posted
BannaOj & Rakeesh, you seem to be missing much of the subtleties of (philosophical, not legal) discussions of rights, particularly in how they relate to children. Might I suggest you check out this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entitled Children's Rights? In particular, I recommend the sections called "Children's Rights and Adult Rights" and "The Child's Right to Grow Up."
In those sections you'll see referenced the ideas of "developmental rights" and an "open future". While there a distinctions made in these ideas(mostly only of interest to nitpicking philosophers), the main thrust of these arguments is that children have a moral right to be set up for an eventual adult future that will not be unduly constrained by closing off significant life choices. So, for instance, while you are not required as a parent to take your child to weekly psychiatric appointments to make sure he grows up in perfect mental health, you do have a responsibility to not mentally or emotionally abuse your child, which would close off the (significant life choice/path) of being an emotionally mature adult. Likewise, I believe that failing to provide a basic education of the three R's for a child (at the very minimum) does significantly narrow a child's future life choices.
Now, we can quibble about the legal rights a child has, and there's certainly a lot to discuss how a child's rights can be best protected. But I think that saying that any education for a child is a privilege, not a right is simply wrong, morally & legally. I've studied this topic (from the philosophy angle) pretty deeply, and, frankly, your points about rights & privileges are rather, um, uneducated. There's a massive literature out there discussing this topic that you should be aware of if you'd like to discuss it intelligently.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Who said social services would be making the call? We're not talking about investigating child abuse, for goodness sake. We're talking about evaluating education which would be done by people trained in education.
...
There are laws in place that govern a parent's rights to refuse such an evaluation already. There's no reason why, at that point, the situation can't be handled just the same as a public school student whose parents have been told their child needs evaluation. My experience is that parents can refuse, and often do, and the school then has steps it can take, but it's all spelled out quite clearly. I can find the exact procedures that take place at that point if you wish - my textbook for my exceptional education class is upstairs.
Nowhere in this process is social services involved, that I'm aware of.
Belle, I would be very interested, particularly in the "end-game" procedures if a parent refuses to allow their child to be tested.
Regarding your first point, while I understand what you are saying, and appreciate that you are distinguishing from "imperfect education" and "child abuse" the two have been considered equivalent on this thread.
"Child abuse" is pretty much the only grounds for legal intervention in the parent-child relationship. Many homeschoolers would believe that a mandatory "meeting with an expert" (no matter how good of an idea it might be and how much it might benefit the child) to be an unecessary intrusion into this parent-child relationship.
So, if you require the test, provide the experts, and the homeschooling parent rejects meeting those experts, what will happen? How do you enforce legal consequences in that situation? Are the "child's rights" being violated at that point? Maybe, under a broad societal definition. But I am uncomfortable applying legal consequences (and at that point they would *have* to be legal consequences) to that circumstance.
A good comparison would be that as long as they aren't committing criminal acts, the KKK actually does have protected constitutional rights, even though most of society (including myself) finds them reprehensible. We allow them to be protected because otherwise, we would draw our circle too narrowly, and trample on constitutional rights. Yes the child has a right to be protected from criminal behavior. But a lack of education, *isn't* inherently a criminal fault.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
edit: Also, just throwing this out there, compulsory education at the primary level was affirmed as a human right in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
posted
Jhai, from a personal philsophical standpoint I probably agree with you more than I disagree. I am, however, extremely uncomfortable about imposing that philisophical standpoint, on people who sincerely disagree with it.
I guess I'm pro-choice on the issue Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, I also view this as a state vs. federal issue. There are compulsory education rulings with legal precedent. I don't necessarily agree with all of those rulings. I do believe a parent should attempt to follow the law of whatever state they are living in. As mentioned in your link, "compulsory education" laws vary widely by state. That article is skewed to making you think they are all more authoritarian than they are. It also comes back to "how do you define education" which is the bigger ball of wax.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belle, I would be very interested, particularly in the "end-game" procedures if a parent refuses to allow their child to be tested.
Not a problem, I should review these things anyway, since my comps are coming up.
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) is the major piece of legislation that outlines these procedures.
Parental consent is NOT required under IDEA for a referral for a special needs evaluation, though in practice, most schools do in fact inform the parents that a referral is being made.
Once the referral is made, parental consent MUST be obtained before any formal testing of the child takes place. The school must notify the parent, in writing in his/her native language of the school's intent to evaluate the child. If a parent refuses such testing, the school may request a due process hearing.
Though, again in practice, this is rare. Most of the time it stops there, and the child is never tested or evaluated.
Now, if you want more details on how IDEA mandates the testing is done and some of the other procedural issues, I'll type them up I didn't want to spend a lot of time typing out what you may not be interested in.
I think the heart of the matter is that parental consent is required by law, and the only way to override that is through a due process hearing.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, I'm not sure I understand about what you mean by it being a state versus federal issue. It has to be a state issue. Constitutionally, the federal government doesn't have the right to pass laws effecting education this way.
Could you give an example of a state law that allows parents (either themselves or through a proxy) to not educate their children?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Banna, I'm not sure I understand about what you mean by it being a state versus federal issue. It has to be a state issue. Constitutionally, the federal government doesn't have the right to pass laws effecting education this way.
Could you give an example of a state law that allows parents (either themselves or through a proxy) to not educate their children?
It isn't the "not educating" that is the problem as much as who determines what "not educating" is.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think communities are profoundly affected by children raised without proper moral training.
Imagine if I decided what constituted "proper moral training" and argued that I had the right, nay, societal obligation to test children to see if they are up to snuff, ethically speaking.
I think moral beliefs are pretty well set by the age of 8 or 10, and after that children are accountable.
Amorality is incredibly detrimental to society.
Does this mean that, on behalf of the community, I have the right to assume parents are immoral unless proven otherwise? Maybe expect them to adhere to a preferred moral curriculum, as suggested by my favorite moral experts? To be totally ridiculous, how would it be if I told atheists to report for annual testing at their local diocese?
