New Hampshire "objectionable material" law passed

[amey311]

I know - it's a Huff Post article, but apparently google knows I'm a pinko liberal and doesn't want to give me articles from more conservative sources.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/new-hampshire-legislature-curriculum-objection-law_n_1184476.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

 

The specific text of the law is here: http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/HB542

 

Thoughts?

[Parrothead]

Good for New Hampshire.

[TheHomeScientist]

It's just another religiously-motivated attack on science, attempting to put creationism and ID on the same level as actual science rather than leaving them in church, where they belong.

 

If this passes, the courts will shoot it down immediately as a clear attempt to introduce religion into public schools. It's just a shame that all of the taxpayers of New Hampshire will end up paying the costs of the legal battle that will ensue.

[justasque]

"...Require school districts to adopt a policy allowing an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s or legal guardian’s determination that the material is objectionable. Such policy shall include a provision requiring the parent or legal guardian to notify the school principal or designee in writing of the specific material to which they object and a provision requiring an alternative

 

agreed upon by the school district and the parent,

 

at the parent’s expense,

 

sufficient to enable the child to meet state requirements for education in the particular subject area..."

 

Honestly, it sounds decent if both parties are working together in good faith and with respect for each other's responsibilities and points of view, but then if that is the case then the law isn't needed.

 

If, on the other hand, one party or the other is not open to creating a workable solution, then it's just asking for lawsuits. Who decides on the expense? If you're including the teacher's instruction time and prep time and the building overhead as well as the materials, then that alternative to Everyday Math is going to be as expensive as a daily private tutor, or more.

IF you can get the school to agree to it.

[Audrey]

It's just another religiously-motivated attack on science, attempting to put creationism and ID on the same level as actual science rather than leaving them in church, where they belong.

 

If this passes, the courts will shoot it down immediately as a clear attempt to introduce religion into public schools. It's just a shame that all of the taxpayers of New Hampshire will end up paying the costs of the legal battle that will ensue.

 

 

:iagree: It's rather sad for NH children, really. Willful ignorance is one thing. Forced ignorance is quite another.

[Pretty in Pink]

It's just another religiously-motivated attack on science, attempting to put creationism and ID on the same level as actual science rather than leaving them in church, where they belong.

 

If this passes, the courts will shoot it down immediately as a clear attempt to introduce religion into public schools. It's just a shame that all of the taxpayers of New Hampshire will end up paying the costs of the legal battle that will ensue.

 

I think I agree with this.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

It's just another religiously-motivated attack on science, attempting to put creationism and ID on the same level as actual science rather than leaving them in church, where they belong.

 

If this passes, the courts will shoot it down immediately as a clear attempt to introduce religion into public schools. It's just a shame that all of the taxpayers of New Hampshire will end up paying the costs of the legal battle that will ensue.

 

They can't force OTHER children to learn ID, just their own children. I think this legislation is a great success for parent's rights :thumbup:

 

And now I'm leaving before this gets out of hand and banned. :auto:

[SJ.]

It's just another religiously-motivated attack on science, attempting to put creationism and ID on the same level as actual science rather than leaving them in church, where they belong.

 

If this passes, the courts will shoot it down immediately as a clear attempt to introduce religion into public schools. It's just a shame that all of the taxpayers of New Hampshire will end up paying the costs of the legal battle that will ensue.

 

Yep. This. Legislation like this always makes me :glare:

[Mergath]

So if it's the school district that has to develop the new curriculum and the parents who have to pay for that development, does that mean that parents can force the school to create a racist curriculum that teaches the tenets of white supremacy? Or to create a homophobic curriculum? If someone objects to children of different ethnic backgrounds in the cafeteria, does the school have to install a "whites-only" table for certain kids?

 

Plus, it makes me sad that wealthy parents will now be able to pick and choose which parts of school to replace so their kids can have a better education than everyone else. A wonderful thing for the wealthy families, yes, but not so much for the poor kids who are stuck with a substandard education because their parents can't afford to pay for the expensive phonics program, and that just shouldn't be happening in the public school system. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to a good education.

 

With only reasonable people to utilize something like this, it wouldn't be a big deal, but there are a lot of wackaloons around.

