Judge rules public schools have right to teach charges whatever they deem appropriate

Jewish World Review ^ | 3-5-07 | Jeff Jacoby

[Carry_Okie]

I would prohibit anyone with financial connections to the government schools to be on any school board.

Not a bad thought.

[TalonDJ]

However, I see a golden opportunity to discuss with my teens the real perils of “tolerance.”

I graduated from home school and then went on to college etc. I found I was much more able to articulate and defend my views than most of my peers. Most of the formation of those views and reason and logic to defend them occurs in that age 13-18 range. My kids will not spend that time getting indoctrinated. Growing up I heard time and time again of homeschool parents sending their kids off to public school as soon as they hit highschool. Most of the kids I know that did that all agreed that academically it was a waste of time.

As for facing opposing philosophies. I did that at home by studying. When I actually started meeting people with leftist views I was better able to explain the reasoning behind them than they were. By the time I was in college I was able to see the bias from miles away and I knew enough to avoid most of it entirely.

I a glad to hear it seems to be going ok for your kids. Based on my experience there is no way my kids will be exposed to a public highschool. If I think they need more exposure opposing views I will send them to a debate camp.

[Sandy]

I would ask His Honor to point to the exact verbage of the Constitution that gives the State the 'right' to teach ANYTHING!!!!

That's not how the U.S. Constitution operates. You have things exactly backwards. As long as the U.S. Constitution doesn't *forbid* it, the states can do whatever they want, including run schools. See the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Sandy]

Parents who don't like the values being forced down students' throats have two options. One is to educate their children privately. The other is to find enough allies to force their own values down students' throats.

LOL. That's one way of putting it.

[wintertime]

Parents who don't like the values being forced down students' throats have two options. One is to educate their children privately. The other is to find enough allies to force their own values down students' throats.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The biggest political bully wins!

The prize?

Answer: The hearts and minds of the next generation of voters, judges, politicians, professors, film makers, authors, media executives, artists, journalists, and community leaders of all kinds.

That is a BIG prize! Is it any wonder school curriculum and policy wars rage?

[wintertime]

That's not how the U.S. Constitution operates. You have things exactly backwards. As long as the U.S. Constitution doesn't *forbid* it, the states can do whatever they want, including run schools. See the 10th Amendment:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then the proper action of this judge would have been to throw the case out of federal court. He didn't though.

Also,,,did you read is opinion? Not one mention, that I recall, to the 10th Amendment. Instead his reasoning is fabricated out of thin air.

I just loved his reference to the Yoder ruling. His reasoning is that Yoder was OK because school threatened the entire Amish way of life. The Parkers have no standing because the book "King and King" does not threaten their "entire" way of life, only part of it. Oh boy! ( sigh!)

[Aquinasfan]

"The constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children,"

This is what the education intelligentsia believes. The judge has done us a favor in publicly stating their agenda.

On the other hand, this marks a dubious educational milestone. Socialists are now so confident that the public is so cowed by credentialed educators and so dependent on the "free" babysitting offered by government schools, that they are not afraid to make their agenda plain.

Here in Massachusetts there has been no significant reporting on this judge's ruling. I haven't heard anyone comment on it. Parents are just shipping their kids off to God knows what, as usual.

[Aquinasfan]

Okay, so we MUST send our children to school, and that school can teach anything it pleases?

In Massachusetts at least, this has in fact been the case for the last 20 years.

The sad part? Parents don't care.

Who says schooling doesn't work?

[Aquinasfan]

A few years back, I saw a T-shirt (either at Penny's or Sears--can't remember which) that had a hillbilly sort of character complete with ratty clothes and rotten teeth. It read, "I am Home Skooled (with the K backwards.) At the time, all of my kiddos were Home Educated and we got a pretty good chuckle out of it.

The NEA must sponsor this stuff. I haven't met a bad homeschooled kid.

I have to get this bumper sticker that I saw yesterday. "My Labrador Retriever is smarter than your student-of-the-month."