Since we're going by anecdotal evidence here, I'll tell you about the son of one of my homeschooling friends. He's profoundly learning disabled, and after homeschooling him for four years, they chose to have him evaluated by a district LD specialist.
The specialist told them that their son has progressed far beyond the expectations of the school and credited homeschooling for it.
Actually, what he said was, "He never would have gotten this far in the school environment. It's a good thing you took him home."
For every defensive homeschooling parent, there's a defensive public school teacher saying, "What, my classroom isn't good enough?"
The funny thing to me is that homeschooling isn't the soft option. Unlike many of my peers, I don't have hours of free time every day; I chose and purchase curricula that makes up an significant percentage of my annual budget; I teach.
If I were lazy, I could just send my kids to school.
I'm not saying that lazy parents send their kids to public school, while hardworking ones homeschool. There are hardworking, inspiring, lazy and stressed parents in both categories.
But, if I were interested in doing nothing and letting someone else do the work, then public schooling my children would be my first choice. My children are automatically enrolled in my neighborhood schools; the path of least resistance would be to just to let the school district do its job, and inform me where to allow my child to walk every day to catch the bus.
And, by the way, from my experience in public schooling, "diversity" is an unclear benefit at best. For example, how do you define "diversity"? Different skin colors? Our current school district is considered highly competitive, and is about 90% affluent white PhDs, and 10% affluent Indian/Chinese/Japanese PhDs. (I live near a nuclear reactor.)
But I've talked to some of these parents, and they all seem very similar in belief--i.e., family is important, education is important, their children's money-making abilities are important, church is important.
So actually they're more similar, than dissimilar. Does "diversity" require different skin colors, or different belief systems? That is, you could have a roomful of Caucasians, and still have "diversity", right?
Or are we talking "diversity" as in playing folk music and cooking interesting food? Shoot, I give that to my kids already.
Not to mention, based on my experience in CA public elementary and junior high schools--it seemed like the more "diverse" (racially mixed) my school was, the more lacking the education was. My friends who had enough money, regardless of color, usually ended up at local private schools.
If we're really worried by the vision of a future full of community-destroying illiterates, then the most economic plan would be to crack down on poor schools. The children are already there; the parents already have shown a tacit approval for handing over educational authority; the teachers are in place; that stage is already set for relatively easy intervention.
The government education intervention $-to-child ratio is better, too. If what we're worried about is future society, then in the choice between saving four kids at home with a mediocre homeschooling mom or thirty kids at school with a mediocre teacher/curriculum/administrator--which intervention has greater payoff? Which group deserves more immediate attention?
Financially speaking, the government should focus on getting its own house in order before it seeks to commit resources to inserting itself into homeschooling families, especially since the majority of homeschooling families have already shown a bare minimum of parental involvement that the public schools don't always expect.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm responding to your statement above:
quote: But a lack of education, *isn't* inherently a criminal fault.
I think I'm unclear on what you meant by "a lack of education". Could you explain?
I wanted to leave that broad because it goes back into "definitions of education" Who determines what is truly adequate and what is lacking? Someone who can't read English or do long division, can still be a virtuoso musician that plays entirely by ear. (I pick music, in this case because a) there are documented instances of this sort of thing and b) it's also documented that music helps stimulate the same parts of the brain as math.) Would they be better off, if they could read and do long division? Probably. Do they lack education in some specific areas? Yes. Am I going to condemn the parents for allowing the kid to pursue their musical talent as part of their education instead of doing long division. No.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if I understand the context you are using this in then. It seemed to me that you were saying that it is not illegal for parents to not educate their kids, for some definition of educate.
This doesn't seem to be the case to me, at least for the definitions of educate that you presented (reading and basic math).
Now it seems like you're trying to make a moral/philosophical point and not actually talking about what is legal. Is that correct?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BannaOj, one of my friends has a daughter like you describe. She was adopted from Romania at age 4, and is dealing with the long-term emotional and physical effects of those first 4 years.
She is 12 now, and not reading or doing math at grade level (her work suffers but her IQ's been tested at above average), but she is incredibly good at the violin, viola, anything stringed.
If she were in a public school, what would she do? Would she be in the resource class all day? Would she have the opportunity for the hours she spends playing music? *shrug*
For some people, no matter how much school they are exposed to, they will not conform to government school standards.
And I think a good life is possible outside the standards the government has set.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I think a good life is possible outside the standards the government has set.
Which standards are those?
edit: I'm pretty supportive of the idea of home schooling. I'm having a real problem getting over the idea that kids don't need to be exposed to literacy and basic math if their parents don't want to. Besides being, as far as I can tell, illegal, it just sounds like a real failure in looking out for the welfare of the child.
posted
Squicky, I guess the "legal" requirement is "should be educated". Some people would view a "music only" form of education, that does not include reading or math, as "no education at all".
While I might personally prefer an english and math curriculum for that child, I think that if the parent feels a "music only" education is an adequate one for preparing the child for adulthood. I don't feel that I have the right to legally impose my views of "education= minimum of reading and math" on that parent.
I believe once those views are legally imposed, a slippery slope ensues. This does not mean, if I knew that person that I wouldn't strongly encourage them for the good of their child, to make sure their child gets a broader education. It is the line between "strongly encourage" and "impose" that I am not willing to cross. (again in the absence of physical abuse etc. etc.)
(I love what Belle said on the previous page about libraries etc. I think literacy is extremely important, and that as a society we should provide opportunities like that at every turn... but again it's the difference between "strongly encourage" and "impose")
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Standards like...oh....an 8-year-old must be able to read so much, or be able to multiply. Or a 12-year-old must be performing at the same grade as her peers, to be considered as having a "good life", or for her parents to be considered good parents.
This girl I spoke of, this Romanian adoptee, would likely be struggling academically, whether at a PS or at home. But I think her life is better at home, than it would be at PS.
