Watchdog Group Attacks School Bible Study

[Uncle Fester]

By JIM VERTUNO, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago



AUSTIN, Texas - A religious watchdog group complained Monday that a Bible study course taught in hundreds of public schools in Texas and across the country promotes a fundamentalist Christian view and violates religious freedom.

The Texas Freedom Network, which includes clergy of several faiths, also said the course offered by the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools is full of errors and dubious research.
The producers of the Bible class dismissed the Texas Freedom Network as a "far left" organization trying to suppress study of a historical text.


The rest of the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=7&u=/ap/20050802/ap_on_re_us/bible_study

[CzechPrince]

If it is an elective class, who cares? They teach religious classes in public colleges, I don't see the problem, this coming from somone who supports Separation of Church and State.

[Melz]

Geesh we could go on for days dissecting this

the course offered by the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (correct me if I am wrong, but she just claimed that it was Offered right?)

No public school student should have to have a particular religious belief forced upon them," (But now it is forced?????)

and

The Texas Freedom Network says what?

complained Monday that a Bible study course taught in hundreds of public schools in Texas and across the country promotes a fundamentalist Christian view

So the course is offered yet those who take it are forced to? They are a freedom group complaining that there is an elective class promoting fundamentalist Christian views?

hm. I don't think they are presenting a good argument for freedom. Maybe they should re-name their group.

[llDayo]

The main reason this group has a problem with this is that the course is not being taught as a learning tool (like the history of the Bible and what impact it has made to society) but instead to preach "the Word". There would be no problem if it had been the former. Here's some writeups by a blogger who has been keeping tabs on the issue if you're interested. (They're in order of the post dates)

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/08/bible_electives.php
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/08/more_on_the_bib.php
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/08/david_barton_an.php

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:smirky: So what? It's still an elective, & unless an incompetent counselor is signing kids up for this class that didn't request it, nobody is having religion forced on them.

:unsmile: The church/state separatist wackos make me sick with their hypocrisy. They have no qualms about imposing their own atheïst views in required courses under the umbrella of their quack "sciënce", evolution.

:flame: Oh, & as long as I'm ranting against the bozos, I do tire of hearing them refer to themselves with that mindless euphemism, "free thinkers". Not everyone who thinks freely is an ATHEÏST.

[tacitus]

The main reason this group has a problem with this is that the course is not being taught as a learning tool (like the history of the Bible and what impact it has made to society) but instead to preach "the Word".

So what? It's an elective!

[llDayo]

Maybe if there was a course on Islam being offered, posing as an academic elective meant to teach what Islam is about, but instead would preach that its god is the true god and display misquotes to convince the students then this would have a different ring to it. Evolution is NOT quack science. Just because you don't accept it as the best explanation for the evidence (on which it was built) doesn't all of a sudden make the evidence untrue. But that's an entirely different forum. I've also never used the term "free thinker" and never denied being an atheist (as if it's a derogatory term). I'm guessing not one of you even looked at the links I provided showing why this course shouldn't be allowed.

[Antigone]

Maybe if there was a course on Islam being offered, posing as an academic elective meant to teach what Islam is about, but instead would preach that its god is the true god and display misquotes to convince the students then this would have a different ring to it.

They already do that and have for years only it isn't an elective it is REQUIRED as well as having to pray to Allah while taking the course. Where the heck have you been? You need to get out from under that rock you live under and look around more often.

[llDayo]

They already do that and have for years only it isn't an elective it is REQUIRED as well as having to pray to Allah while taking the course. Where the heck have you been? You need to get out from under that rock you live under and look around more often.

Where? I've heard of one being taught in California but nothing about praying to Allah or being anything more than a studies class.

[Tumblehome]

So long as public funds are not used to support this course/preaching/indoctrination/whatever it isn't a church/state separation problem as far as I'm concerned.

Not everyone who thinks freely is an ATHEÏST.

In the strictest sense of it, nobody thinks completely freely and without influence. Atheists are not necesarily thinking any more freely than theists. There are plenty of forms of mind control and social influence. Religion is just one of them.

[Antigone]

Where? I've heard of one being taught in California but nothing about praying to Allah or being anything more than a studies class.


At Excelsior Middle School in Byron County, a handout called "Islam: A Simulation" was used to help children "become Muslim." This handout can be seen at http://www.blessedcause.org/Indoctrination/ByronCountyShocker.htm The handout states:

"From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslims."

Children choose Muslim names, "play Jihad," memorize the Quran, pray to Allah and fast for Ramadan. Islam is transformed to a fanciful fun religion and an unrealistic view of Islam is planted in their minds, even as Christians and Jews are killed at every border of predominantly Muslim nations.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled these class activities are acceptable, opening doors for all schools to incorporate such practices.

ARTICLE (http://sierratimes.com/03/12/15/ar_Our_Children_Lost_by_a_California_Judge_Ruling. htm)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Maybe if there was a course on Islam being offered, posing as an academic elective meant to teach what Islam is about,

What part of "elective" do you not understand? Parents and students CHOOSE for them to attend and take this course -- it is upon THEIR shoulders (parents) to decide if this course is 1) right for their children, 2) adequate to teach their children. You DO know that parents are free to get copies of the text and work to study it for themselves, don't you?

but instead would preach that its god is the true god and display misquotes to convince the students then this would have a different ring to it.

It's not preaching, it is teaching WHAT the Bible says -- that YOU don't agree with it, nor agree that it is Biblical truth, shouldn't have any impact on its teaching.

To the second part, the misquotes, on this issue you might have a stance. If the book genuinely misleads by misquoting outside sources, then I would agree it needs to be reviewed.

Evolution is NOT quack science.

Yes, it is.

Just because you don't accept it as the best explanation for the evidence (on which it was built) doesn't all of a sudden make the evidence untrue.

Just because you don't accept God as the best explanation for the evidence (which you refuse to see) doesn't all of a sudden make the existence of God impossible.

But that's an entirely different forum.

Yes, it is. But I would be remiss if I let your falsehood stand without comment, therefore I responded.

I've also never used the term "free thinker" . . .

Originally Posted by Longhorn_Platinum:
"Oh, & as long as I'm ranting against the bozos, I do tire of hearing them refer to themselves with that mindless euphemism, "free thinkers""

I don't believe you PERSONALLY were acused of using the term "free thinker." Please note LP was speaking in a general sense.

and never denied being an atheist (as if it's a derogatory term).

Originally Posted by Longhorn_Platinum:
"Not everyone who thinks freely is an ATHEÏST."

So? Did you not understand the point of the statement?

I'm guessing not one of you even looked at the links I provided showing why this course shouldn't be allowed.

You guessed wrong -- I did.


FROM THE FIRST LINK:
"But in truth, this may well be little more than a way of smuggling in creationism: . . . "

I thought this is where we Creationist believing Christians were ALLOWED to discuss Creationism, an elecitve Bible Class.

FROM THE FIRST LINK:
"One of the interesting things that Chancey notes is that the entire curriculum is written from a peculiarly Protestant viewpoint."

And what is to stop a group of parents from petitioning the ones who decided upon the curriculum to include other viewpoints? What is to stop a group of parents from petitioning the school board to add ANOTHER elective course for OTHER Bible viewpoints? Again, this is an ELECTIVE course -- the parents should be very aware of what's going on in the course BEFORE they permit their children to take it (if they don't agree with the curriculum).

FROM THE FIRST LINK:
"I want to look a little closer at the section on the founding fathers and the false quotations attributed to them in the curriculum."

I'll get more concerned over this when the public school system gets concerned about the factual errors, misquotes, and omissions in the American and World History curriculums THEY use in an ACADEMIC (vs. an ELECTIVE) course.

Evolution is taught in science as fact, with NO discussion of an alternate theory of Creation. We are told that Creationism belongs in a Bible or Religion Elective Class, and so here, in this case it is. WHEN it (Creationism) is taught along with Biblical fundamentals and information of how those have impacted this country, ATHIESTS point and say, "you can't teach that it's wrong," yet Creationists have been pointing to the teaching of evolution saying the same things and we are shooed away.

Sorry, can't get upset about this one -- if the History teacher(s) is(are) doing their job, they will teach History and not worry about what is being taught in a Bible ELECTIVE class, just like Christians taking a Bible ELECTIVE class will do their job and not worry about the lies being taught in science and history.

