s, his daughter who is likely now a US citizen, begin? Who gets to decide this?

* * *

I'm finding the "no government intervention" very anarchistic in philosophy. It's been quite some time since I studied this (anarchism and it's various subgroups) but even then I never thought of myself as much of a proponent of such. Another philosophical distinction between myself and many of you. Interesting! Still, I'm finding this discussion to be quite fun and I'm hoping no one is getting upset or anything. (A funny way to relax over the holiday weekend Laughing)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kitty-Cat
User


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I was wondering if anyone thinks that homeschoolers should have more accountability? Probably not from the government, but from another source? I mean we need the government, otherwise this country would go wild. The Bible talks about accountability many times. Is there anyone who homeschools that practices accountability to someone outside of their family?


No.
No.
No, only to God.

I think it should be the other way around. Gvt should be much more accountable to the people. Gvt schooling is a service and as such should be accountable to the parents. Why should a body whose own service is failing be held up as someone parents should be accountable too.

If Gvt is seen as being accountable too, then are they responsible for the education of it's nations children? If that is the case then they have the right to set out how that education should look. If on the other hand parents are responsible then they should have the right to set the education goals. The trouble with being accountable to Gvt is that Gvts change, and a different Gvt might have a different agendas. Gvt can very easily swing from being fair and reasonable to being intolerable. Look at Germany, there is a GVt who decided homeschooling is illegal and will throw good parents in jail for educating them at home. Doesn't matter how good a job they are doing, it goes against what the Gvt has decided and that’s that.

Quote:
That's why the regulations (here anyway) say exactly what is required. I would have no problem confronting this possible someone. (You should hear my eldest repeat some of my parent/teacher conferences of days gone by...


Even if you lived in Germany...?? That is assuming the 'someone' was fair and reasonable. Without the power to say “Toss her in jail” I would never assume that with Gvt. Hand over your power to them and they will take it.

Also standardized tests mean little if nothing. If they were just saying can you add 4+5 and read this basic passage then ok, but most are not asking those kinds of sensible questions. Someone told me her son had a test that asked for his opinion then marked his opinion as wrong. Rolling Eyes That smacks of Gvt trying to get people to think a certain way. Which is what will happen if people decide that Gvt is to be accountable too.
_________________
Jo from Australia
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ncmom
User


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 321
Location: Eastern NC

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Also, in your example of allowing people to keep their daughters ignorant (here in the US) because of religious or traditional values, I’d disagree wholeheartedly. Where do his rights to live his life according to his values stop and yours, mine and that individual’s, his daughter who is likely now a US citizen, begin? Who gets to decide this?


It's NOT your choice though! The family should be allowed to decide what they feel is best for their child regardless of what you and I think. Your values are different from everyone else's as are mine. What I am saying is that it is NO ONE else's right to pass judgment or force our values on them. You say "here in the US" well here in the US you should have the freedom to teach your kids your values and raise them anyway you see fit. If you can't then we truly aren't the free nation we thought we were.

I am sorry that you are so biased between the poor and wealthy. The way I see it is, if it is wrong for the poor and possibly uneducated to teach their children the values the parents want taught, even if it means keeping their daughters ignorant, then it is just as wrong for the wealthy to groom their children to say take over the family business. You can't have it both ways! It is either right or wrong. You can't say well it is OK if you are rich but if you are poor well then someone else should decide for you. I think it is up to each individual family and no one else. It just isn't someone outside of the families place to decide these things.

Question for you VA: Would you like for someone to come into your house and tell you that you were raising and educating your children wrong? Then tell you how to raise them and your children won't be good enough to function in society if you don't do what they say because they know better than you the parent? And what if they had no regard towards your religious beliefs or traditional value system?

Isn't one of the things that is supposed to make this country so great the right to choose for yourself what is best for your family?

Quote:
I'm finding the "no government intervention" very anarchistic in philosophy. It's been quite some time since I studied this (anarchism and it's various subgroups) but even then I never thought of myself as much of a proponent of such. Another philosophical distinction between myself and many of you. Interesting! Still, I'm finding this discussion to be quite fun and I'm hoping no one is getting upset or anything. (A funny way to relax over the holiday weekend Laughing)


Are you for a big government then that tells you what to do 24/7? Do you know why this country was truly founded?!? We were getting away from unfair rule, among other things. I am not for "no government" but the only thing the government needs to worry about is the general welfare and safety of this country, which does not include how I educate and raise my child, otherwise they need to butt out of my life. To have a government that tells you how to live (and I don't mean civil laws like don't murder or steal), how to raise a child, and what standards need to be met is either a communistic or socialistic government, depending on how much control the "supreme" person has.