Notice I'm referring mostly to children who wouldn't fit in to the educational box anyway. Those who have major emotional or LD issues. Even if they cannot perform as their peers do, does not mean their lives are, by definition, bad or wasted.
Public schools originally began as prep schools for factory workers. They were intentionally industrial, because the children were intended to go on to industrial work. Historically, the children of the rich and powerful have been individually tutored, or sent to private/finishing schools. Public school is not the only road to a good education.
So I guess what I'm calling "government standard" is really "societal standard".
(I'm feeling really granola as I write this. )
The premise is, "You need money to be happy; you need a job to make money; the $$$ jobs you need a college degree for; you need to go to high school to get into college; you need to to X,Y,Z, to do well in high school." And so on.
There are some alternatives to the Money = Happiness model. For instance, there's the Knowing Everything = Happiness model.
Some have complained about students who are weak in math. Okay, I want the person who builds the bridge I drive across to be great at math, but do you need calculus to be a wonderful landscaper, or to work at WalMart? Or to be a happy, fulfilled person?
The government says, "Yes,you do" and furthermore seems to be saying "and we're going to make sure your kid has all that whether you like it or not".
It's a nice thought--I hate the idea of any mind not achieving to its potential--but strong-arming parents isn't the way to do it.
And assuming most homeschoolers are at least a little negligant in exposing their children to math and literature is inaccurate.
I would guess (this is totally a guess, based on my interactions with HSing and PSing parents) that the proportion of HSing parents who woefully neglect their child's education is equal to or lesser than the proportion of PSing parents who fail to get involved in their child's PS education, especially if that PS education is so inadequate that only the parent's involvement will help educate that child. (which describes what my father had to do with me when I came home from school in CA).
I think equating government non-involvement with homeschooling parents with endorsing gross educational neglect reflects some unfair and unsupported assumptions about homeschooling parents.
As a defensive HSing mom, , I hear it as "you're negligent until proven competent". I have nothing to hide, but it's insulting and intrusive to assume that without the government looking over my shoulder I would not do what was in my child's best interests.
If you compare schooling to carseats: Yes, some parents risk their children by not strapping them in (which I abhor; I am passionate about car seats). But for the most part, parents care deeply about carseats, far more deeply than the government car-seat person, because it is their personal baby in that seat, and they will go above and beyond government standards, for the sake of their child.
Does the government really think they could care more about my children than I do?
The government's standards seem arbitrary (I don't think there is a life-quality issue for someone reading later than their peers, IF they are learning according to their own internal schedule), often change, are (IMAO) unduly influenced by political interests and some are even contradictory to my moral beliefs.
It's bad enough to make us scared of "what happens if Johnny doesn't read by 7?". To criminalize it....how does that help people? Do children really not learn to read by adulthood because someone just neglected to teach them the ABCs? Usually it's not because children are doing nothing that they don't learn to read; it's because they're doing something else instead of reading. Running from drug dealers, maybe, or working in a sweatshop.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, we can quibble about the legal rights a child has, and there's certainly a lot to discuss how a child's rights can be best protected. But I think that saying that any education for a child is a privilege, not a right is simply wrong, morally & legally. I've studied this topic (from the philosophy angle) pretty deeply, and, frankly, your points about rights & privileges are rather, um, uneducated. There's a massive literature out there discussing this topic that you should be aware of if you'd like to discuss it intelligently.
Even though you're obnoxious and irritating by way of your presumption and arrogance in this post are, I'll reply seriously (though obviously not without some snarkiness:)) to the statements in it.
quote:So, for instance, while you are not required as a parent to take your child to weekly psychiatric appointments to make sure he grows up in perfect mental health, you do have a responsibility to not mentally or emotionally abuse your child, which would close off the (significant life choice/path) of being an emotionally mature adult. Likewise, I believe that failing to provide a basic education of the three R's for a child (at the very minimum) does significantly narrow a child's future life choices.
The reason to refrain from abusing one's child certainly isn't just that it negatively impacts their future.
quote: In those sections you'll see referenced the ideas of "developmental rights" and an "open future".
An 'open future'. What does that mean, exactly? By reasoning from this end, it can just as easily be said that raising a child to be Muslim in the United States is potentially abusive. After all, that signs that kid of for some undeniable and serious trouble later on down the road.
quote:But I think that saying that any education for a child is a privilege, not a right is simply wrong, morally & legally.
Education is a privilege (to me, and I'm not speaking in legal terms) and not a right because it's something that requires the participation and consent of the one being educated.
For example, I have the right to peaceably assemble and peaceably worship whichever religion (or none at all) that I may choose. I don't have to do anything to have those rights, they're mine just because I'm an American. (That's one legal interpretation on that; morally I think those rights are everyone's, period).
Education, however, is different. I believe every child has a right to be offered an education, but that's not the same thing. Since the extent to which a child is educated depends substantially on that individual child, it cannot morally be said to be a right, at least not in the sense that I'm discussing rights and privileges.
To be educated, someone must take the opportunity (or make one) to be educated. Rights are things we always have, we never have to take them.
----------
Where I disagree with BannaOJ is on the issue of the 'three Rs', actually. I do believe that the state should have the right to compel education in those areas, simply because in order to have much of a strong hope to be a good, productive citizen, one must be able to do those things.
Yes, you can be a good citizen without those things-it's just a lot harder.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly my mother STRONGLY believes in the three Rs. And believes the US has a compelling interest in having literate citizens. Yet she understands that to actually "compel" this violates the same rights of homeschooling parents that she excercised while homeschooling me. I was hoping she would have a way out of the connundrum that I couldn't see, but unfortunately she doesn't, and was a little upset that I'd pointed out the logical connundrum, since she doesn't actually *like* the logical extreme I'm taking it to.
But even while disliking my logical extreme, in some instances she is even more brutally utilitarian than I am willing to be, (and I know some of you were appalled at my utilitarian arguments) on the basis of her actual experiences.
