Anti-Home-schooling Decision Reversed
August 13th, 2008 at 07:00am Mark Noonan
Parents of home-schooling get to retain their right to educate their children, but the decision is a bit odd, in my view:
Justice H. Walter Croskey, author of the earlier ruling, wrote in the decision: “Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California homeschool their children by declaring their homes to be private schools.”
Judge Croskey noted that a 1998 measure exempting parents from fingerprinting requirements imposed on private school employees indicated “a legislative approval of homeschooling,” the San Francisco Chronicle says.
He added that the 1953 decision applying compulsory education without exceptions has been overruled by real world changes.
“Clinging to such precedent,” he said, “would undermine a practice that has been, if not actively encouraged, at least acknowledged and accepted by officials and the public for many years.”
The court stated that homeschooling is not an absolute right and may be revoked when children are abused or neglected.
Judge Croskey also advised that California might need to increase its oversight of those educated in home schools, given what he said is “the state’s compelling interest in educating all of its children.”
The children of America are the children of the State? The State has a compelling interest in educating children? Whence comes either of these two absurd ideas? The children of America belong to their families, not to the State - and the State’s only compelling interest is to protect the lives, liberty and property of the citizens of the State. Whether a person is a PhD or illiterate is irrelevant as far as his standing before the State is concerned.
While the ruling protects the ability of parents in California to home-school their children, I look at it as a bit of damage control by liberal judges who realise they went too far - there was probably some fear that the right to home-school would be written into the California constitution or, worse, it would wind up in the federal courts and the US Supreme Court might find that parents have a right to dictate the education choices of their children - either outcome would be anethema to liberalism in general and the government school system in particular. The whole situation here just reeks of the false idea that we must subordinate ourselves to the State and our worth is determined by how useful we are to the State. I can see why some people feel there is a compelling interest in having all the children educated up to some particular standard - we have to compete, we have to grow our GDP, we must continually advance in the sciences! Which is all well and good, but I don’t see any right of the State to command such an outcome - certainly the State has no right to decide just what a child shall learn, and when.
As G K Chesterton pointed out long ago, even the most homeless street urchin is being educated - he might be getting an advanced degree in violence and vice, but educated he is becoming. Meanwhile, all educationist talk of drawing out of children what is inside of them is nonsense - if you have an organised school it will be either trying to shove in or draw out what it wants, which may or may not be what the child needs or has a natural aptitude for. It isn’t, then, so much a question of whether or not we want to educate our children or whether or not it is right or wrong for us to teach them what we wish, but it is entirely a question of who gets to decide what goes into or is drawn out of any particular child? Our ruling elites have it that, rather conveniently, the ruling elites know what is best for kids to learn - so off they all go to the one-size-fits-all public school system to be indoctrinated in whatever it is, at the moment, that the ruling elites feel kids should learn. Anyone who is not a member of this elite understands instantly that to think that the elites know what is best is a laughably stupid idea - and only someone who is an elite could be stupid enough - and ignorant enough of real world needs - to fall for such an idea.
In human affairs there is not and never will be perfection - not in this world; its just not possible. But taking one thing with another and allowing for the fact that some parents are woefully incompetant, it still is the reasonable and commonsense position that parents are more likely than anyone else to know what their kids need and are capable of. Given this, it stands to reason that parents should rule the education roost and that the type and form of education for the children should conform - as far as possible - to the wishes of parents. Much assistance can be given by government and, indeed, by those who are currently in the edcuation system and do have a body of knowledge on the ways and means of imparting knowledge - but the final call in all education matters should always lie with the parent; and this would extend to such fundamental issues as when a child will start school, how long he’ll be at it and what general subjects are to be covered.
In this age of lies and big government, the duty of free people is clear - to tell the truth, and demand that their power be returned to them and government be curbed. Especially in matters of family it is a vital necessity that we get government out of the internal affairs of the family. A people remain free just as long as they value it and know what it is - the mis-educated results of public school system are ripe for tyrants of various stripes. Its time for fundamental change, and no place better to start than in returning authority to the parents.
Entry Filed under: General Government, Justice System
28 Comments
1. extramedium | August 13th, 2008 at 7:28 am
“Its time for fundamental change, and no place better to start than in returning authorit to the parents.”
