One legal theory that may be relevant was brought up long ago for a case on banned books in school: you have the right to raise your kid according to your beliefs, but many states guarantee children the right to education. So the state could regulate homeschooling to ensure all children have access to an actual education.
>If you feel these children are legitimately being abused in some way, I'm guessing there are plenty of state resources to address that challenge.
A lot of those resources rely on processes that come after reports from teachers and caregivers. If nobody outside the home ever sees or talks to the kids, there's not much the state can do to even start an investigation. Children who go to daycare or public school are seen by professionals trained to spot abuse.
We allow anyone to have children, because otherwise we're on a very slippery and short slope towards eugenics. But those children are entitled to the same rights and protections as their parents. It's hard to strike a good balance between a family's freedom and a child's freedom.
Edited out some unnecessary detours in my ramblings
They guarantee the right to /access/ education. This is not at all the same as guaranteeing that all children "must be educated at a state approved school."
> If nobody outside the home ever sees or talks to the kids, there's not much the state can do to even start an investigation.
I read an incredible number of police reports. There's a lot of abuse that gets detected outside of daycare and schools. Unless the children are literally locked into a basement, I doubt that the parents can continually exercise enough total control to keep whatever other abuse their committing hidden.
To the extent that if it is happening, it's an exceptionally rare case, and I doubt that simply forcing all parents to send their children to a third party for education is going to have any impact on these particularly pernicious cases.
I understand the instinct, but I think the solution is wrong, and it's an inappropriate case to use to defend schooling in general.
That's oversimplifying. You're right about the "at a state approved school", but the right is to access education to a set standard that will equip them for life.
You can't just say "well, they have access to -my- education, so we're good". There should be caveats around quality and deliverability of education.
Because if you (the generic 'you', not singling you out individually) have low/zero value educational material, and no desire to provide it for your children, then that is /not/ them accessing education in any meaninful sense of the concept.
The homeschoolers get a free pass to do literally whatever... don't you see a dichotomy with what you're preaching?
Why can't you just do anything you want, regardless of the effect it has on your dependents?
Second, I do all those things because it's my responsibility, not because the state will come after me if I don't.
> I didn't need your permission to give birth to my children, why do I need your permission when deciding how I educate them?
Because your children are not your property, they are your responsibility and we as society have decided that we want to make sure that the education is to a certain standard.
As a side note I find it fascinating how people who feel strongly about individual freedom, believe they should have ultimate authority (sometimes it feels more like ownership) over their children. Why do you believe that the freedoms do not apply to children?
I am their _guardian_.
> and we as society have decided that we want to make sure that the education is to a certain standard.
And what is that standard? Passing standardized tests? How do you account for the poor performance of American schools in general? How do you account for the differential performance across the country, let alone, wild performance differences across a single city? If a child goes to school but fails to become educated, can the sue the school district? Does the school owe them continued education until they meet the standard?
> believe they should have ultimate authority (sometimes it feels more like ownership) over their children.
If something happens to my children and I'm even just negligent then I will pay the ultimate price. You cannot ensconce in me this responsibility and then deny my authority to exercise control over them to maintain it.
> Why do you believe that the freedoms do not apply to children?
Why do you think children can't sign contracts or buy alcohol? They have _limited_ freedom, under my _guardianship_. This is more important than the States imputed idealism with respect to "education."
Actually, American schools do not do badly in international comparisons. They are the number one, sure, but they are still pretty good.
There's also some very unsurprising outcomes based on state policy there.
New test scores, known as MCAP (Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program), obtained by Project Baltimore, revealed that 23 schools, including elementary, middle, and high schools, had not one student that could do math at grade level.
Calverton school (https://www.niche.com/k12/calverton-elementary-middle-school...)
A Calverton educator, who reached out to Fox45, claims to have received that text. “[It instructed me to] go into my grade book, make sure no students are failing, and essentially change the grade if they are failing so they will pass with a 60 percent,” said the teacher, whose identity we are concealing upon request.
“I was frustrated as a teacher. We’re public servants. And when we see things like grade changing, that’s self-serving. That’s not helping the kids.”
After watching Fox45’s recent investigations into allegations of grade changing at Calverton, the City Schools employee contacted Project Baltimore to say a couple things. First, according to the teacher, grade changing at Calverton is “very common.”
Second, the educator told Fox45, changing grades is the easiest and fastest way to pass more students, which makes the school and its administrators look better. But, it does a huge disservice to not just the kids, but our entire community.
“Teaching a whole generation of kids that they don’t have to be accountable for their actions, or that hard work isn’t valued or valuable when they are in school, is so discouraging and damaging.”
“There were students on my roster all year that I had never met, had never seen. On paper they passed my class and passed onto the next year.”
“I love my job and I love my students,” concluded the teacher. “I want to see the students at Calverton and other schools across the city, get a fresh start. And it’s going to be hard because the students are used to this now. But the students deserve better and our city deserve better.”That's demonstrably false.
You can do plenty of neglectful or negligent things to your children and face zero consequences.
The state dictating and setting the rules is no more free than the parents setting the rules.
This basically comes down to an argument not of freedom, but if the children are property of the state or parents.
When you look at it this way, it makes perfect sense that libertairian minded folks would support homeschooling.
After all, the state isnt offering the freedom of choice and action to children, it is making legal requirements and demands.
Is the purpose of their lives to serve the interests of the state, or society at large? Or should they be live their lives based on their own interests and priorities.
the libertarian perspective is that if you grant the state and society the authority to control the child, it will use that authority to advance the interests of the state or society.
As if public schools provide kids any sort of freedom or autonomy? What is your point here?
Someone has to be in charge of a kid. Either the parent acts as the authority over their child, or the state does.
I couldn’t possibly agree more! They are MY responsibility. Not yours. Not the state’s. Not society’s. I will educate them the way that I see fit. It’s not my responsibility to educate your kids, and it’s not your responsibility to educate mine, no matter how righteous and justified it may feel.
If you are teaching your children to murder all Jews and that red traffic lights mean go, then you are clearly not capable of being responsible for another human being.
I agree, within reason is always necessary, and if those things were being taught then it's time for a visit from CPS, for sure. But it still feels like a potential slippery slope of "You're abusing this child by teaching them things that aren't approved by the state" in the extreme case. I know that may sound silly, but with as polarized as the country has been recently, and with authoritarianism on the rise worldwide (I saw a man get arrested in the UK yesterday because he criticized some protests on Facebook!), I don't see it being an entirely foreign idea.
I bet there's a correlation between this viewpoint and not having any children.
Your kid has a right to education, you don't get to deny them that right. It's funny how these arguments are all "don't tread on my right to tread on my kid."
Because quite frankly, they didn‘t have a say in the matter and rely upon you entirely to provide an adequate education
I didn't need your permission to give birth to my children, why do I need your permission when deciding how I educate them?
> Only dad is allowed to talk to anyone and when he does it's extraordinarily weird.
If you feel these children are legitimately being abused in some way, I'm guessing there are plenty of state resources to address that challenge.
Do you actually feel there's abuse happening? Or, is it that you just find them unusual?