I was also asking her about documentation of "sucessful homeschoolers" and when I got oodles of historical examples like Sandra Day O'Connor, I had to qualify "in the modern era". She could compile quite a list, but agreed one of the major problems with "sucessful homeschoolers" is that you aren't going to know they were homeschooled unless they tell you.
It also depends on how broadly you are willing to define "homeschooling". There is definitely homeschooling "snobbism" out there. Is it just having been homeschooled through the elementary grades, or are they not a "pure" homeschooler if they went to high school, and these days, even going to a community college like I did in lieu of some high school classes, is sometimes condemned as "not homeschooling".
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly, Rakeesh, you did not read the article I suggested you read, as you completely misunderstood the concept of an "open future." If you'd like to read the article (even just the short segements I suggested as key to the current discussion), I'd be fine discussing it with you for several pages. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to type out explanations of concepts which are clearly explained in the article just so the conversation can continue - especially when I've pointed out exactly where you can find out what, exactly an "open future" means. It isn't a magical term I've dreamed up - it is a key concept in the philosophical/moral discussion of children's rights.
It also might help if you review the concepts of rights in either a legal or philosophical sense, as your examples and definitions also seem problamatic.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, that article presented a variety of philsophical issues, some of which I agreed with and some I didn't agree with. I clearly lean closer to the "will theory" than I do to the "interest" theory.
The irony is that many homeschoolers homeschool precisely so that their children can have "participatory rights" in their own education. But the only way to legally defend it is to assert the supremacy of the parent's rights.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BannaOj, I'm not saying that Rakeesh has to agree with all POVs presented in the article; obviously that would be difficult, given that many of them contradict each other. But I have no interest in getting into a philosophical discussion about rights with someone who doesn't understand any of the basic terms and concepts required to have a clear and mutually beneficial discussion.
He's free to remain ignorant of these terms, but I'm also free to refuse to engage in a discussion with such a person. In my mind, it's similar to trying to present a professional economics paper at a seminar or conference filled with people who have only had Micro Economics AP - it won't give valuable feedback to the presenter, so her position won't change at all, and the AP students won't have the background necessary to learn anything or challenge the presenter.
Will theory, by the way, doesn't evade the points raised by the "open future" proponents, since their whole idea is that it is the rights of the future adult that will develop from the child that require certain steps to be taken now, before the child has fully grown. Similar in nature, for instance, to the government's duties to inform voters about voting registration requirements before November, so that when the voters want to exercise their rights on Election Day, they have the option to do so.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai. A tangent for my own curiousity. Would you agree that the child's "right to survival" would trump the "right to education?"
In other words, in an area where subsistence is the norm, doesn't the parent have a greater moral right to keep the child alive than they have to educate them? If the child has to work, in order for the parents to have enough income to be able to afford to feed that child, isn't education secondary to survival itself?
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, of course. Anyone who would argue with the idea that there's a hierarchy of rights is an absolute loon.
For instance, it shocks a lot of people who haven't thought deeply about the economics of the issue, but I'm in favor of (child) sweatshops in developing countries. Obviously it's not okay if children are forced to work there (slavery or indentured servant or what have you), and it'd be better if they could be in a classroom or out playing - so I'm strongly in favor of government programs that encourage child education through food programs & the like. But, lacking that, it's better that the family has the income to survive than that the kid starves to death while getting an education. Western pushes to just close down any child labor doesn't do the child or his family any favors.
Interestingly, a recent study in India suggests that as soon as it is economically feasible for (Indian) parents to pull their children out of the workforce and send them to school, they do so. Whether that's because parents have their child's best interests at heart, or because they recognize the long-term value added to the family unit through a child's education is unclear, but either way, it's very heartening news.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
She used a similar argument (without the data to back it up that you have in your India example) to explain why a homeschooler is always going to strive to have literate children, because of the long term value to both the child, the family, and society.
Even though she is a Christian Fundamentalist, she's almost a Social Darwinist when it comes to homeschoolers that, barring special needs circumstances, have illiterate children at the age of 18. (She's ok with the child learning to read after 12 though, I think she feels 18 is enough time to catch up either way.)
It is interesting for me to talk to her, because while she generally has pretty rational reasons for any particular opinon she holds, her logic isn't always consistent. It was downright awful when I was a teenager and she was menopausing. She'd taught me to be rational, yet suddenly I couldn't deal with her on a rational basis. It was a bad time for all concerned.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had the same problems with my mom as a young teen - except that she was never particularly rational. Apparently I argue exactly like my hyper-logical father (they divorced when I was young), and she has more of an emotional-reasoning mindset. Add in the changing hormones with both parties, and our arguments got pretty nasty pretty quickly.
Now we're both on a much more even keel, relationship-wise, but I still have difficulties arguing with her 'cause most logic just bounces off... Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Nope, I didn't. Not yet, anyway. I'll read it, probably today or this weekend; I resent and reject the implication that I can't have an intelligent discussion-and however much you try to deny it, that was what you were saying-with you on this subject unless I study your coursework.
Case in point:
quote:But I have no interest in getting into a philosophical discussion about rights with someone who doesn't understand any of the basic terms and concepts required to have a clear and mutually beneficial discussion.
So, I'll read your article, but you don't have to be such an ass about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Standards like...oh....an 8-year-old must be able to read so much, or be able to multiply. Or a 12-year-old must be performing at the same grade as her peers, to be considered as having a "good life", or for her parents to be considered good parents.
This girl I spoke of, this Romanian adoptee, would likely be struggling academically, whether at a PS or at home. But I think her life is better at home, than it would be at PS.
Notice I'm referring mostly to children who wouldn't fit in to the educational box anyway. Those who have major emotional or LD issues. Even if they cannot perform as their peers do, does not mean their lives are, by definition, bad or wasted.