I have an "overeducated sister" who is all about college, education and government control, and thinks I am doing a huge disservice to my children by not having them in PS. This particular sister has her masters and makes less than my husband who isn't even close to her degree.(and yes if she were to work where my husband works she would make what he makes) So what good did that degree do her? My husband loves what he does and my sister hates what she does. Again what good did all that education do her if she is miserable? My other sister has a degree in physical therapy and works selling cell phones because she likes it. She started doing this right out of high school and this job requires no degree. She makes more than my husband and did before she got her degree. We were all taught that women should stay home and raise the family. I chose that path. My parents raised us the way they felt was right, ultimately we chose our own paths though. Every parent should have the choice to raise their children their way with their belief system. BTW both of these sisters are for more government control over parents. You see education can also breed complete idiots! (and I was not implying anyone here is an idiot)

Quote:

Not everyone wants or needs a "higher standard of living." Some people would rather live with their traditions untouched by OUR standards. We watch these people eagerly enough on NG or Discovery channels, because they are so different from us--we even study these differences in culture as part of OUR education, by the way. (Talk about double standards!) Of course, there are things that could improve their lives by OUR standards, but it would also cause them to lose something by THEIR standards.
Quote:
I'll agree that we should not judge others by our standards, but a "higher standard of living" doesn't mean just the ability to buy computers and a new couch every once in a while, but a higher infant mortality rate, schools, medicines, hospitals, shoes, clean water, etc. There is no person in the world that doesn't want their children to survive past the first year or have water free from filth. That's what it means.



I agree with seekingmylord, we assume that everyone wants to be like us. You know maybe, just maybe they are happy the way they are and just want us to leave them alone. As far as infant mortality rates in other countries that is a totally different subject and has nothing to do with "accountability" in this country.

Most people in this country look at others who have money and see happiness and then look at the poor and see unhappiness, but that is simply not how life really works. How many of you look at a person's wealth and make assumptions on whether or not they have a good life and are happy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Theodore
Moderator


Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 2122
Location: Missouri, US

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dolly-VA wrote:
The reality is the opposite of what you're saying. The whole key to civilization is productivity and productivity comes from the capability of building and passing on knowledge from generation to generation rather than require every person to have to rediscover the same things over and over again. With dirt farming you learn only from one or, maybe, two generations. An uneducated dirt farmer does not have the time or experience to invent more efficient means of production. This is something that gets created by the accumulation of knowledge from education. And once there is an accumulation, where one person has acquired the knowledge to produce the food necessary for 50 people, those people now can do other more productive things, maybe create or build better farming equipment, improving life even more.


I never said that you should be totally uneducated, just that a college education is pointless if your existence is subsistence-level. Everyone needs basic reading, writing, math skills, but do you need a college education or even a high school education if you're a farmer, shopkeeper, etc.? The most important thing is not giving everyone a higher education to start off, but rather improving infrastructure to the point where the economy can support jobs that require a higher education. Roads, bridges, dams, irrigation, farm equipment, clean water, electricity (for the cities at least), etc. You'll need educated workers to keep all of this running, but without it their education is useless, since the vast majority of the population will still be needed just for basic necessities. Education can only improve things to a certain point without capital and equipment.

Which is more effective - a farmer with a college education, or a farmer with a tractor (or even an ox) and just basic reading skills? The latter, of course.
_________________
Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dolly-VA
User


Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, dear. I'm sorry that feelings did get so high here.

I'm not certain where the idea came from that it is our right, as Americans, to choose for ourselves what is right for our family. We have the right to decide for ourselves certain things but not if they infringe on another's rights. Our children are American citizens, they have their own inalienable rights. They are not belongings, pets or slaves. We, as parents, have certain duties to them, but we don't own them. We choose to live in this country, to benefit from the security and comfort that people from all over the world wish they had and try to gain legally and illegally, and in return we are expected to act responsibly and follow the laws we, as the people of the US, have established. We did not build a perfect government, but wouldn't you agree it is better than most? Fortunately, we were smart enought to have built into it a system of checks and balances that have made it possible to change the laws and regulations to reflect the times. This was pointed out in an earlier post to show just how much the regulations toward homeschooling have changed in the last half century. This is a bad thing? Absolutely not!