[llDayo]

At Excelsior Middle School in Byron County, a handout called "Islam: A Simulation" was used to help children "become Muslim." This handout can be seen at http://www.blessedcause.org/Indoctrination/ByronCountyShocker.htm The handout states:

"From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslims."

Children choose Muslim names, "play Jihad," memorize the Quran, pray to Allah and fast for Ramadan. Islam is transformed to a fanciful fun religion and an unrealistic view of Islam is planted in their minds, even as Christians and Jews are killed at every border of predominantly Muslim nations.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled these class activities are acceptable, opening doors for all schools to incorporate such practices.

ARTICLE (http://sierratimes.com/03/12/15/ar_Our_Children_Lost_by_a_California_Judge_Ruling. htm)

And I certainly wouldn't have a problem if this sort of thing was done with ANY religion. They're not trying to convince any students to become Muslims, they're trying to show them what the religion is about and how a Muslim worships. There's no theological persuasion being made. That's the major difference.

[TheRealLobo]

Maybe if there was a course on Islam being offered,...


Is this the new fallback? It used to be "If they taught witchcraft."

[llDayo]

What part of "elective" do you not understand? Parents and students CHOOSE for them to attend and take this course -- it is upon THEIR shoulders (parents) to decide if this course is 1) right for their children, 2) adequate to teach their children. You DO know that parents are free to get copies of the text and work to study it for themselves, don't you?

How many parents do you think will look through all the books and recommended reading for this course (including websites) before letting their kid take it? Maybe they want their kid to learn about different religious views and when they see a description for this course that states it is teaching it through an academic setting they'll have no problem signing them up for it. (incidentally, when picking electives when I was in high school, I don't remember needing my parents approval for these, although I could be mistaken) There really aren't many parents out there that would have the time to look over material for an entire semester just to make sure it'll agree with them. If they have this amount of time they may as well teach the kid about it themselves.

It's not preaching, it is teaching WHAT the Bible says -- that YOU don't agree with it, nor agree that it is Biblical truth, shouldn't have any impact on its teaching.

Sorry, but the course is teaching the Bible as if it's fact which is preaching, and doing so from a suspiciously Protestant viewpoint as well.

To the second part, the misquotes, on this issue you might have a stance. If the book genuinely misleads by misquoting outside sources, then I would agree it needs to be reviewed.

Originally Posted by Longhorn_Platinum:
"Oh, & as long as I'm ranting against the bozos, I do tire of hearing them refer to themselves with that mindless euphemism, "free thinkers"

I don't believe you PERSONALLY were acused of using the term "free thinker." Please note LP was speaking in a general sense.

Meanings of what people say can be misinterpreted on the internet, and to me it sounded like he was also pointing a finger at me, but this isn't really an important issue so I'll move on.

Originally Posted by Longhorn_Platinum:
"Not everyone who thinks freely is an ATHEÏST."

So? Did you not understand the point of the statement?

I guess not. :question:

FROM THE FIRST LINK:
"But in truth, this may well be little more than a way of smuggling in creationism: . . . "

I thought this is where we Creationist believing Christians were ALLOWED to discuss Creationism, an elecitve Bible Class.

Discussion, yes, speaking as if it's truth to young people who's minds are still learning, no.

FROM THE FIRST LINK:
"One of the interesting things that Chancey notes is that the entire curriculum is written from a peculiarly Protestant viewpoint."

And what is to stop a group of parents from petitioning the ones who decided upon the curriculum to include other viewpoints? What is to stop a group of parents from petitioning the school board to add ANOTHER elective course for OTHER Bible viewpoints? Again, this is an ELECTIVE course -- the parents should be very aware of what's going on in the course BEFORE they permit their children to take it (if they don't agree with the curriculum).

Teaching through a particular viewpoint shows bias. It should be teaching a general overall view of the history and practices of christians.

FROM THE FIRST LINK:
"I want to look a little closer at the section on the founding fathers and the false quotations attributed to them in the curriculum."

I'll get more concerned over this when the public school system gets concerned about the factual errors, misquotes, and omissions in the American and World History curriculums THEY use in an ACADEMIC (vs. an ELECTIVE) course.

I'm not sure what you're referring to and can't comment. If there are errors then yes, they SHOULD be fixed. I definitely agree with that!

Evolution is taught in science as fact, with NO discussion of an alternate theory of Creation. We are told that Creationism belongs in a Bible or Religion Elective Class, and so here, in this case it is. WHEN it (Creationism) is taught along with Biblical fundamentals and information of how those have impacted this country, ATHIESTS point and say, "you can't teach that it's wrong," yet Creationists have been pointing to the teaching of evolution saying the same things and we are shooed away.

Again, this is a different topic and will end up hijacking this thread, so I won't discuss it.

[TheRealLobo]

And I certainly wouldn't have a problem if this sort of thing was done with ANY religion. They're not trying to convince any students to become Muslims, they're trying to show them what the religion is about and how a Muslim worships. There's no theological persuasion being made. That's the major difference.

They're memorizing the koran. Can we have them memorize the Bible?

This particular argument about it just being the history of it is indefensible in this light.

[llDayo]

They're memorizing the koran. Can we have them memorize the Bible?

This particular argument about it just being the history of it is indefensible in this light.

What's wrong with memorization? No problem there! In the case of this Muslim class it seems to be no different than my high school spanish class. We were given names (Tomás!), read from spanish texts, learned traditions, and even practiced certain spanish customs, yet I remain Pennsylvania Dutch/German. If this Bible studies class did this as well, there'd be no problem.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

How many parents do you think will look through all the books and recommended reading for this course (including websites) before letting their kid take it?

Then the parents have failed in their responsibility, have they not? It's not up to the "state" to protect one's child from things they (the parents) do not wish their child to learn.

Maybe they want their kid to learn about different religious views and when they see a description for this course that states it is teaching it through an academic setting they'll have no problem signing them up for it.

They can get more than just a syllabus and course description if requested. Again, the responsibility lies with the parent(s), NOT the state. It is an ELECTIVE class, meaning it must be CHOSEN to be taken. The burden is upon the shoulders of the parent(s).

(incidentally, when picking electives when I was in high school, I don't remember needing my parents approval for these, although I could be mistaken)

Well, I guess you had parents that didn't care what you took. I never said that parental approval was necessary or required by the school, but the responsibility lies with the parent to prevent their child from taking that which they would not approve of. My parents and I discussed the courses I wanted to choose. Had they disapproved of a course, obviously I would not be allowed to take it.

There really aren't many parents out there that would have the time to look over material for an entire semester just to make sure it'll agree with them.

And that's the "state's" fault . . . how? When one signs a contract they are required to read the fine print, if they do not and choose to challenge the contract they don't have much of a leg to stand on if they didn't. It's of no relevance that there aren't many who have or take the time -- it is their responsibility, and they are not absolved of their parental responsibility because of lack of time or desire. In other words, that's no excuse.

If they have this amount of time they may as well teach the kid about it themselves.

I totally agree! It should be removed from the academic institution all together . . . along with P.E., the theory of evolution, sex education, among others. However, it IS in the school, it IS an ELECTIVE, and it IS on the shoulders of the parents to KNOW what their child is going to be taking when they choose an elective course (so that they may permit or disallow their child from taking the course).

Sorry, but the course is teaching the Bible as if it's fact which is preaching, and doing so from a suspiciously Protestant viewpoint as well.

So?

If the parents KNOW what is being taught, are familiar with the material, and have APPROVED of their child taking the course, where's the problem?


Discussion, yes, speaking as if it's truth to young people who's minds are still learning, no.

It is an ELECTIVE class -- that's all that needs to be understood. If the theory of evolution can be taught in science class as truth (and it IS being taught that way, it is NOT being taught as a theory), then there is nothing with this Bible class teaching that the words in the Bible are thought to be true as well. They aren't going to teach the class as a literature course on fairy tales.


Teaching through a particular viewpoint shows bias. It should be teaching a general overall view of the history and practices of christians.

I disagree.