[chiguirre]

That gives parents the right to individualize instruction for each kid if they want to. While at first that sounds great, I pity the classroom teachers and administrators that have to deal with this on a daily basis, especially when you add it on top of all the testing requirements. I don't think it's an exageration to say this will destroy public schools. It wouldn't shock me to find out that's what they're aiming at, especially when the bill's sponsor advocates eliminating mandatory attendance laws.

[Mrs Mungo]

They can't force OTHER children to learn ID, just their own children. I think this legislation is a great success for parent's rights :thumbup:

 

And now I'm leaving before this gets out of hand and banned. :auto:

 

Parental rights? I don't think parents get to pick and choose curricula. How many different programs might a teacher wind up using with a class? I am not sure it seems reasonable. Parents *have* rights and choices *already* such as private schools, tutors, homeschooling, etc.

[Pretty in Pink]

Parental rights? I don't think parents get to pick and choose curricula. How many different programs might a teacher wind up using with a class? I am not sure it seems reasonable. Parents *have* rights and choices *already* such as private schools, tutors, homeschooling, etc.

 

I agree w/ MM. This sounds like a nightmare for teachers.

[NittanyJen]

Being a teacher in those circumstances would be a nightmare. What if you had a class of 30 kids, and they effectively all had IEP's because their parents all bought individual curricula?

 

The only kids stuck with the crummy generic stuff would be those who couldn't afford it, and class division would widen still further.

 

On the surface, it sounds great-- no more Everyday Math! I can buy LoF and AoPS for my kid!

 

But then we get to history/social studies or biology, and have parents with solid, factual materials, and parents with religious materials, and parents with shiny, but poorly organized materials, and the teacher is supposed to teach 30 of these simultaneously. (okay, I realize I did not say that with absolute political correctness, but as a Christian who sees evolution and old earth as scientifically accurate and not at all at odds with my faith, I understand I am only speaking from my own POV and not a universal truth held by all; just what makes sense to me).

 

This seems like a potential nightmare from all angles, with educational justice for nobody.

[Iucounu]

It seems that these numbskulls will never learn. Not only is the measure unconstitutional to the extent that it allows for violation of the Establishment Clause, but it's a management nightmare from the outset.

 

However, I'm excited at the prospect of using this to force the school to accept my partial homeschooling plan, before it gets expunged. This may just call for an emoticon!

:party:

[Lang Syne Boardie]

This sounds like a fiasco in the making. I totally agree with Mergath: Those in the know in NH might believe this to be about science, but the legislation doesn't specify any subject at all. What's to stop everyone from wanting to put a finger in the pie? How will this not make life a living h*ll for teachers and principals trying to please everyone?

 

Did these people never read Aesop?

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Aren't teachers jerked around enough already, constantly being handed new materials and being forced to follow the unproven educational fads that come along every few years, without also being forced to learn and navigate all these materials brought from home?

 

I think I must be missing something. Surely they can't mean that they'll really expect teachers to teach one thing to part of the class and something else entirely to the rest of the class. Impossible, impractical, and unfair.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

It seems that these numbskulls will never learn. Not only is the measure unconstitutional to the extent that it allows for violation of the Establishment Clause, but it's a management nightmare from the outset.

 

However, I'm excited at the prospect of using this to force the school to accept my partial homeschooling plan, before it gets expunged. This may just call for an emoticon!

:party:

 

The flip side: If this goes into action you might suddenly have huge numbers of newly homeschooling families to network with as you begin your own homeschooling career.

 

I can't imagine tolerating this, as a parent. I can't imagine public schools becoming even more political and chaotic.

[Leav97]

It's just another religiously-motivated attack on science, attempting to put creationism and ID on the same level as actual science rather than leaving them in church, where they belong.

 

If this passes, the courts will shoot it down immediately as a clear attempt to introduce religion into public schools. It's just a shame that all of the taxpayers of New Hampshire will end up paying the costs of the legal battle that will ensue.

 

:iagree:

 

And how will any of the materials meet this requirement:

 

"sufficient to enable the child to meet state requirements for education"

[amey311]

Plus, it makes me sad that wealthy parents will now be able to pick and choose which parts of school to replace so their kids can have a better education than everyone else.

 

This reads as the potential for "separate but equal."

[justamouse]

I think it's great that families have more freedom in teaching their children what they want.

 

Look, this is where libertarianism would lead. This is what Live Free or Die chose.

 

Edited, because it really isn't ONLY about creationisim and intelligent design.

