I’m only “assuming” what I’ve heard you say, which is that last year you took your daughter out of her public school because you were unhappy with something her teacher said to the class. I don’t know how many kids you have or how many you’ve homeschooled. I only know what I heard you once say about this one particular child. Perhaps you could refresh my memory of the details of why you pulled her out of school rather than 1) teach her the “correct” principle and send her back to school, 2) ask to have her moved to a different class, or 3) ask to have her transferred to a different school. Maybe you did request a different teacher, but I don’t remember that being part of the story, so correct me if I’m wrong.

“You assume that I didn’t supplement at home. Wrong.”

I don’t know if “wrong” is directed at me or at your own statement. I never assumed you don’t supplement at home. Actually, I assumed you do! So I guess the “wrong” was directed at your own false assumption.

“You are assuming I only home school because of a deficiency in one area. Very wrong.”

No, actually, I assume you home school because you have a problem with pretty much everything most (or all) teachers do and say. Am I right or wrong?

“You assume I live in fear. Obviously I have blown the lid off of that argument by the way I conduct myself honestly and forthrightly in public and in private.”

First of all, you haven’t “obviously” accomplished what you claim. It’s not obvious to me. Second, I really don’t know what the reason is that you homeschool your kids. It might be because you’re afraid of what your child is learning or not learning in school, in which case you do homeschool out of fear. Or you might do it because you believe all teachers are stupid and you’re so much smarter than they are. Or maybe it’s because you’re trying to impress your friends and neighbors by being supermom. Or maybe you do it because you want to control everything your kids hear. I really don’t know the reason, but I do know based off your story of withdrawing your daughter from school that it might have something to do with being afraid of what she’s hearing. Who knows.

“Obviously my daughter picked up the same traits when she bravely corrected her teacher that we live in a Republic (or a Democratic Republic) when he argued with her in front of an entire class that America is a Democracy.”

First of all, America is both a Republic and a Democracy. I’ll only focus on the issue of whether we’re a democracy. Whether you like it or not, the dictionary defines democracy as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” That’s exactly what we are in America; we’re a democracy. Are we a democracy under the definition used by the Founders? No, but as you and I both know, the meaning of words often change over time. Justice Scalia, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin have all used the word “democracy” to describe our system of government. Are they also social humanists looking to take over public education?

“I cannot argue with a set of bad assumptions nor do I want to even try.”

Then don’t ever argue with yourself!

“The beauty of Utah law is that it is my right to direct my children’s education (unless bad legislators ever take that right away). I home school to be proactive, not for defensive reasons. The fact is, my children learn a heck of a lot more, are happier, and much more social with all age groups. Plus they get hands-on learning, learn from original sources and out of the best books instead of watered-down, politically correct, boring textbooks.”

I’ve never questioned whether you have a “right” to homeschool your kids. But I will use my First Amendment right to question some of the things you’ve alleged. And I certainly hope your children don’t turn out like the socially awkward kids I grew up with who were homeschooled. Which brings me to my next point: Are you honestly alleging that your oldest kid is better off socially (whatever that means) because they hang out with your younger kids all day? Maybe that’s not what you’re saying, so please clarify.

“The sad fact is that these national educators (and obviously you) believe that kids are in danger somehow if they are enrolled in charters, private schools or home schools.”

There you again with the “set of bad assumptions.” I think charter schools and private schools are great educational options. Rarely do I believe homeschooling is the best option, but you certainly have the right to do it.

“The other sad fact is that no matter where we enroll our children, only public education gets our tax dollars and we all have to pay for a system which has been broken for a long time and under the management of a bunch of socialistic 60′s rejects.”

Well you can thank those who fought against vouchers for that. I want parents to be able to shop around and take vouchers to different public schools, private schools, or charter schools. (Personally, I send my kids to public school because I want them to grow up among “common people” and not think they’re somehow better or more special than others because they go to a special school. However, I believe vouchers are a good thing because they create competition, and I would use them if things ever got really bad in public schools.) I do NOT, however, want parents taking their kid’s voucher and pocketing the money so they can “home school” their kids. Not every parent who homeschools is nearly as diligent as teaching their kids as you say you are, Susie.

“So let me get this straight…we all have different ideas about schooling which is our right and protected under law.”

