Accountability Within Homeschooling

[seekingmyLord]

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 [b]is very important), but ultimate control over where that money ends up should be in the hands of parents.[/b]

I have agreed with much that you have said except this, although I am not sure what you mean here.

However, when money goes out from the government there will be, should be, even must be accountability. If people are going to accept money from the government for education, they are going to have to do so within specific guidelines that will limit their freedoms in education.

[seekingmyLord]

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!

Amen! :)

[seekingmyLord]

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.

Neither does the state--well, actually that may be disputed but I would like to keep it that way.

More regulation means more difficulty to comply, which means more opportunity to mess up so that the government can step in and take away my parental rights. Obviously, some people encourage this process and function of government, but I don't.

I have been watching the outcome of cases in the US and worldwide, particularly in the practical application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It all sounds good for the children on paper, but in actual practice parental rights are basically limited to the government will let you house, feed, and clothe your children as long as you do it in a way that the government does not disapprove. How the child is educated must also be in a way that government does not disapprove.

So, some people are so sure that they are doing the right thing for their children that they have no problem with the government going after the troublemakers, but after a few additions to the laws and they find out all the great things they thought they were doing is not not meeting with government approval, it is a different story then, isn't it?

Wouldn't happen? Let me ask you. Does your state have more laws or less laws than we had ten years ago? Do you know all the new laws your state made in the last year? What bills are being proposed in your state right now that may affect your family? I bet most of us don't have a clue. Only because we have homeschool law watchdogs, do we even know what laws are being introduced that may affect homeschooling. Just as Theodore stated about the IRS codes, it is impossible to know all the laws and how they are being interpreted in courts.

We have already lost the parental rights when children are in public school. I don't want to lose parental rights in home education and that is the only logical conclusion if we encourage more regulation instead of less or, better, none at all.

[Kitty-Cat]

Neither does the state--well, actually that may be disputed but I would like to keep it that way.

More regulation means more difficulty to comply, which means more opportunity to mess up so that the government can step in and take away my parental rights. Obviously, some people encourage this process and function of government, but I don't.

I have been watching the outcome of cases in the US and worldwide, particularly in the practical application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It all sounds good for the children on paper, but in actual practice parental rights are basically limited to the government will let you house, feed, and clothe your children as long as you do it in a way that the government does not disapprove. How the child is educated must also be in a way that government does not disapprove.

So, some people are so sure that they are doing the right thing for their children that they have no problem with the government going after the troublemakers, but after a few additions to the laws and they find out all the great things they thought they were doing is not not meeting with government approval, it is a different story then, isn't it?

Wouldn't happen? Let me ask you. Does your state have more laws or less laws than we had ten years ago? Do you know all the new laws your state made in the last year? What bills are being proposed in your state right now that may affect your family? I bet most of us don't have a clue. Only because we have homeschool law watchdogs, do we even know what laws are being introduced that may affect homeschooling. Just as Theodore stated about the IRS codes, it is impossible to know all the laws and how they are being interpreted in courts.

We have already lost the parental rights when children are in public school. I don't want to lose parental rights in home education and that is the only logical conclusion if we encourage more regulation instead of less or, better, none at all.

Amen.

[Dolly-VA]

Very interesting day! This has been my first chance to check this thread today. School days are so time consuming! lol!

NCmom, I'm glad you are opinionated and like to discuss things. It was very interesting reading your post. In many ways, believe it or not, we are very similar.

Unfortunately, mentally I'm "back at school" and have lost the focus I had the last two days, so I'm not going to be able to make many waves this post. I did enjoy reading everyone's responses! A couple things did stick in my mind, from the woman from Australia, I do believe that all parents have the responsibility to do the best, choose the best, provide the best for their kids (I'm speaking not about material things, but the intangibles that are so much more important.) I also feel that government shouldn't interfere with religious practices...to an extent. Personally (and don't think I feel you or anyone else on this forum are for ANY of these things, you just started me thinking and so I'm putting down where I feel intervention is a GOOD thing) I'm against polygamy. Call me old fashioned... I'm also very turned off by forcing women to wear burkas whether under the penalty of stoning or not. Stoning, btw, for any reason, is right out, imo. I don't care what ANY religious leaders say. Oh, and any kind of female circumcision. NOT ACCEPTABLE. But really, when it comes down to it, for most reasons, a person's beliefs are their own and it's one of the things that, I feel, makes the world more interesting. (I also feel intolerance is intolerable. )