About your question, no, I wouldn't like living in a society that you propose. That's why I like living here.

As far as wanting "big government." Well, I guess I'm a Federalist. I come from a long line of Federalists. I also come from Puritan stock (straight over with the Mayflower--actually Seperationist Stock, but that's splitting hairs) and I am a member of the DAR. That doesn't mean I'm for "big government" but I am for a centralized government. And I do agree with you that government should be concerned with the "general welfare and safety of this country." Good thing that the general welfare includes protecting the rights of all individuals. You, me, your neighbor, his daughter.

You sound like you have a fun family, actually. I would love to hear your discussions (as long as you all get along, that is Wink) My father was a democrat, his entire side of the family were extremely republican. It was a hoot to listen to them.

Quote:
How many of you look at a person's wealth and make assumptions on whether or not they have a good life and are happy?
Not I! I'm a firm believer in quality of life being the most important thing. I love homeschooling, my work has suffered (and with it the income,) but I could care less.

Quote:
I agree with seekingmylord, we assume that everyone wants to be like us. You know maybe, just maybe they are happy the way they are and just want us to leave them alone.
As this concerns people living in the US, then obviously they have made a specific decision. They have chosen to leave their countries to come here, benefit from our way of life. So, if all that is required is that they respect the rights of others, how is that a bad thing?

And, my goodness, I have nothing biased against poor or rich. You must be very upset to have thought this.

Peace Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dolly-VA
User


Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Theodore wrote:
I never said that you should be totally uneducated, just that a college education is pointless if your existence is subsistence-level. Everyone needs basic reading, writing, math skills,
Absolutely! This was the entire point of that part of the discussion. That everyone needs basic reading, writing and math skills. Thank you! Very Happy

Theodore wrote:
... but do you need a college education or even a high school education if you're a farmer, shopkeeper, etc.? The most important thing is not giving everyone a higher education to start off, but rather improving infrastructure to the point where the economy can support jobs that require a higher education. Roads, bridges, dams, irrigation, farm equipment, clean water, electricity (for the cities at least), etc. You'll need educated workers to keep all of this running, but without it their education is useless, since the vast majority of the population will still be needed just for basic necessities. Education can only improve things to a certain point without capital and equipment.
Unfortunately, basic eduction will not provide bridges, dams, clean water, electricity, etc. For this you need people with an advanced education. So some people need to go to college.

Theodore wrote:
Which is more effective - a farmer with a college education, or a farmer with a tractor (or even an ox) and just basic reading skills? The latter, of course.
In farming, something is effective if it helps in the production of crops. For that reason, since the farmer with a college education has both the accumulated knowledge from his education along with the practical knowledge of how people farm in his country, he could potentially improve the irrigation system increasing the production of crops for hundreds, if not thousands of dirt farmers, so I would say that is the most effective. Next would be a farmer with a tractor. He could produce more on his own piece of land, though a tractor does infer there is some kind of industry established to produce this kind of equipment. Last in effectiveness, would be the farmer with the ox.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kitty-Cat
User


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'm not certain where the idea came from that it is our right, as Americans, to choose for ourselves what is right for our family. We have the right to decide for ourselves certain things but not if they infringe on another's rights. Our children are American citizens, they have their own inalienable rights. They are not belongings, pets or slaves. We, as parents, have certain duties to them, but we don't own them. We choose to live in this country, to benefit from the security and comfort that people from all over the world wish they had and try to gain legally and illegally, and in return we are expected to act responsibly and follow the laws we, as the people of the US, have established.


Is this thread only for American's then? I am not American, and don't want to be. However I also believe we have the right to choose for our own family. If we didn't have that right Gvt could easily say something about a certain sections religious practices or beliefs and outlaw them. I am not talking here about child torture, just practices which may seem culturally strange to the general population that parents practice and want to pass on to their children. I might not agree with them, but I will still defend another parents right to practice them. One day those religious practices may well be the norm and mine will be the minority and I would want the same rules that applied to them originally to still apply to me.
_________________
Jo from Australia
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ncmom
User


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 321
Location: Eastern NC

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First I don't know about anyone else but I am not at all upset and my feelings aren't hurt. I bet you couldn't tell but I am very opinionated and don't worry I have thick skin. People are always telling me the way I believe or think is wrong and quite frankly I don't care what anyone else thinks about my opinions. I will give you my opinion and if you don't want to discuss it then OK, if you do want to discuss it cool just don't be surprised if we disagree.

