Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Alan wrote:
On Wed, March 19, 2008 10:52 am, Gus Wirth wrote:
Those people taking the test for the second time were there to be
teachers in a classroom, not for home schooling.
Gus
Ok, I must have lost the thread somewhere. I thought CA had enacted
certification for homeschoolers the same as the certification for public
school teachers.
My apologies.
You are both arguing past one another. ;)
Gus is arguing that certification is pretty meaningless for anyone
with a brain. I concur. However, we're not trying to stop those people.
You are arguing that certification is sufficiently meaningless that it
really presents no barrier. I concur.
That's why I don't really have a problem with it. If you are not even
willing or capable of investing the time and money to get such a
simple certification, should you really be homeschooling your child?
Being required to subject to someone else's standard for certification
is what is at issue. Certification is sometimes accompanied by silly
requirements that are intended to exclude targeted groups of
individuals. The government should not interfere with a parents right
to teach their own children as they see fit. The parent is the best
teacher. Of course you can find exceptions. But the exceptions should
not be used to make things harder for the rest.
So, yes, the parent should "really be homeschooling [their] child" even
if they are "not willing or capable" of meeting someone else's
supposedly basic requirements.
--
Ralph
--------------------
An enlightened dictatorship is, without question, the most efficient
form of government.
--Andrew Lentvorski
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