Edited January 5, 2012 by justamouse

[Mrs Mungo]

While I vehemently disagree with old earth teachings, I think it's great that families have more freedom in teaching their children what they want.

 

Look, this is where libertarianism would lead. This is what Live Free or Die chose.

 

Yeah, I agree, that's why I'm not a libertarian. :D

[Hannah C.]

I didn't read the text of the bill, just the news article - but I didn't get the impression that it was directed at science curriculum at all. :001_huh: [ETA: Ahh, it's there at the end of the article. Right. Still, this particular bill isn't that narrowly focused.]

 

It's nice that they are recognizing parental rights. I think it's an interesting theoretical idea that will cause many issues if it goes into effect. It's simply going to crash and burn once people try to implement anything of the sort. Public schools simply aren't going to be able to handle it.

 

I'm really curious now as to what homeschool laws are like in NH...

[justamouse]

 

Plus, it makes me sad that wealthy parents will now be able to pick and choose which parts of school to replace so their kids can have a better education than everyone else. .

 

The wealthy have always been able to pick and choose what part of school to replace for their kids. It's called private school and tutors.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

While I vehemently disagree with old earth teachings, I think it's great that families have more freedom in teaching their children what they want.

 

Look, this is where libertarianism would lead. This is what Live Free or Die chose.

 

Interesting. :lurk5:

[Lisbeth]

The wealthy have always been able to pick and choose what part of school to replace for their kids. It's called private school and tutors.

 

:iagree: As is their right. And it's not just the wealthy. It's also the poor immigrant family who so value academics that they organize their finances to support the best academically for the kids at the expense of other areas.

More power to them!

[Lady Florida.]

It's just another religiously-motivated attack on science, attempting to put creationism and ID on the same level as actual science rather than leaving them in church, where they belong.

 

 

One more reason for me to be glad we homeschool.

[Lady Florida.]

Yeah, I agree, that's why I'm not a libertarian. :D

 

:iagree::lol:

[justamouse]

Aren't teachers jerked around enough already, constantly being handed new materials and being forced to follow the unproven educational fads that come along every few years, without also being forced to learn and navigate all these materials brought from home?

 

I think I must be missing something. Surely they can't mean that they'll really expect teachers to teach one thing to part of the class and something else entirely to the rest of the class. Impossible, impractical, and unfair.

 

I don't disagree with you. But, I think that this is an interesting step in the shakeout of how to fix our educational system in this country. It could be horrible, but it also could be fantastic. It could bring back phonics. It could bring back classics. Yes, it could cause chaos, but it also can bring something better, especially if the parents meet and plan.

[Teachin'Mine]

Good for New Hampshire.

 

:iagree: That's awesome!!!!

 

 

I'm genuinely puzzled how any homeschooling parent could be against this legislation as it does exactly what most of us would want public schools to do - to listen to our input on how our children should be educated. I think it's awesome that if a parent sees that their child isn't learning how to read by using sight words, that they can now get phonics reading instruction for their children. The goal is to have educated children. IMO parents are the primary educators of their children no matter whether they are homeschooled or in a public school. This legislation now gives them rights they haven't had before. Totally awesome!!!

[TheHomeScientist]

Yeah, I agree, that's why I'm not a libertarian. :D

 

I don't agree, and I am a libertarian. As such, I don't even believe we should *have* public schools.

[Princess Peach]

:iagree: That's awesome!!!!

 

 

I'm genuinely puzzled how any homeschooling parent could be against this legislation as it does exactly what most of us would want public schools to do - to listen to our input on how our children should be educated. I think it's awesome that if a parent sees that their child isn't learning how to read by using sight words' date=' that they can now get phonics reading instruction for their children. The goal is to have educated children. IMO parents are the primary educators of their children no matter whether they are homeschooled or in a public school. This legislation now gives them rights they haven't had before. Totally awesome!!![/quote']

 

Parents have always had the right to educate their children at home after school. My mom afterschooled me during the time I went to ps in the '80s. She was dissatisfied with new math...she taught me the traditional way at home, and on and on.

 

Homeschooling is very easy to do in NH, so that's another viable option for parents.

 

What is wrong with this is that it is not practical, it will create more problems than it will solve, and the education system in NH does not have the resources to sustain it, nor do the taxpayers.