Public schools originally began as prep schools for factory workers. They were intentionally industrial, because the children were intended to go on to industrial work. Historically, the children of the rich and powerful have been individually tutored, or sent to private/finishing schools. Public school is not the only road to a good education.
So I guess what I'm calling "government standard" is really "societal standard".
(I'm feeling really granola as I write this. )
The premise is, "You need money to be happy; you need a job to make money; the $$$ jobs you need a college degree for; you need to go to high school to get into college; you need to to X,Y,Z, to do well in high school." And so on.
There are some alternatives to the Money = Happiness model. For instance, there's the Knowing Everything = Happiness model.
Some have complained about students who are weak in math. Okay, I want the person who builds the bridge I drive across to be great at math, but do you need calculus to be a wonderful landscaper, or to work at WalMart? Or to be a happy, fulfilled person?
The government says, "Yes,you do" and furthermore seems to be saying "and we're going to make sure your kid has all that whether you like it or not".
It's a nice thought--I hate the idea of any mind not achieving to its potential--but strong-arming parents isn't the way to do it.
And assuming most homeschoolers are at least a little negligant in exposing their children to math and literature is inaccurate.
I would guess (this is totally a guess, based on my interactions with HSing and PSing parents) that the proportion of HSing parents who woefully neglect their child's education is equal to or lesser than the proportion of PSing parents who fail to get involved in their child's PS education, especially if that PS education is so inadequate that only the parent's involvement will help educate that child. (which describes what my father had to do with me when I came home from school in CA).
I think equating government non-involvement with homeschooling parents with endorsing gross educational neglect reflects some unfair and unsupported assumptions about homeschooling parents.
As a defensive HSing mom, , I hear it as "you're negligent until proven competent". I have nothing to hide, but it's insulting and intrusive to assume that without the government looking over my shoulder I would not do what was in my child's best interests.
If you compare schooling to carseats: Yes, some parents risk their children by not strapping them in (which I abhor; I am passionate about car seats). But for the most part, parents care deeply about carseats, far more deeply than the government car-seat person, because it is their personal baby in that seat, and they will go above and beyond government standards, for the sake of their child.
Does the government really think they could care more about my children than I do?
The government's standards seem arbitrary (I don't think there is a life-quality issue for someone reading later than their peers, IF they are learning according to their own internal schedule), often change, are (IMAO) unduly influenced by political interests and some are even contradictory to my moral beliefs.
It's bad enough to make us scared of "what happens if Johnny doesn't read by 7?". To criminalize it....how does that help people? Do children really not learn to read by adulthood because someone just neglected to teach them the ABCs? Usually it's not because children are doing nothing that they don't learn to read; it's because they're doing something else instead of reading. Running from drug dealers, maybe, or working in a sweatshop.
I disagree with a lot of assumptions of this post, particularly the Happiness = Money angle. My bias is that I went to Nursery school (which were all technically private at the time), a public elementary and middle school, and a private high school (as well as a private university). My mother is a public school teacher.
I think the public schools were set up because the communities in question saw it as a noble and decent thing, in light of the number of children who were unable to get private schooling. Back in the 1800s, paternalism wasn't seen as such a bad thing. remember, public schooling started from the communities, bottom up. It likely prospered because employers were provided with more capable workers, with the kicker being that they didn't have to train the workers themselves, as the workers themselves (through taxes) would be footing the bill in part.
Sure, the workers saw it as an opportunity to get a better paying job, I'm sure. I just don't think they thought it would make them happy (insofar as improving one's conditions invariably makes one happy).
The Money=Happiness thing is a much more recent phenomenon, as much due to marketing and how it affects our perceptions of ourselves, and the "Greed is Good" attitude of the 80s.
posted
By the way Belle, while I don't endorse a lot of what HSLDA stands for, and it does appear things have changed somewhat from 2006, here's an example of a school district attempting to compel testing of a special needs child after the homeschooling parents refused.
Here is another example where it appears like the parents were attempting to follow an outline something like you suggested, but the only way for their special needs child to get some particular resources was to put him in public school. So they did. And got charged with truancy in the process.
quote:Yes I have. I do not find the "expert opinions" and "expert science" to be as expert as you think they are. I have no desire to get into a competing "battle of experts". I can produce them, but you aren't going to believe them so what is the point?
As a scientist, I'm insulted if you think I am unwilling to even consider data that contradicts my position. If you truly do know of experts who have published controlled studies that contradict the prevailing wisdom on critical cognitive windows for language and reading, then please post the references. This isn't a battle of competing experts. I really do want to know if there is more than anecdotal evidence to support the theory.
And by the way AJ, resorting to ad hominem attacks when you are asked a legitimate question is hardly a way to pursued us of the great critical thinking skills you developed as a homeschooler. It's not that I see much any better from most public school students, I just expect more from you.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Jhai, from a personal philsophical standpoint I probably agree with you more than I disagree. I am, however, extremely uncomfortable about imposing that philisophical standpoint, on people who sincerely disagree with it.
I guess I'm pro-choice on the issue
The difference I see between imposing this philosophical view on those who sincerely disagree with it is that there is no honest disagreement about whether school age children are sentient human beings.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: [QUOTE]edit: I'm pretty supportive of the idea of home schooling. I'm having a real problem getting over the idea that kids don't need to be exposed to literacy and basic math if their parents don't want to. Besides being, as far as I can tell, illegal, it just sounds like a real failure in looking out for the welfare of the child.
I don't think that there are many homeschool parents who are opposed to teaching their children reading and math. I do know that there are many who are doing a bad job of it. Many parents who homeschool have a fanatic commitment to doing it and are devoted to a particular style of schooling. Combine that with the fact that most parents find it difficult to objectively assess their children and you have set up a serious potential for disaster. For example, a parent may be committed to an "unschooling" philosophy that says children will naturally start to read when they are ready without formal instruction. So if their child isn't reading by age 7 or 8, they figure the child just isn't ready. If they still aren't reading by age 12, they are exceptions, but the parent just "knows" the child will start reading when they are ready. The parent is so committed to the "unschooling" philosophy that they won't even consider formal reading instruction no matter how much evidence builds up that this isn't working, so the kid just gets older and older and eventually he is an illiterate adult. The same could be true of any other educational philosophy the parent is devoted too. No education style works for every child.