Not really. We pretty much agree that you do have the right to homeschool as long as you are actually teaching them. I never said anything to the contrary. You obviously don’t read my posts closely enough. This is another reason why I think you personally should homeschool your kids; they probably would learn better reading comprehension and reasoning skills.

“I choose the way I educate my own children and pay for it out of my own pocket. But in addition, I have to pay for YOUR children’s public education too.”

It’s called a social contract. Read John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. Also, I don’t want all the poor kids in society running around not in school and not receiving an education. That’s why we have public education and tax everyone in the state to pay for it. I have no problem with that. I come from a VERY poor family. My parents rented while I grew up. Things were pretty bad. Were it not for public education, who knows where I’d be today. I would have received no education at all. Thank goodness society agrees with me, and not you, when it comes to the question of whether we should have public K-12 education.

“What if the tables were turned and I FORCED you to put your kids in my home school and made you pay for it? Or if you chose not to do this because you disagreed with my beliefs or pedagogy, you still have to pay for other’s children to go there.”

What if we did what you’re advocating and did away with all taxes that benefit society? (As I explained above, public K-12 education provides an important and necessary benefit to society. I’m living proof, as are my siblings and kids.) We could get rid of the military, the police protection, roads, etc. We could privatize all those things. Maybe I would buy all the roads surrounding your house. I could pay my own private enforcers to make sure you never accessed those roads without first paying me an outrageous amount of money. If you drove or even walked on my road without permission, my private enforcers might shoot you or throw you into prison for trespassing on my property. Not a very pretty scenario, is it? Your libertarian-anarchist views are not the answer, and there’s a reason they’ve been rejected by society.

You homeschool your kids, right? Aside from homeschooling one’s kids, there’s not much more a parent can do to shelter their kids. If you’re so secure in the things you teach your kids, what are you so afraid they will learn in school? Please answer this question.

In my home we sit around the dinner table and discuss sports, politics, and religion. It’s practically a family tradition now to watch and discuss the O’Reilly Factor each night. We go to church each week as a family. We have Family Home Evening every Monday night. As a result of all these things, I have no fears whatsoever of anything my kids might hear in school. Even if their social studies teachers are flaming liberals (which, as I’ve explained in previous posts, is not really something I’ve ever observed in any ASD classrooms I’ve ever sat in), I don’t care because I WANT my kids to learn good ways to defend their positions and beliefs. I had a socials study teacher in high school who played devil’s advocate all the time with my conservative beliefs, and I truly am grateful for it because it caused me to research and develop good reasons for believing the things I do. (And no, this teacher was not a socialist. He’s actually a conservative. Not that that matters to me, but I know it matters to many who comment on this website.).

One more thing. If you realize that your child is receiving a deficiency in his or her education, don’t withdraw them from school. Instead, do what I have to do with math: spend 15, 20 minutes a night teaching them. Buy them flashcards. Teach them until they understand. Homeschooling your kids because of a deficiency in one area of study is an extreme resolution to a “problem.”

You believe “party politics should [not]be firmly entrenched in schools”. We can definitely agree there and I hope you continue to fight with us for the best academic programs instead of the pushing of politics in education. The fact remains that Progressive Education with it’s politics have been entrenched in American public schools for decades starting with Horace Mann, John Dewey and other Progressive Educators. Though they might have endorsed some good teaching theories such as hands-on learning (which is present in all good theory), they state clearly that the purpose of education is to create a humanistic culture devoid of right and wrong which gradually leads this greedy capitalist society to one of socialism and global governance. The next generation of Deweyen educators such as John Goodlad and Bill Ayers have followed that same path, changed a few words and added social justice and other movements to their purpose of education. It’s right in their own books if people take the time to do the research. Even Googling these things will be helpful to quickly know about education theory and history for those who don’t have the time to research as much as we have. Because of these very different interpretations of the purpose of schooling, we have stated from the start that we’d like to rid the district of teaching partisan politics along with breaking the connection with the humanist and socialist educrat elitists who have brought this into our local district. I’m glad you agree that the number one reason for schooling is academics. This seems to make the most sense to me too, especially if we don’t agree on political philosophies, but ASD will not agree with keeping neutral on politics because their top leaders believe that is the reason for public schooling.

