Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] What gives the state the right to *make us* go to school in the first place?

From: Shelli Buhr <shellibuhr_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Aug 9 15:48:00 2005

I must have missed the post too.

Can we subject children to 6 hours a day, five days a
week? Good question!

Is the question Reb poses really is a moral question
more than a legal one? Maybe if it is perceived as a
torcherous assignment rather that a means of obtaining
education.

And again it begs to ask by whose standards are we
expected to live by and who sets the standards.

As a parent, our responsibility (IMO) is to teach
children to parent themselves. And part of that is
educating them. I dont think the issue is making
children learn. That's inbred.

The status quo has been that you go to school. But the
larger issue is who is being held accountable for
making sure that the educational system is adequate.

I think your question goes a lot deeper because if we
dont send our kids to school, parents are liable and
can be persecuted by the courts.

And in a way, the powers that be do assess that kind
of control now when it comes to funding for welfare
etc. and even child support is set up to the other
parent to be held liable for paying out a percentage
of child support based on the assumption that the
parent can work 40 hours a week and make minimum wage.

just a few random thoughts. I would love to hear more
on this whether personal or on this discussion board.
Reb, please feel free to contact me directly as I
would like to speak further on this issue.

Shelli Buhr

--- Sally Rosloff <sallyr_at_socal.rr.com> wrote:

> Hi Reb,
> I've been organizing old emails and came across this
> one of yours. Did you
> ever have a chance to post the outcome of this? I
> don't remember seeing
> anything further.
>
> I'm interested because I've been thinking along
> these lines myself...about
> these legal issues and any remote possibility of
> bringing lawsuits against
> the current system, particularly as the NCLB
> requirements require more and
> more conformance to a single standard across the
> country. At least a
> discussion of these issues, as you've raised them,
> can be consciousness
> raising.
>
> I know that before I got my "consciousness raised" I
> never really
> questioned that the education of the public school
> system wasn't anything
> but something desirable and appropriate to becoming
> an adult member of a
> democratic society. Boy, have I come a long way!
> Now I question the right
> of states to withhold public funding for any but
> basically one system,
> developed without public input, coming with
> regulations, guidelines, laws,
> rules, one-size fits all, etc. I want public
> funding for "many paths" and
> would love to discuss the legalities of this.
>
> Sally
>
>
>
> At 12:00 AM 9/3/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >Hi list,
> >
> >For those who don't know me, I'm a former staff
> member at a couple of Sud
> >schools, who decided to take my work for juvenile
> justice, education
> >reform, and youth advocacy through legal channels.
> I am now in my second
> >year of law school and am in my first course on
> "education law and
> >practice."
> >
> >We began class with a discussion of some of the
> legal / government
> >structure that underpins the establishment of
> "free" public schooling.
> >
> >Before moving on to consider a "students'" rights,
> I have asked my
> >professors, and my classmates to consider "what
> makes people *students* in
> >the first place?" Or, more accurately, what
> legally justifies
> >*compelling* people to attend school, and requiring
> them to submit
> >themselves (without a hearing) to the physical
> control of their teachers
> >(who are agents of the state) and to the ideology
> of the state-mandated
> >curriculum? This seems to run counter to the
> (U.S.) Constitution's
> >prohibition against depriving individuals of their
> liberty (without due
> >process).
> >
> >I expect there will be some attempt to shrug off
> the question and its
> >asker as conspiracy theorist in nature. I know so
> many of us have been
> >compelled by our government(s) to attend school,
> that we don't even tend
> >to see that compulsion as an infringement on our
> liberty.
> >
> >But I know many of you have given the matter
> thought from a different
> >perspective.
> >So I ask you. What gave the state the right to
> *make us* go to school in
> >the first place?
> >
> >I know the government would have a hard time
> convincing anybody it could
> >institutionalize grown men and women for 6 hours a
> day, 180 days a year,
> >for ten or more years, without a trial.
> >
> >Is it simply because the people in question are
> under 18 that we (via the
> >state govt.) can do this to them?
> >
> >Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this matter.
> >
> > Direction to any texts, articles, court
> decisions. . . that address this
> >matter would also be helpful.
> >
> >And if anyone expresses an interest, I'll let you
> know what my class has
> >to say.
> >
> >-Reb
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Discuss-sudbury-model mailing list
> >Discuss-sudbury-model_at_sudval.org
>
>http://www.sudval.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss-sudbury-model
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-sudbury-model mailing list
> Discuss-sudbury-model_at_sudval.org
>
http://www.sudval.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss-sudbury-model
>

                
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
 
Received on Tue Aug 09 2005 - 15:47:38 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:12 EDT