About education... I don't feel everyone should go to college. Yikes! Think of how miserable many people would be! I do think that everyone should get a basic education because, it is from that, that the people who would truly benefit and enjoy further education would be found. I am a strong proponent of vocational training. Where I live now, the high school system is offering more and more "academy" courses for 11th and 12th graders. This is awesome. Nursing. Bookkeeping. Dental assistants. Auto mechanics. (Can you hear Sally Struthers voice?) Many, many kids don't want to continue going to school. They're miserable there! But most aren't given the opportunity for on the job training (farming, for instance.) Vocational training is a great way to train someone who would love to do nothing but play with cars all day the experience they'd need to get a job. (So, there. No more accusing me of thinking everyone should go to college. )

Oh, I HATE the double standard of "who do we listen to." Yes, it's the rich over the poor. But, wow, would actors and rock musicians PLEASE SHUT UP? (Sorry, my pet peeve.)

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!

Yep, pretty much here, too. I've spoken to my kids about how this is simply a matter of respect. While here, while I am providing all for you, you should respect my rules even if you don't agree with them. (I believed this as a child, too, and my best friend stopped being friends with me because I told her while she was staying the summer with my parents she needed to respect their home and lifestyle.) As for being old fashioned...I cannot remember the comedian who said this but it totally cracked up my husband. "When we got married, my wife and I spoke about who was to make the decisions for the household. Well, we decided that she would make the little ones, but I would make all the big ones and it's worked for us. In 20 years of marriage, there hasn't been one big decision..." I guess I'm lucky. My husband and I have never disagreed on anything major and hardly anything minor.

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.

I was speaking with my sister about this and her first response was, "How else would they ever be able to read the Bible if they never learned to read?" Just a thought.

Hmm, I still don't agree about the farming. Many of my relatives are farmers and each and every one of them utilizes modern equipment and methods to increase productivity. Their coffee tables are covered with magazines about the latest. I even have a good friend that writes for a fertilizer newsletter! The people I know share all the latest and best. What new strains of corn are more draught resistant, what hybrids are outstanding producers, etc. Often, they and their kids have gone to agricultural colleges to learn to take better advantage of the fact they are blessed with land. As for third world countries, ask the Peace Corp. Much of what they do is teach the farmers how to grow more on their land. Ah, well.

It's simple economics - a less restrictive government results in a much improved economy.

Because I'm feeling like digging somewhere can you give an example of this?

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.

Probably this is true, even if one looks at it proportionally, but the problem is that these few instances are the ones that set people off. These are the ones that all of us have to fight the stigma of. What people who work for the county school systems see is not that X number of PS kids can't read after 12 years of school, but that X number of kids taken from school under a religious exemption to be homeschooled never were. What is considered child abuse? The physical definitions everyone agrees with, it's the others, among them the varying types of neglect, that cause contention. If you were a school administrator and you found out that a family had pulled a child from your school under the pretenses of taking on the responsibility of education that child themselves, yet they did not, you would feel as though you were partly to blame. You, the school administrator, failed to provide for this innocent person and now they will suffer that failure their entire life. Now, that school administrator is going to look at every homeschooler a little more closely. Be a little more cautious. Ask questions. One bad homeschooler can effect thousands of future homeschoolers who will come into contact with that one person. (Who may NOT be against homeschooling at all, just be more cautious.) Does that make sense?

More regulation means more difficulty to comply, which means more opportunity to mess up so that the government can step in and take away my parental rights. Obviously, some people encourage this process and function of government, but I don't.

I'm curious, I've not read one person here who is for this. Unless you mean me? Is this because I find filing once a year and testing at the end of it very little to do? When I look at what I expect of my kids each day as I homeschool them, honestly, how can I complain.