1. It is an elective class -- it must be chosen to be taken.
2. There is nothing stoping others from petitioning for different elective classes, such as one on the Koran or Torah.
3. I see NO DIFFERENCE in what this Bible class was doing (I'm referring to the way it's being taught)and what you stated you have no problem with by the Calfornia teacher indoctrinating her class as Muslims. It is being taught so that the students (class takers) understand the book from the perspective of those that believe it to be true. The only difference is, this Bible class is an ELECTIVE, and that other was part of a required academic class.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

llDayo:
What's wrong with memorization?

:moo: Oh, good, then you'll have no problem when a teacher requires a class to memorize Bible verses.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

llDayo:


Sorry, but the course is teaching the Bible as if it's fact which is preaching, and doing so from a suspiciously Protestant viewpoint as well.

:unsmile: Then, teaching evolution as if it's fact is also imposing your views on others.

Meanings of what people say can be misinterpreted on the internet, and to me it sounded like he was also pointing a finger at me,...

:unsmile: "Bozos" is plural. Is there more than one of you? Are you schizophrenic? If not, then I wasn't pointing a finger at you.

[TheRealLobo]

What's wrong with memorization? No problem there! In the case of this Muslim class it seems to be no different than my high school spanish class. We were given names (Tomás!), read from spanish texts, learned traditions, and even practiced certain spanish customs, yet I remain Pennsylvania Dutch/German. If this Bible studies class did this as well, there'd be no problem.


Memorizing to learn a language, and memorizing to learn the koran, are two entirely different things. You recognize it and know it. Your position on this is still indefensible.

If they want to make an elective class to study the koran, they can. Just as they made an elective to study the Bible.

If they make studying the koran, and memorizing parts of it, a required course, or as part of the curriculum, then it is in violation of the left's precious seperation of church and state.

I'd would argue the same thing about a requirement to study the Bible.

If it's an elective, students and parents can make whatever election they choose.

[TheRealLobo]

Wait a minute...I just noticed something.

IIDayo...you assume it's okay to memorize the koran, but it's not okay to memorize the Bible?

Is this your position?

If not, please clarify.

[llDayo]

Then the parents have failed in their responsibility, have they not? It's not up to the "state" to protect one's child from things they (the parents) do not wish their child to learn.

Then what's the point of schools? Do you really think that all parents will have the ability to learn every subject in school well enough to teach their kids about it? If everyone all of a sudden decided to teach their kids on their own, eventually these kids will be learning different things as facts and statements get misconstrued. The best way to keep every student in line with what we know is to have someone trained in the subject matter so that the chances of misconstruing data is lessened.

They can get more than just a syllabus and course description if requested. Again, the responsibility lies with the parent(s), NOT the state. It is an ELECTIVE class, meaning it must be CHOSEN to be taken. The burden is upon the shoulders of the parent(s).

And again, what's the point of having schools then?

Well, I guess you had parents that didn't care what you took. I never said that parental approval was necessary or required by the school, but the responsibility lies with the parent to prevent their child from taking that which they would not approve of. My parents and I discussed the courses I wanted to choose. Had they disapproved of a course, obviously I would not be allowed to take it.

Actually, they did care and thought me responsible and smart enough to make my own decisions. Allowing me to make those decisions let me take what I was interested in, not my parents.

And that's the "state's" fault . . . how? When one signs a contract they are required to read the fine print, if they do not and choose to challenge the contract they don't have much of a leg to stand on if they didn't. It's of no relevance that there aren't many who have or take the time -- it is their responsibility, and they are not absolved of their parental responsibility because of lack of time or desire. In other words, that's no excuse.

I guess working to make sure your family can live a comfortable life just isn't something people should worry about. Every parent should have the time to put in a full work week, come home to cook, keep their house clean and repaired, take their kids to extra-curricular activities, and still have time to sleep while reviewing 12-14 subjects for correct content because 2 kids are in school.

I totally agree! It should be removed from the academic institution all together . . . along with P.E., the theory of evolution, sex education, among others. However, it IS in the school, it IS an ELECTIVE, and it IS on the shoulders of the parents to KNOW what their child is going to be taking when they choose an elective course (so that they may permit or disallow their child from taking the course).

"Welcome to the U.S. where our out-of-shape, scientifically ignorant, and STD-ridden children roam free!"

So?

If the parents KNOW what is being taught, are familiar with the material, and have APPROVED of their child taking the course, where's the problem?

Yes, IF. Problem is most do NOT because most do not have the time.

It is an ELECTIVE class -- that's all that needs to be understood. If the theory of evolution can be taught in science class as truth (and it IS being taught that way, it is NOT being taught as a theory), then there is nothing with this Bible class teaching that the words in the Bible are thought to be true as well. They aren't going to teach the class as a literature course on fairy tales.

You should really study as to what a theory means in scientific terms. The difference between evolution and the Bible as being taught as true is that evolution is the only one with evidence to back it up. The Bible is just a belief.

I disagree.

1. It is an elective class -- it must be chosen to be taken.
2. There is nothing stoping others from petitioning for different elective classes, such as one on the Koran or Torah.
3. I see NO DIFFERENCE in what this Bible class was doing (I'm referring to the way it's being taught)and what you stated you have no problem with by the Calfornia teacher indoctrinating her class as Muslims. It is being taught so that the students (class takers) understand the book from the perspective of those that believe it to be true. The only difference is, this Bible class is an ELECTIVE, and that other was part of a required academic class.

1. And a student should be taught what is known about it, not what someone believes.
2. No, there's not, and that's not a problem.
3. The Muslim class is not being taught as fact but is instead being used as a better understanding of what the religion is. There IS a difference.

[llDayo]

:moo: Oh, good, then you'll have no problem when a teacher requires a class to memorize Bible verses.

Why would I? If they feel the verses are important to the subject being studied then they should feel free to have the students memorize them. English classes do that with Shakespeare all the time.

[llDayo]

:unsmile: Then, teaching evolution as if it's fact is also imposing your views on others.

Then we may as well leave science out altogether in school. Evolutionary science is no different than any other scientific area so if you deny one, you deny them all.

:unsmile: "Bozos" is plural. Is there more than one of you? Are you schizophrenic? If not, then I wasn't pointing a finger at you.

Let's break it up then:

The church/state separatist wackos make me sick with their hypocrisy. They have no qualms about imposing their own atheïst views in required courses under the umbrella of their quack "sciënce", evolution.

I agree with church/state separation and I'm an atheist (of which atheism isn't a requirement of evolutionary theory).

Oh, & as long as I'm ranting against the bozos, I do tire of hearing them refer to themselves with that mindless euphemism, "free thinkers". Not everyone who thinks freely is an ATHEÏST.

The underlined words are where you're referencing all from the previous quote, so yes, you grouped me in with them. Did I miss something?

[llDayo]

Memorizing to learn a language, and memorizing to learn the koran, are two entirely different things. You recognize it and know it. Your position on this is still indefensible.

You mean like memorizing lines from Shakespeare or poems? Would you argue against that? I'm pretty certain my position on this is quite logical.

If they want to make an elective class to study the koran, they can. Just as they made an elective to study the Bible.

If they make studying the koran, and memorizing parts of it, a required course, or as part of the curriculum, then it is in violation of the left's precious seperation of church and state.

And I totally agree with that.

I'd would argue the same thing about a requirement to study the Bible.

If it's an elective, students and parents can make whatever election they choose.

Indeed.

[llDayo]

Wait a minute...I just noticed something.

IIDayo...you assume it's okay to memorize the koran, but it's not okay to memorize the Bible?

Is this your position?

If not, please clarify.

I expressed my position on post 13.
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=302324&postcount=13

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Then what's the point of schools?

To educate children with the taxpayer's money. It is up to the PARENT'S to monitor the schools (teachers, classes, courses, etc.) to make sure they are getting their money's worth and doing it adequately, satisfactorily, and successfully.

Do you really think that all parents will have the ability to learn every subject in school well enough to teach their kids about it?

:smirky: THEY went to school, didn't they? They should certainly be, at the very least, familiar with the information. If they are not, it is THEIR responsibility to see that they are. The children belong to them (parents), NOT the state.

If everyone all of a sudden decided to teach their kids on their own, eventually these kids will be learning different things as facts and statements get misconstrued. The best way to keep every student in line with what we know is to have someone trained in the subject matter so that the chances of misconstruing data is lessened.

Are you insinuating that the thousands of homeschooling parents (and the number is growing exponentially) AREN'T adequately and successfully educating their children?

