Sandra
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
Palestinians are Semetic, so part 2 is all wrong.
Court's homeschool ban creating 'panic' in California
- Thread starter FrankRep
- Start date
Palestinians are Semetic, so part 2 is all wrong.
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
John Taylor Gatto
Speech to the Vermont Homeschooling Conference
(Note: John Gatto is the former New York State Teacher of the Year who renounced the government school system in his landmark book DUMBING US DOWN. He is constantly in demand as a public speaker.
As a bit of background, the industrial titans of the 1890's began to think that not only could the production line be engineered, but people's lives could be engineered as well, in order to work like homogeneous robots with the machines. People like Rockefeller and Carnegie gave huge sums to prominent academics to see if this could be realized through the educational system. They found that to a considerable extent it could, and it is still being done today as evidenced in the Congressional Record during the Clinton administration. This is the story that John Gatto has to tell.-DB)
http://4brevard.com/choice/Public_Education.htm
also
Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
Speech to the Vermont Homeschooling Conference
(Note: John Gatto is the former New York State Teacher of the Year who renounced the government school system in his landmark book DUMBING US DOWN. He is constantly in demand as a public speaker.
As a bit of background, the industrial titans of the 1890's began to think that not only could the production line be engineered, but people's lives could be engineered as well, in order to work like homogeneous robots with the machines. People like Rockefeller and Carnegie gave huge sums to prominent academics to see if this could be realized through the educational system. They found that to a considerable extent it could, and it is still being done today as evidenced in the Congressional Record during the Clinton administration. This is the story that John Gatto has to tell.-DB)
http://4brevard.com/choice/Public_Education.htm
also
Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
IcyPeaceMaker
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 904
This ban will drive out many of the few remaining "producers" from California, driving their economy (7th largest in the world) to disaster, leaving that state to the mexicans and obscurity.
Looking to the future, this could actually be a move to destroy the markets in Cali, drive it to bankruptcy, so the remaining moguls can buy it at bargain prices, then run the illegals out of country, so the prices boom again, a 10 year proposition rooted in profits, and accomplishes the communist agenda of destroying the middle class, educationally.
Looking to the future, this could actually be a move to destroy the markets in Cali, drive it to bankruptcy, so the remaining moguls can buy it at bargain prices, then run the illegals out of country, so the prices boom again, a 10 year proposition rooted in profits, and accomplishes the communist agenda of destroying the middle class, educationally.
ItsTime
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2007
- Messages
- 16,932
I would hate to see the shape of public schools now. When I was in HS (10 years ago) My AP science class had to SHARE a class with a CP class. There were 35 students ONE teacher, TWO classes going on at the same time. Thats right, he had to teach two different classes AT THE SAME TIME. Lucky for us there were 35 students and only 25 chairs...
I can not imagine how f-ing bad it is now.
I can not imagine how f-ing bad it is now.
They were never about that... not since they became compulsory. They've always been about indoctrination and intellectual stultification. They wanted good factory workers, and by god, they've built us.
Only now, all of our factories have been outsourced and we're a consumer society. Now we're taught to consume on the whim, which fits, as being corralled into a giant building with teenagers brings out the social competitiveness, and the need to "fit in" by buying every new thing.
Last edited:
SeanEdwards
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,407
But wouldn't that be indoctrination?
We can mince words, and perhaps agree. However, a monopoly on the type of indoctrination is surely a bad thing. How's about some "friendly" competition with what the government mandates for the curriculum.
IcyPeaceMaker
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 904
How about a full blown revolt?
California just took one giant leap toward fascism
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.
The judge just admitted the primary purpose of education should be indoctrination/brainwashing.
Training to be the best little loyal citizens (sheep) your children can be.
Critical thinking and asking questions may pose a threat to the public welfare.
"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,"
I guess the judge does not understand the 9th amendment. I am making a huge assumption that he actually read it!
Since when does the constitution limit the rights of the people (parents)?
The constitution limits the authority of the government, but the government didn’t get the memo.
The only way this government will respect our liberty is by force. Otherwise, prepare for more abuse as we head toward the new world order.
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.
The judge just admitted the primary purpose of education should be indoctrination/brainwashing.
Training to be the best little loyal citizens (sheep) your children can be.
Critical thinking and asking questions may pose a threat to the public welfare.
"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,"
I guess the judge does not understand the 9th amendment. I am making a huge assumption that he actually read it!
Since when does the constitution limit the rights of the people (parents)?
The constitution limits the authority of the government, but the government didn’t get the memo.
The only way this government will respect our liberty is by force. Otherwise, prepare for more abuse as we head toward the new world order.