You know, if everyone was good and nice, if everyone did nothing bad toward another, if no one ever violated another's rights, governments would never have been necessary. But people do not always agree. We are sneaky, we want more than we have, we cheat, lie, steal, disclaim responsibility, hold up our hands and swear innocence while our brothers are lying at our feet with a knife stuck in his back. There has been no time in history where any people of any number coexisted without laws to define limits and set boundaries so that all will know how they are expected to behave and understand that there are consequences if they are crossed or broken. There is comfort in this! You know your neighbor won't steal your car and he knows you won't shoot him for his house. Rather than carry on about "the government" demanding you bow to their burdensome demands for filing an NOI every year, you should be working with the people who put forth themselves daily to try and educate all children. Speak with Mrs. O'Connor, the woman who lives near you and been working in the elementary school office for ten years about something you've found that works for LD kids, show Ms. Ortega, the ESL teacher, the new materials you found or developed, try helping these individual's, these people who are your neighbors and maybe even friends, improve the education system for all instead of coming across as anti-establismentarians.

Hey, maybe I have managed to post something that will make waves!

Night all!

[Kitty-Cat]

If it could be shown that states that had a lot of hoops for homeschooling parents, such as New York achieved much better results then states with 0 oversight such as Texes (yes even I know something about US homeschooling laws ) then yes there would be a point in some kind of accountability. But in reality there is no difference. The only thing extra Gvt control does is make it harder for people to get on with there lives. They are simply a waste of time, which could be better spent.

Yes there will be some people that abuse such freedoms, but why should hundreds of people be suspected when only a handful are the bad eggs. Would you like the Gvt to assume you are a child abuser and so you have to show proof every year that you are not? What ever happened to assumed innocent till proven guilty? Or doesn't your courts work that way?

Also it has been shown many times that having gvt agencies and rules do not always do the best for children. I remember reading about those Jackson boys that were supposedly homeschooled that were being starved to death. They had had many visits by children services who did nothing for them. People like that will continue to abuse children no matter what the rules are.

[Theodore]

Northeast states like New York achieve better results simply because the northeast has always pushed education more heavily. It's a cultural / environmental thing and has nothing at all to do with oversight. Texas also has a lot more crime per capita than many other states - does that mean that we should take away all the guns from law-abiding citizens? No, crime just correlates to higher temperatures, and the south is hotter and the northeast is colder.

Rather than trying to compare apples and oranges, compare how well homeschoolers in New York did compared to public schoolers in New York. I'm sure they easily outperformed.

[ncmom]

Yes there will be some people that abuse such freedoms, but why should hundreds of people be suspected when only a handful are the bad eggs. Would you like the Gvt to assume you are a child abuser and so you have to show proof every year that you are not? What ever happened to assumed innocent till proven guilty? Or doesn't your courts work that way?

Kitty-Cat most people in this country have their heads stuck in the sand when it comes to what the government really is up to. Since you mentioned child abuse I am going to give you an example of what I have seen: Of the people I know who have children 99% live in fear that someone will call child services on them for spanking (not beating) their children or smacking their hands (not excessively) just one smack. And then 95% of the time when they are called child services will take the kids away from you until you can prove that you aren't abusing them. I personally have never had a problem but I do know for a fact, because I was there, of an incident where a teenage boy was hitting his grandmother, she grab him by the shirt and pushed him in his house, shut the door, and left. Didn't hit him, knock him over, or hurt him in anyway. DFCS was called by a neighbor and the grandma, who was being beaten up by this kid, wasn't allowed to see the child again until she proved she wasn't abusing him. There was another woman who smacked her 4 yr olds hand, one time, because he was throwing eggs in the grocery store floor from the cart (it wasn't even hard enough to make the kid cry). A cashier called and the child was taken away while they investigated the family. Then people wonder why kids are out of control and PS are so violent. Hello...Parents aren't allowed to discipline their children the way they see fit.

Most people I know in the US, for some reason, are for bigger government. What they don't realize is they are slowly loosing their freedoms and a big one is your freedom to raise your children. Kind of like putting a frog in water and slowly turning up the heat. I know that most of these "experts" think they are doing what is good for me and my kids, but my goodness let me choose and quite choosing for me. Then after they choose for me anyway, even though I didn't want them to, they make it a law so now I have to do it. It is a vicious circle and very few people, in perspective to the population of the US, stand up and say anything. The ones that do say something are usually the poor and then we go back to they are ignored.

As for Australia, other than the worlds most poisonous and dangerous everything lives there , I know nothing. Just kidding that is all I got from the special on Australia's animals that I saw the other day. I have no idea what your government is like and what your homeschool laws are, I hope they are good. I personally will not travel outside of the US border. To dangerous so I only know what I am told, read, or see. But I know my government and they are a sneaky bunch!