In my 5th grade year, I had a teacher who ran an open classroom. I was part of a team with 3 other girls, we planned a daily schedule, set goals and did several long term projects. We had one hour everyday for math. The entire grade was divided by skill level and the lowest level students received formal instruction while those of us at the high end were allowed to work at our own pace. This was perhaps the best year of my schooling. I still remember details from the books we worked from and the projects we did. The following year, I was bored out of my mind because I was way ahead in almost every subject. Interestingly, one of my good friends was also in this class. He is the one person I know that is truly genius level in math and music, easily the smartest person I've ever known. I recently talked with him about our 5th grade class and found his experience was exactly the opposite of mine. He learned absolutely nothing that year and found himself trying to catch up the following year. No one educational style works for every person.
Despite everything I've said here and in previous thread, I'm not utterly opposed to homeschooling or unstructured learning in general. It can work very well for some teachers and some kids. But it has not worked well for the majority of homeschoolers I've known in my career as a professor. Getting a good education in a homeschool environment seems to the exception rather than the rule which makes me very concerned about the growth of homeschooling.
As a teacher, I'm a big advocate of standardized tests despite the mess no child left behind has made of them. Standardized test are a terrific guide for me to assess my teaching. I want my students to learn not just what I think is important, but what will be considered important by others in their community and their profession. Its hard for me to understand why any parent wouldn't voluntarily have their child assessed by an objective outsider at reasonable intervals.
I'm very worried by homeschoolers who refuse to reevaluate what they are doing regularly and revise their methods when they don't seem to be producing results. I recognize that there is a danger in changing course too frequently and that some kids need time but there are also very serious consequences for letting things go too long.
I'm very disappointed that both KQ and Boon were so easily offended in this thread and left in a huff. Its not exactly the behavior I would expect from open minded parents who are sincerely trying to do their best. It tends to reinforce my believe that homeschoolers are fanatics who aren't able to objectively assess their efforts or willing to change as needed.
[ August 15, 2008, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bokonon, I agree that literacy and basic math abilities are good skills. One reason for that: they encourage self-sufficiency, which leads to better, more independent, more active citizens.
I agree with your assessment of early American schools, which were motivated by altruism and usually locally owned and operated. We see the same model of school today in the Amish community, in developing Africa, and among homeschoolers/charter schools.
The Industrial Revolution required factory workers, lots of them, and the one who could read and figure were more skilled, and encouraged progress. Factories were so important that they needed lots of workers with not only academic skills--3 Rs--but also social skills--being adapted to the physical and social environment of a factory.
Enter public school, designed to give children a no-frills academic education and to ensure a solid, adequately trained working class ready to power America's factories.
Of course a no-frills education is 100% better than no education at all, so it seems stupid NOT to give every child the opportunity for at least a basic education. And, of course, college was just one acceptable choice among many.
Now, however, it is the One True Goal of school. Or so it seemed to me during my school years in Nebraska, California and Utah. Every child was meant to go to college. The reasoning was vague; the most specific benefit pointed to was "because you can't make money if you don't go to college".
Learning how to make money is not a bad thing, but it's not always the same as education and knowledge, which is what the schools say is their goal.
Great test scores are not a bad thing; they're only bad when academic binging/regurgitation replaces a love for learning and lasting skills.
Early childhood education in the 3 R's is not a bad thing! But when it comes at the cost of a moral education, then it's not as good at a moral and academic education combined.
Those early years are important--for both academic and moral training. American schools say they cannot/should not give a moral education.
I think schools DO give a moral education, but in the opposite direction from what I want to teach my kids.
Often curricula are not subject to parental review (as it was in the early village schools), and contain decided political leanings.
So, best-case scenario, the school maintains total moral neutrality, and my child learns academics in a moral vacuum. Worst case, my child spends hours a day being taught things directly contrary to what I want to teach them.
Children need to be surrounded by what they need to learn. If this weren't true, then why are some educators and politicians fighting to increase the time children spend in public schools, and lower the age of compulsory attendance?
If important, life-changing lessons can be taught in just an hour a day, then why not change compulsory school attendance to only an hour a day? If so much important work can be done in so short a time.
It's silly to oppose children learning the 3 R's. What I oppose is mandating that children must learn it at a government-mandated age, in the government-mandated way, and must be separated from their families in order to effectively do so.
If families are the basic building block of society--and I believe they are--then how does it strengthen our society for our children to grow up in an afamilial environment? Is that the key to happiness?
I would want the option--the parental right--to teach my children at home even if the schools were doing a slam-bang job of teaching basic academics.
But....they're not. Not reliably. Some districts are better than others; there are absolutely amazing heroes of teachers working in the trenches and doing a great job; the intentions behind universal compulsive government-run schooling are good, but the end product isn't always the greatest.
The argument I hear more often is that, aside from character training and academics, public schools have a monopoly on "socialization", which is supposed to be key to a quality adult life.
There are a lot of arguments for both sides. Of course I favor one side ; I think it's fair to say that schooling in an industrial environment is useful, but not crucial, preparation for an adult life in an industrial environment--factory work, the military, law enforcement. Which are honorable professions.
However, since the stated goal of most schools I've been to is to send students to college so they can have what are usually considered in our culture more "qualitative" work--higher in $$ and prestige--socialization in the industrial environment is useful only in providing one with skills for jockeying for position in arbitrary pecking-orders (which I hear the Ivory Tower is full of) or maybe if your child plans to spend their adulthood allowing coworkers to assault them in the name of "toughening up".