Shouldn't those trained in the subject matter be accountable, as well, for what they are teaching so data isn't misconstrued? Who is to hold their feet to the fire? It should be the PARENTS whose children they are teaching.




And again, what's the point of having schools then?

I totally agree -- I totally support the elimination of every public school in this country, and education becoming the responsibility of the parents. Let them GET BACK their dollars confiscated by the government, let them take those dollars and seek out serious, qualified educators (and pay them what they are worth!), build private schools, create cooperative learning centers (where parents can pool their resources and abilities to help teach the children, etc.)

I suggest you do some reading on the history of education. A good place to start would be here: The Underground History of American Education - John Taylor Gatto (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm)


Actually, they did care and thought me responsible and smart enough to make my own decisions. Allowing me to make those decisions let me take what I was interested in, not my parents.

I took what I was interested in too -- but my parents were aware of what those choices entailed, so if something were to go wrong, they would know what was going on. I do not believe ALL children are responsible or smart enough to make wise decisions (shoot, their parents didn't, how could they? Surely not by osmosis.)

The point you keep missing is that PARENTS have the children, NOT the state, therefore it is the PARENTS responsibility to make sure THEIR children are educated properly, in a manner that is in accordance with their belief, and does not harm or mislead them. PUBLIC School is for an agreed upon (by concensus and standard) academic education for the good of private citizens' children, that's IT -- NOT babysitting (although they're trying really hard to change this), NOT socialization, NOT diversity training, NOT social engineering.

I guess working to make sure your family can live a comfortable life just isn't something people should worry about. Every parent should have the time to put in a full work week, come home to cook, keep their house clean and repaired, take their kids to extra-curricular activities, and still have time to sleep while reviewing 12-14 subjects for correct content because 2 kids are in school.

I guess it was the state's fault they decided to . . . get pregnant out of wedlock, keep the child of an unwanted pregnancy (instead of give it up for an adoption -- this is NOT a plug for abortion), divorce their spouse after having children with them, have children they couldn't afford, etc. You are WAY into the state being responsible for people's CHOICES. My husband and I have two children, we live on (basically) one income (he has a part time job, opening & closing the cemetary for $150 a month extra), AND we home educate our children (which means not ONLY do our tax dollars go to SOMEONE ELSE'S education, but we ALSO have to pay for our OWN children's curriculum and educational resources) -- we make less than $30,000/year. Our children play sports, attend club functions, take music lessons, etc. Sorry, you're argument doesn't hold water. When parents have children it is THEIR responsibility to raise and care for them, AND see to their education -- that responsibility does NOT lie with the state (schools). The answer is S-A-C-R-I-F-I-C-E: that's what REAL parents do. They put the needs of the child before their own, because THEY are the one(s) that HAD them in the FIRST place.




"Welcome to the U.S. where our out-of-shape, scientifically ignorant, and STD-ridden children roam free!"

So now parents are too lazy, too stupid, and too irresponsible to care for their own children, i.e. see to their need for exercise, knowledge, and discipline? You DO know that there hasn't ALWAYS been public schooling in this country . . . don't you? That there was a time before, when school ACTUALLY educated the children without all the fluff-'n'-stuff. You have a mighty skewed view of parenthood.



Yes, IF. Problem is most do NOT because most do not have the time.

In THAT case, the problem lies with the PARENT for not adequately finding out what their child(ren) would be involved in -- it is NOT the state's (school's) responsibility, because the parent failed in theirs.

You should really study as to what a theory means in scientific terms. The difference between evolution and the Bible as being taught as true is that evolution is the only one with evidence to back it up. The Bible is just a belief.

Well, you should really study as to what God has to say in His Word. The difference between evolution and the Bible, is that the Bible is true. Of course, you'll probably take my suggestion about the same time as I take yours.

There is NO WAY either the theory of evolution or the Creationist Theory can be proven -- science doesn't prove, only disprove. There are too many holes in the evolution theory (even though advocates deny it), and there are holes in the Creation Theory (which cannot be filled with anything other than God). Therefore, either BOTH should be allowed in school, or NEITHER should be allowed in school -- the deciding factor should be those (PARENTS) whose children are being taught. Make both an "opt-in" program, where parents can choose to allow their children to take the courses, and if they do NOT want their children to do so, they won't be forced to (by reason of "science" or "religion").

1. And a student should be taught what is known about it, not what someone believes.

This ELECTIVE class was approved to teach (by the school board, if I am correct). Where were the parents when this was being debated and discussed? Once it has been approved, the parents need to be aware of what is being taught and the way it's being taught -- let them audit the class. The resonsibility lies with the parent(s), NOT the school. IF enough parents petition to have the class removed, or enough parents block its removal so be it -- the parents chose to allow their children to participate, please not it was a RELIGIOUS WATCHDOG GROUP that was complaining, NOT the parents of the students taking the ELECTIVE. Why didn't the group stay out of the parents choice of education for their child(ren)?

2. No, there's not, and that's not a problem.

I know it's not a problem, it is the solution! Parents who want their children learning OTHER things, in OTHER ways are free to choose so -- include a new ELECTIVE in the course offerings!

3. The Muslim class is not being taught as fact but is instead being used as a better understanding of what the religion is. There IS a difference.

Take a look at everything they were doing and replace Muslim with Christian -- you'll have the ACLU busting down the doors to the school house so fast it'll make your head spin. No way, Jose -- SAME thing. AGAIN, the Muslim thing was taking place in a REQUIRED class, the Bible Study is an ELECTIVE class . . . the only difference is the first should have never taken place, and the second was approved (by the parents by their permision to attend) CHOSEN by the parents/students.

[llDayo]

To educate children with the taxpayer's money. It is up to the PARENT'S to monitor the schools (teachers, classes, courses, etc.) to make sure they are getting their money's worth and doing it adequately, satisfactorily, and successfully.

And again, if they have the time to do all that then why bother sending them to school in the first place? The problem IS that most parents do not have this time.


THEY went to school, didn't they? They should certainly be, at the very least, familiar with the information. If they are not, it is THEIR responsibility to see that they are. The children belong to them (parents), NOT the state.

Yes, familiar enough to at least help their kid when they're stuck on homework. Another problem you'll run into though is that a student's parents may not have taken some classes in school (say Calculus or a language). Should the parent all of a sudden have to take classes just so they can help their kid along? I know I personally don't have time to at this point with 2 kids and a full-time job.


Are you insinuating that the thousands of homeschooling parents (and the number is growing exponentially) AREN'T adequately and successfully educating their children?

I didn't say that, what I meant is that eventually facts will become skewed the more and more with each generation and will lead to people believing different things. This is hardly healthy for a society's development. Take for example the phrase where you whisper a phrase in someone's ear and they pass it along to the next person. The last person to get the phrase will have a good chance of hearing it incorrectly compared to the original phrase.

Shouldn't those trained in the subject matter be accountable, as well, for what they are teaching so data isn't misconstrued? Who is to hold their feet to the fire? It should be the PARENTS whose children they are teaching.

That's what state education boards are for. They set the standards to ensure proper education and if a teacher is not following these standards they are confronted.

I totally agree -- I totally support the elimination of every public school in this country, and education becoming the responsibility of the parents. Let them GET BACK their dollars confiscated by the government, let them take those dollars and seek out serious, qualified educators (and pay them what they are worth!), build private schools, create cooperative learning centers (where parents can pool their resources and abilities to help teach the children, etc.)

Cooperative learning centers sound a lot like schools.

I suggest you do some reading on the history of education. A good place to start would be here: The Underground History of American Education - John Taylor Gatto (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm)

I'll put it down as something I want to read but in all honesty, I'm backlogged :blush:

I took what I was interested in too -- but my parents were aware of what those choices entailed, so if something were to go wrong, they would know what was going on. I do not believe ALL children are responsible or smart enough to make wise decisions (shoot, their parents didn't, how could they? Surely not by osmosis.)

And it is good for parents to be involved. My parents were inolved with my education as well but they felt some decisions I could make on my own. If I had questions though, I could surely turn to them.

The point you keep missing is that PARENTS have the children, NOT the state, therefore it is the PARENTS responsibility to make sure THEIR children are educated properly, in a manner that is in accordance with their belief, and does not harm or mislead them. PUBLIC School is for an agreed upon (by concensus and standard) academic education for the good of private citizens' children, that's IT -- NOT babysitting (although they're trying really hard to change this), NOT socialization, NOT diversity training, NOT social engineering.