That being said I am just tired of people assuming because people don't have money they suffer and that the only way to make them happy is to throw more education at them. Unfortunately my parents and sisters are some of those people. I disagree with them frequently and they know my opinions. Education is such a small part of life. And today it is stressed to much. Most kids spend a good 20 or more years of their life in school. Most kids start school at 2 or 3 and go until they are 25 or older. That is dumb! We think everyone needs to go to school and they don't. We need unskilled workers too and I don't mean the illegal type. I mean unskilled American workers. It takes all the works in a clock to make it work. You take one out and it won't work anymore. It is the same with a country. It takes all kinds of workers and classes to make a country work. You take one of those away and things start breaking down.
And...
It is true in this country there is a double standard between the way we look at the rich and the poor. The rich are listened to and the poor ignored. It is just the way things are now.

Quote:
As far as wanting "big government." Well, I guess I'm a Federalist. I come from a long line of Federalists. I also come from Puritan stock (straight over with the Mayflower--actually Seperationist Stock, but that's splitting hairs) and I am a member of the DAR. That doesn't mean I'm for "big government" but I am for a centralized government. And I do agree with you that government should be concerned with the "general welfare and safety of this country." Good thing that the general welfare includes protecting the rights of all individuals. You, me, your neighbor, his daughter.


I am also a firm believer in smaller government. I am sick of federal and state governments telling me how to raise my kids. Everyday they make a new law that didn't need to be made but some crazy group lobbied it because they new what was better for me and my family than I did and well give the government and inch and they'll just go ahead and take it all.

You are exactly right when you say that the general welfare means protecting the rights of people. That does not mean they control you or tell you how to live or how to raise your family and in my opinion that includes educating your children. Also, I don't know how you were raised or how you raised your kids but in my house my husband and I own everything you have and as long as you are under our roof you live by our standards and rules. Don't get me wrong our kids aren't afraid of us and we don't mistreat them but there is a definite pecking order here and as old fashioned as this sounds dad has the authority to overrule mom and has the ultimate say. If our kids don't like the rules then tough we are doing what we feel is in their best interest. It is how my husband and I were both was raised and I am happy this way!

Quote:

You sound like you have a fun family, actually. I would love to hear your discussions (as long as you all get along, that is Wink) My father was a democrat, his entire side of the family were extremely republican. It was a hoot to listen to them.


Oh and being at a discussion with me and my family...that discussion wouldn't happen in a million years. I try to avoid being in the same room with all my family at the same time. I am the black sheep of the family when it comes to everything, especially education and they make sure I know it so it makes things a little on the tense side when I start voicing my opionions. Now my husbands family, there is a conversation to hear. All of his siblings, except one, home school and all feel about the same way about most issues but we all feel a little differently about certain aspects so the conversations get weird sometimes.

So all this goes back to "accountability" for parents who homeschool their children. Ultimately it is the parents choice, right, and duty to educate their children the way they see fit regardless of what outsiders think. When another parent sticks their nose into a homeschoolers life and starts demanding they prove that the child is getting a good education don't be surprised if you see that nosy parent with a bent nose. It is no ones business how a person chooses to raise their family regardless if that person thinks only boys should read and only girls should cook or only girls should do math while boys do yard work. It is a cultural difference that everyone else needs to respect. I may not agree with the way someones culture educates but it is still the parents right to do it their way and no one, not even the government should be able to make them do it any other way.
Quote:

Is this thread only for American's then? I am not American, and don't want to be. However I also believe we have the right to choose for our own family.


Kitty-Cat I can't speak for everyone else but I don't care where you are from feel free to put in your two cents worth. And I am glad to here you say that you don't want to be an American, it just goes to prove what has already been said, "Not everyone wants to be us". As far as your opinion goes I think that is how most of us feel. We may not agree but it is not our place to say it is right or wrong. It is the parents decision how they educate their children and what values they teach them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gardening momma
User


Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 61
Location: Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dolly-VA wrote:
I'm not certain where the idea came from that it is our right, as Americans, to choose for ourselves what is right for our family. We have the right to decide for ourselves certain things but not if they infringe on another's rights. Our children are American citizens, they have their own inalienable rights. They are not belongings, pets or slaves. We, as parents, have certain duties to them, but we don't own them.

I do have the right to make choices for my children. As long as they are minors, I do have the right to veto their choices, and I do if I think it's in their best interest. I have more experience than them, and know better if they should be allowed to do something or not.