[JenB]

I am glad I didn't get sent to public school for high school. I started taking classes at our local community college at 15; by the time I was 18, I had graduated their two year computer science program and was accepted at a four year school.

I was exposed to opposing viewpoints from an early age. High school students are not exactly the best source of intelligent debate. And I don't want my future kids exposed to the student-teacher relationship as it exists in public schools. In college, the atmosphere is much more of a senior academic imparting facts on a narrow band of knowledge (at least, it should be; many classes don't live up to this). In primary and secondary education, the relationship is much more dictatorial. It's the difference between being in a class because presumably you want to be (or it's required for your major) and because the government is forcing you to be there. The teachers know the difference, even subconsciously, and the whole atmosphere is not something I'd want for my kids.

[Aquinasfan]

It's been a while since I've read it but I don't remember anything in the Constitution about 'public schools' or 'teaching'.

It's in small print down at the bottom.

[Aquinasfan]

Given that the home school population is at least 3% of the total and has grown pretty steadily at 10-15% per year for about a decade, at the lower rate, in five years it will be 5% of the total. At the higher rate of growth, we'll be there in eight years. If it hits 10%, IMO the public schools will start to collapse, because the difference will be so glaring that the public will no longer support the product.

I'm not assuming a linear growth rate. If the number gets above 5% I'd be amazed. But I hope I'm amazed, I really do.

[Aquinasfan]

With the current education treaties, homeschooled children will be soon written out of any chance at higher education.

Think about it. Is that a bad thing? Most college educations are worth less than nothing, since the environment is nothing more than a school for vice. Do you know any recent college grads? Any kids going to college? Are you impressed? At this point, I could care less if my kids go to college. I want them to be educated, not schooled.

[ripley]

what if christianity were taught in all the schools and those who held the political reigns dismissed anyone who disagreed with it as ingnorant or evil?

it seems that those who are atheistic, without any moral grounding, and intent upon eradicating religious faith are forcing atheism down the throats of those who are not atheists and saying too bad about you if you don't like it because we're obnoxious scu%bags who will harass you, disrespect you and denigrate you if you object.

[Carry_Okie]

HSLDA is already saying 3-5%.

Everywhere I go people are interested.

[Sandy]

Then the proper action of this judge would have been to throw the case out of federal court. He didn't though.

He *did* throw the case out. What do you think "dismissed with prejudice" means? It means, "Take a hike, and don't bring this nonsense back here again."

Not one mention, that I recall, to the 10th Amendment

Well, there's really no reason for the judge to have mentioned the 10th Amt at all. I only mentioned it to correct the freeper who thought the judge needed to "point to the exact verbage of the Constitution that gives the State the 'right' to teach ANYTHING". I didn't mean to imply that the case itself was about the 10th Amendment.

[stentorian conservative]

(CONTINUING OFF TOPIC. . . SORRY)

I agree with you 100 % with regard to primary ed. No way—no how. And as I stated in private message High School depends on the child.
Again, using my daughter as an example, this is a kid who wanted to make & wear a “Can I Live” tee on January 22.
This is a kid that is constantly baiting her teachers into debate. Her current soapbox being private property laws.
When my son had to do a report on a “Black Leader”, he chose J.C. Watts.

I have taught my kids to be strong in their beliefs and never waiver. If that teaching philosophy fails, it will be completely my fault, but should it succeed as it has done thus far—it will be their success.

When/if my children grow up to be Conservatives, as it appears they very well may, they will certainly not be quiet ones.

ON TOPIC. . .
The Judge should have thrown the whole thing out.

[chiefqc]

You stupid tax payers have no say so just shut up.

I decided that you just pay with no say.

[Sandy]

I just loved his reference to the Yoder ruling. His reasoning is that Yoder was OK because school threatened the entire Amish way of life.

It's not his reasoning, actually. He's just quoting Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, the relevant 1st Circuit precedent (which, btw, is precedent he's required to follow).