If there is no way to effectively regulate it to ensure that the children are getting a real education, then yes. Parents should not be permitted to deny their children a real education. They can supplement that real education as they please, but not deprive them of it.
The only difference there would be that homeschooling would no longer count as "attendance".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education#United_Sta...
Really little different than the other circumstances in which Child Protective Services might show up with a police escort.
It's way less persuasive than you think it is.
Not to mention you must be unfamiliar with news of just that happening in Germany.
Perhaps we shouldn't allow YOU to vote, as proposed in this discussion for those who are supposedly seen as having poor critical thinking skills.
And we shouldn't allow you to teach your kids either, nor to have the option to send them to the school of your choice. All under the logic of this discussion. Enjoy.
Suggesting that someone's children be taken from them is absolutely the threat of showing up at their doorstep with guns. Do you think people just say "no, it's no big deal, take my kids that I love."? Not a chance.
I'm not sure if you're being a dick or if you haven't thought this through (or both).
(And those of you who are not parents do not fully comprehend how disturbing this is to those of us who are.)
There are many places in the US where this "real" education is entirely unavailable in the public school system. What do you do then?
Oh, but you probably just mean that they don't have enough money for new microscopes... In that case @jeltz has your bases pretty well covered.
Part of my problem with public schools stems from that experience - I knew valedictorians from a few graduating classes near mine in the public schools closest to me, and they just weren't as well-educated. It's possible that I had an abnormal experience, but I doubt it - my father graduated from one of those same public schools, and he's extremely intelligent (mechanical engineer, owns a robotics engineering company). Even still, he chose to send us to a private school because he didn't expect us to get as good of an education in the public system.
Of note: the private school I went to paid significantly less to its teachers than did the public schools around. I'm very aware of this because my brother is a teacher. He had to make a conscious decision to forego higher pay for his ideals, because he too felt that the public school system just doesn't have as much to offer.
My point is, microscopes and money are not the problem I have with the public schools.
Your options for remediation all require resources that parents in lousy school districts don't have. Moving to the burbs requires money (apartments in the burbs don't take housing subsidies), a reliable car, a dealing with a lot of hassle as a non-white person (getting pulled over by the cops, etc). Your solution of suing the school district into submission requires that you as a parent have lots of time and resource to manage a litigation. That requires lots of external support -- that 3 hour detour to sit in some court hearing is 3 hours of lost wages.
If the state is failing to provide the education that I feel is appropriate to my child, I have the right to intervene, period. If I'm doing something extreme or harmful to my child, the state has the ability to intervene, to the point of seizing custody if I'm not acting in my child's best interest.
I received a Catholic education at one point in my life. The teachings of the Catholic Church are offensive to many people. Does my exposure to catholic docterine disqualify my education? In my mind, one of the core components of a "real education" would be to respect others beliefs and avoid meddling in the affairs of others. Sounds like our perspectives vary.
Your school doesn't have the money for fancy microscopes? Welcome to society; get involved with it and fix it.
> Does my exposure
I thought I was clear: exposure to religion in an education is not what concerns me (unless, of course, it is in a public school). The RCC, for all of its numerous faults, has their schools in developed countries teaching proper science, not religion in place of science (for the most part), and not in the same class. They are pretty damn low on my list of concerns.
My concern is with adults deciding to swap out science lessons with religion lessons. This is what the majority of homeschoolers do, and this is what many protestant religious schools do.
> If I'm doing something extreme or harmful to my child
Denying your child access to a basic science education is exactly that. Children have a right to receive and education and parents have absolutely no right to deprive 'their' children of that.
Explanation by example: You want to send your kid to Catholic School where he can learn proper biology and latin prayers or whatever shit? Cool, knock yourself out. You want to send your kid to public school where he can learn biology, then teach him that Jesus rode dinosaurs when he comes home at the end of the day? Cool, knock yourself out. You want to keep your kids out of schools that teach biology and instead only expose your child to Dino-Cowboy Jesus theory? Then you should have your children taken away from you, as you are clearly incapable of raising them.
Have you seen a foster home? I don't think you would say this if you had much experience with the foster child programs.
I'm wondering what you think of that; is that different from what you meant by swapping out science lessons or is it close enough in your eyes? Do you think my experience was the exception to the rule when it comes to homeschoolers? How do you know what most homeschoolers teach? (I'm honestly curious; not just trying to argue with you.)
Presenting religious arguments in science lessons qualifies as swapping out science with religion, no matter how much those lessons teach you the opposing position (generally only done so that the student is able to "lie" on standardized testing).
Think of it this way: would it be acceptable to teach kids in chemistry, "...and that kids, is the periodic table of elements. Of course WE know that there are five elements, which are represented by these five Platonic solids. We know this for the [holybook] tells us so."?
Children have a right to receive a science education that has not been purposely sabotaged. If parents want to give their child such a blatantly slanted education, then it needs to be in addition to a proper education.
That you made it out alright says nothing of the acceptability of such abuse.
I disagree that it would have been a good thing for me to have been taken away from my parents because of the curriculum they chose. I can't even imagine what that would have done to me and my siblings.
How do you propose people living in poverty both provide their children with the necessary resources (textbooks, a microscope, maps, a computer) and have enough time to instruct their children?
Can you think of the REAL problem that is the issue in this regard instead of inflicting massive collateral damage because it's an easier path?
Unfortunately for your whims, in a free country, parents can decide to school their children however they see fit. More unfortunately for your whims, the fact that homeschoolers are tremendously better prepared for university (or work if they choose) than their peers is the subject of countless news articles over the years. The statistics favor the homeschoolers, and that includes the majority being complained about here that dare to choose Creation over evolution.
There, there, little totalitarian, it will be OK. Just move to China.