I also feel that government shouldn't interfere with religious practices...to an extent. Personally (and don't think I feel you or anyone else on this forum are for ANY of these things, you just started me thinking and so I'm putting down where I feel intervention is a GOOD thing) I'm against polygamy. Call me old fashioned... Wink I'm also very turned off by forcing women to wear burkas whether under the penalty of stoning or not. Stoning, btw, for any reason, is right out, imo. I don't care what ANY religious leaders say. Oh, and any kind of female circumcision. NOT ACCEPTABLE. But really, when it comes down to it, for most reasons, a person's beliefs are their own and it's one of the things that, I feel, makes the world more interesting. (I also feel intolerance is intolerable. Razz)

VA--I don't agree with most of the things you listed either, but you know what, it still isn't our place to force our way of life and our beliefs on another culture. Sometimes bad things happen in the US and all over the world but I do not support any group that goes and tells others how to live. Even if it means that women have to wear burkas under the penalty of stoning (although a burka was typically worn by males). It is their practice and although we may disagree with it it is not our place to tell them different. Other countries have their laws, customs, and religious practices and if people don't like them I suggest they quit watching the National Geographic Channel.

Now back to HS accountablitiy? I still think that there should be less restrictions on HS parents and that all governments should accept that parents know better than they do and just stop fighting the HS population. I think the less opposition they put up the better off everyone would be. I know a lot of people who will never put their kids in school and HS but never register with the state either. The kids were never in school so there is no record of them other than their Birth Cert. and SSN and what if they no longer live in that state. There are ways around the system for those who start out with the intent to HS and never plan on using the PS system.

[Theodore]

Hmm, I still don't agree about the farming. Many of my relatives are farmers and each and every one of them utilizes modern equipment and methods to increase productivity. Their coffee tables are covered with magazines about the latest. I even have a good friend that writes for a fertilizer newsletter! The people I know share all the latest and best. What new strains of corn are more draught resistant, what hybrids are outstanding producers, etc. Often, they and their kids have gone to agricultural colleges to learn to take better advantage of the fact they are blessed with land. As for third world countries, ask the Peace Corp. Much of what they do is teach the farmers how to grow more on their land. Ah, well.

You're assuming an already developed nation with advanced technology, which is not what I was talking about at all. And you don't need even a high school education to read newsletters or operate machinery. My original argument was simply that setting up colleges in a third-world country before making sure basic infrastructure is taken care of is stupid. A better standard of living will promote education, but education without capital can't do much of anything. You might know what needs to be done, but if you can't afford to do any of it, what's the point?

I read an article recently in the MIT technical journal about a businessman who set up a cell phone network in Africa, now used by over 6 million people. He didn't know anything about setting up cell phone networks, but he hired people who did (from out of country), and invested his entire savings of 1.5 million plus whatever he could scrounge. The cell phone network has helped a lot of people, and there's no way he could have done it without the money, regardless of his level of education.

It's simple economics - a less restrictive government results in a much improved economy.

Because I'm feeling like digging somewhere can you give an example of this?

Hong Kong. One of the highest per-capita GDP's in the world (at least until China took over), and virtually no regulation.

Las Vegas, same thing. Little or no taxes and very little regulation, and it's the fastest growing area in the US.

For that matter, almost all the "red" states are growing while almost all the "blue" states are slowly dying, because taxation and regulation in red states is significantly less and people move from blue states to red states when they want to start a business or find a good job. California, possibly the most restrictive state in the US in terms of regulations, is in big trouble. New York has all sorts of problems. Etc. The government taking all your money and forcing you to do things you don't want to tends to squash your willingness to work.

[seekingmyLord]

If you were a school administrator and you found out that a family had pulled a child from your school under the pretenses of taking on the responsibility of education that child themselves, yet they did not, you would feel as though you were partly to blame.

No. But see, there is the problem when the concept of parental rights gets redefined to exactly what I was addressing earlier.

Now believing in parental rights, if the child was in my school and did not learn, I would not feel I am to blame. Public education is not a guarantee that every ps child will be educated, only that every ps child will have the opportunity to be educated. If the child is not in my school, that opportunity to be educated is not my responsibility.

