which of course actually bring us back to parents being parents. Perhaps if parents today interacted with their children, instead of letting the boob tube babysitter raise them, the future generations might be well rounded in almost ALL interaction.

I know it is a radical idea lol

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects

Agreed, but that makes the question of home-schooled children's socialization experience irrelevant...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

1. The state should not provide funding for home schooling (or any school for that matter) unless the institution meets the requirements outlined by the state.

2. A person should have the right to send their child to whichever school they want to. This should NOT be subsidized by the state. If you want something extra (private school, religious school, specialized school) then you pay for it.

3. We need to bring the actual management from the federal level to the local level. Federal standards are important, but local management is most effective.

__________________

Really, because I think it highlights it.

When you see a child who is supported at home, and goes to public, or even private, school... you typically see a well socialized child. This is not a reference to their popularity of course, but a reference to their ability to interact with many age ranges.

Almost all of the home school children I have ever interacted with would be eaten alive in a public school setting.

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects

But what if the state A) creates impossible and unreasonable requirements?...and B) What if the state is taking it's orders from the teachers' union?...

Then by that same logic, people should be able to WITHHOLD their tax dollars that subsidize the school they wish their children NOT to attend...

It's not federal...ATM, this is in California...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Fear. Not a reason not to try it. Secondly, those issues can be addressed when the bridge is crossed. It's the job of the people to help the government create attainable standards. It's the job of the people to work in their interests against the special interests.

Absolutely not. This is something that many fail to realize. Taxation is not like sales. It's not a direct exchange, money for services. You pay into the service whether you use the service or not (library, soccer field, courts). If you choose to build your own soccer field, or avoid the court system and go through mediation, you must pay for those out of your own pocket.

I know, I'm speaking of general education policies.

__________________

No, not at all.

I feel this is like housing. The state subsidizes housing for those who need it, those who want more pay for it. If you want the 40 acre lot with the 3 floor house you pay for it. To me it is the same thing for school... we all pay for the general public, if you want something more you pay for it.

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects

Just to add, I have no kids. So, by that standard, should I be able to withhold any education portions out of my taxes, since I do not take advantage of them?

Nope.

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects

[quote=cnredd;19253]people should be able to WITHHOLD their tax dollars that subsidize the school they wish their children NOT to attend...

Both wrong...

As in libraries, soccer fields, and housing, public citizens should pay taxes when they have OPTIONS not to us those facilities...That is the same way it should happen with schools...

The logic put forth attacking home-schooled teaching would be the same as saying you HAVE to go to a library to read books and cannot read read books elsewhere...You MUST not use any other soccer fields than the ones supplied by the state...You MUST make use of the public subsidized housing made available and cannot get assistance on your own...

Which is the whole point...taking the ability away from home-schooled teaching is like taking the OPTIONS of where you can read, what soccer field to use, or where to get assisted housing away from the public...

BTW - How much money do you think it will cost the state to investigate every home-schooled child to make sure the parent/tutor is "properly credentialed"?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

[quote=cnredd;19270]The parents have the option to use private school. This issue is far from over. But because the parents have the option does not mean that the option should be subsidized. Your whole idea is flawed as we are not eliminating competition. Regulating is different than eliminating. EVEN IF California were to eliminate home school, private school would still be available invalidating your argument.

On your second point, who cares? Our children should have the right to a quality education. The value of education cannot be measured by mere dollars. Money spent to ensure quality is money well spent.

__________________