Lois
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 933
Here's some surprising good news about Arnold --
*********
Governor vows to protect homeschooling
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/08/MNCHVG0SD.DTL
Schwarzenegger Defends Homeschoolers
Schwarzenegger formally declared opposition to this Nazi tactic and he has vowed to fight the ruling and protect those peaceful, independent people who believe that they have a right to direct and perform the education process for their own children.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019885.html
**********
My three girls went to Waldorf School. They're great!
Lois
*********
Governor vows to protect homeschooling
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/08/MNCHVG0SD.DTL
Schwarzenegger Defends Homeschoolers
Schwarzenegger formally declared opposition to this Nazi tactic and he has vowed to fight the ruling and protect those peaceful, independent people who believe that they have a right to direct and perform the education process for their own children.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019885.html
**********
My three girls went to Waldorf School. They're great!
Lois
HSC is the Homeschool Association of California – the text below is posted on the home page of their website: http://www.hsc.org/
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
For those that wish to have more information about the CA issue, this is from CA
Posted by: "Debbie Schwarzer" drschwarzer@... drschwarzer Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:00 am (PST) I have been astonished about the hype about this case. So many have been making sensational claims that parents will be criminally prosecuted, etc.
Please rest assured about a number of things. First, the law, other than this court's interpretation, hasn't changed. Parents involved in a truancy prosecution might face criminal charges, but only after a rather lengthy series of hearings and court orders, and only if the parents failed to comply with the orders. It would be a criminal contempt charge, which isn't nothing but doesn't land you in Pelican Bay.
We have never known conscientious parents ever to be prosecuted under truancy laws to the point of contempt charges. It's highly unlikely.
The media also appear to be saying that no one can teach their children without a credential. I am not certain that the holding is that broad, and I also doubt it would survive legal challenge.
The holding really applied to private ISPs (there are persistent misstatements, that began with fact statements in the case, that the family was enrolled in a charter. Obviously a school with the name "Christian" in it wouldn't be a public charter. It was a private ISP). It could be read by someone reading broadly as applying to any situation where the child is not continuously in the presence of a credentialed teacher.
The court started on a very slippery path of appearing to think that some situations were OK and others weren't, effectively trying to enact an entire code of regulations for governing this situation from the bench. He hasn't been given the constitutional authority, of course, to do this.
How do we get rid of this case?
There are a number of paths. One is seeking actual review by the Supreme Court. HSC and at least several of the other major groups' legal teams aren't in favor of that. Even if you could get the court to accept your petition (they only take
3-5% of cases), the chances that it will be decided the way you want aren't real good. It's a very dangerous road to take, because if the Supreme Court were to affirm the appellate court ruling on either of the main points
(constitutional or statutory), there aren't many options left. The constitutional argument, of course, could be appealed to the US Supreme Court, but the statutory case about the proper interpretation of the California Education Code could not. California Supreme Court is the last stop on that road. If that happens, then you have two bad choices that I'll discuss below.
There is another much easier choice, and it's the one we want, as well as the one being trumpeted in the HSLDA petition. You ask the California Supreme Court to depublish the opinion, or, in other words, have them say that while this might have been the right result in this particular case involving this particular set of facts, the court finds that the reach of the opinion is overbroad and should not become law for the entire state. That is the choice we all (meaning HSC and, I believe, the other groups) want.
You get this by filing a letter with the Supreme Court in compliance with the applicable rules of court. While anyone can file one by stating their interest, we DO NOT think it is an appropriate use of grassroots activism. We DO NOT want every HSC member or HSLDA member or grandmother or irate citizen dashing off their letters to the Supreme Court. There are sober, measured, legal arguments to make about why depublication is appropriate, and those arguments are made after researching the applicable standards, etc. The Supreme Court will not be swayed positively by public outcry. In fact, it could backfire, and backfire badly.
If the Supreme Court affirms on the statutory points, then the two bad choices are to either seek legislation or to do nothing and hope that a further case is brought that can involve a better set of facts and better explanation of the issues (and reaching a better result). Both are very dangerous. Legislation isn't the answer because of the extraordinary strength of the teachers' union. It is unlikely we will see any legislation ultimately pass that gives us the freedom we have today. And the second choice is dangerous. I know lots of families that would make terrific test case defendants -- they're conscientious, they actually get their kids educated, they follow the laws. But we don't get to pick who the family is. As a friend of mine said, we couldn't have gotten a worse set of facts for this case if we had a contest.
We are trying to get one or more of the fanciest law firms in the state to help us on taking the fangs out of this case. We know what we're doing. Please let us do our jobs.
I would be personally, professionally, and, as a representative of HSC, globally grateful if everyone on this list would calm down and ask others to calm down. Specifically, I would ask people:
a. Not to write to the Supreme Court or any court.
b. Not to talk to their legislators or make any public statements about a need for legislation.
c. Tell their neighbors, friends, lists, groups both of the above and to educate them about the choices available and about how panic isn't necessary, marches on Sacramento aren't necessary, etc.