As a school administrator, I would also know that the state does not own the ps child, cannot force a ps child to learn, and that I am not held personally responsible if the ps child doesn't get educated.

You, the school administrator, failed to provide for this innocent person and now they will suffer that failure their entire life. Now, that school administrator is going to look at every homeschooler a little more closely. Be a little more cautious. Ask questions. One bad homeschooler can effect thousands of future homeschoolers who will come into contact with that one person. (Who may NOT be against homeschooling at all, just be more cautious.) Does that make sense?

And there lies the real problem! Government employees, who have a job they are supposed to do, looking to work on problems outside of their scope. They have enough failure within the schools to keep them busy, one would think.

It is very simple. If we had a super cracking down on homeschoolers, I would be out collecting affidavits from those who left the public school system because it was failing their children and those who are still in it too. Then I would make a phone call or better walk into a BOE meeting so that they are aware of what has been collected and that it will be going to the media, if they don't begin doing the job they are supposed to be doing and stop reaching outside their scope.

I'm curious, I've not read one person here who is for this. Unless you mean me? Is this because I find filing once a year and testing at the end of it very little to do? When I look at what I expect of my kids each day as I homeschool them, honestly, how can I complain.

The OP was about there should be more accountability and you stated that you were for regulation, without further defining what you consider acceptable regulation. I am for all laws that constitutionally protect my property and my person. I am against unnecessary regulation, all and any, outside that scope. I would find that one LOI acceptable regulation. Not one each year, just one if a child is being pulled out of school. I would prefer to have the opportunity to make it a courtesy letter without having any particular form and no requirement.

There is no reason for the state to need to know where my child is IF the child does not belong to the state, but thanks to compulsory laws...if the child is not in their care (that is, not in a public school) the state has the right to know in whose care the child is. You may see a LOI as a declaration that you will be homeschooling, but it easily could become a request to the state to allow you to homeschool as long as it does not disapprove. Maybe it already is. There is such a fine line there now that it is difficult to tell how it really serves since this has not yet been challenged in court, to my knowledge. Until that day, we really don't know who has last say rights over the child's education in each state.

[Dolly-VA]

Theodore, we had a confusion of responses to your original post because it started as international, was brought in to being national, then went international again. For the most part, I agree with you. Oh, and wouldn't it be nice to have 1.5 million to take a business risk with?

Seeking...you and I obviously have fundamental differences about responsibility and such, and vastly different levels of worry of potential government interference. Your viewpoint and worries sounds very much like that espoused by HSLDA. You have much company!

And wasn't the OP asking if any of us think that we should have more accountability? My response that seemed to bother so many was that I am only accountable to the county by way of filing the NOI and test taking and had no problem with that and besides didn't know what the poster was meaning by "more." Ah, what a lively can of worms!

Oops, break is over, back to class...

[ncmom]

For that matter, almost all the "red" states are growing while almost all the "blue" states are slowly dying, because taxation and regulation in red states is significantly less and people move from blue states to red states when they want to start a business or find a good job. California, possibly the most restrictive state in the US in terms of regulations, is in big trouble. New York has all sorts of problems. Etc. The government taking all your money and forcing you to do things you don't want to tends to squash your willingness to work.

Thank you Theodore! I have noticed this and moved out of one of those "red" states because the government was to in my face. However, when it came to HS laws that state was better believe it or not. In that state there was no intent to file and nothing to do each year you were simply on your own. But if you are looking strictly at regulations and restrictions the government there was getting worse by the day.

There is no reason for the state to need to know where my child is IF the child does not belong to the state, but thanks to compulsory laws...if the child is not in their care (that is, not in a public school) the state has the right to know in whose care the child is. You may see a LOI as a declaration that you will be homeschooling, but it easily could become a request to the state to allow you to homeschool as long as it does not disapprove. Maybe it already is. There is such a fine line there now that it is difficult to tell how it really serves since this has not yet been challenged in court, to my knowledge. Until that day, we really don't know who has last say rights over the child's education in each state.

Exactly! Actually I think the state does believe they have the right to know where your child is. If they didn't why would you need to tell them you are HS?

