We have another excellent article from People For The Separation Of School And State that looks at a 9th Circuit Court decision that resulted from a law over interviews conducted with children in a California school in which first, third, and fifth graders were asked explicit sexual questions as well as other disturbing and intrusive questions. (*) And of course the 9th Circuit stood by a lower court decision and the Supreme Court stood by the 9th Circuit.
The article excerpts from the court’s decree:
Excerpt: [O]nce parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, …their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished. The constitution does not vest parents with the authority to interfere with a public schoolâ€™s decision as to how it will provide information to its students or what information it will provide, in its classrooms or otherwise. See Yoder, 406 U.S. at 205. Perhaps the Sixth Circuit said it best when it explained,
â€œWhile parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child. Whether it is the school curriculum, the hours of the school day, school discipline, the timing and content of examinations, the individuals hired to teach at the school, the extracurricular activities offered at the school or, as here, a dress code, these issues of public education are generally â€˜committed to the control of state and local authorities.â€™ â€
So according to this court, if the state decides to teach your children that gender is a choice, that homosexuality is righteous, or that there is no god but the god/state, or they ought to have sex, sex, sex and kill the offspring while it forms in the womb, or that the masses ought to submit willingly to their lot in life as slaves to the ruling class lest the earth overheat and they all die, then you, dear parent, have no say in that. But the court does point out that you do have the choice open to you to keep your children at home. So in the end, it is your choice, dear parent. Which will you choose?
* Italicized words are verbatim from Alliance For The Seperation Of School And State
Today’s post will package lots of reasons in one post. It’s about a website I discovered called Alliance For The Separation Of School And State, and I’ll share a post from that website that takes a look at a lot of reasons to homeschool.
And here is an excerpt:
Besides the on-going complaints about poor academic performance, grade inflation, and low expectations, there is also serious concern over such in-school issues as:
physical and emotional bullying
cheating and lying
drugs and alcohol
Each one of these points is a reason to homeschool. But there is a deeper reason that the article points to:
Of course, these problems are really symptoms of something deeper… [and] this is important, because it will lead us to the real cause of our public school problems.
The difference is that public schools are controlled by the government and subject to all the ills of government bureaucracy and power. Private and home schools are run, in varying ways, by parents.
Private schools are dependent upon the satisfaction of parents in order to remain in business. They do not control the children in their care. Instead, families retain their authority and â€œhireâ€ the schools for certain aspects of raising their children.
I love the name of this organization because it plays off the name of a God-hating organization that is, of course, welcomed with wide open arms into the public school: “Americans For The Separation Of Church And State” (AFTSOCAS) And this is a fairly apt name for this organization because we know that it has no problem with religion being in the schoolhouse. It’s only problem is with one religion, the one that worships in a Church. Otherwise, we know, and so does the AFTSOCAS, that the state education institution is a religious institution. So if we don’t want religion in the institution that educates our children, namely the established religion of America, Secular Humanism, the only way to not have it is to home educate (or according to this article, private school) and keep the state and its religion far at bay.
We might as well face it, the institution is a bully. But worse, it’s a hypocrite bully. It builds a monument to its bullying as it uses the full weight of the government bureaucracy to crush the little guy for opting out of its intolerant hell while simultaneously preaching tolerance and acceptance. It’s all just a big fat lie.
Here’s another story, this time from the heroes at HSLDA:
School district officials, skeptical of a grandmother’s claim that homeschooling is best for her recently orphaned granddaughter, have charged her with truancy—for an entire academic year.
The HSLDA member’s granddaughter had been going to public elementary school. But in 2013, after the girl was diagnosed with a sensory disorder and depression, her mother began researching other education options. At first, the mother tried to get the school to provide her daughter with reduced-size classes, but when the school refused, she withdrew her daughter and homeschooled her for the 2013–14 school year.
Unfortunately, in May 2014 the mother unexpectedly became ill and passed away only a week before completing her own college education. Undaunted, our member took over the homeschooling of her orphaned granddaughter.
What I was personally subjected to in the government institution was criminal, in my opinion. And now this massive, bloated, intolerant, hell-hole wants to go after a poor grandmother for trying to do the best she can by her deceased daughter’s child. I am confident that, if you’re a decent human being, this is not the kind of institution that you want teaching your children.
Please visit and read more at:
This is an article from World Magazine involving the Texas Supreme Court. As articles go, anytime you read in a headline the word “Judge” or “court”, especially if it includes the word “Supreme” I pay attention because these are the people who can decree all sorts of mischief and make it the law of the land, no matter how nasty or idiotic. So naturally, when I see an article that has “homeschooling” and “Supreme Court” in the title, it gets my attention.
The article is a good read. But there are a few things worth noting before reading. First, no matter how red your state may be, you can rest assured that your public education institution is as blue as downtown Washington DC where the NEA and DOE are located. Second, even though the bloated, self-serving, money laundering scheme of an operation known as public education tries to snow the citizenry into thinking that it’s in the business of educating their children, in the end it’s just another hammer in the hand of liberal elites playing Whac-a-mole; the mole being anyone who doesn’t tow the party line. That would naturally include most homeschoolers.
So the point of the suit:
At issue is how much latitude local and state officials have in requesting proof—in the form of lesson plans or curricula—that homeschool students are being educated in a way that satisfies vague standards laid out by the Texas Education Agency.
At first glance this might seem fair enough, but there’s a gaping hole. My question is, how much latitude do the people have in requesting proof that the Texas Education Agency is not just a money laundering scheme designed to deduct cash from the teacher’s paychecks and deposit it into the DNC campaign fund via the NEA? Answer, none.
These squabbles arise every now and then, but one thing you can take to the bank. The state’s tolerance of homeschooling is proportional to how few are doing it. It’s in the business of business as usual, which is making sure that their system is producing an ever increasing supply of serfs.