Of course I don't oppose teaching the 3 R's to children. I think it makes them happy in the short- and long-term. BUT, I do oppose making early academic development more important than early moral development.
If you were to institute a program of all-day compulsory education for 3 and 4 year olds then, yes, they may learn basic academics, and, yes, they would be accustomed to the public school environment. But would they be adequately "socialized" for family life and self-motivated educational pursuit?
Education is A key to happiness, but it isn't THE key.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm very disappointed that both KQ and Boon were so easily offended in this thread and left in a huff. Its not exactly the behavior I would expect from open minded parents who are sincerely trying to do their best. It tends to reinforce my believe that homeschoolers fanatics who aren't able of objectively assessing their efforts and change as needed.
No no, tell us what you really think.
Don't just beat around the bush hinting that KQ and Boon aren't open-minded parents sincerely trying to do their best, just freaking say it, Rabbit.
But since you're not going to actually say that, why not spend some time considering that yours words and not their reactions are problematic.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, what about public schools that refuse to reevaluate their methods on a regular basis? Or who just ignore parental input?
I'm of the opinion that getting a "good education" in a public school is the exception rather than the rule. Gifted and talented programs notwithstanding, I bored stiff in my schools and did most of my learning once I'd stolen a library pass and started playing hooky.
I've heard the complaint before that homeschooling produces students weak in math. This is usually supported by anecdotal evidence, and seems to ignore the many, many public school students who leave school practically math illiterate.
I was one of them, which confounded my father, who not only major in math but left high school early and helped TEACH university calculus as a high school senior. I was an AP/honors student, took all the math classes, had my father tutoring me at home, and yet by the time I got to college I was taking remedial algebra 1. Seriously.
And I was going to "good" schools.
Children are individuals, with unique aptitudes and weaknesses. I don't know if homeschooling would have helped with my math problems--hee hee, forgive the pun--but I DO know that what little math I do, I learned when working at home with my father.
Perhaps those students vexing you with their math inabilities are just that--bad at math. Regardless of where they got their schooling.
Not everybody needs to know calculus. It's important in some professions, and those who can't do calculus, can't do those professions, right? And if they want to join those professions, then what you have is a motivated math student, yes?
So what's the problem?
Knowing how to do calculus isn't the great key to personal happiness. It may be the key to not annoying Rabbit but it's not needed for successful human life.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Prior to that last statement, exactly what words did I say which you think should have offended KQ and Boon?
As a professional educator I am aware that when people are presented with ideas that don't mesh with their world view, one of the most common responses is to get angry and leave. This behaior prevents learning. Since I not not seen any insults directed at either KQ or Boon (before they got angry and left) or even any sweeping insults of homeschools, I interpreted their anger as a classic response to cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps this is just an issue to which they are hypersensitive or maybe they both just happened to be PMSing (not intended as derogotory, I overreact when I'm PMSing and consider it a forgivable and understandable in others). If this is the case, then my last remark was an unfair judgement and I apologize.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, what about public schools that refuse to reevaluate their methods on a regular basis?
I'm concerned about those as well and fully support efforts to improve public education. Everything I've suggested here is a watered down version of what I think should be done in public schools, including standardized testing and oversight.
quote:Or who just ignore parental input?
Depends on the nature of the parental input and what you mean by ignore. My husband is an award winning chemistry teacher, and not just one award -- many. For the past several years, he has taught an AP chemistry class at a private high school in addition to his university duties. Because of his excellent teaching the program doubled in size during the 4 years he taught there and most of his students performed excellently on the AP exam. On occasion a parent would call and ask why their son was failing his class, he would give a reasonable answer like "he hasn't done any of the homework", then the parent would light in to him about how it must be his fault because her darling son was the light of her life. I told him to ignore them.
quote:'m of the opinion that getting a "good education" in a public school is the exception rather than the rule.
I have taught now at the University level for 16 years so I am very much aware of the quality of students produced by the public schools. I've also worked in church groups that contained public, private and home school kids. My comments on homeschoolers is based on their comparison to students who come from other educational backgrounds and not to some etherial ideal.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Knowing how to do calculus isn't the great key to personal happiness. It may be the key to not annoying Rabbit but it's not needed for successful human life.
Given that the principles of calculus are constantly on display all around us in the everyday world, understanding those principles (as distinct from being able to perform the calculations) would certainly be a benefit for the average citizen, I think.
For example, I think someone who understands the relationship between position, velocity, acceleration, and jerk, and between those things and momentum and kinetic energy, is likely to be a better and safer driver than someone who has no understanding of those things.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if you really think getting a good education is an exception than the rule, you have gotten to the point that you will never change your mind.
I've been to public and private schools. They both prepared me aptly for future endeavors. I am NOT an exception.
posted
I think that we are talking about different things. Some people are talking about what is good for children. What plan is the best for raising kids, what kind of education is best and how we can assure that.
Other people are talking about the role that government has or should have in deciding how parents should raise their kids.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, in order to be a safer driver, one must have studied those principles on an academic level?
Or would a practical, intuitive understanding suffice?
I think that what would make a person a safer driver are 1. practical experience and 2. sound judgment.
Artists see art everywhere; religious believers see God everywhere; it makes sense that mathematicians see math everywhere.
Rabbit, you say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the homeschooled students you have met are poorly suited to university life.
Is it your opinion that one must have a university life in order to be a happy, complete human being?
You said that you don't know why parents wouldn't volunteer to have their children tested yearly by an outside observer.
I think others have listed many reasons why not.
One reason may be that the parent is more interested in how the child is achieving compared to past performance, not compared to the academic average of their birth-year peers. This would be especially true for students at either end of the bell curve.
What solution do you propose? If the parents won't volunteer to have their kids tested as much as you like, then you will voluntold them? With the explanation that "a good parent would do this, so we're going to compel you to be a good parent"?
Likewise, we could worry about the effect on future society of parents who don't volunteer to take their children to church on a regular basis.