Progressives brought in this very political environment which permeates modern public schools. One way to know who will represent the side of traditional classical education is to have partisan elections since the differences mainly fall on party lines. If nothing else, it will give citizens more information about a candidate such as if they believe in heavy taxation, etc. since so much of our taxes are taken by these huge and powerful school districts. If school boards were made up of mostly conservative candidates in a conservative area, there shouldn’t be a big controversy. However, we find that the Progressive liberals flock to education where they have the most power over the new generation.

CE, I do want children taught both sides of the story. That’s why I’m impressed with the Texas history standards. That’s why I’ve read the constitution and the communist and humanist manifestos with my children so they can see the difference. However, if you believe that a teacher in a school should teach both of those sides and not provide the arguments from the Framers of the constitution which inspire the heart to freedom, then we do part ways.

I do justify *my* ideology with my religious beliefs. My belief system colors my world. I blog about my thoughts in case they might find a welcome place in someone else’s heart and mind. That has never meant I want to turn these things into curriculum for students where it pertains to religious beliefs. I am obviously LDS, but there are others here that are not. I’ve engaged in nice conversations offline with others not of my faith who still appreciate the perspective. That’s all it is.

Wow on your State school board comment. I would agree with you except that our state constitution specifically sets up a state school board which is to oversee the general education within the state, so in that regard the state school board is constitutional, the federal DOE is not. You and I are in complete agreement that the process of electing state board members is broken which is why I think that much power and control over money needs people looking closely at the candidates, which means delegates chosen by “we the people” seems like the best plan to take in my view.

On Texas standards, I do like them because they are fact based and clearly outline the things we are going to talk about. That doesn’t mean we whitewash anything, it means we tell that story even if it’s ugly. When you end by saying the Texas standards are missing this component of discussion, it’s also missing from Utah’s standards. I agree with your examples for the discussion, but from my recollection there were about 186 names or something that were identified and another 100-150 that couldn’t be. Again, I think it’s a very valuable discussion to have and I don’t believe that by putting the Venona papers into the discussion it lessens anything, it just helps talk about the other side of the story instead of just tearing down McCarthy as if there was nothing at all going on. I don’t think there’s a high schooler in Utah that’s ever heard of the Venona papers (and neither had I till just a year or so ago). On the whole, I think the Texas standards are quite admirable and something we can definitely learn from.

Where did I get the idea you want to mix religion into education? How about this website. You tend to justify your ideology with religious dogma. I’m just connecting the dots the same as you do.

I can’t answer your question about the State School Board because I thought this was a discussion about local school boards. State government is not local government and the state school board hardly qualifies as local. The state school board of education should be abolished just as the Federal Dept. of Education should be abolished. The state school board election process is a sham anyway and is not even a “republic” ideal for an election. In fact, they operate more like Iranian elections where a slate of like-minded candidates are chosen by the government in power for the voters to choose from. The voters might as well stay home since all candidates are merely clones of each other. Governor Herbert has even expressed his distaste for selecting state school board members, yet it seems no bills or constitutional amendments are proposed for rectifying such an anti-democratic and anti-American style republic process.

As far as the Texas standards?…well, they leave a lot to be desired. While I did not like the previous standards, the new Texas standards seems to dumb down the thinking aspect of history. It seems more focused on just basic facts rather than the “so what” in history. The standard on McCarthyism is a good example. The new standards don’t guide students whatsoever to the lessons learned from McCarthyism but instead seems to be more focused on justifying McCarthyism and using the Venona report to do so. By the way, have you read the Venona report? I have no problem with teaching the Venona report to students. They show the extent of Communist infiltration in many aspects of American life and government up through the 1980′s, but they still don’t make up for the fact that McCarthy falsely accused dozens of Americans including three U.S. Presidents and a skeptical national reporter of being Communist sympathizers/party members (which is not illegal in the U.S.) or of being Communist agents. I was in college when the Venona report was released and my professor said that they were not a vindication of McCarthy because very few of the names in the Venona report match McCarthy’s lists. They prove that McCarthy was correct that there was a large Communist infiltration of American government but they do not support McCarthy’s methods of catching them which were proven to be overwhelmingly inaccurate and politically driven. That is the discussion that students need to have about McCarthyism. Is it okay for our federal government to rashly accuse dozens of innocent people and ruin their reputations and careers in order to catch a few enemies of the state? The same can be said with interning the Japanese during WWII which also has a similar theme of suspending liberties of many to find a few. That is an example of why students are in history classes, not to learn random, disconnected facts, with no historical context or discussion. That is what the Texas standards are missing.