Dolly-VA wrote:
Unfortunately, basic eduction will not provide bridges, dams, clean water, electricity, etc. For this you need people with an advanced education. So some people need to go to college.

You misread Theodore's comment. He said a higher education is needed for these things (more than a basic one).

Theodore wrote:

Which is more effective - a farmer with a college education, or a farmer with a tractor (or even an ox) and just basic reading skills? The latter, of course.

Dolly-VA wrote:
In farming, something is effective if it helps in the production of crops. For that reason, since the farmer with a college education has both the accumulated knowledge from his education along with the practical knowledge of how people farm in his country, he could potentially improve the irrigation system increasing the production of crops for hundreds, if not thousands of dirt farmers, so I would say that is the most effective. Next would be a farmer with a tractor. He could produce more on his own piece of land, though a tractor does infer there is some kind of industry established to produce this kind of equipment. Last in effectiveness, would be the farmer with the ox.

Theodore had it right. A farmer can farm with a tractor (that he bought from a possibly more educated source) or an ox, without knowing how to improve his farm. He can still produce an income (or just the food he needs to live) without an advanced education. A farmer with a degree, but no farm implements can't do any farming.

I know some farmers. They don't all have a need to improve their irrigation system (or other aspect of their farm) to increase production for hundreds or thousands of other farmers. I think that would be a totally different job than actual farming. I believe there are plenty of colleges who have students doing hands-on agricultural studies that help improve farming technology, but those students are not necessarily farmers. They're researchers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ncmom
User


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 321
Location: Eastern NC

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dolly-VA wrote:

Theodore wrote:
Which is more effective - a farmer with a college education, or a farmer with a tractor (or even an ox) and just basic reading skills? The latter, of course.
In farming, something is effective if it helps in the production of crops. For that reason, since the farmer with a college education has both the accumulated knowledge from his education along with the practical knowledge of how people farm in his country, he could potentially improve the irrigation system increasing the production of crops for hundreds, if not thousands of dirt farmers, so I would say that is the most effective. Next would be a farmer with a tractor. He could produce more on his own piece of land, though a tractor does infer there is some kind of industry established to produce this kind of equipment. Last in effectiveness, would be the farmer with the ox.


Farming is a good example. A farmer doesn't need a college degree to farm. All the knowledge he needs is learned through hands on experience, probably through working the farm with his parents as a child. It is one of those unskilled jobs that is best taught as "an on the job training" situation. As far as other countries and other farming methods, again it is not our place to tell them they need school to improve their way of life. More education doesn't necessarily mean a better life.

Gardening momma: I agree with you about the children and wish more people felt that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Theodore
Moderator


Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 2122
Location: Missouri, US

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to the original subject - the government should not be overseeing every facet of our life, or taxing us until we bleed. Read your Revolutionary War-era history and you'll see that the Founding Fathers didn't want that for us either. While some amount of government is necessary to keep everything running well, we have way more government than we need.

- The tax code is so huge it's impossible for anyone to know all of it.
- Business regulations are so restrictive (esp if you have 10+ employees), that starting a new business is next to impossible.
- The more you earn, the more you pay in taxes - but the rich can evade this by moving their money and investments overseas, so the middle class ends up footing the vast majority of the bill.
- As I stated before, over half of your tax money is wasted or lost to fraud, while the same amount of money donated to local charities is 90% effective. More if you count the benefit of knowing local suppliers.

It's simple economics - a less restrictive government results in a much improved economy. Sure, you might widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" by not soaking the "haves" and redistributing the money, but more people will be able to afford to give to charity, and an improved economy means a better standard of living overall. The deserving poor end up in a much better situation, since the undeserving poor are no longer getting welfare checks. Being "nice" (especially with someone else's money) doesn't always help.

Regarding government oversight of education - there are admittedly a few instances of "homeschoolers" who don't actually do any homeschooling, but far more instances of public schoolers who don't learn anything in the public schools. The government has no right to oversee homeschooling unless it can produce better results itself, and it can't.

Regarding learning to read - this is something everyone needs to do. I don't care what culture you come from, there's no good substitute for book learning. However, I'm also not going to say that the government should be in the business of schooling, since it does a lousy job at it. The government could perhaps supply the money for schooling (education is very important), but ultimate control over where that money ends up should be in the hands of parents.
_________________
Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Homeschool World Forum Forum Index -> Homeschool Law All times are GMT - 6 Hours (CST)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Homeschool World Terms of Use  •  Privacy Policy  •  Copyright ©1993-Now Home Life, Inc.