 

And FWIW, I do have a dog in this fight. ;)

[Tarreymere]

I've always been told that the schools want more parent participation. Guess they won't be wishing for that so much in NH. But why wouldn't a school want the input from parents? What are they afraid of? I'm sure some crazy parents might want something off-the-wall, but I doubt most normal NH adults are crazy.

 

On a positive note, maybe some parents will insist on more rigorous and challenging material in the schools. Surely the normal concerned parents who want public education to be more challenging outnumber the minority who might want as a pp noted 'a racist or sexist curriculum'.

[goldberry]

How in the world would a classroom (of say 30 kids) even function with many children using different cirriculum? How would that be possible?

[Teachin'Mine]

Parents have always had the right to educate their children at home after school. My mom afterschooled me during the time I went to ps in the '80s. She was dissatisfied with new math...she taught me the traditional way at home, and on and on.

 

Homeschooling is very easy to do in NH, so that's another viable option for parents.

 

What is wrong with this is that it is not practical, it will create more problems than it will solve, and the education system in NH does not have the resources to sustain it, nor do the taxpayers.

 

And FWIW, I do have a dog in this fight. ;)

 

I agree that the practical application of this law will definitely cause some difficulties, especially at the beginning, but as I don't have a dog in this fight, I was simply looking at it from a parent's point of view. :)

[amey311]

What is wrong with this is that it is not practical, it will create more problems than it will solve, and the education system in NH does not have the resources to sustain it, nor do the taxpayers.

 

I think the "answer" to that is that parents have to pay for the alternative curricula. Of course, I'm guessing they don't have to pay for the faculty time that will be spent on negotiation meetings since both parents and the school have to agree on the alternative materials. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the first instance of "neither one of us will budge." Since there is the stipulation that the alternative materials still have to meet the educational standards and guidelines of the state, there will be some limits on what parents can suggest.

[Princess Peach]

How in the world would a classroom (of say 30 kids) even function with many children using different cirriculum? How would that be possible?

 

It's not possible. At all. They couldn't even do it with 1 child in the classroom using something different. Many districts don't even have the funding for aides to give extra help for kids that need it, but that don't qualify for an IEP or 504. It's just mind boggling!

[Princess Peach]

I think the "answer" to that is that parents have to pay for the alternative curricula. Of course, I'm guessing they don't have to pay for the faculty time that will be spent on negotiation meetings since both parents and the school have to agree on the alternative materials. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the first instance of "neither one of us will budge." Since there is the stipulation that the alternative materials still have to meet the educational standards and guidelines of the state, there will be some limits on what parents can suggest.

 

Even if they get past all that, and that's a big if, they have no resources to teach that curriculum on top of the standard curricula.

[Mergath]

The wealthy have always been able to pick and choose what part of school to replace for their kids. It's called private school and tutors.

 

And that is their right, of course. But that kind of division is not supposed to happen within a public school. That's the point of a public school- to give an equal education to all, regardless of wealth or status. Having a stark division between rich and poor in regard to education within individual classes in a given school is just asking for all kinds of trouble. What if the poor students want to do what the rich students are doing for their alternative curriculum? Does the teacher have to tell them, "No, I can't teach you that, your parents haven't paid for you to learn it?"

 

Sounds like a nightmare.

[Mergath]

It's not possible. At all. They couldn't even do it with 1 child in the classroom using something different. Many districts don't even have the funding for aides to give extra help for kids that need it, but that don't qualify for an IEP or 504. It's just mind boggling!

 

And if this does actually happen, I imagine those kids that need the extra help are going to suffer even more because whatever scant resources the district could direct to them is now going to be used to teach little Johnny about the day God made the birds or whatever.

[Farrar]

I'm genuinely puzzled how any homeschooling parent could be against this legislation as it does exactly what most of us would want public schools to do - to listen to our input on how our children should be educated.

 

Oh, I find it very easy to be against it. If people want to control their kids curricula, they should homeschool or find a private school they like. If they want the curricula in the public schools to change, they should elect state and local officials who will pick better curricula, write better tests and generally do a better job managing the schools. This law is just absurd to me.

[jenL]

What is wrong with this is that it is not practical, it will create more problems than it will solve, and the education system in NH does not have the resources to sustain it, nor do the taxpayers.