Looking at some of the states laws here I found some interesting ones. In TN: For grades K-8: High school diploma or GED For grades 9-12: baccalaureate degree (or an exemption granted by the commissioner of education) from what I have read that exemption rarely happens. You can operate under religious beliefs and these don't apply but what if you don't want to use religion as your reason?
For Washington State:For just a homeschool Either: 1) be supervised by a certified teacher, or 2) have 45 college quarter credit hours, or 3) completed a course in home education, or 4) be deemed qualified by the local superintendent or Operate under an extension program of an approved private school designed for parents to teach their children at home Must be under the supervision of a certified teacher employed by the approved private school

So there are some states that in my opinion already think they own your child and are being allowed to overstep their boundaries into my personally freedoms to educate my child by limiting the laws so it is harder for the average person to HS. There are some states that say the commissioner must deem you qualified. How does he know if you are qualified? Why is he allowed to decided if you are qualified to teach your children? Again states found a way to limit parents rights.

[seekingmyLord]

Seeking...you and I obviously have fundamental differences about responsibility and such, and vastly different levels of worry of potential government interference. Your viewpoint and worries sounds very much like that espoused by HSLDA. You have much company!

I agree with the first part. I don't believe government regulation is a good substitute for personal responsibility. However, I would like to make a distinction about the latter. That my viewpoint is similar to HSLDA may be as a result of my personal observations of government interference and acts in color of law. It seriously concerns me that people cannot identify what is and is not within the scope of a government authority, because of the intimidation factor rather than knowledge of the law, and worse to me is that so many people don't really care (as long as it isn't them). If they do care they often don't want to take the risk of speaking out and becoming the next target. Who can blame them in the case of a homeschooling family when it is the children who are at risk?

Well, there is an idea for a new topic....

[ncmom]

It seriously concerns me that people cannot identify what is and is not within the scope of a government authority, because of the intimidation factor rather than knowledge of the law, and worse to me is that so many people don't really care (as long as it isn't them).

The ability for people to know where the governments authority ends is being taught. PS, mainly upper level grades and colleges, teach kids that they must do what the government says regardless if it is a law or not. And oh my don't speak out because you will either be ridiculed, arrested, or sued by someone. You should seriously go to a government class at a high school and listen to what they teach now. It is horrible and you would be shocked. This may not be in every school however but in the schools I have been in this is the case. Most kids if you talk to them, and as scary as it is they are our future, don't even know the true meaning of this country or most of its basic laws. However, they know all the new laws coming out and oh my who shot JFK is a big history lesson. They even make kids do semester long projects on that one. It is almost like they ran out of important things to do so they decided to play with our lives and see what they could get away with. Pretty much PS, as far as I can tell, is a joke and my kids were in PS and I graduated from it. It is an indoctrination for 12 years so kids come out and think the way the government wants them to think, especially when it comes to the government and laws (no I am not a conspiracy theorist, this is just simply my opinion). How many kids do know that simply regurgitate what their teachers told them and don't actually have an original thought on the subject?!? I know a lot! That being said I am not saying they don't learn the basics but everything is so intertwined now that in English class they bring up politics and in History class you may do some math. Not that this is a bad thing but it is when it is used to push a certain agenda.

College is a whole different animal. How many of you have been to college lately? In college if you don't agree with your teacher and you voice this opinion you will fail the class. I waited to go back to school and finished my unnecessary 2 yr degree about 3 yrs ago and I can tell you from first hand experience that if you disagree with them they will grade you less "objectively", this applies in ALL subjects because politics are part of every subject even a class like music theory. I disagreed with several of my instructors and voiced my opinion, yep mistake, they don't like to be challenged. Apparently they are right and I am wrong always. Now if you were an 18 yr old impressionable student who wanted good grades what would you do? You would probably go along with the instructors beliefs and if you say it enough then you start believing it.

[seekingmyLord]

The ability for people to know where the governments authority ends is being taught. PS, mainly upper level grades and colleges, teach kids that they must do what the government says regardless if it is a law or not.

That much is soooo obvious to me. Even the senior citizens, who were better educated on such things, are appalled by what government does these days and what schools teach, but will "go along" to be sure they get their SS checks. Reliance on government gives government a great deal more free reign. Having government teach children is to teach children to be reliant on government.

If there is one thing that I would encourage homeschoolers to really teach is law, and I don't mean "just enough to get by for civics." Sit in during court cases. Go to a law library to research case law, and federal and state statutes.