Alternatives to Public Schooling Should Not be made Illegal.

Where to even begin with this? I think I'll start by saying your use of the term 'non sequitur' is incorrect. It literally means 'does not follow,' which would be applicable only to apply to something irrelevant, when what I address does follow exactly what you stated. But, on to substance. The common core proposal you're discussing is utterly irrelevant. It's more of the politician-led drivel that causes difficulty for teachers. Further it has absolutely nothing to do with alternative means of education. Similarly persecution of Christians is off-topic, but you are still absolutely wrong. Here's an interview with a Professor at Notre Dame who expresses the views of actual historians and real religious scholars. http://articles.washingtonpost.com... Now, back on topic, where I hope to remain. "There are two ways we can look at this. First, we have to remember that by standardizing government control over education, because of the Common Core Standards, it will actually lower the standards, and though it will be specifically standardized, it will deny people who want to work for higher education, the right to do so. In fact, it will force standards to be lowered instead of allowing it to be raised. Second, you have to remember that you"re talking about and how it relates to the argument. What you"re putting forward as a solution to your claim (not a problem, no evidence has been presented), is something that can be done without abolishing alternatives to public schooling. You can standardize your schools without abolishing alternatives to public schooling. Therefore your argument is non sequitur." Your fundamental problem is equating the current core standards proposal with public schools in general. The fact is, any core material proposed by people besides educators will have flaws and will be problematic. That has nothing to do with prohibiting other forms of schooling. As to your argument that it doesn't abolish alternatives, it seems simple to me that if the state sets the curriculum and it must be followed, if the state sets the rules and they must be followed, then the school is operating as an agent of the state, and is therefore not a private school. Simple enough yes? "Public schools have the same risk as private schools to being false." No. They really don't. The fact is that if any Tom, Dick, and Harry can set up a school, that will result in far more problems than a curriculum devised by the Department of Education. "You"re making an argument for alternatives to public schooling. We as homeschoolers and private schoolers recognize that many things taught in the public schools, such as global warming and how FDR "fixed" the Great Depression, as false. Why should we tolerate our children being taught what is false? It"s an argument against forced public schooling, not for." If you think Global Warming isn't real or that FDR didn't succeed economically, then you've proved my point that private education and homeschools are not adequate to instruct children. These are facts recognized by scientists and by historians. That is why they are codified in textbooks. You really seem to have a fetish over Nazi Germany. It pops up every other paragraph. Here's some other points for you to chew over. Against Homeschooling. In a home-school program, there is no administrator there to evaluate teaching performance or ensure standards are being met. There are no real guides to evaluate the child's progress. Further, without any easy methods of supervision or access to Counseling, any kind of abuse is much harder to determine. This argument applies against both home and private schooling. It is an aspect of human nature to force itself into small groups of similar people. We refer to this as de facto segregation. Now if you open up an evangelical christian school, who will join? I guarantee almost all white, christian, conservative children. A homogeneous group of students who do not serve to expose children to other cultures or backgrounds. Now with home-school, the result is even worse. These children do not leave their families, and do not learn social interaction. What should be done? The government should take exclusive control over K-12 Education, and allocate funding based on need. Further, once in middle school there needs to be a point where aptitude tests are taken and it determines possible career paths. Students should have the option to enter a trade school to learn professional skills or artisan skills, or to proceed on to college for humanities, or college for science, technology, and engineering. The current assumption, made by politicians, is that everyone should go to college. Not everyone should go to college. That is not the recipe for national success. All that does is reinforce the idea that some people, ie doctors and lawyers, are more valuable than others. This is a dangerous thought, both for treating human beings unequally, and for the fact that it promotes a catastrophic idea that has already caused problems. With more and more people going to college, a Bachelor's Degree is becoming more and more worthless. Increasingly, higher degrees are becoming necessary. Re-evaluating our educational structure, and turning it into a state-run system that promotes real-life education under the premise that all children are not interchangeable is the first step towards success. And in order to do that, we must level the playing field. If there are institutions out there like the one I attended middle school for, where biology is incorrectly taught, where mythology is taught as fact, then I believe they need to be shut down so those children can receive a real education. Now that I have some extra characters, I want to deal with another objectionable point you made. "You have not provided a source nor evidence for Adam and Eve being mythology, " The Earth is 4.54x10^9 years old. http://www.sciencedirect.com... It takes 160 people to start a society and not have everyone turn into an inbred hemophiliac like the Hapsburg family. http://www.newscientist.com... Principles of evolution are clearly observable. People are taller now than 200 years ago, we eat differently, etc. These are evolutionary steps. If you don't believe in evolution as the means through which we became what we are today, then please find a nearby community college and take a biology course. When we look at all these sources, we can see the idea that 6,000 years ago two human beings formed all society is pure myth. Even the Roman Catholic Church agrees it's myth. http://www.theaustralian.com.au...