 

 

 

:iagree: 100%. I taught in NH ps for 10 years until I moved 6 years ago. This is an absolute nightmare for teachers and administrators. In the 2 towns I taught in, the parents will make this horrendous for staff, moreso than they already do with all the other requirements teachers have to include in their day. Once again, the students will suffer because of the chaos this will create, especially those who are already struggling (those with IEPs and 504s) because the resources aren't even there now with all the cuts, mandates, and standardized testing that's been deemed "legal".

Edited January 6, 2012 by jenL

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

So if it's the school district that has to develop the new curriculum and the parents who have to pay for that development, does that mean that parents can force the school to create a racist curriculum that teaches the tenets of white supremacy? Or to create a homophobic curriculum? If someone objects to children of different ethnic backgrounds in the cafeteria, does the school have to install a "whites-only" table for certain kids?

 

Plus, it makes me sad that wealthy parents will now be able to pick and choose which parts of school to replace so their kids can have a better education than everyone else. A wonderful thing for the wealthy families, yes, but not so much for the poor kids who are stuck with a substandard education because their parents can't afford to pay for the expensive phonics program, and that just shouldn't be happening in the public school system. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to a good education.

 

With only reasonable people to utilize something like this, it wouldn't be a big deal, but there are a lot of wackaloons around.

 

IMHO there are plenty of free or inexpensive excellent phonics and other curricula out there that the schools could be using but I have gotten the impression that schools often, but not always, choose ineffective materials:( So I really feel that poor parents would not be shortchanged. I blame schools for choosing lousy curricula especially when schools are usually very well funded IMO.

 

I have mixed feelings about this law as I would not want ID or creationism taught in public schools. OTOH if a parent could get a school to use phonics or non-fuzzy math than that would be a great thing;)

[Teachin'Mine]

Oh, I find it very easy to be against it. If people want to control their kids curricula, they should homeschool or find a private school they like. If they want the curricula in the public schools to change, they should elect state and local officials who will pick better curricula, write better tests and generally do a better job managing the schools. This law is just absurd to me.

 

Even if you took out the science debate? Isn't that why so many of us began to homeschool in the first place? I know it was a big part of the reason why we did. The school, which was private, was not at all willing to accommodate children who needed more challenges. It's what so many threads are about with parents complaining about NCLB and all that's wrong about that. We complain about having the whole class dumbed down the level of Johnny who can't read. If they can find a way to implement this law, this could help solve some of that.

[Jennifer3141]

:iagree: It's rather sad for NH children, really. Willful ignorance is one thing. Forced ignorance is quite another.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Farrar]

Even if you took out the science debate? Isn't that why so many of us began to homeschool in the first place? I know it was a big part of the reason why we did. The school' date=' which was private, was not at all willing to accommodate children who needed more challenges. It's what so many threads are about with parents complaining about NCLB and all that's wrong about that. We complain about having the whole class dumbed down the level of Johnny who can't read. If they can find a way to implement this law, this could help solve some of that.[/quote']

 

Sure, I think it's bad. I think the schools are a mess. And better curricula is definitely one of the reasons we homeschool. But the law, as others have pointed out, is completely impossible to implement in any rational way. Not only that, but I see the lack of teacher autonomy as one of the biggest problems in education. Everyone wants to tell them what to do and no one - not administrators, parents, politicians, media commentators, anyone - wants to get out of the way and let them actually teach. Obviously it's different for me as a homeschool teacher - I only have to answer to myself, my co-parent and my future kids. There has to be some level of accountability for public school teachers. But I am a better teacher when I can make decisions of at least some sort.

 

I understand that the law sounds good in theory, but the idea that you could give someone a classroom of (let's be generous) 25 third graders and say, you have to make all of them pass this state test, and you have to teach using this specific curriculum we provide, and you can't decide their schedule because you might waste too much time on recess or art or other things that aren't on the test, and by the way, Timmy's mom says you can't use phonics to help him get to grade level because she thinks it's educationally unsound, and little Mandy and Janie's moms say if you do any whole language activities, then they'll make sure you're fired, and Jake's mom says to make sure you do math drills, and Karen's mom says you have to use math manipulatives or her kid won't learn, and Lizzy's mom says she's not allowed to study women's history because it's a liberal agenda, and Johnny's mom says you'd better include more Latino history than he got last year because if you don't, you're a racist and, well, here's a list of all the other parental demands. And you think a teacher can SUCCEED like that or make any meaningful curriculum choices? Because I don't.

