Originally Posted by saltwn

Choices is a word bantered about by some folks until someone else's choices don't match up with their own.
Parents of home schoolers go to a lot of expense and effort to give their kids a quality education.
They usually buy into a program or set of lessons that are age appropriate and come with studies, testing supplies and activity suggestions.
If there wasn't a huge problem with public schools, the home schooling networks wouldn't have taken the leap they have in the last years.

But if a child is not enroled in public school, the school cannot recieve funds for that child. Fair. Do a better job at creating a learning environment and handling dicipline, and those parents who keep their kids home for those reasons will flock back.

Originally Posted by cnredd

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...

Originally Posted by crazyflamingos

Originally Posted by dabateman

If a child is not enrolled in public school, the school does not get money for that child. Funding is based per student. Each student has a dollar value to the school. It's not like they get a lump sum and told "hey, make it work."

Originally Posted by saltwn

Right! That is what I meant in my first post on this thread when I said it's all about money. The California school districts have counted heads and see how much they are losing.
I firmly believe most legislation that is not voter initiated (either the congressmen have been made aware of a problem by emails and calls, or some down right grass roots movement has begun), has a money thread there somewhere.
So let's just run over a bunch of drippy a$ parents and get this law passed so the teachers unions and administrative staff will vote for us. Oh, yeah wouldn't mind a little kick back if you please.

Originally Posted by cnredd

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...

Originally Posted by saltwn

But if a child is not enroled in public school, the school cannot recieve funds for that child. Fair. Do a better job at creating a learning environment and handling dicipline, and those parents who keep their kids home for those reasons will flock back.

Originally Posted by dabateman

I think that your analysis lends towards hyperbole, but I understand your concern. I agree that the rights of the parents to home school should not be impeded upon by the state, but I also think that the parents should be required to meet certain basic education standards. If they are going to act like professional educators then they should meet professional standards.

We should be focused on equalization of rights/responsibilities instead of elimination of options.

Originally Posted by saltwn

I get your concern. But I urge you to try to meet some families who do home school their kids. The ones I've known do have a lot of teaching skills. Parents teach
their children all the time. That's what parents are for! And I think you just under rate these people. You don't have to have a bachelor's to be smart. And you don't have to have any college at all to want your kids to have that opportunity.
Home schooling just isn't an option with some, due to work scheduals, their own lack of skills or funds. But the ones who do make the effort are usually people of above average intelligence who see that their local area lacks the ability to sufficiently educate their child. So they do what earnest people have always done. They take the bull by the horns.