NOW I GET IT
I understand why the article blogged below seemed so strange. It was a companion piece to this.
“I understand there is not a statutory requirement and there are arguments against parents who home school their kids having contact with the school district,” said Maley, who knows of a number of families in the borough who home school their children. “But this would just give children another chance to keep from falling through the cracks.”
But the co-founder of the New Jersey Homeschool Association says the mayor and others are overreacting. He said plenty of home-schooled kids get a good education, while kids in public schools are also abused at home.
“It’s a horrible thing for histown and a horrible thing for these kids,” said Timothy Haas, an Audubon resident whose two children are home-schooled.
“But I don’t think home-schooling has to prove itself. If the mayor wants to look look anywhere for blame, he should look to the state and DYFS.”
Ugh!
UPDATE: Sorry ’bout the temporarily abbreviated post. I was on battery power and was about to lose it.
UPDATE: Tim Haas sent the quote that didn’t make the paper:
“Without knowing more about family, I’d be reluctant to call them homeschoolers. We have a statutory duty to give our kids an education. If you don’t do that, you’re not a homeschooler, you’re a lawbreaker.”
One Response to “NOW I GET IT”
 Comment by Laura October 28th, 2003 at 6:05 pm |
“We have a statutory duty to give our kids an education. If you don’t do that, you’re not a homeschooler, you’re a lawbreaker.” It’s very interesting that this quote is left out. One of the reasons that homeschooling is controversial is that some people sincerely fear that kids are getting the short end of the stick from parents who say they homeschool but really aren’t doing anything. These two sentences would go a long way toward setting their minds at rest. But without controversy, how would they sell newspapers? |