Do you have a proposal in mind for this change? I could get behind just about anything here, including taking education funding out of the tax pool completely and eliminating minimum education requirements.
2. New Conservative | August 13th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Parents have the right to educate their children if they wish. However I do believe their should be some minimum standards set. The government does have an interest in making sure the people of America aren’t illiterate. An uneducated population leads to the downfall of a society. Parents should be in control, but standards do have to be set.
3. pelirrojo | August 13th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Mark, everytime you bring this topic up one thing comes to mind. Lets pretend you have a child, now this child hits 16, and has an interest in maths. Are you capable of teaching the child calculus and linear algebra? Lets say they were interested in physics, can you teach them physics?
If not, what right do you have to deny the child such an education?
4. Retired Spook | August 13th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Lets pretend you have a child, now this child hits 16, and has an interest in maths. Are you capable of teaching the child calculus and linear algebra? Lets say they were interested in physics, can you teach them physics?
pelirrojo, that’s one of the <a href=”http://www.rachelgathercole.com/page6.html”common myths about home schooling.
I live in rural northeastern Indiana and know several families who have home schooled their children. The father of a family of 4 home-schooled children down the road from me is a self-employed engineering consultant, and, as such, was able to provide an excellent math education for his kids (2 of which hated math). On the other hand, some friends who live in Fort Wayne about 20 miles from us sent their daughter to public high school, primarily because they were unable to provide her the math and science education she wanted beyond the elementary level. They continued to supplement the woefully inadequate public school education in the area of history, civics and constitutional government. Their daughter graduated from an Ivy League school with honors a couple years ago.
The biggest thing I’ve noticed about home-schooled kids is that, for the most part, they are exceptionally well behaved and courteous.
Read the linked article. It addresses a lot of misconceptions about home schooling in a direct and no-nonsense way.
5. Retired Spook | August 13th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Sorry, I messed up the link
6. New Conservative | August 13th, 2008 at 9:02 am
http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
7. OhioOrrin | August 13th, 2008 at 10:20 am
dont the polygamists home school ?
also, here in Ohio homeschoolers must pass the standard proficiency tests given 4th, 8th, & 12th grades or return to reg school.
8. Rana Quijotesca | August 13th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Mark… Yes… Yes it does.
In fact, this country has been woefully deficient in investing in its own human capital (yes, that’s what education is, an investment). Let’s take the Graduate Record Examination (a test that I am actually taking in about 2.5 hours; Wish me luck!), if you score around a 700 (out of 800, which is a very good score) on the Quantitative/Math Section, you will only be in around the 80th percentile. In fact, the highest one can typically get on the math section is in the ~92nd percentile. Why is this? Simply because the results are skewed by foreign students (from places like China) who receive a superior math education than students here.
Think of it this way–the state is justified in stepping in when the market fails (this is called market failure theory in economics). In this case, education creates a positive externality (which are always underproduced by the market), so the state has incentive to step in and provide education to bring it up to socially optimal levels.
Personally, I think that the fact that college students in this country have to go into thousands of dollars of debt in order to receive a post-secondary education is ludicrous. It leads to the perverse system we have now where legitimately intelligent and worthy students can’t go to a good college because they can’t afford it while rich students who are otherwise unfit to go to college (academically) get to spend 4 years partying on daddy’s credit card. If this country were to provide a college education and tightened the academic requirements of those colleges, the entire system and country would greatly benefit..
But alas, that isn’t what this post is about. Should the government education children? Of course, if not only for the reason that not all parents have the time to homeschool. Should parents be able to homeschool if they want to? Sure. Should they be able to do it free from oversight? Nope. Frankly, denying children proper primary and secondary educations should be considered child abuse. Plain and simple. If a parent homeschools a child, and neglects to teach them things that they have to know to succeed or at least function in society, then they are guilty of neglecting their children’s needs–just like parents who don’t feed their children. If parents don’t teach and refuse to let others teach, then they have forfeited the ability to direct their child’s education.
On the sociability issue, in terms of the homeschooled people I know, one is a slut and overly sociable, and one is one of the most socially awkward people I know… It’s more about personality and disposition than actual schooling in my opinion. However, being in an integrated setting, where there are many types of people and attitudes/opinions present has been shown to increase the open-mindedness of group members.
