Are There Any Developed Countries Where It's Actually Illegal to Not Send Kids to a Public School, s

Are there any developed countries where it's actually illegal to not send kids to a public school, so that the government can be sure that no one is being abused or taught things that go against science? If so, whatu2019s the penalty?

I do not know.But a little history via my recollection: In the US, it used to be legally required that children get education until some specific age, and the penalties varied - all this was on a state-by-state basis . Back when there were adequate resources in communities, truancy (finding kids hanging around downtown during school hours) was a big deal and police asked children why they were not in school if they were not . Of course, a caretaker was at home back when people could live on one income, so truant children would not be there - they would have to go somewhere if they were not going to school. And private schools existed, but they needed to be accredited for students to have a high school diploma.There were not many homeschooled kids - that just did not take off until the 1990's. And they began as religious options. But of course parents can not necessarily teach, so while part of that movement remained about basically withdrawing your child from formal education in order to have complete control about their indoctrination into your religion's teachings (I am not a fan), the other part of that movement became how to educate your children when you were not a teacher: shared resources, public programs, and in some cases access to accelerated learning opportunities (particularly in math and science). Most recently some of these tools came online, and school districts picked up in some cases administering children who are learning outside of school . There are now other drop-out prevention alternatives for students who had struggled with their education either because of pregnancy, abuse, addiction, or excessive mobility (homelessness). Some of these are "continuation schools" but there are other programs. Then came the arguments - spearheaded of course by the evangelical people who felt that public schools indoctrinated children in Liberalism - that people did not want to pay for education systems. Well-educated folks agreed as they put their kids in private schools: public schools were broken and until they were fixed they were not worthy of more money (it's illogical, yes).Also evolving in this mix were the arguments of which education was better or adequate, and the exit examinations from high school, so that all these different methods could be evaluated by community colleges and universities. And so now you have a mish-mash of many different kinds of education in the US with some attempt to understand what has been learned by administered exams.But we can all see the result.I will be interested to hear what has happened in Europe and other parts of the world

— — — — — —

Why do asian people think people in developed countries are promiscuous ?

Why would they think Japan is promiscuous like that? Their entertainment is generally wholesome, except some Animes and the likes.but it's not as realistic or pressuring. In America, regular shows teaches that it's normal and cool to be promiscuous. I do think American kids are promiscuous. Unfortunately, I think a lot of Chinese think it's cool to be American and start by having Western names, etc

— — — — — —

Why does U.S. have such bad healthcare compared to other developed countries ?

The US is run by money, and has been at it's worst for the past 7 years. Unless someone rich needs healthcare - the politicians do not care

— — — — — —

What do Americans think about the fact that there is way less gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in other developed countries?

"What do Americans think about the fact that there is way less gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in other developed countries?"Well, I would want to know how much higher deaths are by other violent means in those countries, before I could offer an opinion."Gun-related death" is a pretty meaningless statistic. What does that mean? What all does it include? Probably firearm homicides, of course, but does it attempt to inflate that statistic by including things like justifiable homicides (incidents of self-defense), suicides, and firearm accidents?Also, looking at a statistic that has been narrowed down to a specific implement of violence can be misleading since, in many cases, a violent individual may substitute one tool of violence for another. For example, in cases of individual violence, the criminal may use a knife, club, gun, switchblade, vial of acid :-(, pure physical intimidation, etc, etc, somewhat interchangeably - assuming that you could manage to remove one of those (difficult to do!), they will just switch to another implement. Or in mass violence cases, arson, bombs, firearms, poisons, etc, can all be used. ...So looking at statistics such as overall deaths by acts of violence (specifically, non-justifiable homicides) would be much more meaningful, esp when you are attempting to compare different countries.

developed countries related articles
Speed of Includegraphics Seemingly Dependent on How Many Packages Are Loaded!
How Much Does a Hamster Cage Cost?
Why Didn't Noah Have Any Grandchildren in the Ark?
Cheap but Fabulous Wedding Decoration Ideas