But would it be really helpful to make church attendance mandatory, so that some bad seeds don't slip through the cracks, unevangelized? This is assuming that churches could even recognize and treat "bad seeds".
As a longtime educator, Rabbit, I would have thought you'd be overjoyed at the prospect of so many parents involving themselves in their children's education. For just about every other teacher I've talked to, greater parental involvement is at the top of their Santa list.
Again,correct me if I'm wrong--what you're espousing is that the government not only intervene in cases of proven educational neglect;
but that the government should routinely control all non-government schooling. Which sort of ruins the point of non-government schooling, wouldn't you think?
You're telling me that I can't teach my children unless I get a permission slip with an annual expiration date--
and you seriously cannot understand how that would seem intrusive to anyone? Really?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, you say (correct me if I'm wrong) that the homeschooled students you have met are poorly suited to university life.
Is it your opinion that one must have a university life in order to be a happy, complete human being?
No! I've said that the most of the homeschoolers I've met at the University have been ill prepared for many aspects of University education. These are the students who have chosen to attend the University so I presume that a University education is something that they desire. I think an education should prepare one to be able to pursue their own goals. In generally, I've found that when people are ill prepared to pursue what they want to do, it makes them unhappy.
In a church setting , I've worked with teenage homeschoolers who were functionally illiterate (to be fair I've also worked with some who were well prepared for college). I think that in modern US society, a person who is functionally illiterate has very few options. I have found that having many options tends to promote happiness.
BTW, I haven't mentioned calculus even once in this thread and it doesn't irritate me if people can't do calculus. Some of my closest friends can't do calculus and are delightful happy intelligent engaging people. Please do not presume too much.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think people are really listening to each other. One side is saying that benchmarks are a good idea so that if a kid isn't learning, help can be given before it is too late.
The other side seems to be hearing something about fascist orphanages for those who don't turn over their children.
One side seems to be saying that they want to be able to determine the best method of education for their children and want to include one-on-one education at home in that box of tools.
The other side seems to be hearing "I can make child illiterate and unable to function in society if I want to. How dare you suggest that that's a bad thing."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'll not really impressed with either side, though, since both are talking past each other.
-----
I've already tossed in my opinion: I think homeschooling can be great and can be disasterous, but when a homeschooling parent talks about how their child being better off in public school would be a sign of a failure on their part, then I think they aren't doing it for the kid are instead doing it for their own ambition, like stage mothers.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm very disappointed that both KQ and Boon were so easily offended in this thread and left in a huff.
First of all, Boon is hardly ever online. She'll probably check this thread if it's still bumped next time she is.
Second, I don't think I "left in a huff." I took a break from posting because I am finding it hard to express myself the way I want to. I have actually restrained myself from posting on many threads on several forums, not just this thread, because I have PMS this week, combined with I think a touch of PPD, and I'm emotional and mean right now. (And even when I am able to write an appropriate post, my connection is in and out. I had to try five times to post this post.)
I'm still reading but other people have been expressing what I feel quite well so I haven't felt the need to jump in, and then when I do feel the need to jump in I can't say it nicely-- so I don't say it at all.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings by trying not to offend anyone.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
but when a homeschooling parent talks about how their child being better off in public school would be a sign of a failure on their part, then I think they aren't doing it for the kid are instead doing it for their own ambition, like stage mothers.
I think it's as normal for a parent to feel some failure if homeschooling isn't working out, as it would be if moral education or medical treatment or what-have-you weren't working out.
We love our kids, we give them what we can, and if and when it's not enough or they just can't accept our offering, we feel bad.
Of course, because we love our kids, we do what it takes to make sure they're getting what they need. If my sick toddler won't let me hold her, but will let Daddy, then Daddy will hold her, even though I'd love to. If my child and I just aren't making headway in trig, then we need to get a tutor or send her to an outside class, for her sake.
But, often the public schools and homeschooling parents differ on where that point is, and what it looks like. What I consider a child working at their own pace, another may consider educational negligence. And I think that could be easily abused.
posted
Rabbit, before we go any further, please define what you mean by "controlled scientific studies" in the context of a sociological issue.
Education and pedagogy is not a strictly "scientific" field of study. Neurology is, but you always have to look at that neurology in terms of exactly what was going on in the childs life at the time of the study.
If a 10 year old kid with ADHD has a brain that behaves more like an "average" 6 year old s/he may only be beginning to have the educational window open where s/he is able to utilize reading effectively. It is not necessarily true that the child needs some sort of intensive "reading intervention" before that point, even if it may be moderately effective it may also lead to extreme frustration and a general negative attitude towards reading as a whole.
His book "The Hurried Child" was last revised in 2001. I am not sure if you will consider this current enough, but I think it would be a good starting point for discussion. His research does include neurological information, but is not from a strictly "scientific" neurology point of view.
Also, I realize you are a college educator. However, if you had a student in your class that participated in a normal manner, would you have any occasion to find out if they WERE home schooled? You seem to be applying some inductive reasoning on the subject.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: One side is saying that benchmarks are a good idea so that if a kid isn't learning, help can be given before it is too late.
The other side seems to be hearing something about fascist orphanages for those who don't turn over their children.
Actually, I heard, "We want to hold homeschoolers to a standard that doesn't exist in public schools as a whole because it exists in my personal classroom." And that's awesome. I've got total respect for great teachers. But I strongly object to the way schools as a whole use their governmental authority.
I think a large part of the homeschool movement is distrust of the government. Plenty of folks don't like how the bureaucracy operates and think they can do better without it. They don't trust them to stay out of their business if they give them the tiniest toehold. Let them give you a test annually and tell you ahead of time how you must score and it's only a matter of time until you end up with the fascist orphanage.
I'm sure there's a compromise there between the two positions somewhere, but I don't know what it is. In that respect, I agree with kat. We are talking past each other to some degree.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) 