Do our schools need fixing? Yes they do, and they are not a lost cause either. For example, a greater emphasis needs to be placed on critical and analytical thinking than on rote memorization and fact consuming. I also think that schools should be funded at the state level to prevent inequalities in schooling for different socioeconomic classes (though that won’t do everything). Also, get rid of those stupid theories that say that you should tell a kid that he/she is wrong because it may hurt their feelings… Life is tough, they should at least be told when they are wrong, so they don’t screw things up for the rest of us down the road.
Children are the future (trite), but if we don’t educate them, we can look forward to being overwhelmed by international competition in my lifetime.
9. cam | August 13th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
This is a free choice issue and if it is the will of the parents it should be respected. Even so, parents who do chose this route should not take this decision lightly. If I understand it right it looks like most do.
Even so, it is my belief that public education has been made into a demon without good reason. My daughter goes to public school and they do an excellent job. The principal and teachers do a commendable job creating a fantiastic learning environment and the distractions that are made out to be the purvey of these institutions of learning have not materialized as they have been alleged by many right wingers.
10. Jeremiah | August 13th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Judicial activism by liberal Democrats has destroyed our public schools. Just take a look at some of the cases in the past…one of them being Murray v. Curlett.
Liberal Democrats seek to destroy Christianity all together from the public square through Judical activism.
Liberals seek to destroy the Christian message for sexual freedom, or unlimited sexual gratification; and to legalize the act of homosexuality, and to deny Christians their place for an education. They are forcing your children to be Atheists. ACLU lawyers are the primary threat that we face in this case.
If you do not believe in standing up for your freedom, then the ACLU will continue to define your rights for you, as they have for the past 50 or so years.
Here is a good article that helps to explain this more clearly.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/darr/050620
11. Jeremiah | August 13th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Children are the future–Rana Quijotesca
Yes, they are, Rana, and when you remove Christianity (the child’s only hope) from school, then you can expect the quality of life to deteriorate. And overall, life has deteriorated within America due to the ACLU forcibly teaching children Atheism. There are a good many Christian academies, but not enough…we need more Christian based schools, where the children are free from hearing all that garbage about evolution, sodomy. They are also teaching them to be promiscuous, and that’s what’s causing the rise in STDs in this country.
I tell you the truth, these ACLU lawyers need locked up for the good of this country.
12. jocat | August 13th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
ATTENTION! Are you aware that home schooled children by and large statistically score 14% higher than public or privetly educated kids? Did you know the average I.Q. of a home schooled child is 5- 9% higher on average over public educated children. Did you know that 96% of all home schooled kids go on to college and 84% of those go on to grad school as compared to public which is 51% college and 27% to graduate or secondary education? MAYBE THATS WHY DEMOCRATS HATE HOMESCHOOLING BECAUSE THEY CAN’T STAND THE IDEA OF PEOPLE CONSISTANTLY BEING SMARTER THAN THEY ARE! On average people tend to want to homeschool due to religious and personal values and beliefs.Um…isnt that why we came here in the first place cause King George wasnt letting us decide for ourselves? Thanks Obama, I need not my brain Mr. Kennedy or speaker Polosie. You can decide for me or should I say dictate my every move. If voting for McCain allows me to educate my children better and to get my kids to rank in the top percentile, verses public democrat idiocy, I’ll vot Republican!Democrates always believe we are incapable of making decisions for ourselves and that we need to be told how to think. Imagine living in the U.S.A. and not having the simple freedom of saying I want to teach my kid? Soon we will be told what to buy, where to go, we are already being told what to see and what to listen to by democrates in the house and senate. I’ve seen their little book on the correct way to punish your children. Rediculous! Ted Kennedy fought tooth and nail to anancipate a 14 year old boy.14! Who later in that same year(2005) was protesting for gay marrage because he wanted to marry a 46 year old man!That is child molestation Teddy and it’s wrong! And thats ok to Teddy but me educating my Kid is not? This is a sick and twisted age we live in. I’ll rant no more and close by saying…I’ll teach my children at home, will go to jail for doing so, and upon release move to Canada to finish their education.
