Parents teach their children reading, writing, arithmetic, etc., alone or with the help of other parents.
No Tika, I'm not trying to be a smart alek. I'm trying to point out the hypocracy and illogic of a pro-government-regulation point of view. I too come from a family of public school teachers: mom, aunt, two grandparents. My best friend's wife is a public school teacher, and another close friend is a public school teacher.
We agree that public schools fail on the whole to educate.
We agree that public schools are highly regulated by governments.
We agree that children need to be educated.
We agree that, presently, homeschooling is an alternative to the public schools.
You advocate some as-yet-undefined kind of government regulation on the parents who homeschool because you are afraid that some parents might not actually educate the child(ren) they pulled out of the public school.
Correct so far? I think so, so I'll proceed. If I'm wrong I'll come back and delete my wrongness, and try again.
I say that your conclusion does not fall from the facts before it. You have a non sequitor. You also have a false hypothesis.
Non sequitor: There is no evidence that government regulation of teachers improves the education of our students. At the present time all public school teachers are required, by law, to have a college degree and to continue their own education and to take various certification course. Despite this, we still have 3rd graders (and up!!!) who can't read. I specifically recall Pres. Clinton campaigning for re-election on a plan to teach all students by age 8 to read. The unspoken but NECESSARY implication is that we presently have 8-year-olds and even older students who can't read. That's the 3rd grade, mind you, so Clinton admited to the nation and the world that despite all the US government regulation of public schools and all the State regulations and all the county regulations, we still have students in the 3rd grade and higher who can't read. And we have so many of them that it is an epidemic of such MASSIVE proportions that the President of the United States has to personally get involved in the matter.
Wow. I say again, wow. That's scary. And that ruins your assertion that government regulation of teachers improves education. It's actually a strong case for stopping government regulation.
And that's just reading. We haven't even gotten to math, or geography, or English. I assume without knowing that you too have heard over the years of repeated geography tests given to US students wherein they can't find Washington, DC on a map. Products of government regulation of teachers, I tell you.
Tell me, then, why government regulation of teachers improves education? If it doesn't improve education, then why in the world should we advocate it at any level? I am confused. Your proposal does not fall from the facts as I see them.
Your false hypothesis is the assumption that parents who pull their children out of the failing public schools will not education their own children very well. I assert that that is ridiculous on two grounds. One, it goes against the purpose of pulling the student out of the failing school system. Am I really to believe that a parent would swap one failing system for another failing system? That makes no sense to me. To the best of my knowledge homeschool children as a group score higher than their public school counterparts on every single standardize exam in this country. That should mean something to you. And wasn't it last year that the winner of the national spelling bee was a homeschooler?
But even if your worry is true in particular discrete situations, what's the harm? The public schools are not good! What then does it matter if the replacement is not good either? I'm confused by your argument.