nimh wrote: Took it as saying that the principle that it's up to a parent what his child learns is so fundamental that, even in the worst-case scenario where a parent wouldnt want his child to be schooled, period, however mistaken a choice that'd be, that should still be the parent's prerogative, because the parent's authority overrides the state's. Now that is a principle I would "strongly" take issue with.
Why? After all, parents are a bunch of people, and the state is a bunch of people -- it isn't clear
a priori why one bunch should override the other. I told you why I think parents should override the state -- parents have the greater incentive to get the decision right. You have not told me why you think the state should override parents.
nimh wrote:(That's why I've had some discussions with Anastasia about home schooling as well. There's a cultural difference thing going on there, I think.
For the record, I'm German, though my Germanness has no doubt been corrupted by American culture and food. Sozobe on the other hand, with whom I frequently argue related questions and who always takes a "European" position, is an American. Even though she flunked the American citizenship test when it was posted as a quizz on another board (Sorry Soz, couldn't resist
)
nimh wrote:But the concept, that also seems to have a place in the US, that a parent should also be free to home-school his child whatever curriculum he pleases, in whichever way he deems fit, with no oversight or check-up at the end whatsoever, that's just ... beyond me.
Why? After all, school boards in America, and education ministers in Europe, can also teach children whatever curriculum they want, without any check-up at the end. This is why Alabama children have to "learn" that evolution is "just a theory", and I had to "learn" that a population explosion, if unchecked, is about to make our planet impossible to inhabit. Both is bullshit, but that didn't keep the authorities from having it taught. Given that people sometimes suck, no matter if they govern or are governed, what's so incomprehensible about a rule that says I get to decide which agenda, if any, gets crammed down my kid's throat, and you get to decide which agenda, if any, gets crammed down your kid's throat, and we both bear responsibility for the consequences?
nimh wrote:What I said, in fact, was that if a parent would choose to make an obviously stupid educational choice that threatens to harm the child, the school should be allowed to counter this choice by providing complementary/alternative input.
The problem I see with this position is that "obviously stupid" is in the eye of the beholder. If you know Gezzy/Montana's story, you will remember that authorities in Massachusetts considered it "obviously stupid" that she didn't treat her son's attention deficit disorder with Ritalin. She did her own thing anyway, and the boy turned out fine. We have every reason to expect he wouldn't have turned out that fine if the government of Massachusetts had had its way with him. That's why I'm saying your opinion only makes sense if you assume that the state's idea of "obviously stupid" is more likely to be correct than the parents'. I just see no reason why this would be true, and you haven't presented any so far.
nimh wrote:So what that sentence really intends to convey is: "if the parents decide their children should NOT learn something, this should take precedence over what the school wishes to teach children - whether the parents are mistaken or not". Now that sounds different, doesnt it?
No, I don't think so. But I concede this is a rather theoretical question, because not learning about sex isn't an option in the real world. Even if schools respected parents' wishes that their kids don't have sex education, that wouldn't mean kids don't get sex education -- they would just get it from their friends, shoplifted hardcore porn magazines, and so on.
nimh wrote:The school should not tell the kids what is right, or what they should do. But they can plot out the different alternatives, especially where parents might have chosen only to tell them the one thing.
Now here is something you and I totally agree on!
nimh wrote:Thats the second difference in perspective, probably. I'm simply much more pessimistic about the 'natural' self-sufficiency and self-correction of the nuclear family, I guess, than you, Thomas. I.e., when you write:
Thomas wrote:I'm inclined to agree with Gezzy, because parents have a much larger stake in their children's education than teachers do, and because I think the final decision should be made by whoever has the strongest incentive to get it right.
that sounds slightly naive to me. I mean, sure, thats how it goes for healthy families, and its a logical enough assertion. But its not something we can
assume.
I agree, but the same argument can be turned around. "That's how it goes for healthy schools, but it's not something we can assume." Your persistence in assuming that schools are more likely to be healthy than families is just as likely to be naive as the opposite opinion would be. And parents, as I said, have a much greater incentive to get it right. I'm just much more pessimistic than you are about the self-sufficiency and self-correction of the public school system.
nimh wrote:Listen, the single biggest source of harm to today's kids (as probably at any time in history :-( ) is inside the family home.
Sure, because this is where children spend the single biggest fraction of their time. Comparing abuse in families with abuse in regular schools wouldn't be fair for this reason. For a fair comparison, I'd suggest a comparison between home-schooling families with institutions where children spend their whole day. Orphanages for example. Do you have any evidence that abuse in orphanages is less frequent than abuse in families? I'd be surprised if it were, but I'm always willing to learn.
-- Thomas
As Fishin pointed out, it's kind of a moot point and I feel I can't improve my argument any further anyway, so I'll just leave it at that for now