13. What? | August 13th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Sigh,
No one is against home schooling. No one is saying that home schooling doesn’t work. The issue is whether there should be some degree of government oversight as to what is being taught if anything at all.
That home schooling works is not a surprise as most parents care deeply about the education their child receives. The only thing CA is interested in is catching those parents who are not acting in the best interest of the child.
Please, stop dreaming up an opponent you would like to argue with. Someone here tell me why they believe some government oversight is not appropriate.
Mark, you are not thinking through anything you say.
“but the final call in all education matters should always lie with the parent; and this would extend to such fundamental issues as when a child will start school, how long he’ll be at it and what general subjects are to be covered.”
So a parent could decide to teach their child anything? In what you deem “the age of lies” do you really think they are going to learn your “truth?” You are asking for indoctrination.
Also you imply the parent could decide to not educate their child at all? The parent could conclude the child should be used to do house work as the parents are away at work.
You feel a parent should have this degree of authority in a job market that requires a basic education to survive?
14. Jeremiah | August 13th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
What?,
The issue is that if the homeschooler is not compliant with the State’s wishes, then the State can choose to use force by way of subpeona against the home-schooler. This is a Nazi style rule. Who wants that?
Furthermore, we have a failed education system because it is controlled by liberals, therefore, we cannot get reform, because liberals reform by force to their own ideologies and opinions. The NEA is a vehemently supportive of Barack Obama - One of the greatest threats to freedom and the American dream in political history today!!!!!!!!
We need reform at the Federal level, so that we may break the NEA down, and get some good pro-family, pro-Christian, pro-Prayer, pro-America people on its boards.
Otherwise, the ACLU and their cohorts will continue to muddy the waters, sucking the life out of America.
Flex your muscles people, and put the ACLU in their rightful place!
15. Mark Noonan | August 14th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Rana,
But the State cannot educate - it can only indoctrinate. You’re confusing “marketable skills” with “education.” What the kids get in public schools - if they are lucky enough to learn anything - is a skill which can be used in the corporate treadmill, and an ideology which tends to support the corporate and liberal government status quo. Take a look at this 2005 Washington Post article and see if you can spot the absurdity:
Did you spot it? Right there at the start - “Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline”. By the time a kid gets to college, literacy should be a done deal - and I’m talking about the ability to read War and Peace and give a lucid description of the story and its meaning. And that is just for someone who is entering college - by the time a kid graduates he should be on a very high intellectual plane. But, very often he’s not - oh, he’s got a degree in business, law or medicine and he can manage a corporation, file a lawsuit or cut open a chest…but he’s not educated.
I first noted the complete collapse of education some years back when I was reading a run-of-the-mill editorial and handed it off to a friend of mine who was in the process of obtaining her Master’s degree…she couldn’t comprehend the editorial! Had the poor girl been lucky enough to be in school in 1900, she probably not only would have comprehended it, but would have done a better job writing it. In education these days you’re getting utter garbage, at a high price, and the only solution allowable - by the elites - is to pump more resources into the failed system.
This is what you get, however, when you bring in the State outside the State’s proper boundaries - remember, the State is there to protect our lives, our liberties and our property. Once it gets beyond that, it will make a mess of things - including education. While there is a place for the State to assist in education, the key word is “assist” - to help parents educate their own children by their own lights, not dictate to the people what their education shall be. You certainly won’t get anything worse than the miserable failure we have today, and you’ll probably get something a lot better, as evidenced by the overwhelming success of home-schooled children.
16. Mark Noonan | August 14th, 2008 at 1:40 am
extra,
School choice, in various forms, is the silver bullet here - turn the resources over to the parents and let the resources follow the children…we’ll have a wide variety of education opportunities tailored to the varied needs of the children…we won’t be churning out a uniformly ill-educated population, but a population which uses its genuinely diverse gifts to their fullest, individual ability.
17. extramedium | August 14th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Mark,
I have no problem with school choice, other than it may amount to a lack of choice in our less populated regions, however I would like to probe the argument a step deeper.
What we’re saying is that folks can collect back the taxes marked for public education and redirect them to another institution. Why don’t we simply cut out the middleman and stop funding education through taxes? Is there some reason that we should have “socialized education” any more than we should have socialized medicine? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there is a constitution “right” to education. Why should the state be involved at all?