So a parent sends their child to school so their child can keep up with the concensus and standards of the important subjects needed for a well-rounded student! What are we arguing about then? I believe the same thing!

I guess it was the state's fault they decided to . . . get pregnant out of wedlock, keep the child of an unwanted pregnancy (instead of give it up for an adoption -- this is NOT a plug for abortion), divorce their spouse after having children with them, have children they couldn't afford, etc. You are WAY into the state being responsible for people's CHOICES.

The state has nothing to do with those decisions. That person is.

My husband and I have two children, we live on (basically) one income (he has a part time job, opening & closing the cemetary for $150 a month extra), AND we home educate our children (which means not ONLY do our tax dollars go to SOMEONE ELSE'S education, but we ALSO have to pay for our OWN children's curriculum and educational resources) -- we make less than $30,000/year. Our children play sports, attend club functions, take music lessons, etc. Sorry, you're argument doesn't hold water. When parents have children it is THEIR responsibility to raise and care for them, AND see to their education -- that responsibility does NOT lie with the state (schools). The answer is S-A-C-R-I-F-I-C-E: that's what REAL parents do. They put the needs of the child before their own, because THEY are the one(s) that HAD them in the FIRST place.

Well, you told me your's so I'll tell you mine. My wife and I have two children (19 months, 2 months). We live on basically one income (I work full-time, she gets minimal hours at a department store) and together make around $45k/year. Our kids don't really do anything yet but when we move (end of this month) I'll start giving the older one piano lessons. My commute takes over an hour in one direction, so there's two more hours out of my day, unless I need to work overtime, which can add in more time. Once we get our house though my wife will go back to work for a lot more hours since we have enough trouble making ends meet (might be more expensive where I live compared to you, I don't know, too many factors to figure that out). I will do my best to keep up with my children's education and so will my wife, but I certainly won't remember how to do differential equations by the time they reach high school.

I also don't think you should be paying school taxes if your kids aren't involved in school activities or are taught there. But that's another issue.

Now, what does, for example, a single mother of three do who has to work two jobs just to pay the bills do? Do you really think she'll have a lot of time to review the course material for every kid each year?

So now parents are too lazy, too stupid, and too irresponsible to care for their own children, i.e. see to their need for exercise, knowledge, and discipline? You DO know that there hasn't ALWAYS been public schooling in this country . . . don't you? That there was a time before, when school ACTUALLY educated the children without all the fluff-'n'-stuff. You have a mighty skewed view of parenthood.

Back before public shools there also wasn't as much to learn. There weren't computer classes, biology, chemistry, physics, or social studies. There's way to much to learn today to expect a parent to teach everything. If you chose to go the path to educate your children yourself I applaud you, but expecting that out of all parents is way to much.

Well, you should really study as to what God has to say in His Word. The difference between evolution and the Bible, is that the Bible is true. Of course, you'll probably take my suggestion about the same time as I take yours.

I was baptized a Lutheran and considered myself a Christian for about the first 23 years of my life. Why I no longer believe is a different topic that would just be too large to fit here.

There is NO WAY either the theory of evolution or the Creationist Theory can be proven -- science doesn't prove, only disprove. There are too many holes in the evolution theory (even though advocates deny it), and there are holes in the Creation Theory (which cannot be filled with anything other than God). Therefore, either BOTH should be allowed in school, or NEITHER should be allowed in school -- the deciding factor should be those (PARENTS) whose children are being taught. Make both an "opt-in" program, where parents can choose to allow their children to take the courses, and if they do NOT want their children to do so, they won't be forced to (by reason of "science" or "religion").

Science is about the study of our physical universe, not about disproving. Theories are derived, not proven, from that study. Religion is a belief in which I have no problem if someone takes that route. My wife is a devout Protestant and doesn't accept evolutionary theory, and we get along fine.

This ELECTIVE class was approved to teach (by the school board, if I am correct). Where were the parents when this was being debated and discussed? Once it has been approved, the parents need to be aware of what is being taught and the way it's being taught -- let them audit the class. The resonsibility lies with the parent(s), NOT the school. IF enough parents petition to have the class removed, or enough parents block its removal so be it -- the parents chose to allow their children to participate, please not it was a RELIGIOUS WATCHDOG GROUP that was complaining, NOT the parents of the students taking the ELECTIVE. Why didn't the group stay out of the parents choice of education for their child(ren)?

The course material was sent to the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. It was not approved because of its content. The full report is here: http://www.tfn.org/files/fck/BibleCurriculum.pdf

I know it's not a problem, it is the solution! Parents who want their children learning OTHER things, in OTHER ways are free to choose so -- include a new ELECTIVE in the course offerings!

And look at the uproar amongst the conservative elite when one is being offered in California on the Islam religion. Parents should feel free to petition for a new elective but at the same time should not have to worry about the material in one already being offered if they want their child to attend it.

Take a look at everything they were doing and replace Muslim with Christian -- you'll have the ACLU busting down the doors to the school house so fast it'll make your head spin. No way, Jose -- SAME thing. AGAIN, the Muslim thing was taking place in a REQUIRED class, the Bible Study is an ELECTIVE class . . . the only difference is the first should have never taken place, and the second was approved (by the parents by their permision to attend) CHOSEN by the parents/students.

In the article provided by an earlier poster I didn't read anything about it being a required class, just things that were required within the class for the students to learn. I could be wrong though. And no, the ACLU would not get be against a subject done on the Bible in a secular manner.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

And again, if they have the time to do all that then why bother sending them to school in the first place? The problem IS that most parents do not have this time.

And here we go 'round the mulberry bush yet again. It's not the STATE'S fault that the PARENT(S) doesn't have the TIME. Circumstance is irrelevant -- the parent(s) had the children, they are responsible, it's as simple as that. They CAN decide to ALLOT some of their responsibility to another (the school), but that does NOT relinquish the parent from complete responsibility -- the child is STILL theirs, they did NOT sign over total parental rights to the state just by choosing to send their child to a PUBLIC (government run . . . remember what government is? OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people -- i.e. the PEOPLE are responsible for their GOVERNMENT, and by extension for their schools).

Yes, familiar enough to at least help their kid when they're stuck on homework. Another problem you'll run into though is that a student's parents may not have taken some classes in school (say Calculus or a language). Should the parent all of a sudden have to take classes just so they can help their kid along? I know I personally don't have time to at this point with 2 kids and a full-time job.

Great question! We have been faced with this very problem (in regards to math) as homeschoolers. So what do parents do? They FIND adequate help (help being the operative word here, NOT a substitute for educational responsibility) . . . tutors, friends who excel at math, find a class they can attend -- but the parent STILL has to make sure that what is being taught is what the child needs, is adequate, and correct! Is there a bit of the unforeseeable, a little bit of faith in someone else. . . yes, but it STILL comes down upon the head of the parent to make sure all that can be done IS being done for their child(ren).

Look let me put it this way -- parents are the only ones with a 100% VESTED interest in making sure their children grow and learn academically, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually (whatever that means to them), and successfully. Think of it like this, the child is in a circle -- draw another circle around the child and in that circle lies the parents, THEY and they ALONE have sole responsibility and accountability OUTSIDE that of the child's responsibility and accountability (to learn). Draw another circle around outside of the parents' circle, this is extended family, add another for friends/peers, add another for school -- do you see how far removed the school is from a real interest in the child? They are trying to satisfy the many needs, not the needs of the one (child) -- THAT responsibility lies with each individual parental unit.

I didn't say that, what I meant is that eventually facts will become skewed the more and more with each generation and will lead to people believing different things.* This is hardly healthy for a society's development. Take for example the phrase where you whisper a phrase in someone's ear and they pass it along to the next person. The last person to get the phrase will have a good chance of hearing it incorrectly compared to the original phrase.

Do you think the parents make these things up? Homeschoolers use textbooks, curricula, educational resources (and MANY use things provided for FREE by local school systems -- I am currently using a College Prep Literature program for my son that my husband brought me FREE from the local school board). You are foreseeing problems that do not exist. I have known so MANY homeschoolers whose public school educational experiences were so inferior to that of THEIR children -- WHY are their children excelling and taking on advanced areas of learning? Because their parents had a DESIRE for them to do better than they did, and the children see the importance of good and wise educational decisions as evidenced by their parents. Sorry, not buying this argument either.


