Schools

If you follow that logic, then you shouldn’t have your kid aspire to be an Olympic athlete. This could happen.

Look at the Catholic Priest scandal. I guess you shouldn’t take your kids to church. It’s too risky.

If every time something bad happens, we ban everyone from doing then we’d literally never be able to leave our homes.

1 Like

Why would anyone go through the torture to be an Olympic athlete. Look at Tanya Harding. Even Phelps wanted to kill himself… A lot of work for a few seconds of glory. Makes people crazy. and obviously oblivious to abuse. Not just by Nasser but by parents, coaches, fans. Seems like a horrible life…

1 Like

@Terri,

Just a question (since me no kids): doesn’t someone check in with the parents AND children periodically to make sure everything is fine and on course? I would think if say a check-in say even every other year is not intrusive and would have perhaps uncovered how malnourished those kids were. Again, just asking from a DINK position…

I don’t think it’s mandatory, but homeschooling parent do know to expect that someone may come knocking on their door. They’re instructed on how to deal with such visits including having attendance records, and curriculum in a binder ready to show.

For the most part they’ve come to expect to be harassed by school districts and CPS alike. :frowning:

So do you support checking in on people on welfare and the unemployed? Just asking.

Because truthfully anyone is in danger of being abused by someone else.

Funny, you are “questioning me” on this. I contacted my lil sis who homeschools for her experience as to whether or not someone checks in on her, and she said no. But like you, she got all defense that anyone can be abused and it is not related to homeschooling and I of course said “Chill out, no one ever said child abuse = homeschooling, god” What is wrong with you people? Just asking a question on behalf of those malnourished kids.

Ok, back to you. Frankly I do support checking. But again, I have nothing to hide. I am all for security cameras and the whole bit.

The reason they get defensive is that the suggestion that the state should check on homeschoolers is a “guilty until proven innocent” attitude and implies that you don’t trust homeschooling parents. It implies that you believe that enough homeschooling parents are likely to do bad things that it’s worth checking on them, so you are telling her that you don’t reaaaaalllly trust her. I mean, you do as her brother, but you don’t trust… her homeschooling friends.

It’s pretty insulting to people who care enough about their kids to take a pay cut and put a full-time effort into stay home with them trying to make sure their kids’ needs are met while other parents are either lucky enough to have average or normal kids, or don’t care at all that their public schools suck.

On top of that, homeschoolers do get harassed by school districts and politicians, and get called in to CPS by neighbors or even pissy family members simply because the neighbors don’t like homeschooling (possibly because it implies that the public school the neighbors think is fine actually sucks).

So they have an intrinsic feeling of being harassed–very much on the level that African Americans feel when a cop pulls them over.

1 Like

Well, keep in mind that not all parents are able to pay for private schooling or simply move to a nice city with great public schools at will. Our parents had enough to deal with in terms of providing food on the table so public schooling is all I know, but to be honest, I thought it was best for me. It made me go to school by myself and face real life at a early age. That is why I feel SF public schools are fine.

Absolutely. Which is why some people homeschool. But they shouldn’t be penalized by public-school fans (dare I say “public school nazis”?) for it. Yet sometimes they are. :frowning:

@Terri, example please!!!

Don’t have a specific person for you. Ask your sister.

Also, more information for you–in CA in particular, many parents are extremely pissed at Senator Pan because he’s the primary sponsor for all CA legislation that restricts parental rights (generally for all parents–not just homeschoolers–but he’s got it out for homeschoolers in particular). His latest debacle is SB18–where the state would decide what is best for every kid based on a small unaccountable, unelected committee’s recommendations.

He’s also chair of the Special Ed. committee and Special Ed parents are furious at his unwillingness to do anything beneficial for the Special Ed community. So Pan’s use of this incident to harass homeschoolers is pissing a lot of people off, not just homeschoolers. It’s clear there’s an agenda and it isn’t protecting kids:

(This is part of why your sister is super sensitive since the Turpins were in CA)

Sorry, Man, everyone wants in on UC…

1 Like

Yeah, well… For $14.5K, it’s the cheapest option around.

How about best bang for the buck option??? (City College of SF, yes junior college is FREE)

1 Like

His SAT score is 1270, is it too low for UC? He did not experience any social injustice in his life so he needs to compete against his peers under the same criteria. He is male, white, no reason to complain.

He can get into CSU probably.

He grew up in Los Angeles so he might have a special feeling toward UC.

There’s no need to give priority to activists. Some activists are good, some actually really bad. Being an activist is neutral or slightly negative.

What SAT and ACT scores do you need to get into UCLA?
Sat 1790-1900 or better Act 25-30
What are the math SAT score requirements for UCLA?
The average is about a high 600, but between 700-800 would help. Honestly, you would have to do well on the math II test to be considered mathematically proficient. The average is about a high 600, but between 700-800 would help. Honestly, you would have to do well on the math II test to be considered mathematically proficient.

1 Like

Isn’t 1270 low? I read that and thought case closed…

Even people with 1600s are getting rejected from schools nowadays.

Maybe Hogg thinks that he deserves special treatment now since he is "famous’ now.

If they really care about people’s safety against criminals, they would be harsh on criminals and lock the criminals in the prison instead of freeing the criminals to kill people in their home.

How much can a government checking help? The same government already has records of their previous checking anyway. How effective was there previous checking?

It’s like using a 1000 pound hammer to try unclog your kitchen sink.

1 Like

I honestly don’t understand how we became soooo soft on crime. In the past, a majority of folks in CA were for capital punishment and I believe the latest tally is still over 50% but declining I admit. Yet, we still are at an impasse regarding what kind of drug we should use so that the one being put to death mind you wouldn’t feel any pain. Does that actually really make sense in the big picture? He/she is being put to death!!! We are not going to get any feedback via a moneysurvey in the afterlife and ask, so, how was the death penalty phase (one to five stars please…).

1 Like