I wish this were the type of situation where we could put the fury, passion and energy of the members of this list to good use. Trust me, if we end up having to go the legislative route, we will have that situation at some points. But this isn't that type of situation, and too many folks stirring things up hurts instead of helps.
Thanks for listening.
Debbie Schwarzer HSC Legal Team Co-chair
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
For those that wish to have more information about the CA issue, this is from CA
Posted by: "Debbie Schwarzer" drschwarzer@... drschwarzer Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:00 am (PST) I have been astonished about the hype about this case. So many have been making sensational claims that parents will be criminally prosecuted, etc.
Please rest assured about a number of things. First, the law, other than this court's interpretation, hasn't changed. Parents involved in a truancy prosecution might face criminal charges, but only after a rather lengthy series of hearings and court orders, and only if the parents failed to comply with the orders. It would be a criminal contempt charge, which isn't nothing but doesn't land you in Pelican Bay.
We have never known conscientious parents ever to be prosecuted under truancy laws to the point of contempt charges. It's highly unlikely.
The media also appear to be saying that no one can teach their children without a credential. I am not certain that the holding is that broad, and I also doubt it would survive legal challenge.
The holding really applied to private ISPs (there are persistent misstatements, that began with fact statements in the case, that the family was enrolled in a charter. Obviously a school with the name "Christian" in it wouldn't be a public charter. It was a private ISP). It could be read by someone reading broadly as applying to any situation where the child is not continuously in the presence of a credentialed teacher.
The court started on a very slippery path of appearing to think that some situations were OK and others weren't, effectively trying to enact an entire code of regulations for governing this situation from the bench. He hasn't been given the constitutional authority, of course, to do this.
How do we get rid of this case?
There are a number of paths. One is seeking actual review by the Supreme Court. HSC and at least several of the other major groups' legal teams aren't in favor of that. Even if you could get the court to accept your petition (they only take
3-5% of cases), the chances that it will be decided the way you want aren't real good. It's a very dangerous road to take, because if the Supreme Court were to affirm the appellate court ruling on either of the main points
(constitutional or statutory), there aren't many options left. The constitutional argument, of course, could be appealed to the US Supreme Court, but the statutory case about the proper interpretation of the California Education Code could not. California Supreme Court is the last stop on that road. If that happens, then you have two bad choices that I'll discuss below.
There is another much easier choice, and it's the one we want, as well as the one being trumpeted in the HSLDA petition. You ask the California Supreme Court to depublish the opinion, or, in other words, have them say that while this might have been the right result in this particular case involving this particular set of facts, the court finds that the reach of the opinion is overbroad and should not become law for the entire state. That is the choice we all (meaning HSC and, I believe, the other groups) want.
You get this by filing a letter with the Supreme Court in compliance with the applicable rules of court. While anyone can file one by stating their interest, we DO NOT think it is an appropriate use of grassroots activism. We DO NOT want every HSC member or HSLDA member or grandmother or irate citizen dashing off their letters to the Supreme Court. There are sober, measured, legal arguments to make about why depublication is appropriate, and those arguments are made after researching the applicable standards, etc. The Supreme Court will not be swayed positively by public outcry. In fact, it could backfire, and backfire badly.
If the Supreme Court affirms on the statutory points, then the two bad choices are to either seek legislation or to do nothing and hope that a further case is brought that can involve a better set of facts and better explanation of the issues (and reaching a better result). Both are very dangerous. Legislation isn't the answer because of the extraordinary strength of the teachers' union. It is unlikely we will see any legislation ultimately pass that gives us the freedom we have today. And the second choice is dangerous. I know lots of families that would make terrific test case defendants -- they're conscientious, they actually get their kids educated, they follow the laws. But we don't get to pick who the family is. As a friend of mine said, we couldn't have gotten a worse set of facts for this case if we had a contest.
We are trying to get one or more of the fanciest law firms in the state to help us on taking the fangs out of this case. We know what we're doing. Please let us do our jobs.
I would be personally, professionally, and, as a representative of HSC, globally grateful if everyone on this list would calm down and ask others to calm down. Specifically, I would ask people:
a. Not to write to the Supreme Court or any court.
b. Not to talk to their legislators or make any public statements about a need for legislation.
c. Tell their neighbors, friends, lists, groups both of the above and to educate them about the choices available and about how panic isn't necessary, marches on Sacramento aren't necessary, etc.
I wish this were the type of situation where we could put the fury, passion and energy of the members of this list to good use. Trust me, if we end up having to go the legislative route, we will have that situation at some points. But this isn't that type of situation, and too many folks stirring things up hurts instead of helps.
Thanks for listening.
Debbie Schwarzer HSC Legal Team Co-chair
Similar threads