*Parents WANT to teach the children properly, they do NOT want to teach them falsehoods . . . I believe YOU are referring to the teaching of Creationism vs. evolution.

That's what state education boards are for. They set the standards to ensure proper education and if a teacher is not following these standards they are confronted.

And WHERE do the standards come from? Who decides what the standars are? Are the standards open for interpretation, revision, alteration, modification? Who decides when they need to be changed? For what reasons SHOULD they change?

The PARENTS should have the final say regarding what is taught their children. They are the final authority NOT the state. There are basic standards I would imagine that everyone would agree to -- reading, writing, arithmetic, but beyond that things start to get subjective, even HISTORY which in our schools is being rewritten and important information removed. No, I do not agree, I do not believe that state education boards should hold the keys to a student's education -- those belong to the parents, and the parents better be making dog-gone sure the state education boards are not indoctrinating their children in unacceptable areas and ways.




Cooperative learning centers sound a lot like schools.

Similar, but not the same. I was a part of a cooperative for three years -- I taught art, drama, history, and home economics; another homeschooling mom taught science and helped with art and home ec; another hs mom helped with drama and home ec. Before the school year began we all sat down and reviewed ALL the materials that would be used. One parent was usually the "teacher" the others served as "facilitators." There was parental responsibility because the parent of each child KNEW and agreed to what was being taught their child.

Also, it is a misconception to believe that school MUST be taught the same as the public schools, from 8-3, during the day, during the week, never on the weekend, never on a holiday, never during the summer. One doesn't ever stop learning, no matter how old they are.



I'll put it down as something I want to read but in all honesty, I'm backlogged :blush:

Well, lest you think I am trying to sneak in some info in support of homeschooling, I want you to know who the author is and a little about him:

www.johntaylorgatto.com (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/)
He climaxed his teaching career as New York State Teacher of the Year after being named New York City Teacher of the Year on three occasions. He quit teaching on the OP ED page of the Wall Street Journal in 1991 while still New York State Teacher of the Year, claiming that he was no longer willing to hurt children. Later that year he was the subject of a show at Carnegie Hall called "An Evening With John Taylor Gatto," which launched a career of public speaking in the area of school reform, which has taken Gatto over a million and a half miles in all fifty states and seven foreign countries. In 1992, he was named Secretary of Education in the Libertarian Party Shadow Cabinet, and he has been included in Who's Who in America from 1996 on. In 1997, he was given the Alexis de Tocqueville Award for his contributions to the cause of liberty, and was named to the Board of Advisors of the National TV-Turnoff Week.
His books include: Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (1992); The Exhausted School (1993); A Different Kind of Teacher (2000); and The Underground History Of American Education (2001).

And it is good for parents to be involved. My parents were inolved with my education as well but they felt some decisions I could make on my own. If I had questions though, I could surely turn to them.

Parents should be more than just "involved." When one breaks the law then begs ignorance, the law's answer is that ignorance is no excuse of the law. Parents conceive and have the children, they are their responsibility, fullly, completely, and without exception. That they DESIGNATE their authority, that they allow their children to make their own decision in no way absolves the parent from parental responsibility.

So a parent sends their child to school so their child can keep up with the concensus and standards of the important subjects needed for a well-rounded student! What are we arguing about then? I believe the same thing!

No, we're not arguing the same thing -- YOU believe the consensus is derived from the state education boards, and I believe the consensus is and should be derived from the parents of the students being taught. SOME parents may decide to share some responsibility with the schools, but that DOESN'T eliminate their totally responsibility. There are no agreed upon set-in-stone, unchangeable, firm standards for public schools (there are for MY school, they are located within the Bible, but that too, is for another thread, :smirky: ). There is no all-knowing, all-wise School Master who says THIS is what every 5th grader MUST know and learn! Most schools around the country do not even agree with each other as to what must and should be taught.

The state has nothing to do with those decisions. That person is.

So why do you insist on making the school responsible for OTHER areas of their life -- like parental responsibility?

Why should it be any concern of the state to make sure your family can live a comfortable life, time to put in a full work week, come home to cook, keep their house clean and repaird, take your kids to extra-curricular activities, and still have time to sleep? It's not -- those things are upon those parents' shoulders because of the decisions that they, and they alone have made. MORE parents think they HAVE to have a nice/fancy/expensive (name your adjective) house, 2 cars, prestigious job, amenities and luxuries (premium cable TV, big screen, surround sound, plush furniture, designer clothes, etc.) Again, it all comes down to what a parent HAS to do, to do for their child. I have worked night jobs, part-time jobs, we've lived with one car, in a (very) used mobile home, on my MIL's property, no frills, to DO what needs to be done for my children. Today's parents are NOT willing to sacrifice comfort and personal desire for anyone else, not to mention for their own children.

Well, you told me your's so I'll tell you mine.

I'm not going to put your life under a microscope, it is not my place to do. Only a few observations: 1) those that decide their children are a priority amd WANT to do something, make something happen, WILL despite the obstacle or diversion, 2) none of the things we choose are anybody else's responsibility save our own.

One other small note -- you mention differential equations -- you know we arent' talking about math. I doubt your child could be exposed to information you find unacceptable in a math class -- we were discussing an ELECTIVE Bible class, and some GROUP'S assertion that it was inappropriate, NOT the parents objections for what was being taught their child.

I also don't think you should be paying school taxes if your kids aren't involved in school activities or are taught there. But that's another issue.

Yes it is another issue, however, BLESS YOU!! Would you please share that thought with others, pass it around, maybe it will catch on, :thumb:

Now, what does, for example, a single mother of three do who has to work two jobs just to pay the bills do? Do you really think she'll have a lot of time to review the course material for every kid each year?

While that single mother may be in that situation due to no fault of her own (or not), it STILL doesn't make that a problem of the STATE. She had the children, she is the parent, therefore she is responsible. That it's hard or easy isn't relevant, the fact remains it is her responsibility. HOPEFULLY she will find someone she can trust and rely on to help her make such tough decisions/choices (maybe a pastor, or trusted family friend, perhaps her parents or that of the child's father's parents, etc.) Still, if it must be done (and it must), it is up to her to find a way -- that is NOT the state's fault or responsibility.



Back before public shools there also wasn't as much to learn. There weren't computer classes, biology, chemistry, physics, or social studies.

Who says that all those things MUST be learned or taught (to every student)? Are ALL of them necessary for personal success? We're getting WAYYYY off track here, and I would be MORE than happy to follow this line, but I think perhaps we should send this discussion on to another thread, don't you? If you care to continue this track, just copy and paste from your last post starting at the line (above) of your's I quoted and insert it into a new thread.

As you can tell, education IS something I care very deeply about, and I most certainly DO have an opinion on it.

[Trevelyan]

Yes, it is an elective; therefore, I do not have a problem with this being allowed. Just keep creationism/Intelligent Design in there and I'll be happy.

When it comes to the whole evolution debate, I would even be fine with a school deciding they just do not want to teach evolution, just as long as creationism/Intelligent Design does not make its way into the science class. It is this defining of science by people outside the scientific community that pushes my buttons.

So, I guess I am just not what many here would view as the typical liberal when it comes to issues such as this.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

llDayo:
Then we may as well leave science out altogether in school. Evolutionary science is no different than any other scientific area so if you deny one, you deny them all.

:smirky: Um, yes, other sciëntific areäs are different, in that they've been proven. Evolution is only a hypothesis.

[llDayo]

And here we go 'round the mulberry bush yet again. It's not the STATE'S fault that the PARENT(S) doesn't have the TIME. Circumstance is irrelevant -- the parent(s) had the children, they are responsible, it's as simple as that. They CAN decide to ALLOT some of their responsibility to another (the school), but that does NOT relinquish the parent from complete responsibility -- the child is STILL theirs, they did NOT sign over total parental rights to the state just by choosing to send their child to a PUBLIC (government run . . . remember what government is? OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people -- i.e. the PEOPLE are responsible for their GOVERNMENT, and by extension for their schools).

