(no subject)

[spiralngphoenix]

I am officially having a crisis of identity. I've spent my entire life being proud to be from NH. Lately, that's been slipping. A lot.

Now? Yeah. Not so much. This week, the NH House passed a bill that removes compulsory attendance for school children.

I think I know how the educated people of China, Poland, the Middle East, and many other countries have felt throughout history when the inmates got control of the asylum and systematically destroyed centuries of progress and knocked them back to the Stone Age.

Comments

[curiositykt.livejournal.com]

Yes, they removed the word compulsory - but all that meant was that if the child is going to all their classes, they don't need to then stay at school during the period of time in which they don't have classes. Which is entirely reasonable to me. Why should I have to keep my child at school if he has a study hall last period when I want to take him home to say go to a karate lesson. It basically allows for more comprehensive home schooling/school partnerships. In many states you can send your child to public school for say math and science and then bring them home for English and History, but as the law was written before, this would have violated the truancy laws in the state of NH.

[spiralngphoenix.livejournal.com]

Hopefully that's all it ends up being used for. Given the way they're cutting and rearranging everything else, esp. when it comes to education, I'm not that confident about it.

[curiositykt.livejournal.com]

I suspect it comes out of the cuts. If my theoretical child were placed in a class with 45 other students to be read to out of a text book about about science from the 50s, I think I would find a way to get my child out of that particular class (Assuming the others weren't so bad) and teach that subject myself.

[spiralngphoenix.livejournal.com]

I look at it as instead of cutting more funding for schools and thereby ensuring that they can't get current textbooks (which is why they're still using those textbooks from the 50's), they should be spending MORE on education and not doing things like cutting funding to education, NPR, etc. while cutting taxes on cigarettes.

My concern, too, is things like "The Bible says evolution doesn't exist, so I don't want my child being taught it. I'm taking them out of science class" constitutes "conscientious objection". Given how things like that are becoming more and more common, I can very easily see that being allowed. (After all, they don't HAVE to attend science class if the parent says "no" anymore, and besides, we don't have the funding to deal with it, anyway...) Things like that are what worry the hell out me for this country.

[curiositykt.livejournal.com]

so the religious will take their children out of your children's science class and go about their lives in their little bubble. That is fine. They are allowed to believe what ever they want to believe, just as much as you are.

There is absolutely nothing in this bill about funding.

[spiralngphoenix.livejournal.com]

That was just Tuesday's bill. There are a few others, and those people/kids aren't staying in their little bubbles. If they would, fine. I have no problem with some wack-job little cult in the back of nowhere doing their own thing. I have issues with the state of Texas deciding they don't like how history happened and so they're going to re-write the history textbooks.

[curiositykt.livejournal.com]

NH, tied with Vermont for the least religious state does not translate into Texas.

As for making sure they are learning stuff, the bill provides for that with this section: "(i) The child is being educated by a parent, whether or not the education occurs in the child’s home, and the child has attained a reasonable level of academic progress comparable to children of a similar age and ability."

[nomadmwe.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the textbook issue bothers me more than words can say.

I dunno, I rather think that parents shouldn't be able to remove kids from public school classes. Now, if they want to teach their kids differently at home on their own time, that's okay, but I think that removing them from classes isn't acceptable - unless they're going to be taught an equivalent course with an approved... um... word. Thing. Topic list for class. *looks at the empty cider bottle* Words are being hard. But basically, the full approved homeschooling rigamarole that juuust doesn't seem like will happen in this case.

[spiralngphoenix.livejournal.com]

I believe the word you were looking for is curriculum. ;)

Home-schoolers are generally still required to follow standard curriculum. The way this is worded seems to make that a little questionable, though, and that's the part that I'm edgy about. It's one thing to say "I do not approve of the way your school handles bullies" or "Your textbooks, frankly, suck and I'm not having my kid be taught from geography books that still have the USSR listed on the maps", but the "conscientiously opposed" part leaves too much leeway for the nutbars to decide "science is against my beliefs, so my kid's not being taught it". We will ALL need to deal with these kids eventually. Allowing them to be exempted from the education requirements based on personal objections to basic facts hurts everyone. That's WHY public education was instituted in the first place!

[sistahraven.livejournal.com]

The amendments seem to be more about supporting home schooling and parental discretion over "truancy" than saying kids don't have to go to school.

[spiralngphoenix.livejournal.com]

One hopes, at least. :)