[Teachin'Mine]

Sure, I think it's bad. I think the schools are a mess. And better curricula is definitely one of the reasons we homeschool. But the law, as others have pointed out, is completely impossible to implement in any rational way. Not only that, but I see the lack of teacher autonomy as one of the biggest problems in education. Everyone wants to tell them what to do and no one - not administrators, parents, politicians, media commentators, anyone - wants to get out of the way and let them actually teach. Obviously it's different for me as a homeschool teacher - I only have to answer to myself, my co-parent and my future kids. There has to be some level of accountability for public school teachers. But I am a better teacher when I can make decisions of at least some sort.

 

I understand that the law sounds good in theory, but the idea that you could give someone a classroom of (let's be generous) 25 third graders and say, you have to make all of them pass this state test, and you have to teach using this specific curriculum we provide, and you can't decide their schedule because you might waste too much time on recess or art or other things that aren't on the test, and by the way, Timmy's mom says you can't use phonics to help him get to grade level because she thinks it's educationally unsound, and little Mandy and Janie's moms say if you do any whole language activities, then they'll make sure you're fired, and Jake's mom says to make sure you do math drills, and Karen's mom says you have to use math manipulatives or her kid won't learn, and Lizzy's mom says she's not allowed to study women's history because it's a liberal agenda, and Johnny's mom says you'd better include more Latino history than he got last year because if you don't, you're a racist and, well, here's a list of all the other parental demands. And you think a teacher can SUCCEED like that or make any meaningful curriculum choices? Because I don't.

 

 

I agree that it's so hard for teachers to teach with the way things are. So many leave teaching because of all the regulations and micromanaging from administrators. And I agree that it will be a challenge for the schools to figure out how to accommodate different students, but I don't think it's impossible. I know this is a different situation, but I'm reminded of what teachers in a single schoolroom were able to do with so many children working on different levels. Regardless of this legislation, I think that teachers need to be given more freedom from administrative paperwork and such so they can devote more time to teaching. I also feel strongly that parents' input on what their children need should be taken into account and not just met with a "your child will do fine" or "you have no choice." I know that homeschooling is a choice for some of us, but it's not for all. And this may mean that some who would be lost in the current system will have their voices heard. I agree it will be challenging for the administration and teachers to put this into play. It will be interesting to hear how it goes. Hopefully they will do some good brainstorming and come up with a feasible plan. I don't think that the "one education for all" mode has exactly been successful.

[partyof5]

 

:iagree: I've been a PS teacher and cannot fathom facing this scenario, but I do believe it's a possibility with this new law...though I doubt they will get anywhere near implementing it before things change again. NH is a beautiful place to live in, but we are all used to following educational house bills closely because some of them are just crazy enough to get passed. ;)

 

If you read the text of the actual bill, there are no parameters for subject matter...only the news article suggests that. Ugh. This is about much more than science.

[chiguirre]

And I agree that it will be a challenge for the schools to figure out how to accommodate different students' date=' but I don't think it's impossible. I know this is a different situation, but I'm reminded of what teachers in a single schoolroom were able to do with so many children working on different levels. [/quote']

 

One of the keys to making a one room schoolroom work is having a tightly controlled set of materials. That's what made McGuffey readers and the Blue Backed Speller so successful. The teacher knew the sequence and could just grab the book and go with each small group. They weren't trying to teach 3 different curricula to 25 third graders and having to prep for each. That's just a mess.

[Farrar]

That's an interesting point about the single curriculum of a one room schoolhouse. I agree that this one size fits all model is not working, but in a one room schoolhouse, you had not only kids working at different levels, but kids working at their own level - you didn't have to finish topic X before summer because you could come back to it. This law is more about content and philosophy, but I think it is true that managing different materials is much harder than managing different levels or expectations or even enrichments.

[LMA]

Since we are homeschoolers, the issue does not pertain to us except as taxpayers. Let's keep it in perspective. As a parent you have a right to object to anything. My parents did it with me and the schools put me in higher level classes in elementary schools so my parents would be quiet.

 

And parental objecting has been upheld throughout the years and in the courts.

 

http://www.cthomeschoolnetwork.org/EducationalFreedom-Law.htm

 

My friend in NH who supports this law says it makes the teachers and the school board explain why a certain curriculum is picked as opposed to it being the latest and greatest. She is not even religious. She is just tired of lousy expensive curricula which has no real content.

Edited January 6, 2012 by LMA