I'm guessing you never heard the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child."? It takes the collective effort of society to raise a child, especially today. A parent shouldn't be expected to teach a child everything, but should have the final word. Our school systems were originally set up to have our children taught as a group. This required trust in the individual(s) doing the teaching in that what they're teaching would be correct and agreed upon material. This course falsely misleads its intentions in an attempt to preach in school on a subject that's held together by beliefs.


Great question! We have been faced with this very problem (in regards to math) as homeschoolers. So what do parents do? They FIND adequate help (help being the operative word here, NOT a substitute for educational responsibility) . . . tutors, friends who excel at math, find a class they can attend -- but the parent STILL has to make sure that what is being taught is what the child needs, is adequate, and correct! Is there a bit of the unforeseeable, a little bit of faith in someone else. . . yes, but it STILL comes down upon the head of the parent to make sure all that can be done IS being done for their child(ren).

And that's exactly what electives are for! Science, math, history, and language are generally the basics and should be required. Electives are there for students to take so they can cater their education to their tastes. Some may want to study what the Bible says and what it's about but not be preached to. Unfortunately, that class is misleading students to do just that.

Look let me put it this way -- parents are the only ones with a 100% VESTED interest in making sure their children grow and learn academically, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually (whatever that means to them), and successfully. Think of it like this, the child is in a circle -- draw another circle around the child and in that circle lies the parents, THEY and they ALONE have sole responsibility and accountability OUTSIDE that of the child's responsibility and accountability (to learn). Draw another circle around outside of the parents' circle, this is extended family, add another for friends/peers, add another for school -- do you see how far removed the school is from a real interest in the child? They are trying to satisfy the many needs, not the needs of the one (child) -- THAT responsibility lies with each individual parental unit.

I agree that the parent has the final say, and when they can't do something they need to rely on society to help them out. Roofers, politicians, garbage men, and educators are all part of our society. We rely on each other so we can better our lives as a whole. It's why people go to college, to fill in a gap that is needed by society to function properly. If schools hadn't come around, we'd all still be living in straw huts because no one would be able to learn anything new!

Do you think the parents make these things up? Homeschoolers use textbooks, curricula, educational resources (and MANY use things provided for FREE by local school systems -- I am currently using a College Prep Literature program for my son that my husband brought me FREE from the local school board). You are foreseeing problems that do not exist. I have known so MANY homeschoolers whose public school educational experiences were so inferior to that of THEIR children -- WHY are their children excelling and taking on advanced areas of learning? Because their parents had a DESIRE for them to do better than they did, and the children see the importance of good and wise educational decisions as evidenced by their parents. Sorry, not buying this argument either.

So, parents are using their knowledge that they gained through public schooling to teach their kids? Nowadays with the internet it may be a lot easier to keep up with new discoveries but I would personally rather have someone who knows the subject's ins and outs teach me than someone who has a basic understanding. I'd also like to know why you're so against public schooling yet you still rely on materials provided by the school board? What if that school board didn't exist because everyone is homeschooled?

*Parents WANT to teach the children properly, they do NOT want to teach them falsehoods . . . I believe YOU are referring to the teaching of Creationism vs. evolution.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of anything specific in this regard. But since you brought it up I'll use it as an example. In this post: http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=253622#post253622 (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=253622#post253622) you're arguing against Evolution (perfectly acceptable in my opinion, because science is all about the truth and any arguments that disprove what is the current consensus should be brought to light) "It is nothing to be watching a show on the telly and hear someone referring to human's ancestors from the primordial goo...". Evolution is not abiogenesis. Now, I'm not going to try to start a debate on this subject but your statement is a perfect example of what can happen (in any subject) by trying to teach everything yourself. Details on a subject can be misinterpreted and then passed on to the student. Can this happen in a public school? Yes. But I'd much rather take my chances with someone with a math degree teaching my kid math then having me possibly teach it in an incorrect, inefficient manner.

And WHERE do the standards come from? Who decides what the standars are? Are the standards open for interpretation, revision, alteration, modification? Who decides when they need to be changed? For what reasons SHOULD they change?

I've honestly just glanced at this so I don't have a comment: http://www.nsdc.org/library/policy/stpolpa.cfm
That's for my home state.

The PARENTS should have the final say regarding what is taught their children. They are the final authority NOT the state. There are basic standards I would imagine that everyone would agree to -- reading, writing, arithmetic, but beyond that things start to get subjective, even HISTORY which in our schools is being rewritten and important information removed. No, I do not agree, I do not believe that state education boards should hold the keys to a student's education -- those belong to the parents, and the parents better be making dog-gone sure the state education boards are not indoctrinating their children in unacceptable areas and ways.

Anyone is free to check up on what is being taught, yes I agree, and if you don't agree than no one's forcing you to keep your kids in public schooling. But it's there for you to take advantage of. And what information is being removed in history classes? Do you have any specific examples? Cause I definitely don't agree with that! We're not living in North Korea.


Similar, but not the same. I was a part of a cooperative for three years -- I taught art, drama, history, and home economics; another homeschooling mom taught science and helped with art and home ec; another hs mom helped with drama and home ec. Before the school year began we all sat down and reviewed ALL the materials that would be used. One parent was usually the "teacher" the others served as "facilitators." There was parental responsibility because the parent of each child KNEW and agreed to what was being taught their child.

If each parent teaching knows the subject matter than more power to you :grin:

Also, it is a misconception to believe that school MUST be taught the same as the public schools, from 8-3, during the day, during the week, never on the weekend, never on a holiday, never during the summer. One doesn't ever stop learning, no matter how old they are.

I don't believe you directed this at me, it was just a statement. But yes, I agree. It's more of a matter of convenience though as most parents work during the day. Kids should be getting encouraged by their parents to learn more outside of school as well (my 19 month old is already learning colors, for example).

Well, lest you think I am trying to sneak in some info in support of homeschooling, I want you to know who the author is and a little about him:

www.johntaylorgatto.com (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/)
He climaxed his teaching career as New York State Teacher of the Year after being named New York City Teacher of the Year on three occasions. He quit teaching on the OP ED page of the Wall Street Journal in 1991 while still New York State Teacher of the Year, claiming that he was no longer willing to hurt children. Later that year he was the subject of a show at Carnegie Hall called "An Evening With John Taylor Gatto," which launched a career of public speaking in the area of school reform, which has taken Gatto over a million and a half miles in all fifty states and seven foreign countries. In 1992, he was named Secretary of Education in the Libertarian Party Shadow Cabinet, and he has been included in Who's Who in America from 1996 on. In 1997, he was given the Alexis de Tocqueville Award for his contributions to the cause of liberty, and was named to the Board of Advisors of the National TV-Turnoff Week.
His books include: Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (1992); The Exhausted School (1993); A Different Kind of Teacher (2000); and The Underground History Of American Education (2001).

Actually, I know there are teachers out there that support it. Mainly because there's too many bad teachers in the systems, but that's why parents need to check up on what their kid is learning. Parents have the final say.


Parents should be more than just "involved." When one breaks the law then begs ignorance, the law's answer is that ignorance is no excuse of the law. Parents conceive and have the children, they are their responsibility, fullly, completely, and without exception. That they DESIGNATE their authority, that they allow their children to make their own decision in no way absolves the parent from parental responsibility.

I never said the parents shouldn't be involved. But they also shouldn't be required to know everything either. And children should be encouraged to think for themselves as much as possible. A parent should still watch what the child decides but the child shouldn't feel the need to check with the parents on every thing they do.


No, we're not arguing the same thing -- YOU believe the consensus is derived from the state education boards, and I believe the consensus is and should be derived from the parents of the students being taught. SOME parents may decide to share some responsibility with the schools, but that DOESN'T eliminate their totally responsibility. There are no agreed upon set-in-stone, unchangeable, firm standards for public schools (there are for MY school, they are located within the Bible, but that too, is for another thread, :smirky: ). There is no all-knowing, all-wise School Master who says THIS is what every 5th grader MUST know and learn! Most schools around the country do not even agree with each other as to what must and should be taught.

The state education boards were derived because of the development of education in our society. I trust them because they were developed by others only wanting to make sure each child has a chance to learn.

So why do you insist on making the school responsible for OTHER areas of their life -- like parental responsibility?

I never said the school is responsible! The school is just a tool for parents to use to aid in their child's development. It makes life easier for the parents who have plenty of other responsibilities to attend to.