Also, with regard to your response to Rana, do you really think the state shouldn’t set mandatory standards for education? If not, what collective body should set standards, or should individual parents have set the standards as they see fit? One of the proof points of home schooling is the high percentage of student who enter college - something that wouldn’t be possible if they didn’t meet the entry standards. And while I don’t think every kid has to go to college, a functioning democracy does require a literate electorate.
Finally, it seems to me that you are talking out of both sides sides of your mouth as it relates to the purpose of a college education (again from the Rana response). In a past post about liberal arts education, you made the case that ONLY a practical course of study like business, law or medicine (or other applied sciences) was worthwhile. Understanding “War and Peace” doesn’t seem to be a very practical goal at all, but rather the stuff of coffee-shop intellectuals- and also the sort of skill that would only arise from a liberal arts curriculum. Perhaps you only favor arts and literature when the message conforms to your specific political or religious beliefs, i.e. a G.K. Chesterton or a Michelangelo?
18. Danish Artist | August 14th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Yes we must have government oversight!
The government who has failed at everything it touches must oversee the education of our children!
Oh please.
In truth, this is only about protecting the interests of teachers unions and not about education. Since the creation of the Dept. of Education, we have seen education begin to fail our students. Lessons are concentrated more on the feel good politics rather than math, science,civics and history.
More and more money is thrown at the problem and reform is put on the back burner. Government is not the answer.
19. pelirrojo | August 14th, 2008 at 6:44 am
spook, in a situation like that I can completely understand home schooling. But the question remains. if a parent is completely incapiable of teaching their child, or even refuses to teach their child (as Mark has previously said would be acceptable), what right does the parent have in refusing their child an education?
With that said, I dont believe in education for the sake of getting a job, I believe in education to broaden the mind. How many novels does a person who the ability to read read every year? With a proper education in maths a childs mind becomes more logical. What right does some nutty parent have to take this away from a child?
Yes, homeschooling is fine, as long as there are requirements. They must be able to teach their child, or have the ability (and will) to hire tutors. They must teach their children certain things, eg basic maths and to read and write. If they cant (or wont) do that then I’m sorry but they have no right refusing their child such a basic education.
20. Retired Spook | August 14th, 2008 at 8:20 am
pelirrojo,
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, and statistics bear out the fact that, on the whole, home-schooled kids are getting as good or better education than their public school counter parts, so I guess the proof is in the pudding. Do some parents choose home schooling and then renege on their responsibility simply to avoid having their kids receive an education? Probably, although if the number was significant, you can bet the press would be all over it. Do a lot of kids fall through the cracks in the public school system? You bet.
21. phnx | August 14th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“No one is against home schooling. No one is saying that home schooling doesn’t work. ” what
WHAT!!!????
Nobody like the teachers unions who spent millions in California and other states tgrying to outlaw home schooling.
22. phnx | August 14th, 2008 at 11:10 am
“Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That’s not saying much for the remainder.”
Obamania explained.
23. What? | August 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Phnx,
Let’s see some evidence. I want an article that says teachers unions are opposed to homeschooling entirely.
Danish Artist,
You are so right! Government has never done anything worthwhile. Roads, social security, national security, utilities, the mail, all of this should be thrown over to the private sector since the government messed them up so bad.
Once again, you prove you are an idiot.
24. What? | August 14th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Noonan writes:
“But, very often he’s not - oh, he’s got a degree in business, law or medicine and he can manage a corporation, file a lawsuit or cut open a chest…but he’s not educated.”
So, a person who has life skills which will earn him a living is not educated until he can read War and Peace? Um, okay.
I love the conservative understanding of an education. Noonan, you represent the paradigm. Acquiring chunks of knowledge which you can spout off about to sound smart is not an education. All we need is a nation of smug dilletants like yourself. That will really push us forward in the world.
If a person wants to study literature, that is a worthy endeavour. If another person chooses to study business and dump War and Peace in the garbage, he is entitled to do so. This does not make him uneducated. He can read a spread sheet or a financial report. This skill is acquired through his education.