Why should it be any concern of the state to make sure your family can live a comfortable life, time to put in a full work week, come home to cook, keep their house clean and repaird, take your kids to extra-curricular activities, and still have time to sleep? It's not -- those things are upon those parents' shoulders because of the decisions that they, and they alone have made. MORE parents think they HAVE to have a nice/fancy/expensive (name your adjective) house, 2 cars, prestigious job, amenities and luxuries (premium cable TV, big screen, surround sound, plush furniture, designer clothes, etc.) Again, it all comes down to what a parent HAS to do, to do for their child. I have worked night jobs, part-time jobs, we've lived with one car, in a (very) used mobile home, on my MIL's property, no frills, to DO what needs to be done for my children. Today's parents are NOT willing to sacrifice comfort and personal desire for anyone else, not to mention for their own children.

That's how our society works. We work together so we CAN have better lives. The state is a group of people hired to help us work together and lay down standards. We use our money (taxes) to pay them for this to, again, make our lives easier.


One other small note -- you mention differential equations -- you know we arent' talking about math. I doubt your child could be exposed to information you find unacceptable in a math class -- we were discussing an ELECTIVE Bible class, and some GROUP'S assertion that it was inappropriate, NOT the parents objections for what was being taught their child.

I just used math as an example because off the top of my head I couldn't think of something appropriate.


While that single mother may be in that situation due to no fault of her own (or not), it STILL doesn't make that a problem of the STATE. She had the children, she is the parent, therefore she is responsible. That it's hard or easy isn't relevant, the fact remains it is her responsibility. HOPEFULLY she will find someone she can trust and rely on to help her make such tough decisions/choices (maybe a pastor, or trusted family friend, perhaps her parents or that of the child's father's parents, etc.) Still, if it must be done (and it must), it is up to her to find a way -- that is NOT the state's fault or responsibility.

So, you hope she will find someone to help her with these decisions? And when no one's available should she just suffer through her misfortune or receive help from the state? It is her responsibility to seek help but our taxes go to programs to help those who do the seeking.


Who says that all those things MUST be learned or taught (to every student)? Are ALL of them necessary for personal success? We're getting WAYYYY off track here, and I would be MORE than happy to follow this line, but I think perhaps we should send this discussion on to another thread, don't you? If you care to continue this track, just copy and paste from your last post starting at the line (above) of your's I quoted and insert it into a new thread.

As you can tell, education IS something I care very deeply about, and I most certainly DO have an opinion on it.

Well, I'm not the type who normally starts threads unless willing to take the time to ensure a good discussion. I more of a follower than a leader :crazy:

[llDayo]

Yes, it is an elective; therefore, I do not have a problem with this being allowed. Just keep creationism/Intelligent Design in there and I'll be happy.

When it comes to the whole evolution debate, I would even be fine with a school deciding they just do not want to teach evolution, just as long as creationism/Intelligent Design does not make its way into the science class. It is this defining of science by people outside the scientific community that pushes my buttons.

So, I guess I am just not what many here would view as the typical liberal when it comes to issues such as this.

It's not about it being an elective though, it's about what is being stated as the subject material FOR that elective. The description is misleading and students are not being getting what they expected.

[Trevelyan]

It's not about it being an elective though, it's about what is being stated as the subject material FOR that elective. The description is misleading and students are not being getting what they expected.

Then they should change the description. Yes, if they have a misleading description, that is wrong, but if they change it, then I personally do not care if they have the course.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

I always wonder why these groups are called "watchdog" groups, as if they are providing some protective, valuable service. Seems to me they should be called "Busy body" groups. Or perhaps "fascist bent on telling other people how to live their lives" groups, or something more accurate like that.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I'm guessing you never heard the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child."?

Familiar with it, DEFINITELY don't agree with it. I didn't ask "the village" for permission to have my child, I do not have to have permission or help to raise my child. I don't WANT "the village's" help in raising my child.

It takes the collective effort of society to raise a child, especially today.

I disagree -- it takes the effort of the parents and if THEY choose to bring someone else into the circle of responsibility, it is upon THEIR (the parents) shoulders to make sure the one's they have are doing just exactly what they should. The "collective" that helps my family are hand-chosen by their father and me -- we allow relatives to watch and keep them, we allow them to spend the night with friends we know, we allow them to take courses or join clubs which WE have checked out to make sure they are appropriate not against what we believe. Can we protect them completely? Nope? Should we shield them? Nope -- we believe insulation is much better than isoloation, but WE DO have the ultimate responsibility, authority, and accountability for what we allow into our child(ren)'s life.

A parent shouldn't be expected to teach a child everything, but should have the final word.

I never SAID a parent should be expected to teach a child everything (but they COULD if they so chose), it is the last part of your sentence "the final word," that I am referring to. Yes, the PARENT(S) should have the final word because THEY are the one's ultimately responsible.

Our school systems were originally set up to have our children taught as a group.

Yes . . . way back when? Were you a part of making that arrangement? I know I wasn't.

This required trust in the individual(s) doing the teaching in that what they're teaching would be correct and agreed upon material.

Absolutely, and it should be required EVERY year -- and a review should be done as often as a parent feels necessary. Parents are absolutely free to audit classes to make sure what is being taught is accurate. You seem to be hung up on the "full trust" of the school systems -- I do not trust government ANYTHING fully, much, much less the government school system. We the people MUST guard against encroachment by the government -- if we do not, who will?

This course falsely misleads its intentions in an attempt to preach in school on a subject that's held together by beliefs.

AGAIN missing the point -- the PARENTS of the STUDENTS taking this class were NOT complaining, and had not problem with what was being taught. It was a nosy busy-body organization making waves for absolutely no reason other than to start trouble.





Some may want to study what the Bible says and what it's about but not be preached to. Unfortunately, that class is misleading students to do just that.

I would be fully on your side if it were students of that class and their parents making this argument -- but they are NOT. There is NOTHING wrong with this class, because that IS what the parents have agreed for their children, and the children chose it, I simply cannot say ELECTIVE enough here.

I agree that the parent has the final say, and when they can't do something they need to rely on society to help them out.

In this case, society stuck their "collective" nose in where it didn't belong. The parents and students were NOT complaining about this class --some "group" stepped in beyond their authority to do so.

If schools hadn't come around, we'd all still be living in straw huts because no one would be able to learn anything new!

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/biglaugh.gifYou HAVE to be kidding. Schools aren't the be-all, end-all. People WILL learn, desire to learn, and they will find a way to do so. "School" as we know it now isn't the ONLY option for learning -- homeschoolers are proving this so in larger and larger numbers everyday. I am NOT talking about college, that's a different ball of wax because ADULTS are being taught their (legal ones, at least) and so they are responsible for their OWN discovery if what is being taught is adequate and correct.




So, parents are using their knowledge that they gained through public schooling to teach their kids?

That and more -- you have no faith in man, but HUGE faith in government; I have no faith (or very little, :smirky: ) in government, and HUGE faith in man. Parents have an additional motivation -- they have a deep desire to see their children succeed. They will go to great lengths to obtain a good education for their children. Will there be those that won't? Yes -- but I believe if we put the burden back on THEIR shoulders and not the schools, then a majority of parents WILL step up to the plate.

I'd also like to know why you're so against public schooling yet you still rely on materials provided by the school board?

THAT is definitely a topic for another thread, but suffice it to say, I am NOT against public schooling, I am against it as it stands right now. I believe the time has come for public education to change -- it is a dinosaur, past the point of needing to become extinct. There are SO many ways it could be made better, but the teacher's unions and the government has a strangle-hold on public education and are as tenacious as rabid pit-bulls.

What if that school board didn't exist because everyone is homeschooled?

You are under the misunderstanding that I RELY on materials from the public school -- that is not the case. I evaluate a curricula and see if it right/appropriate for my child, if it is I use it. Have you ever Googled homeschool materials? There is MORE than a plethora, and I have used a wide variety. Currently I am using materials from A Beka Book, Bread of Life, PACES, VisionForum, Harvest House, Brio, Helping Hand, Bob Jones Press, Masterbooks, Apologia, and the ACounty School Board. It would be of no great consequence to stop using the ACSB literature program and find another.

I have put forth a cogent argument, and I don't currently have the time to answer the rest of your post. Chew on the above and we'll go from there.