Your post is an indication of what homeschooling will lead to with no oversight from the outside world. A nation of Noonans teaching their children worthless interpretations of history.
“We would have won Vietnam if . . . ”
“Saddam was just like Hitler . . .”
“Liberals are responsible for (insert atrocity here)”
Also, why are you concerned about illiteracy? Remember, you said it is not that important.
25. cam | August 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“’Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That’s not saying much for the remainder.’
Obamania explained.”
-phnx
Following that logic it would explain why Bush got elected twice.
26. Danish Artist | August 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
What? once again you prove you are a putz. Once again, comparing apples and oranges.
Social Security? You kidding me?? wow, what a sound investment that is. Contribute your whole life for a mere fraction of what you would get had you put it in the most conservative of funds. Then when you die ITS GONE!!! Social Security may have been great in its infancy but now is a complete disaster.
Roads - can’t compare that to Dept. of Education schooling policies, plus the feds only provide matching funds to the states that are in charge of their roads.
National security - actually it is a different breed of people that operate it that your regular run of the mill government agency. Another can’t compare to the Department of Education.
THE MAIL?!? Oh, don’t get me started on that one. Private companies do it cheaper and faster than the US mail. I worked for a company whose main customer was the post office that provided automation equipment and services. The PO was essentially downsizing. I never seen an agency waste as much money as the post office. Good for us, bad for the tax payer.
Utilities?? Oh, yeah we have a huge abundance of non-regulated energy provided by the government. Most utilities are run by private sector, genius. Co-ops are barely staying above water.
Nice try, putz. You must really love getting bitch slapped around here.
27. What? | August 15th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Oh Danish Artist,
You slay me.
Social Security is the sole income for a large portion of this nation’s elderly. Please tell me where they would be without it?
It is a disaster now because people like you have resisted fixing it for the past twenty years.
So I can’t compare roads because that is something government agencies do well? Hmm, that is a new arguement. Also, I thought we were talking state and Federal governments here.
Also, we can operate a military, why can’t we operate schools? What is the difference? You need to learn how to argue. Making conclusions is a useless skill.
The post office is efficient. My mail gets here on time for $.43. I am happy with that. Also, please refrain from the following sentence: “I know because I use to work . . .” That is meaningless.
Yeah, private sector did a bang up job with utilities. Ever hear of Enron? That is the result of years of deregulation. That is where your policies take us.
Danish, watching you construct an argument is just sad. Your basic premise is that I can’t site areas where the government has performed well because they are somehow different. Yet you cannot explain the difference. You admit government preforms well in some area yet can’t explain why it cannot operate well in others.
You are a hopeless bufoon but keep at it. You certainly make for good comedy. Tell me more about how you are David Duke want to reduce black births. I enjoyed watching you try to justify that one.
Also phnx,
I am waiting on that article. Also, I expect a reputable source. I don’t want some wingnut website that publishes editorials as fact.
28. Danish Artist | August 15th, 2008 at 6:08 am
What? you truly are an imbecile!
Social Security is the sole support of the ederly, but that does not make it a great program. These elderly WITH ONLY SS as their means of support are barely above the poverty line. Social Security was to be a supplemental fund and not the sole supporting fund it has come to be.
We are the ones that proposed true reform. Leftist Liberals are the ones resistant to change and history proves this. Leftist Liberals want more of the same larger bureaucracy and control, while Conservatives and others want to make this a TRUE RETIREMENT FUND. Stop revising history.
No you can’t compare roads - it’s an entirely different entity.
If you think the mail is efficient, then you truly are blind. Meaningless? Oh, yes, someone without a clue is more informed than someone who has worked behind the scenes for years - I can see why you are a true Obama supporter.
You cannot site government agencies that have performed well because they are not the typical bloated government agency that the Dept. of Education is. It is like equating a small town’s sheriff department with the FBI. Sorry, that is over your head, but it is a valid argument.
The decline of education can be directly tied with the creation of the Dept. of Education. At that time is the start of declining curriculums and increasing social instructions.
Sorry to burst your big government bubble, but you are the fool that will entrust your life to it and bitch and moan as to your unhappy life.
Buffoon? Physician heal thyself. Slap. Slap Slap. Are you a closeted masochist?